Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June 2023 was +0.38 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is statistically unchanged from the May 2023 anomaly of +0.37 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 18 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.36 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2023 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Dr Spencer, what do you make of Tom Shula’s hypothesis with the Pirani gauge?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
Take a looks a Y Zhong’s recent paper attempting to model this.
“Calculation of Outgoing Longwave Radiation in the Absence of Surface Radiation of Earth”
Y Zhong, 2023
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-KpzGD9yV0
Paper: https://www.ptep-online.com/2023/PP-65-10.PDF
Oh how interesting!
Suddenly, lot of people stick on the Pirani gauge, in search of every suitable straw possible.
You can’t imagine what would happen if the Pirani gauge solely was useful to support global warming, GHE etc etc.
Dozens of Pseudoskeptics would descend into the arena to ridicule the use of this gauge.
Considering that climate change is far from being a ‘settled science’, I welcome any new ideas which might move the science forward. Most new ideas end up being wrong, but you should still look at them objectively and figure out why they’re wrong.
Why do you feel that the Pirani Gauge has no merit?
I am skeptical to the extent to which the theory of Pirani Gauge is applicable to the atmosphere. For example, all the incoming energy has to leave Earth. It leaves via radiation, there is neither convection nor conduction in the outer space.
I can believe that convection is the most important for heat transfer in the lower part of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if the upward radiation from the surface of the Earth is absorbed in the troposphere, it is very probable that it returns down via adiabatic convection. Adiabatic convection can transfer this heat from cooler upper layers of air to the warmer surface.
bohous…”all the incoming energy has to leave Earth. It leaves via radiation, there is neither convection nor conduction in the outer space”.
***
The Earth’s energy budget is far more complicated than a simple energy in/energy out situation. Much of the solar energy we receive is used to maintain a temperature that represents warming over the eons and stored in the land and oceans. If we simply balanced energy in to energy out, the Earth would need to cool to a much lower temperature.
As anyone knows who has tried to warm a home with a central furnace, if it’s freezing outside and the home is not heated, it takes a long time for the furnace to bring the home up to what we call room temperature. Once it’s there, however, if the home insulation is good, the furnace needs to come on only intermittently to maintain that temperature. That’s how I see the Earth-Su relationship.
The point of the Pirani gauge is to measure the power loss representing heat dissipation in a heated filament in a vacuum. Then the vacuum is replaced with a gas and the heat dissipation is noted as the amount of current required to bring the filament back to the normalized temperature. Turns out the gas dissipates heat 250 times better than radiation alone.
Alarmists have told us the opposite, that radiation is the sole means of heat dissipation at the surface and conduction/convection is only a minor player. If the Pirani gauge is an accurate means of determining the difference then we need to re-evaluate the science and figure out the exact role of conduction/convection in the process.
We also need to determine the role of oxygen and nitrogen in the process. They make up 99% of the atmosphere and it strikes me as absurd that a trace gas like CO2 should be credited with not only warming the planet but cooling it as well.
OK, the heat sinking into the ocean is true. But this mistake (or simplification) in my note does not improve the conceptual mismatch between the Pirani Gauge and atmosphere.
bohous…to understand my point, you need to go into it deeper. I have spent a long time pushing the boundaries of my understanding of heat. I have discovered that heat can be dissipated naturally in our atmosphere by simply being transported to higher altitudes by convection.
If Shula and the Pirani tube theory is correct, that means most heat is transported to higher altitudes by convection and simply dissipated internally due to the negative pressure gradient caused by gravity.
I am not defying the conservation of energy theory I am simply pushing the boundaries and questioning it. No science us written in stone IMHO. After years of applying Newton II I just discovered some small print written by Newton. F = ma only if the force has the ability to accelerate the mass. That’s not how the law is presented at university.
A simple translation of the conservation of energy theory suggest all heat created by solar energy must be returned to space. I am questioning that claim. I don’t think conservation of energy has been adequately tested in a planetary system with a negative gravitational field.
I am not questioning that a certain amount of heat is not dissipated to space, especially during the dark hours when the Sun is not shining. However, I don’t think a trace gas is adequate to accomplish that for the simple reason there is not enough of it and radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation. I think we have seriously underestimated the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to do the same.
A highly qualified scientist, Richard Lindzen, has already seen through that. He claimed that without convection, the surface temperature would rise to 70C+.
I see no logical reason why both gases, N2 and O2, cannot radiate away energy at ‘SOME’ frequency. However, they don’t really need to radiate away a lot of energy if they lose it naturally by rising to higher altitudes where the pressure and temperature are lower.
What I am implying is this. We really don’t understand the required science well enough to formulate opinions re energy budgets. The Pirani gauge reveals a gross inadequacy in the current theory and we need to look a lot deeper.
However, I no longer think this i about science. It’s about politically-correct nobs trying to push pseudo-science down our throats to meet the requirements of a different agenda.
I am no expert in this field and I do not want to incinerate new discussion about polarity of CO2 molecule it is quadrupolar and it is sufficient for CO2 to be able to absorb infrared radiation and dissipate the energy among the neighbouring molecules. O2 and N2 are neither polar nor quadrupolar, so that the radiation is not re-radiated to space. It heats the gas. Even the photons that are re-radiated hit the surface with probability 1/2. This is why I believe in the greenhouse effect. I am not mentally able to asses the influence of water vapor and water condensation but I feel quite sure that the greenhouse effect does not approach zero (as the generalization of Pirani Gauge would suggest). That’s all.
No one tells here that ‘the Pirani Gauge has no merit’.
It is just completely misused in the atmospheric context.
In my absence, commenter bohous explained the problem perfectly: radiation is the only way to exchange energy between Earth and outer space.
Moreover, conduction at the surface is the worst way for energy exchange as air is one of the worst conductors at all.
And convection can’t happen without heat supply.
Evapotranspiration is one of the better ways to explain what happens, but no one talks about it.
So why is radiation considered such a small pert of heatsink/radiator design in the 0c to 50c range?
binny…”conduction at the surface is the worst way for energy exchange as air is one of the worst conductors at all”.
***
The Pirani gauge proves you wrong. Besides, you misunderstand what is meant by conduction. If molecules of a gas touch a hotter surface, heat is transferred to each molecule via conduction. Once heated by the surface, the molecules rise to higher elevations and are replace by cooler molecules.
I am not arguing that heat conduction through a gas, molecule to molecule, is in the least efficient, we know air is a poor conductor of heat. However, when molecules are heated by touch, that heat can be moved via convection.
That’s how the Pirani gauge works. Radiation alone is 250 times less effective at dissipating heat than bazillions of molecules touching the filament and taking away the hat they receive via convection.
“Thats how the Pirani gauge works. Radiation alone is 250 times less effective at dissipating heat than bazillions of molecules touching the filament and taking away the hat they receive via convection.”
Gordon has been informed several times that the Pirani gauge has important differences from the Earth/atmosphere, and thus the 250 factor is not correct for the Earth/atmosphere.
But he ignores these facts.
Some additional evidence comes from in-floor home heating.
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-heating
For this setup, radiation produces the largest component of heat transfer to a room.
https://tinyurl.com/3weea23h
Thus these are appropriately called radiant-heating systems.
if you put a pebble inside and ice cube it doesn’t emit hardly any net radiation either Nate. And it doesn’t heat up from the inside out either despite all that high frequency light that shining on it.
Does Bill think a pebble is a heating system?
And apparently if you wait 3 weeks you can post almost any sort of nonsense.
So in your view does the ice melt from the inside or the outside?
Not interested in irrelevant unheated pebbles.
You aren’t interested because you know it leads to an exposure of your contradictory position regarding the 3rd grader radiation model.
You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation. You have no working physical model specifying that the effect is real and thus you don’t know how it works.
And you spent a lot of posts sometime ago responding the the following study of the CO2 effect had to have something wrong with it but never figured out what was wrong with it.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
” zero physical evidence of backradiation. ”
Gee Bill, who knew you were a secret sky dragon slayer!
As I discussed at length, the paper was very poorly done.
“zero physical evidence of backradiation.”
Bill, if I point my cheap IR thermometer, purchased from Harbor Freight Tools, into my freezer, it accurately detects its temperature.
Obviously the SB blackbody emission from the cold internal surface of my freezer is being detected by my warmer thermometer, and its temperature is determined.
Thus anybody, even you, can see the physical evidence of back radiation.
Nope Nate thats just because you don’t understand the technology behind IR detectors. Your Harbor Freight model is one of the simplest technologies in that it measures the energy being lost from the detector. There is no energy being gained by the warmer detector surface to detect. this is why the first detectors had to be chilled to below the temperature they were attempting to measure.
You probably also don’t understand how your phone works either.
Nate says:
”As I discussed at length, the paper was very poorly done.”
Your at length discussion was virtually limited to repeating that the paper was poorly done numerous times and only fretting over very small amounts of energy that was supposedly missing. . . failing to recognize that some energy would travel through the insulation wrapping the box.
bottom line is there wasn’t enough missing energy to account for the expected results per the 3rd grade radiation model. Thus it is adequate to refute that model, which of course has been replicated many times including by Vaughn Pratt.
But as G&T stated its not their job to refute every possible regarding backradiation. . .its the job of the claimants to provide a completed blueprint of the physics of the model that is demonstrable. . .then it that can be repeated to see if the same results are obtained.
“Your Harbor Freight model is one of the simplest technologies in that it measures the energy being lost from the detector. There is no energy being gained by the warmer detector surface to detect. ”
I’ve not claimed any NET GAIN in energy by my device.
And yet it determines the T of a colder object. Explain how it can do that without detecting the emitted radiation from the object.
No handwaving or gibberish please.
“Your at length discussion was virtually limited to repeating that the paper was poorly done numerous times”
False. I showed direct communication with the authors. They could not account for energy lost, which makes it a poor experiment. They admit that it does not convincingly overturn any laws of physics.
It has no useful conclusions.
You are the one who concluded the experiment was poorly done due to the missing energy.
The missing energy was far below the expected results from the 3rd grader radiation model.
But regardless of all that nobody has ever managed to do an experiment on this that in your view would not be poorly done.
The scientific method demands that the first thing in science that must be done to judge an experiment as being poorly done is an experiment that fails to produce the effect when virtually every other attempt does.
Obviously you know nothing about the scientific method – concluding an experiment results are poorly done without having a single source of what the correct result would be.
Worse than that every knowledgeable scientist I am aware of has moved past the 3rd grader radiation model, acknowledging its inappropriateness.
That is evidenced by experimenters who have failed to produce the effect as profusely diagrammed by early advocates of the effect and now say thats not how it works. Also we have seen the disappearance of the original diagram from hundreds of websites including Harvard Univeristy. That says something.
Yet Nate won’t give up.
Perhaps Nate can revive a diagram for our amusement. LOL!
My IR thermometer determines the T of a colder object. Explain how it can do that without detecting the emitted radiation from the object.
No handwaving or gibberish please.
Hunbter continues to insist that:
But his referenced S&O paper does exhibit evidence of back radiation, as shown in their Figure 9. Also, their explanation based on calculations using S-B ignores the fact that gasses do not emit with a continuous spectrum, thus they ware wrong.
The technology is both varied and a bit complex using lenses, sensors, and reflectors in various versions. But you have ambient temperature and cooling rate of the sensor being the most basic then you know everything. This was made possible by the digital age. In analog times they needed to cool the sensor to below the target because without digital the computations couldn’t be done. Today you get all that in a $10 instrument.
E. Swanson says:
You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.
But his referenced S&O paper does exhibit evidence of back radiation, as shown in their Figure 9. Also, their explanation based on calculations using S-B ignores the fact that gasses do not emit with a continuous spectrum, thus they ware wrong.
————
As in my response to Nate to above there is evidence consisting of an effect that could be attributable to backradiation as defined by the one time proponents of the 3rd grader radiation model.
But as this experiment shows there is no surface temperature effect arising from it. This has convinced you the hot surface has actually abso.rbed energy, which may or may not be true, but the point is that the surface didn’t warm even though we know the effect was observed.
You are just so convinced it should have you consider the experiment flawed. . . .and yet you cannot produce an identical example of an insulated surface receiving this effect of actually warming. Of course you have doubly convinced yourself it should from your experiments with uninsulated surfaces which I have pointed out those experiments lacked the controls necessary to determine if a greenhouse effect occurred or not. (e.g. proper field of view documentation and intensity of the radiation from your light.)
This experiment is well designed to control for that by insulating surfaces reflecting light from exiting gaps between the plates and noting no warming.
“The technology is both varied and a bit complex using lenses….”
So just unrelated BS.
No explanation whatsoever for how the IR thermometer detects the T of a colder surface WITHOUT detecting its emitted blackbody radiation.
Because it is simply not possible.
Your denial of back radiation is falsified, Bill.
Sorry.
Nate if you know the temperature of the sensor and you know the cooling rate of the sensor all you do is use Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate the temperature of the target. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Hunter wrote stuff, including:
No, Hunter, you claimed that back radiation does not exist, when the S&O experiment in fact provides evidence that it happens. Regarding the data for Figure 9, S&O comment that:
This calculated rise in temperature does not represent the true physics of gasses, only that of a black body with a continuous spectrum of emissions. And, the case they refer to is the one with the aluminum foil heated by a high intensity lamp. They make no mention of the temperature control for this version of their experiment, stating simply that:
Think about what this implies. If the plate (or foil) exhibits heating from the “backscatter”, did they move the light to a different location to compensate, thereby eliminating the heating effect from said backscatter?
Your comments appear to refer to my Green Plate Demo, claiming that there’s no insulation, when none is necessary in the high vacuum environment of the bell jar. You really have no clue, do you.
“Nate if you know the temperature of the sensor and you know the cooling rate of the sensor all you do is use Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate the temperature of the target. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?”
Missing the point, Bill.
The temperature of the cold object is a piece of information. How the device processes that information is not the point.
The point is about how does that information get from the cold object, perhaps far away, to the sensor?
Hint: that information is encoded in the EM emission of the cold object.
Well you will need to show me how your IR sensor does that.
My IR sensor knows what the ambient temperature is of my sensor. It also knows how much energy its is losing.
Stefan Boltzann says T1 the ambient temperature would cool at X watt/m2 to absolute zero. But knows it is actually cooling at Y watts/m2. y-X gives you the net cooling rate to the target thus the target T2 must have a temperature that would emit y-x watts.
Thus you don’t need any information from the target, everything you need to know is inside the sensor and a lens that allows net energy to escape in a narrow beam. Saying its sensing photons is simply an academic extrapolation made to enforce consistency with the academic scriptures and comic books.
E. Swanson says:
But as this experiment shows there is no surface temperature effect arising from it. This has convinced you the hot surface has actually abso.rbed energy, which may or may not be true, but the point is that the surface didnt warm even though we know the effect was observed.
No, Hunter, you claimed that back radiation does not exist, when the S&O experiment in fact provides evidence that it happens. Regarding the data for Figure 9, S&O comment that:
————————
No I didn’t claim backradiation doesn’t exist. I never have. I ascribe to the Einsteinian view on the matter.
If you think the Seim experiment is done wrong submit something that shows it being done right.
“Thus you dont need any information from the target, everything you need to know is inside the sensor and a lens that allows net energy to escape in a narrow beam. Saying its sensing photons is simply an academic extrapolation made to enforce consistency with the academic scriptures and comic books.”
Bill, it seems you imagine that the remote sensor ‘knows’ information about a distant object, without ever having received information from that distant object.
We already know that the cold object’s temperature can be measured locally at the object by placing a thermometer in contact with it.
We already know that all bodies emit radiation according to their temperature, as described by Planck’s law and the SB law.
You propose two implausible things:
1. The cold body’s emitted EM radiation somehow NEVER reaches the sensor.
2. The sensor still knows the temperature of the cold object, by some intelligence, and knows therefore how much energy to emit.
Physically, logically, philosophically, these speculations make no sense whatsoever.
Occam’s razor says it is much simpler:
The sensor receives and abso.orbs the radiation that we know was emitted by the cold body by the SB law.
The sensor emits radiation that we know it emits by the SB law.
The NET of this input and output is its energy gain or loss.
The NET gain or loss is used with the sensor’s measured temperature to calculate the cold body’s temperature.
Nate says:
”Bill, it seems you imagine that the remote sensor knows information about a distant object, without ever having received information from that distant object.”
Well I am simply not assuming I know anything at all about the nature of that information or how it was obtained. I am applying the electromagnetic principle of potential is all. There is a potential difference between the detector and the target and thus when I fire the beam from the detector I get a flow of energy.
Nate says:
We already know that all bodies emit radiation according to their temperature, as described by Plancks law and the SB law.
You propose two implausible things:
1. The cold bodys emitted EM radiation somehow NEVER reaches the sensor.
2. The sensor still knows the temperature of the cold object, by some intelligence, and knows therefore how much energy to emit.
Physically, logically, philosophically, these speculations make no sense whatsoever.
Occams razor says it is much simpler:
———————
Occam’s razor is just another scientific convention as is the idea that all objects are losing energy toward warmer objects.
Conventions are not facts. They are a way of doing business that some dullards can’t see the difference between that and a fact.
“Well I am simply not assuming I know anything at all about the nature of that information or how it was obtained.”
So you admit you don’t know. But ordinary physics does know, and the explanation is straightforward: the information came from the cold object’s emitted radiation.
But for some unknown reason you believe the emitted radiation from the cold object vanishes and never arrives at the sensor.
Where’d it go?
” I am applying the electromagnetic principle of potential is all. There is a potential difference between the detector and the target and thus when I fire the beam from the detector I get a flow of energy.”
This is sciency sounding gobbldegook. Potential is used in electrostatics and circuits. It does not apply to EM waves and the information or energy they carry at the speed of light.
The method we all use regularly to communicate over long distances.
Nate says:
”So you admit you dont know. But ordinary physics does know.”
———————
Well from the guy that discovered the photo-electric effect and won a Nobel Prize for it. . . .you are mistaken.
Nates says:
”This is sciency sounding gobbldegook. Potential is used in electrostatics and circuits. It does not apply to EM waves and the information or energy they carry at the speed of light.”
————————————-
Well from the guy that discovered the photo-electric effect and won a Nobel Prize for it. . . .you are mistaken.
And in typical Nate fashion you have no science to prove your point.
I will as usual await your offering of proof but as usual I will not be holding my breath.
And once again your argument is not based on science.
Occams razor is just another scientific convention as is the idea that all objects are losing energy toward warmer objects.
Conventions are not facts. They are a way of doing business that some dullards cant see the difference between that and a fact.
Bad analogies to potential in electrical circuits are no substitute for the real physics of radiative heat transfer. If you think it is applicable, show us a source! Otherwise it is just obfuscation.
For some unexplained reason you believe the radiation that we know must be emitted from the cold object, by the SB law, vanishes and never arrives at the sensor.
Whered it go?
You have no answer. This is magical thinking.
The sensor has obtained information about the cold object’s temperature, though it could be very far away, and therefore knows what NET energy to emit.
You have no sensible explanation for how it obtained this information. This is also magical thinking.
You offer no alternative theory that makes a bit of sense or agrees with ordinary physics, which you dismiss with derogatory terms.
You prefer magical thinking.
Nate you are real dullard.
It doesn’t make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same. The only point here is you believe fervently in a cartoon depiction of photons and their behavior that you may have once seen in a textbook on light and the effect that would have per the 3rd grader radiation model.
The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.
So there is nothing whatsoever magical about what I said about your IR detector.
What we are talking about here is answering the question: Does the hot plate heat if exposed to a greenhouse gas being placed between the plate and a far cooler place?
It did not. And you and Swanson are trying to make a lot of ridiculous ignorant excuses as to why not. And photons doesn’t change the fact that the damn insulated plate didn’t warm up.
. . .and far worse you cannot come up with an experimental design that shows that it does.
So the conclusion has to be that you and Swanson are a pair of ignorant boobs. Ask Richard Feynman!
“It doesnt make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same.”
It does, because the first of these is made-up gibberish, for which you can cite no source. And the second is based on an actual laws of physics, the SB law and Planck’s law, that has been repeatedly tested and proven.
In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Your original assertion,
“You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.”
is FALSIFIED. Oh well.
“The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.”
You have no logical alternative explanation, that does NOT involve detecting the radiation coming from the cold source to the sensor.
Naturally, now you say it doesnt matter.
Classic Bill!
Nate says:
It doesnt make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same.
It does, because the first of these is made-up gibberish, for which you can cite no source. And the second is based on an actual laws of physics, the SB law and Plancks law, that has been repeatedly tested and proven.
———————————
Sure there are plenty of sources related to the search for aether. The fact it hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it won’t be found. It remains a possibility.
Also Plancks Law and Stefan’s Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einstein’s work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they don’t. The only thing that can warm a surface is a net positive flow of energy.
Anyway Plancks law only applies to object in equilibrium with zero flow of energy from the object to the environment. How can you reconcile that with your belief system? And all that Stefan’s Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?
In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Your original assertion,
You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.
is FALSIFIED. Oh well.
The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.
You have no logical alternative explanation, that does NOT involve detecting the radiation coming from the cold source to the sensor.
Naturally, now you say it doesnt matter.
Classic Bill!
Sure there are plenty of sources related to the search for aether. The fact it hasnt been found doesnt mean it wont be found. It remains a possibility.
Also Plancks Law and Stefans Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einsteins work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they dont. The only thing that can warm a surface is a net positive flow of energy.
Anyway Plancks law only applies to object in equilibrium with zero flow of energy from the object to the environment. How can you reconcile that with your belief system? And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?
Nate says:
”In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”
——————————
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, here is how electricity controls current:
”The purpose of the resistor is to decrease the current in the circuit. How does this happen? Firstly, a resistor is made of material that is less conductive than the wire. As a result, electrons aren’t able to move as quickly in the resistor as they are in the wire.”
So what kind of EM signal is the resistor sending out Nate?
“Also Plancks Law and Stefans Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einsteins work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they dont. ”
I believe it is you who is pursuing this bunny trail, not me.
Why do you think photons, which are regularly observed in experiments, are mythical?
“Hmmmmmmmmmmm, here is how electricity controls current:”
Information travels through wires at the speed of light or less. They have known about this since the telegraph days.
In any case, this is doubling down on a bad analogy.
“And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. ”
‘radiance potential’?
Your endless attempts to man-splain physics to me are quite
entertaining.
“Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?”
Must you keep forgetting that all the laws of physics became laws only after passing numerous experimental tests?
Nate says:
”Why do you think photons, which are regularly observed in experiments, are mythical?”
What is observed is light quanta according to Einstein. Its an effect we observe when its hot enough or when high frequency light gets reflected. Really high frequency light overloads our systems and can cause severe damage.
Nate says:
And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature.
radiance potential?
Your endless attempts to man-splain physics to me are quite
entertaining.
———————
You mean you disagree with what I said? Where is your evidence?
Nate says:
Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?
Must you keep forgetting that all the laws of physics became laws only after passing numerous experimental tests?
————————-
Come on Nate stop being so dense. I didn’t say their was a problem with the laws. I said the laws predated the belief in photons. When the laws were created it was classic physics and everything about the laws were consistent with wave theory. Then somebody figured it were waves they should find the medium upon which the waves travel. So don’t give me this crapola that the laws depend upon your idea of what a photon being some kind of detectable particle.
You pretend to know physics but you can’t even hold a candle to a non-physicist inquirer and you start making stuff up about little photons flying all around the place. All photons are is a cartoon description to explain light to children. Einstein laughed at the idea.
Testing time…
“Then somebody figured it were waves they should find the medium upon which the waves travel. ”
Nope, didn’t need one, as Einstein showed.
“So dont give me this crapola that the laws depend upon your idea of what a photon being some kind of detectable particle.”
Wrong. I never said that the SB law depends on photons. You are very confused.
“You pretend to know physics but you cant even hold a candle to a non-physicist inquirer and you start making stuff up about little photons flying all around the place. All photons are is a cartoon description to explain light to children. Einstein laughed at the idea.”
Loser talk.
By declaring your made-up fizuks is just as good or superior to actual physics facts found in textbooks, you automatically lose the debate.
So what kind of EM signal is the resistor sending out Nate?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1517890
Nate your claim was:
”The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”
Your response to a resistor in an electrical circuit doing that was:
”In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”
We also know from the Stefan Boltzmann equations that the flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isn’t absolute zero in value.
An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.
So why does light require a signal from the cold object but we are perfectly comfortable with not even asking what kind of EM signal a resistor send back up the wire to the power source?
The answer is obviously it isn’t important to know.
Yet the theory is different for these two types of EM energy transfers. Yes electricity requires a wire because it is sending far and a way larger amounts of energy that what just automatically flies through space whether it has a substance to it or not.
So now that question is better framed why is it required that the sensor in your IR detector receive a signal from the cooler object
but the powersource in the electric circuit isn’t acknowledged as requiring such a signal.
You are the one making a claim for this major difference so what do you have in defense of your claim? Or were you just extrapolating as usual from what you heard?
“flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isnt absolute zero in value.
An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.”
You are transparently using the word ‘resisted’ to make it seem radiative heat transfer is similar to an electrical circuit.
It is not an electrical circuit, and it is a poor analogy.
It is showing that you cannot make a sound argument using the real physics of the real phenomena, radiative heat transfer, the SB law, and causality.
Thus you obfuscate by trying to discuss a different phenomena.
That said, causality applies to electric circuits. You cannot respond to a telegraph message through the wires, from far away, which travel at a maximum speed (light speed), telling you the temperature of a surface, and then respond to that, BEFORE RECEIVING that message.
In the case of the IR T sensor, the sensor surface is not intelligent. It only emits flux according to its OWN temperature and the SB law. Its T can also be measured with a regular T sensor.
When it receives input flux emitted by a cold object, its NET energy loss is the difference between the output and the input fluxes.
By measuring this energy loss, it can calculate the T of the cold object.
It cannot do that without first receiving EM flux from the cold object, whose magnitude is determined by the T of the COLD object.
Nate says:
flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isnt absolute zero in value.
An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.
You are transparently using the word resisted to make it seem radiative heat transfer is similar to an electrical circuit.
It is not an electrical circuit, and it is a poor analogy.
———————–
They are both EM.
Where is the evidence that the way they transfer energy is fundamentally different other than the medium upon which the energy travels?
Nate says:
It is showing that you cannot make a sound argument using the real physics of the real phenomena, radiative heat transfer, the SB law, and causality.
Thus you obfuscate by trying to discuss a different phenomena.
———————-
I asked you the difference in causality that you claimed for electricity and you still haven’t answered the question. You answer that question, I will comment on it then it will be your turn to answer a question.
Nate says:
By measuring this energy loss, it can calculate the T of the cold object.
It cannot do that without first receiving EM flux from the cold object, whose magnitude is determined by the T of the COLD object.
——————–
My question was how does radiation’s cousin electricity do it with a passive object (resistor) inline. Answer that question and we can discuss something about that rather than you trying to operate from the position of you thinking you are a a know it all and expecting me to refute your requirements for the transfer of EM energy.
Lets face it, it is very difficult to contain energy. Its constantly escaping at various rates. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it. But your huge mistake is prima facie in believing you know what a photon is.
You extrapolate a whole lot of unproven qualities about them. To me I can clearly see that you are just ignorantly inculcated into a belief system that likely no professor worth shiit ever intended for you to believe.
You have no science papers proving that photons are what you think they are. Einstein agrees with me and said so near his death saying for more than half a century he had unsuccessfully tried to figure out what real nature of light quanta (ignoring the word photon even though the word had been around for about 25 years at the time of his comment) was.
And here you are believing you hold Nobel Prize winning knowledge that you are keeping secret. I have no problem with using the idea to figure outcomes of net energy loss as it doesn’t mathematically differ from any other concept of what they might be. But that doesn’t entitle you to start thinking they are real and that you can start extrapolating that the subtrahend will warm the warmer object nor does it give you a clue that it can warm something at equilibrium because radiative equilibrium cannot exist in your world. . . .as it will always result in the warmer object being hotter than the object the warmer object is warming.
Right off that bat that runs contrary to the works of several famous scientists, especially Stefan and Boltzmann.
“. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it.”
YOU are the only one bringing up photons. Not me. Different topic.
The SB law, radiative heat transfer, and causality do not rely on the existence of photons.
“I asked you the difference in causality that you claimed for electricity and you still havent answered the question.”
I answered you. Did you miss it? Both obey causality. Not sure what your problem is.
“Einstein agrees with me”
Nonsense.
Nate says:
”. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it.”
YOU are the only one bringing up photons. Not me. Different topic.
The SB law, radiative heat transfer, and causality do not rely on the existence of photons.
———————————
Causality can be a pressure differential. Voltage = Pressure. they flow all the time at a rate depending upon the pressure differential and that pressure differential (voltage) can be estimated using Stefan Boltzmann equations. photon energy is measured in electron volts.
Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model where if you slow cooling of a surface at equilibrium with its power source will continue to warm.
But that belief is a complete denial of the concept of equilibrium and simply as shown by many experiments just doesn’t work. Though it does seem at one time the vast majority of scientists in the world strangely believed it does work.
The fact it doesn’t work is proven by their inability to show it working. The GPE is simply an experiment that changes the field of view factor to obtain warming.
And that believe is changing one scientist at a time including Vaughn Pratt and the scientists at various universities that used to feature diagrams of the 3rd grader radiation model but since has been quietly expunged from their websites. Nate simply hasn’t gotten the memo yet.
“Causality can be a pressure differential. Voltage = Pressure. ”
This is yet more indecipherable gobbldegook.
Read up on Causality if interested, and come back when you have an actual point.
The argument about the existence of back radiation is clearly over, and you are moving on to other worn-out topics.
No thanks.
Stop playing hide and seek Nate.
If voltage isn’t causality in the electrical flow of energy what is?
“If voltage isnt causality in the electrical flow of energy what is?”
You do realize that acusality is a noun?
‘If voltage isnt causal in the electrical flow of energy what is?’
might make sense.
Yes voltage is causal, but a far away change in voltage cannot cause anything nearby to change until the signal arrives here.
And that signal propagates through the wire at some speed, which is typically less than the speed of light.
As I noted, telegraph operators know all about this. And later, on ships there was wireless telegraphy which used radio waves.
Temperature far away cannot cause anything nearby to happen until the signal from it arrives, and that signal is in the form of EM waves, IR flux.
This is what Causality is all about.
“Stop playing hide and seek Nate.”
You obviously have an interest in talking to me.
Why should I have any interest in talking to you when mostly all I get is venom.
A steady stream of ad-homs and childish nonsense like this:
“Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model”
Then random substitution of political BS for science facts in a science discussion.
I have no interest in participating in that anymore.
There you have it.
You decide.
Nate says:
”As I noted, telegraph operators know all about this. And later, on ships there was wireless telegraphy which used radio waves.”
And what is this signal as recognized by science?
Nate says:
”A steady stream of ad-homs and childish nonsense like this:
”Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model”
————————————–
You have acknowledged you believe in the 3rd grader radiation model Nate.
this experiment is the 3rd grader radiation model set up with CO2
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
You claimed that the fact it didn’t work was because the experiment was flawed.
R.W. Woods did a 3rd grader model experiment using glass and rocksalt. You claimed it was flawed.
Vaughn Pratt did a 3rd grader model experiment that didn’t return signification results and you have avoided saying what you think of it.
And now you call the 3rd grader radiation model childish? Nate you are all over the place like a soup sandwich.
“And now you call the 3rd grader radiation model childish? ”
Yes. Keep it up. Maybe I need to call you Penis-Face from now on.
Sure go ahead Nate. I don’t have a penis complex so you are just projecting that I do.
If you want to actually discuss science here and the failed tests of the effect you so want to believe in with zero evidence you will always be welcome.
“zero evidence”
or not, depending on the prevailing winds at the time.
“Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.”
The fact that you believe those statements to be inconsistent just shows how little you know about science.
I have acknowledged that CO2 is part of the GHE. But your belief in how it works isn’t supported by any evidence.
And I suspect you have too little experience with the topic to realize that there are other possibilities.
A clue is in the fact that many things are necessary for a good stew but a good stew isn’t made by one ingredient.
More concisely, CO2 is a necessary part of our GHE, but there is no evidence that it is sufficient as a cause.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Still waiting for you to explain the sort of EM signal that electricity sends out. Einstein proved that light curved around the sun. Shouldn’t those photons have been absorbed by the sun?
It is used to mislead people. It has different properties that make it a poor substitute for analysis of the real Earth/atmosphere, as discussed at length in the previous article.
Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.
Well Nate is a liar.
He endorses the 3rd grader radiation model then claims the models consider the effects of convection. . . .when its abundantly clear that convection has no effect on the 3rd grader radiation model.
Indeed one might infer that Manabe in MW is detailing an effect via a restriction of convection but nobody says so. Thats because nobody has an iota of science suggesting thats the case and thus convection is considered in models as a nil effect and X watts absorbed in the upper atmosphere creates 3X watts affect at the surface.
Trenberth set this albatross up with his 3rd grader radiation model and radiation budget. All phony. Yet it convinced a lot of people. Did it convince Nate? Probably not but he recognizes the importance of the lie so he straddles two boats one the Trenberth 3rd grader radiation model where convection is clearly a negative feedback and two the models which probably allow convection but don’t use it as a negative feedback and just ignore it. . . .if not the restriction of it has the mode. We don’t know because the models are black boxes and the exact mechanism of the GHE in the models isn’t revealed. Used to be Univ of Chicago Modtran spit out the surface effects. But too much criticism such as this post got it erased.
and two the modeling exercise where he c
Im going to ignore my stalker-troll and his off-topic rants.
“Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.”
I already made this point, which RLH seems to ignore. Every heat transfer problem has its unique properties.
Pirani gauges use polished metal wires. As a result, they emit very little radiation. Conduction is the main heat transfer mode.
Home radiators have fin structures designed to maximize convection.
Neither of those apply to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. To pretend these differences don’t matter is misleading.
OTOH, the Earth’s surface also radiates through the IR window direct to the extreme cold of space, which is not applicable to Pirani gauges or home radiators.
It is misleading to pretend analysis of very different problems is just as good as analysis of the actual problem.
It is also intentionally misleading for Tom Shula to misrepresent the one-way SB emission from the Earth as its radiative heat transfer.
Nate has to ignore me because he can’t argue both the 3rd grader radiation model and how it ignores convection while claiming that convection effects are included in the models.
He has his two feet in two different boats and if he addresses the subject those damn boats are going to go two different directions.
If a heatsink is polished or black to IR seems to provide very little difference in the 0C to 50C range.
Nate says:
”It is also intentionally misleading for Tom Shula to misrepresent the one-way SB emission from the Earth as its radiative heat transfer.”
SB transfer laws apply to a non-cooling receiving object.
So if we say that the surface of the earth had a mean emissivity of .96 due to IR being a better emitter than higher frequencies which would suggest that it might be .7.
Lets also say that the atmospheric window is only 20w/m2 as some have suggested.
Then the upwelling radiation absorbed by atmosphere would be 396-20*.96=360. 360 minus the 199 lost to space would be the 161wm2 received by the sun.
Nate is locked into the idea that the losses to space by the atmosphere does not need to be replaced, that that loss can occur without accepting more radiation from the surface. I have asked him repeatedly for a statistically sensible argument that that isn’t true and he can’t produce it.
Leaves you wondering what we really do know about the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere.
In a bank account you have to account for all the debits and credits. Not just the ones you authorize.
I mean that some folks have estimated that the mean sky temperature emits around 200w/m2 back toward earth but thats a big problem as Trenberth claims it emits 333w/m2 as backradiation a figure he acknowledges as a ‘plug’ figure.
The numbers are all over the place and make little sense.
Any unexplained difference from S-B is simply met by a change in emissivity.
Nothing is unexplained if one analyzes the real problem.
The real problem being that heatsink/radiator designers consider that radiation is only a small part of their calculations.
This should be simple to explain if its settled science. After all you need is a full description of the experiment that established the science. But I guess everybody just believes what they believe without any evidence but instead based on authority.
Stefan Boltzmann came up with their laws of radiation by the use of a powered filament in their lab. Funny how they never explained the effect of backradiation on their results isn’t it?
I have to agree with Nate on this point. Nate is a politician and is willing to use any tool to push his agenda, but he is correct about this gauge. It measures vacuum from a source, and that is it. It has zero relation to the atmosphere and does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere in any way. It is time to move on from this proposal.
“It measures vacuum from a source, and that is it.”
The gauge works from mTorr to one atmosphere. Or say say those who actually manufacture them.
The “source” being measured is connected by a hose and thus the hose connection on the instrument.
I don’t think it’s being used to mislead anyone. It seems reasonable that conduction and convection could be 250 times more effective at transferring heat from the surface than radiation, and the Pirani gauge gives empirical evidence towards that.
As Nate said, the Pirani gauge has different properties that make it a poor substitute for analysis of the real Earth/atmosphere.
Such as?
Convection is suppressed. There’s no gravity gradient to support anything like natural convection.
So you think conduction and convection could actually account for more than 250 times the amount of heat transfer than radiation?
Why would anyone think that?
You just said you thought convection was suppressed in the gauge.
Convection is the result of a gas moving across a surface with a temperature difference between the gas and the surface. What causes that motion within a Pirani gauge?
The presence of a gas which allows for the convection to take place.
E. Swanson says:
”Convection is the result of a gas moving across a surface with a temperature difference between the gas and the surface. What causes that motion within a Pirani gauge?”
But we measure the gas and hypothesize warming of the surface by radiation and give no allowance for convection as a negative feedback?
If convection is suppressed in the gauge, and the gauge tells us that radiation only accounts for 0.4 % of the heat transport, then in the atmosphere, where convection is not suppressed, radiation would account for even less of the heat transport.
HD, Perhaps you should take notice of the fact that the geometry in the gauge (a thin wire)is vastly different from the large radiating surface area of the Earth. You continue to ignore the question about what causes motion of the gas within the gauge, lacking which means there’s no convection.
About convection, thank you for providing a reason that the gauge might be overestimating the heat transfer role of radiation in the atmosphere.
I have taken notice of the geometry difference. Fortunately a Pirani gauge does not function by having an Earth inside it. That would make them rather difficult to carry around.
Convection causes motion of the gas within the gauge. It there is a vacuum there is no convection.
RLH wrote:
No, convection is the result of the motion of the gas when considering natural convection. In the closed tube, convection is suppressed, just as it is in a double pane window.
So AGW has it even more wrong than we thought.
Such as:
a. The radition spectrum of the earth is full spectrum and therefore rather different from the narrow IR spectrum of the Pirani gauge filiment.
b. The Pirani gauge filiment power is much lower than the radiation level in the atmosphere. Liken CO2 to a Sponge and the radiation it a b s o r b s to a puddle; Pirani is like a cat dish next to a kitchen sink.
Neither a nor b is relevant to the functioning of the Pirani gauge or the argument being made by Shula.
Herb,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507126
Thoughts?
I would defer to Shula himself:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3711901
“If we were looking at the Earth from the Moon or Mars, we could look at it as a modified black body because the only energy transport we would detect would be radiation. That’s not what we’re doing here.
It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body. It is enveloped in an atmosphere, and that changes the energy transport dynamics completely. That is what is demonstrated here.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3713661
“Phil, you don’t seem to understand that the emissivity of the sensor is irrelevant, because the radiative loss in the Pirani gauge is a constant, not a variable. A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.“
“It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body.”
A different issue the whole Pirani gauge.
“A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.
Exactly. So his point about its low relative radiation as compared to the Earth seems moot.
“In the closed tube, convection is suppressed, just as it is in a double pane window.”
So why does adding a variable amount of gas alter the energy requirements of the filament? If it is not the added convection that is the cause, what is it?
Nate: The gauge operates form mTorr to a full atmosphere. So say those who actually manufacture said gauges.
P.S. A small change in emissivity overcomes the range that the SB ‘constant’ may actually be.
Convection is not fully suppressed in double glazing.
“A small amount of heat is lost through convection within the glazing cavity. “
Conductivity of air varies with pressure only well below atmospheric pressure.
Convection is large when the pressure gets close to one atmosphere.
“A different issue the whole Pirani gauge.”
Not sure what this means.
“Exactly.”
So you agree that the gauge filament’s emissivity being low is irrelevant.
Herb,
‘Exactly.’
“So you agree that the gauge filaments emissivity being low is irrelevant.”
On the contrary. I said:
“Exactly. So his point about its low relative radiation as compared to the Earth seems moot.”
With a low emissivity, the Pirani gauge is a poor model for the Earth/atmosphere, which has different properties, such as a high emissivity.
“It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body. It is enveloped in an atmosphere, and that changes the energy transport dynamics completely. That is what is demonstrated here.”
This statement has nothing to do with use of the Pirani gauge.
When he says:
In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface
this is a FALSE PREMISE.
Heres actual mainstream climate sciences view of what transports heat from the Earthss surface:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Table 2b.
Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
I don’t see how it’s a false premise. Out of conduction, convection and radiation, even with the figures in that table, they are still treating radiation as the major heat transport mechanism (of the three). Only evaporation is higher, but that is not a part of the Pirani gauge argument.
You can’t say the Earth/atmosphere has a high emissivity. The emissivity of the various gases in the atmosphere is very low. You could say the surface itself has high emissivity, though it is covered by an atmosphere, which changes the heat transport dynamics completely, as he said.
Herb,
“I dont see how its a false premise.”
With this from a Climate Science review of the issue:
“Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2”
it should be obvious that this statement:
“In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface”
is a false premise.
Look the numbers for Earth with its unique properties are what they are. And they are not the same as those of a Pirani gauge.
Seems you ignored my comment and just repeated yourself.
Seems you ignored what he actually claimed.
I can see that a good faith discussion will not be possible.
Perhaps there is confusion, by me also, about what he originally claimed.
Lets go back to that:
“From the energy budget diagram, there are four red arrows corresponding to (average) longwave (Infrared) radiation flux. They are as follows:
398.2 Watts/m2 longwave radiation upwelling from the surface
18.4 Watts/m2 upward from conduction/convection
86.4 Watts/m2 upward from evapotranspiration
340.3 Watts/m2 longwave radiation downwelling from the atmosphere as Back Radiation
According to the greenhouse effect, it is the downwelling Back Radiation that traps the heat in the atmosphere to keep the Earth warm.
For purposes of this exposition, we will consider only first two components above, as we will be investigating the relationship between upwelling longwave radiation and conduction/convection at the Earths surface. According to the model explained above, 398.2 W/m2 represents approximately 95.5% of shared heat transport and conduction/convection approximately 4.5% of shared heat transport.”
This part
“According to the model explained above, 398.2 W/m2 represents approximately 95.5% of shared heat transport and conduction/convection approximately 4.5% of shared heat transport.”
is already misleading.
The 398.2 W/m^2 is the UW, one-way Stephan-Boltzann emission from the Earth. It is NOT HEAT TRANSPORT. The actual HEAT TRANSPORT (Heat Loss) by radiation is the NET UW-DW which is ~ 58 W/m^2.
So this is misrepresenting already what Climate Science is claiming.
Then he goes on to discuss the Pirani gauge.
“The red line in the chart represents the (constant) total radiative and end losses of approximately 0.4 mW. ”
Now this is the Heat Loss = NET = UW- DW radiation from the filament.
“Since the radiative and end losses are 0.4 mW, this means that the heat transport by gas is 99.6%, with only 0.4% due to radiative and end losses.”
So he should not compare the NET radiation for the Pirani Gauge to only the UW one-way emission from the Earth.
But that appears to be what he is doing!
This is dishonest.
I don’t see why it must be "dishonest" as opposed to just "mistaken".
In any event, whether you are comparing 398.2 to 18.4 or 63 to 17, the dominant heat transfer mode (out of conduction, convection and radiation) is radiation. That is what AGW proposes. So, I don’t think it’s a false premise. If you could agree that it’s not a false premise, that would be progress.
“Conclusions
The Pirani gauge provides a method to measure the relative contributions of radiation vs. conduction/convection to heat transport in a gaseous environment as a function of pressure. At pressures relevant to the lower atmosphere (troposphere + stratosphere) radiation accounts for less than 1% of the upward heat transport. This does not refute the existence of said radiation in the lower atmosphere, it only demonstrates experimentally that its role in upward heat transport is insignificant.
It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”
Obviously False!
The main error here is that there is NO convection nor conduction in the atmosphere above the tropopause. Radiation is the ONLY mechanism for transport of heat from the tropopause to the upper stratosphere.
The Pirani gauge has other several differences from the Earth and atmosphere that oddly go unmentioned.
-The emissivity of the polished wire and shell are designed to minimize radiation.
-The atmosphere has an ‘IR atmospheric window’ direct to space at 3K, not so the Pirani gauge.
-The heat transfer in the Pirani gauge is dominated by conduction, while conduction plays a minimal role in the atmosphere.
“The greenhouse effect, if it exists, is based on upward heat transport via radiation in the lower atmosphere.”
This is a False premise. As we have seen, the greenhouse effect includes heat transport in the lower atmosphere by convection, radiation, and evapotranspiration, which is largest.
“Therefore the greenhouse effect, if it exists, plays an insignificant role in heat transfer and, by extension, the energy balance of the atmosphere.”
Nonsense.
So you cannot agree that what you initially said is a false premise, is not a false premise. Instead you have moved onto challenging a different premise.
Herb,
On the one hand we have research reviews which report data and analysis of the properties of the real Earth/atmosphere, by folks with expertise in that area.
There are many such papers, and textbooks in agreement.
On the other hand we have a non-expert reporting data on a lab device, which is NOT the Earth/atmosphere.
Based on on no analysis of the real Earth and atmosphere, he concludes the data/analysis on the real Earth atmosphere must be wrong.
On its face, his claims should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Some of us are appropriately skeptical, and have already identified several flaws in his facts and reasoning.
Can you consider that maybe you give this guy passes because his claims confirm your beliefs?
“So you cannot agree that what you initially said is a false premise, is not a false premise. ”
Shula appears to agree that latent heat transport is strong. Climate science puts it as the largest component of heat transport from the Earth’s surface.
So,
In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface
is a still a false premise, in my view.
However, heat transport from the tropopause to space is dominated by radiation. And that is the region where the so-called radiative forcing takes place, according to climate science.
Out of conduction, convection and radiation, do the models treat radiation as being the primary means of heat transfer from the surface?
“Out of conduction, convection and radiation”
So for no reason other to give the guy a post-hoc pass, latent heat transport is ignored?
No, for the simple reasons that the three modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection and radiation, because the Pirani gauge does not measure latent heat transfer, and so we can have some semblance of a reasonable discussion where not every single tiny detail is met with extreme resistance.
Herb, it seems you are in denial about the meaning of plain english.
“In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface”
This statement is wrong and indefensible, in two ways.
-Radiant heat transfer from the surface is NOT assumed to be the largest mode in climate models.
The largest is Latent heat transfer by evaporating water (a form of convection).
-In climate models radiation is only assumed to be primary at the top of the atmosphere, as I explained, but you ignored.
If actually interested in the facts, read and try to understand what climate science actually claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The statement is entirely defensible, because after latent heat, which is not a part of the argument, comes radiation. The point is that they put radiation above conduction and convection.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1508418
Latent heat transport is a type of convection.
The gauge measures vacuum from a source. Period. It is simple. It does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere. The problem with climate science is the complexity, not the basic scientific principles.
It is not necessary for it to represent the complexity of the atmosphere. All it needs to show is that conduction and convection are far more efficient at heat transfer than radiation. 250 times more efficient. That’s enough to throw a huge spanner in the works for AGW.
The gauge argument does not prove anything. All of the basic scientific principles are well understood. Convection is not the most important issue anyway. The important issue is latent heat. Cloud formation leading to rain is a near adiabatic process. latent heat is converted to sensible heat, and that temperature leaves the atmosphere by radiation to outer space. This cooling process is difficult to model accurately because it is random to some extent. The route is evaporation to convection to condensation to radiant heat loss.
“Many Pirani vacuum gauges measure pressure from below 1 mTorr up to atmosphere and are a very good choice for a wide variety of applications:”
So say those who actually manufacture said gauges.
“conduction and convection are far more efficient at heat transfer than radiation. 250 times more efficient” for the Pirani gauge but not for the Earth. They are not the same.
Heatsink/radiator design and operation do not follow AGW/SB even though they both operate in the same temperature region.
Facts are stubborn things. Even more than you.
“Facts are stubborn things”
Are you saying that heatsink/radiators designers are wrong in their contention that radiation is only a small part of their calculations in the 0C-50C range?
The stubborn facts are that different heat transfer problems with different parameters give different results.
TO claim that a Pirani gauge DESIGNED to minimize radiative heat transfer, OR a heat sink with fins designed to enhance convection, in a room, should behave the same as the Earth’s surface in the atmosphere, with its lapse rate, and IR window to space, is ignorant, no matter how often you repeat it.
Of course Blinny is well versed in the design and use of heatsinks/radiators in the 0c to 50c range.
Again the sissyish Blindsley H00d, stalking as usual.
Like here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1507012
Again Blinny offers no proof, merely infective.
And you ignore the differences from the Earth/atmosphere.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507126
Just analyze the real problem.
The real problem is that heatsink/radiator design does not meet AGW theory.
Even though both operate in similar temperature regions.
Because they are not the same problem. Why is that difficult to grasp?
How are heatsinks/radiators that much different to the Earth’s surface?
FYI, for homes with heated floors, which are more like the geometry of the heated Earth surface, the radiative fraction of heat transfer is > 50%.
https://tinyurl.com/3weea23h
Thus these are appropriately called radiant-heating systems.
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-heating
Some people get upset when I bring industrial furnaces into the discussion, but this concept also applies to residential furnaces and hot water heaters. The primary heat transfer in a furnace is radiant heat transfer because the temperature is high, but also because the products of combustion, CO2 and water vapor, have very high emission (safe word?). Pure nitrogen has very poor emission and would require a massive increase in area or temperature because it is only effective in convection. The point I want to make is that many industrial furnaces have a convection section to capture the remaining heat from the flue gas, but the first row or two of tubes have to be bare because finned tubes don’t work. Radiant heat will over heat the fins and actually slow the radiant heat transfer. Finned tubes are used in the remaining rows after temp is below effect radiant temp. This has nothing to do with climate except that it demonstrates the radiant effect from CO2 and water. Temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate.
The large surface area of outer space!?
I never know if people are trolling or just stupid. The concept of “projected area” could also be called a surface and certainly understood by intelligent people. The relevant equations involve a term for area. I will let you try to figure that out.
Yes, I know what you mean. With you, I think you are trolling. Though you might be stupid.
Message received Herb. If you wanted to be treated with respect, you could try being respectful.
Anyone who understands what Tim S means by “temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate”, let them speak now.
“Anyone who understands what Tim S means by ‘temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate'”
And radiation is proportional to the difference in Temp to the fourth power, so radiation to space @ 3K, from Earth and troposphere is strong.
Weird way to say it if that is what he meant. Also, that is not what is being disputed.
I think it is.
” At pressures relevant to the lower atmosphere (troposphere + stratosphere) radiation accounts for less than 1% of the upward heat transport.”
and
“upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”
I don’t think it is. I think the dispute is about the amount of conduction and convection from the surface as opposed to the amount of radiation. I don’t think Shula is disputing that, ultimately, the only exit for heat from the Earth to space is via radiation. That’s why he said:
“As one goes higher in altitude a larger proportion of the heat transport is attributable to radiation, and that is how all the heat eventually returns to space in the extreme upper atmosphere”.
If so, then he needs to realize that when Climate Science talks about radiative forcing being the cause of climate change, that is taking place not at the surface, but rather at the top of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
So in his efforts to diminish climate science’s claims, he is misrepresenting it, whether he is aware or not.
If the numbers are wrong for conduction and convection vs. radiation from the surface, that is a problem for AGW theory regardless.
The furnace environment delivers a very large amount of radiant heat to a relatively small surface area because of high temp. and a very high percentage of combustion gases. Those same gases, primarily water vapor, are present in the atmosphere at very much small amounts than furnace flue gas, but with a much larger area for heat transfer. Both examples represent the effect of greenhouse gases in different ways and with different configurations.
The furnace is a “well mixed” environment. The atmosphere is mixed chaotically and not well at all. The thickness of the atmosphere changes the basic mechanism of heat transfer to produce a layered effect of decreasing temperature with altitude. The furnace and the atmosphere both demonstrate radiant heat transfer, but in very different ways. The science is well understood except for the fools who claim “you can’t prove it”.
The Pirani Gauge is an entirely different situation that does not involve greenhouse gases and has no relation to any discussion of radiant heat transfer by gases.
All that is being suggested is that the amount of heat transfer by conduction and convection from the surface, as reported in the energy budgets, might be severely understated. There is really no need to complicate things or talk about furnaces.
I can’t see this month’s anomaly being good for the new Monckton Pause.
Second warmest June, +0.51 on the old scale.
2nd warmest June on record, but it’s only really that 1998 spike that stops the overall record.
Top 10 warmest Junes
1 1998 0.44
2 2023 0.38
3 2019 0.34
4 2020 0.30
5 2016 0.21
6 1991 0.18
7 2010 0.18
8 2015 0.18
9 2002 0.17
10 2014 0.12
Monckton’s pause starts in September 2014, which means it stays the same length.
For all his protests about the El Nino destroying the pause, I cant see much changing much until next year at most. At best the start date might move into the middle of 2015, but even if the anomaly is 1C for the rest of this year, the pause won’t disappear, by the end of the year.
My 2023 prediction is looking increasingly bad, compared to other years. The problem of having a very cold start.
Current prediction based is now 0.22 +/- 0.09C. This is up from 0.19 last month, but it’s surely going to finish higher.
What do you reckon are the chances for a record July-June?
What was your 2023 prediction? Im curious.
“it’s only really that 1998 spike”
Damn El Nino.
All indications are that instead of going up at this time of year for the next 6 months the temperature anomaly will drop making Bellman s original prediction much more likely.
The benefit of a cold start and a cold finish to the ear.
Reason for the confidence?
The ENSO readings are not behaving as predicted making an El Nino , that is 5 continuous months of raised temps, extremely unlikely.
What has happened to that global cooling which some people have been predicting for years? Have they given up the ghost and come to their senses yet?
So do you believe that this year will be hotter overall than 2016?
Of course it won’t. There was a weaker El Nino carrying over from the previous year, while this year started with La Nina. 2023 is the beginning of the El Nino, 2016 was the end. But there is a chance that the 12 months July-June will be a record. ENSO events are really only comparable for July-June as that is the ENSO season.
How long do you expect this El Nino to last?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my future predictions of cooling are based on ocean cycles. The AMO started the transition to the most recent warm phase in 1995. It was completed by 1997. Assuming the historic ~30 year phases continue, we are still in the warm phase and hence warming is to be expected.
In addition, it will take some time for the cool phase to undo the effects of the latest warm phase. The biggest impact is in the Arctic where sea ice should increase over time. It took 10 years for the sea ice to melt (1997-2007), so I don’t see it returning immediately.
The PDO will also come into play. The previous cooling period was most obvious when both the AMO and PDO were in their cool phases at the same time.
The bottom line is, cooling is not likely not be obvious until the 2030s. What we are likely to see is another extended pause for several more years.
2010s average: +0.12
2020s average so far: +0.22 after three La Nina years.
No pause there.
Cherry picking.
We used to have something called the Medieval Warm Period based on a very large body of science. Then one guy (no names please) erased the whole thing. That same person is in the process of erasing the AMO. Yogi said it best: It ain’t over until it’s over. Only time will tell.
Nah. Not been erased. We’ve just learned more about it.
Indeed, Salvatore was predicting here back in 2010 that the 2010s would see drastic cooling. He then predicted that by mid-2018 the monthly anomalies would be permanently sub-zero. And that was on the old baseline – so below about -0.12 on the current baseline.
Thankfully Salvatore finally had the good grace to admit he was wrong and walk away. I doubt anyone else here has the ability to do the same.
Adapt2030 predicted on Youtube that temperatures would plummet after 2015. He “proves” his claims by relying on the fact that there is always going to be cold weather somewhere in the world and presenting only those regions as representing the planet as a whole. He once showed a photo of a mass of broken up ice sitting in a small depression in the ground in Scotland, and surrounded on all sides by open country, and tried to claim that this was the first year-round ice, and would lead to glacial formation. He clearly has no idea.
What do you expect the AMO to do in the next 30 years?
No idea. It will do what it does.
What do you expect the PDO to do in the same time? The correlation between PDO and global temperatures is higher than for the AMO.
So the AMO is all down to volcanoes as has been explained before?
https://michaelmann.net/content/rise-and-fall-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0036-6
As to the PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo-1.jpeg
How do you expect it to progress over the next 30 years?
June 2023 data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/pdo.jpeg
Correlation between AMO and NOAA temperatures: +0.32
So r^2 is 0.1
I’m pretty sure your graph does not provide a 30 year forecast.
The AMO bottomed out in the mid 70s and El Chichon and Pinatubo each caused a temporary dip for a few years before the rise resumed.
You will now ask an inane question instead of properly responding.
I predict it will be “are you saying Michael Mann is wrong?”
So I will answer now – I’m just telling you what the data says.
“So r^2 is 0.1”
So no correlation (or little) at all.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/pdo.jpeg
shows how the PDO has changed since the 1850s. Do you think a OLS ‘trend’ over all the data would be more informative?
AMO for Apr 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
AMO for Jan 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/amo-trended.jpeg
So how do you think that the AMO has correlated with UAH since 1979?
Has anyone noticed that Winter in the Northern hemisphere is shorter than Summer?
I drove across Canada in May.
Near Edson, the location of the hotspot for the recent fires, the lakes were frozen even as the temperatures were high 20s C.
There was snow alongside Hwy 17 in Ontario.
So no, I haven’t noticed.
That would depend on arbitrarily chosen thresholds for the seasons.
The only somewhat non-arbitrary mathematical method would be to fit a sinusoidal curve to the data (absolute temperatures, not anomalies), determine the threshold temperatures from the model 1.5 months either side of the peak and trough, then see when those threshold temperatures are actually achieved (on average, not in particular years), thus defining the boundaries for the 4 seasons.
I did this for Sydney about 25 years ago, and I got something like:
Spring: 4 months
Summer: 3.5 months
Autumn: 2.5 months
Winter: 2 months
But all that means is that the distribution is not symmetrical. There might be more practical reasons for defining the cut-offs differently, and that would depend on the region.
I use the metrological seasons of
Dec/Jan/Feb for NH winter.
Mar/Apr/May for NH spring.
Jun/Jul/Aug for NH summer
Sep/Oct/Nov for NH autumn.
edit: …meteorological seasons…
Astronomical seasons will show the same deficiency.
As you are DEFINING the seasons to be three months long, what does “Winter in the Northern hemisphere is shorter than Summer” even mean?
Count the days.
So all you are claiming is a 90-92 split?
Why waste people’s time with such useless trivia?
And YES – EVERYONE has noticed that.
Except you before just now apparently.
So the NH Summer is 92/90 longer than the NH winter. And the SH is the opposite. Thus the ‘average’ NH summer/winter day is not directly comparable to the ‘average’ SH summer/winter day.
Are you serious?
For Sydney’s long-term averages:
Average of June 1 to August 29: 17.032
Average of June 1 to August 31: 17.075
Average of June 3 to August 31: 17.056
You’re joking, right?
92/90 is not directly comparable to 90/92.
I just showed you that it makes bugger all difference. But you have never admitted to being wrong, so I know nothing will change now.
I guess 2023 can’t be directly compared to 2024 due to the leap day – is that right?
“bugger all difference”
is what 0.1c is also.
Where does 0.1 come from?
Judging by the middle figure I gave, it is clear that most of the difference comes from randomness.
And who wants to compare NH vs SH summers anyway.
HN to SH comparisons are done all the time. Usual explained by the percentage difference in land and oceans.
If you look at all the different temperature graphics, NP, NH, EQ, SH, SP, Land and Sea, they all show different trends in temperature. CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so the differentials can’t be due to CO2. Has anyone bother to try to explain why the S Hemi has a different temmp trend than the N Hemi, or why temperatures trend differently over land than sea? If they do, that will go a long way to debunking the claim that CO2 is causing the warming.
A major reason is that the SH is 81% ocean compared to 61% in the NH, and the ocean is more resistant to temperature change than land.
Antonin, that is a great observation, but the question is how does CO2, which is of equal concentration over both land and sea, N and S Hemi, cause that difference? Both land and sea emit 15-Micron LWIR. Oh, and while you are at it, how is CO2 warming the oceans?
Your complaint has been answered numerous times.
The NH has more land than the SH and ocean waters tend to hold thermal energy deeper than land surface. The SH includes the Antarctic, which has a considerable area of high altitude ice coverage at around 4,000m, which intrudes into the UAH satellite measurements. RSS excludes data poleward of 70S for that reason, but Roy and John include it, perhaps so they can claim to be providing global coverage. The NH and NP both are strongly influenced by the sea-ice and snow positive feedback, thus the greatest warming at the surface appears there.
Some folks posting around here are actually interested in science, not some politically oriented effort to “debunk” AGW. Get a life.
E. Swanson, no one disagrees that a temperature differential. Science is all about explaining differentials. Anyone in science would understand the real question is how does CO2, a constant at all locations cause differentials? That is unique in science. Only is climate science does a constant cause a variation. Somehow CO2 warms land differently than ocean? Your comment about the altitude in the S Pole is pure nonsense because I’m pretty sure the data set is for the same altitude for all regions, and much of Antarctica is literally at sea level. Anyway, I see nothing in your explanation that would explain how CO2 causes the differentials, how CO2 can warm the land and ocean differently, how CO2 warms the oceans at all, and why locations such as deserts show no warming at all. Evidence of warming isn’t evidence that CO2 is causing the warming, and if something is understood it can be modeled, and no model effectively relates CO2 to warming, none, in fact the IPCC Models are the greatest evidence that CO2 doesn’t cause the warming, no mater how much money you spend trying to build models to prove it does. BTW, real science wouldn’t try to prove CO2 causes anything, they would attempt to identify the factors that impact the climate by rejecting the Null. If you set up a model with the NULL CO2 causes warming, it would be extremely easy to disprove. Simply use the IPCC Model results.
CO2isLife
Different warming trends would not disprove the warming aspect of added CO2. There are other mechanisms in play in the process. CO2 is only one of the many factors in determining trends. Changes in cloud cover, aerosols in the atmosphere, evaporation rates which can change based upon wind conditions, changes in WV in areas, this is definitely not a uniform concentration in the atmosphere and it is a more effective GHG so changes in its concentration can change warming or cooling trends. That is why global temperature graphs go up and down because there are multiple things which contribute. The science behind CO2 is that it can only cause a warming trend if the amount is increased but other things can cool or warm regions. Wind patterns, stalled pressure systems, ocean currents. Lots of other factors. Not sure how you see differentials in trends convinces you that CO2 has no warming effect. Not sure I follow your logic in this case.
Norman, CO2’s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.
THAT is science.
Your own words — “The science behind CO2 is that it can only cause a warming trend if the amount is increased but other things can cool or warm regions.” — don’t even make sense.
That ain’t science.
“CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.
THAT is science.”
Thank you Clint. I’ve been saying that for years, but no one seems to understand what that means.
Clint R
YOU: “Norman, CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.”
No that is not science. It is just made up opinions.
CO2isLife, I hope you do not think in any way Clint R is a credible source of science information. He rejects established physics and posts his endless opinions that no one with a science background will ever accept.
Clint R here is science (another link you will not be able to understand or even attempt to understand what it means).
https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/11-2-radiation-basics/
Science and reality (not your opinions) show that the 15 micron photon will be absorbed by the Earth Surface. The overall effect is to reduce the heat loss of the surface.
CO2isLife, it also works for oceans, the surface will absorb the CO2 DWIR and this will act to reduce the radiative heat rate loss.
It is all well explained in real science that Clint R can’t or will not accept for reasons only he understands.
CO2isLife
It is well known by most on this blog that Clint R does not care at all about science. He is interested in trolling and annoying posters.
If you are not an annoying troll but interested in real science here is a calculator on this page. You can put in different values and understand what is taking place and how the GHE works.
People like Clint R, Gordon Robertson, Swenson and others do not care about science they have their own agendas when they post. Gordon claims no one has used science to prove his posts wrong but that is not a correct statement. He does not accept established science (based upon multiple experiments over long period of time done by multiple researchers).
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
With the calculator on this page you can change the surrounding temperature. You will see the amount of heat transferred from the hot to cold drops as the temperature of the surroundings increases.
This is similar to the GHE. As you add GHG they will transmit energy to the surface which slows the cooling rate. If you slow the cooling rate of a heated object its temperature will go up. Which is what happens with the Earth Surface.
If you reduce any of the cooling mechanisms of the surface, the temperature will rise. In the Desert areas evaporation is reduced and the temperature increases. If you lower convection the temperature increases. It is all similar, reduce the rate of cooling with a heated surface and the temperature rises.
Norman,
You wrote –
“If you reduce any of the cooling mechanisms of the surface, the temperature will rise. In the Desert areas evaporation is reduced and the temperature . . .”
Don’t be a complete idiot. Deserts are hot during the day because there is a lack of “GHGs”.
Deserts are cold at night for the same reason. The Moon provides the extremes which occur when there are no GHGs at all!
You are an idiot because you refuse to accept reality, and prefer fantasy.
Keep it up.
“Clint R
YOU: Norman, CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.
No that is not science. It is just made up opinions.”
Clint, you clearly don’t know how to read a black body curve/Stehpan Boltzman Curve, or use the black body calculator available on SpectralCalc. Your comments demonstrate ignorance and arrogance at a level that is truly astounding.
The comment above is obviously from a braindead cult idiot, NOT “CO2isLife”.
You can tell because the imitator can’t spell the names correctly!
It’s just another troll tactic because the cult has NOTHING.
Clint Says: You can tell because the imitator cant spell the names correctly!
Really my spelling? I spelled StefanBoltzmann wrong? I have trouble spelling my own name. I have a math brain.
Anyway, please prove how smart you are by using this BlackBody Calculator and enter in 15 microns and -80 C. Please tell everyone what you find. Also, you may want to explain how that finding ties into CO2 sublimating at that temperature.
Here is the link. Have at it Einstein.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
studentb it’s not hard to figure out who you really are. Not even Norman would be as stupid and immature as you.
Quit using other peoples screen name, and grow up.
BTW, any of you climate alarmists want to explain how the 2008 GFC and COVID shut down the global economy but did absolutely nothing to the trend is atmospheric CO2? How does that work in your religion? If Man is the CO2 Demon, and the CO2 Demon stops spewing CO2, why does the CO2 keep increasing at the same OR GREATER Rate?
Norman Says: Not sure how you see differentials in trends convinces you that CO2 has no warming effect. Not sure I follow your logic in this case.
Every Science I know of, 100% of them, use controlled experiments to isolate the impact of a single independent variable on a single dependent variable. Even the social sciences use statistical methods to “control” for various factors. I have never seen any Climate Science Study that does what any normal science would do, that being perform a study the impact of CO2 on Temperatures controlling for Water Vapor, Solar Activity, and the Urban Heat Island effect. I’ve done that, and Deserts both Hot and Cold, are ideal locations to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. Guess what? When you control for those factors you literally get no warming over the past 120 years. The only way you get warming is by childishly claiming that you have a very corrupted data set that shows warming and you blindly associate it with the rise in CO2. That isn’t who real science works.
Norman claims: “Science and reality (not your opinions) show that the 15 micron photon will be absorbed by the Earth Surface. The overall effect is to reduce the heat loss of the surface.”
Your first sentence is true. The second sentence is false. This is one major areas where climate science has gone wrong. While it seems obvious at first glance that the claim should be true, real science isn’t always easy.
The logic isn’t all that difficult one you consider it. Current CO2 concentrations are saturated near the surface. This means almost all the CO2 generated photons directed at the surface come from very low in the atmosphere. Those higher in the atmosphere and directed downward get absorbed before reaching the surface.
This low layer is called the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). It is this layer that also participates in massive conduction with the surface skin (SS). The two layers continually are trying to establish thermodynamic equilibrium.
This process means whenever one side gets warmer or cooler conduction tries to offset the change. A CO2 molecule which has just been energized and radiates a 15 micron photon towards the surface has upset equilibrium. This will increase the amount of energy conducted from the surface back into the atmosphere.
As a result, no actual warming of the surface takes place for the 99.99% of DWIR photons that originate in the ABL.
There is one little caveat in this scenario. If the 15 micron photon is absorbed by an H2O surface molecule, it may caused evaporation to take place. The newly created water vapor molecule may also be convected out of the ABL. IOW, a cooling effect.
So, the complete science shows us that increases in CO2 downwelling photons have a cooling effect.
And the highest layer whose upward emission that isn’t abs.orbed shifts higher and colder, emitting less OLR. That is the radiative forcing.
“Those higher in the atmosphere and directed downward get absorbed before reaching the surface.”
And each lower layer thus warms. Thus the whole Temp-height profile warms to, eventually, return the system to balance. This is the basis of multi-layer climate models.
Nate claims: “the highest layer whose upward emission that isnt abs.orbed shifts higher and colder, emitting less OLR. That is the radiative forcing.”
The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration. The only warming effect from CO2 is from slightly expanding the 15 micron frequency width due to pressure broadening. It’s just enough to compensate for the cooling effect I mentioned in my response to Norman.
“The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.”
That statement is physically wrong, Richard M 5:40 pm.
Physically, the emission height is a function of mass absorp_tion coefficient which is proportional to the probability that a photon will be absorbed when colliding with a molecule.
The more CO2 ppm the higher the probability. An easier way to understand that physics is the atm. optical depth sets the emission height & more CO2 ppm affects the atm. optical depth.
For the entire atm., the cooling effect of added CO2 does cancel its warming effect. The problem is that the warming effect occurs near the L&O surface and the cooling effect occurs at the altitude long range airliners cruise. Those planes are mostly warmed by engine exhaust so humans don’t care up there.
——
“If the 15 micron photon is absorbed by an H2O surface molecule, it may caused evaporation to take place.”
That 11:33 am is physically incorrect also. Translational velocity of an H2O surface molecule isn’t quantized.
“The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration. The only warming effect from CO2 is from slightly expanding the 15 micron frequency width due to pressure broadening.”
Why is that?
CO2 density decreases with height. Yes?
There will be a height such that above it, there is not enough CO2 to make the CO2 bands opaque, as they were at lower heights. Yes?
With increasing CO2, logically, this height must increase.
Why not, Richard?
Nate states: “With increasing CO2, logically, this height must increase.”
You are looking at only half of the problem. The absorbing part. There’s also the emitting part.
While there’s a better chance of CO2 absorbing a photon, there’s also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. All those extra CO2 molecules don’t just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.
Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.
“also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation.”
Uhhh…
“All those extra CO2 molecules dont just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.”
They emit equally upward and downward. The net upward radiation thus gets reduced. Otherwise a layer could never become opaque.
“Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.”
Nope. Absor.ption is a real observable effect.
And there is a lapse rate.
At low CO2 concentration, photons pass through a layer coming from lower altitude and from warmer molecules. With higher concentration of CO2, the emitted photons come from higher elevation colder molecules. As a result, their flux is further REDUCED.
And of course the spectrum of Earth observed from space shows this as a deep depression in the CO2 bands.
Nate doesn’t understand how the atmosphere sheds energy. It appears he thinks it works like a flashlight. Guess I need to provide more detail.
First of all, almost all surface radiation gets absorbed very low in the atmosphere. I believe Heinz Hug found 99.94% was absorbed within 10 meters and that was 30 years ago.
The energy absorbed is then passed to other atmospheric molecules via collisions. However, because of Kirchhoff’s Law we know the same CO2 molecules that absorb surface energy can also be excited via collisions and spontaneously emit photons in a random direction. These photons can also be reabsorbed by different CO2 molecules. The process repeats over and over again.
Since the density of the atmosphere declines going away from the surface, the CO2 generated photons that are directed upward go further before being absorbed than the downward directed photons. This is why energy eventually ends up in space.
The energy that is moving upward at any time is a mixture of recently absorbed photons and energy absorbed previously.
You can view this as a massive photon cloud moving up through the atmosphere and thinning as it moves upward. Within the cloud photons are moving in all directions as they are absorbed and new emissions occur. The reason the cloud thins is there are fewer CO2 molecules to absorb the energy as you move higher in the atmosphere. That allow some energy to escape to space at all layers of the atmosphere.
So what happens as you increase the amount of CO2? The distance a photon travels between being emitted and reabsorbed shortens. It takes more of these events before a photon escapes to space.
This slows the process of removing energy which would cause warming except for the fact the entire photon cloud grows. The probability of a photon energy emissions increases as the log of the number of photons. Which is exactly the same as photon cloud movement slows.
What we end up with is a slower but bigger energy cloud moving up through the atmosphere. The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.
The entire concept of an emissions height is pseudo science. It is based on viewing surface radiation as a flashlight. The correct view of an ever changing photon cloud demonstrates why the energy transmission is independent of CO2 concentration.
“massive photon cloud moving up through the atmosphere and thinning as it moves upward.”
Yes.
But then somehow you decide that it doesnt thin afterall?
Illogical, Richard.
How then, do you account for the deep hole in the OLR spectrum?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif
“The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.”
The total energy that escapes to space remains the same only after the Earth’s surface and all layers of the atmosphere have warmed.
Nate asks: “How then, do you account for the deep hole in the OLR spectrum?”
We need to get back to surface.
That spectrum is surface radiation. It’s the black body spectrum. As more CO2 surface IR is absorbed, this hole becomes larger due to pressure broadening. But that’s not all that happens.
As I stated previously, this compensates for the evaporative cooling which is also increasing.
You have increased IR energy absorbed but also more energy being transported upward via convection. You have to look close to see what happens next. In addition, this doesn’t affect the energy that CO2 absorbs within the old, smaller frequency range. It is still radiated to space at the same rate. Average emission height stays the same.
It turns out the increase in evaporation (latent heat creation) also increases the speed of the energy transport. This is because water vapor is a lighter molecule. More low level evaporation reduces the density of the air and drives convection speeds up.
Now the cooler, higher troposphere comes into play. As the water vapor moves upward faster, more of it condenses out due to reaching those cooler, higher altitudes. Thicker clouds, more rain and less left over water vapor.
The reduction of high altitude water vapor is precisely where the water vapor greenhouse effect becomes unsaturated. You get less IR energy blocked in the water vapor frequencies.
As a result, the total IR heading to space through water vapor increases. Of course, you also get more solar energy reflected via the thicker clouds. The total energy remains constant.
Is this all an accident? As CO2 increases you also get an increase in precipitation. That is exactly what plants need to take advantage of the increased CO2. Mother Nature is quite an amazing engineer.
This larger view is required to understand total energy changes. That is why simplistic views via radiation models will never provide the complete picture.
“The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.”
This is falsified by the OLR spectrum, with its deep hole at the CO2 band.
The rest of your post is speculations about water evaporation, which is another topic altogether.
Nate claims: “This is falsified by the OLR spectrum, with its deep hole at the CO2 band.”
LOL. OLR measurements to not show an overall reduction in energy radiating from the surface. The “hole” relates only to surface IR window radiation. I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands.
Then Nate practices science denial: “The rest of your post is speculations about water evaporation”
The “speculation” comes from world famous scientist Dr. William Gray.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
His views are based on decades of experience working with NOAA and NASA data. I think this man’s views are far closer to real science than anything from the climate science field.
“I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands …”/i>
… at a “small” (Dr. Gray term) higher global surface temperature as measured over climate timeframes as explained by Dr. Gray: “the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming”.
Thus it is Richard M that remains wrong 5:40 pm (writing “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.”) and not Dr. Gray.
Oops:
“I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands…”
… at a “small” (Dr. Gray term) higher global surface temperature over climate timeframes as explained by Dr. Gray: “the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming”.
Thus it is Richard M that remains wrong 5:40 pm (writing “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.) and not Dr. Gray.
“The hole relates only to surface IR window radiation. I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands.”
No Richard. The hole Im referrring to is, as I noted, in the CO2 bands, such as 15 5microns, which is certainly not in IR window.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif
Your entire argument up to now was about how IR propagates up thru the atmosphere and whether CO2 causes it to be reduced, which has nothing to do with water vapor.
So talking about water vapor is a change of subject, and must be an admission that your initial argument cannot be supported.
Ball4, I realize Dr Gray allowed for the possibility of CS in the .2-.3 C range. That came from using IPPC assumptions and his knowledge of proper hydrology. IPCC assumptions don’t take into account the boundary layer feedback I described earlier.
Boundary layer feedback is based on the 2LOT and saturation of CO2 frequencies in the lower atmosphere. I believe both of these are pretty simple to verify. If I’m wrong, then there could be a small and completely beneficial amount of warming.
Nate is getting desperate: “Your entire argument up to now was about how IR propagates up thru the atmosphere and whether CO2 causes it to be reduced, which has nothing to do with water vapor.”
There are two parts to my argument. The first relates to energy propagation through the atmosphere and the second relates to what happens to the additional water vapor created by increasing CO2 downwelling IR.
For your quote we only need to deal with the first part.
As I stated before, there is some additional energy that will be absorbed due to pressure broadening. This mostly affects the atmospheric window but there are also other minor effects. That energy is absorbed very low in the atmosphere since that is where pressure is greatest.
If that energy led to more warming low in the atmosphere then there would be an effect IR propagation through the atmosphere just like anything that warmed the surface. However, as I also explained, that energy gain is compensated for by boundary layer feedbacks.
The first feedback is the 2LOT which leads to changes in the amount of energy conducted between the surface and the atmospheric boundary layer. This eliminate any surface warming.
The second feedback is increased evaporation which removes energy from the ABL/surface and moves it higher in the atmosphere via convection.
The net result is no warming in the lower atmosphere which then means there is no change in energy propagation.
It’s good to keep these two parts of the problem separate as they each have there own impacts. Without any warming of the lower atmosphere the question then becomes, do CO2 increases by themselves create additional warming by raising the emissions height. The answer to that question appears is no.
2:52 pm: “The answer to that question appears is no.”
Richard M, that’s physically wrong since can’t get around the physics that CO2 (or any IR active gas) ppm increases create additional near surface warming (though for Earth “small” as discussed in your Dr. Gray piece) in raising the planetary emissions height. The planetary emission height is a function of atm. mass absorp_tion coefficient which is proportional to the probability that a photon will be absorbed when colliding with an air molecule.
The more atm. CO2 ppm the higher that probability. Thus, more planetary atm. IR opacity & more atm. optical depth.
Physically, the effective emission height corresponds to the optimal trade-off between high density (which gives high emissivity) in underlying atm. IR opacity and little overlying atmosphere IR opacity to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space.
Richard M’s own source, Dr. Gray, explains why an answer of “no” is incorrect.
Ball4 claims: “thats physically wrong since cant get around the physics that CO2 (or any IR active gas) ppm increases create additional near surface warming”
There is no doubt that increases in CO2 will create a warming effect. However, physics also demands that additional evaporation will create a cooling effect. You have two opposite effects. You want to accept one of them while denying the other one.
OTOH, I’m willing to accept both of them will occur. And, my view is supported by experimental evidence. NOAA radiosonde data shows no increase in the overall greenhouse effect since 1948.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
I realize some pseudo-scientists have tried to hand wave away this finding. Their arguments are easily dismissed. I have explained the physics that supports this kind of result.
If the two effects cancel each other out as the radiosonde data demonstrates, there is no warming at the surface. The optical depth remains unchanged as does the emissions height.
“However, physics also demands that additional evaporation will create a cooling effect.”
Richard M again misses that atm. physics also demands the resulting additional condensation (rain, snow) will create a near surface warming effect which over climate timeframes is measured with 95% confidence to meaningfully offset that singularly mentioned near surface cooling effect.
“NOAA radiosonde data shows no increase in the overall greenhouse effect since 1948.”
When the radiosonde data are assessed in effect in terms of “the various cloudy conditions of the actual atmosphere are regarded as maintaining their established average state, which forms a stable steady background for the present analysis.” So if a study has no change in optical depth assumed in the data, the result will be no change in optical depth found in the data.
With modern day satellite era data, that do include the effect of all the natural “various cloudy conditions”, the trends in net TOA flux trends due to changes in clouds, changes in trace gas ppm, changes in solar irradiation et. al. are each now meaningfully known with 95% confidence in the era showing natural atm. optical depth does change as well as the emission height.
“The first relates to energy propagation through the atmosphere”
Yes indeed.
Leta go back to this:
“While theres a better chance of CO2 absorbing a photon, theres also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation. All those extra CO2 molecules dont just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.
Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.”
My point with showing the deep hole in the OLR spectrum is that it shows that energy has been removed from the outgoing IR.
And you agree that it can be:
“there is some additional energy that will be absorbed due to pressure broadening.”
There is not a cancellation. This is because that while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is abso.rbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.
As for adding more CO2, the OLR the hole is slightly widened according to calculations.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/300px-ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
And indeed if the optical depth increases at the TOA, as BAll4 discussed, the emitted photons that make it to space must come from a higher/colder elevation.
Ball4 claims: “Richard M again misses that atm. physics also demands the resulting additional condensation (rain, snow) will create a near surface warming effect”
No, I already mentioned this in one of my comments. This is essentially the additional energy that was absorbed by CO2 due to pressure broadening. It was moved to the surface by increased DWIR which increased evaporation. It is now released by condensation.
But remember, we also have reduced high altitude water vapor as part of the enhanced convection. We also have thicker clouds. These effects are cooling effects which offset the warming effect from the condensation.
Nate claims: “There is not a cancellation. This is because that while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is absorbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.”
We are only interested in net energy flow.
Yes, energy is radiated in all directions as I have previously stated. This can be averaged out. One way to think about it is to define an average photon. Call it Joe. Joe is what you get with all the considerations you mentioned. Joe moves upward.
As CO2 increases the photon path length until being reabsorbed is reduced. The net result is that Joe’s path length (still upward) is decreased as a log function. It is based on the gravitation force.
All of those other directions are irrelevant to the discussion of energy flow. It is only net energy flow that matters.
You end up with increased energy flow upward and a slower movement. Both are log functions relative to the concentration of CO2. Your attempted obfuscation fails.
“This is essentially the additional energy that was absorbed by CO2 due to pressure broadening.”
Wrong yet again 10:27 am. Richard confuses two independent physical processes. Condensation release of enthalpy of vaporization is not “pressure broadening” (which is a misnomer anyway, it is physically collisional broadening which ought to be a clue for Richard’s further learning).
Since Richard now writes there exists “pressure broadening” (Richard term) with “thicker clouds”, Richard M is now admitting to increasing optical depth and emission height increases with added CO2 ppm atm. IR opacity. That’s decent progress. Now Richard needs to learn about collisional broadening.
NB: For the radiance spectra near the 22.2 GHz water vapor line frequency even a cloudy atmosphere is not IR opaque, collisional broadening occurs to high altitudes, and the line shape can be resolved.
“As CO2 increases the photon path length until being reabsorbed is reduced. The net result is that Joes path length (still upward) is decreased as a log function. ”
Ok.
”
It is based on the gravitation force.”
??
“All of those other directions are irrelevant to the discussion of energy flow. It is only net energy flow that matters.”
“You end up with increased energy flow upward and a slower movement.”
I don’t see any logic leading to this conclusion, Richard. It doesnt appear to follow from the previous statements.
Ball4 claims: “Wrong yet again 10:27 am. Richard confuses two independent physical processes.”
I’m not confused. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t made any attempt to understand what I have said. With just a little effort you could have known I was referring to completely separate processes which both happen to relate to energy. The pressure broadening and condensation happen in totally different parts of the atmosphere.
Nate claims: “I dont see any logic leading to this conclusion, Richard. It doesnt appear to follow from the previous statements.”
I was assuming you still remembered what I stated in a previous comment. I guess that is asking too much. There are two parts to the energy flow question.
1) the speed of flow and
2) the amount of energy.
My latest comment was correcting your error related to 1).
I did not go back and repeat my description of the amount of energy as that is pretty simple. It increases as a log function of the concentration of CO2.
My conclusion was a simple repeat of what I stated previously. With 1) decreasing and 2) increasing and both log functions, the net flow remains unchanged as concentration of CO2 changes.
Richard,
Your claim that there is more upward photons, thus more energy is so far just assertion.
It is not consistent with this:
“while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is abso.rbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.”
Which you assert, without any rationale, that it is irrelevant.
Sorry you are simply not connecting the dots to make a sound argument.
However 4:01 pm, modern-day calibrated, precision instruments show with 95% confidence 1) and 2) do not cancel. The trend in net TOA energy flux is meaningfully measured up (positive/decade) in the satellite era contrary to Richard M’s logic. Nate and I have bothered to comment to point out some reasons.
Richard,
I can agree with one thing you said. The emitted energy from a layer will ~ conserve what it receives, but only for layers low in the atmosphere. Because their temperature is ~ the surface T.
They abs.orb in the CO2 band, but emit the same amount, so the hole is ‘filled’.
But owing to the lapse rate, layers higher in the atmosphere are colder, which doesnt affect their ability to abs.orb, but does affect what they emit. So they emit less. And the hole begins to form.
Finally the highest opaque layer is quite cold, and emits an OLR spectrum with a deep hole it at the CO2 band. As you can see the OLR spectrum CO@ hole matches that of a 220 K blackbody.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/300px-ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Nate claims: “But owing to the lapse rate, layers higher in the atmosphere are colder, which doesnt affect their ability to abs.orb, but does affect what they emit. So they emit less.”
That would violate Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. Try again.
Not at all. Kirchoff’s law is about emissivity = abso.rbtivity.
Emission is emissivity*T^4. The T of the layer matters for emission only.
In any case using Modtran one can see this effect happening as a I described.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Set to Radiance, Atm. Model:US standard 1976
Sensor altitude:
try 1 km then 5 km then 20 km.
Spectral Range 5-20 microns.
You will see that at altitude 1 Km, the upward radiance spectrum (OLR) looks like a blackbody with no holes in it.
But for 5 km a shallow hole has formed in the spectrum at 15 microns.
And for 20 km, a deep hole has formed at 15 microns.
Nate has provided a very interesting result. He just missed one thing. He didn’t set the resolution low enough. Try setting it at .031 and something amazing happens. Look at 20 km and the hole disappears.
Do you know why?
“CO2's 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube”
Ice at 0C emits at about 10μm: CO2 at 1C and 10C emits equally around 15μm.
Energy increases with amplitude, thus radiation at a given wavelength can carry more or less energy depending on its intensity.
Analogy with playing the same note at different volumes, for anyone that’s looked at an oscilloscope.
Hole dissapears?
Not what I see. The hole is really there.
I see what happened. The vertical scale was changed. haven’t used the tool very often.
Nate states: “But for 5 km a shallow hole has formed in the spectrum at 15 microns.
And for 20 km, a deep hole has formed at 15 microns.”
I don’t think your interpreting the data correctly. The model is showing the upward emission of energy from the specified altitude (radiance) as well as the total energy (flux).
As you get higher in the atmosphere there are fewer CO2 molecules and they are colder. Hence, they radiate less energy. The flux itself does not change much as you rise.
The reason the flux stays the same is that each layer altitude is absorbing and radiating equal amounts based on Kirchhoff’s Law. Less and less energy is involved as you rise.
Richard,
If you are talking about the fluxes at the bottom of the page, those are, unfortunately, all at fixed heights. 50 Km or 0 km. So they don’t change with the sensor altitude.
Nate, I agree the total flux won’t change. Every layer follows Kirchhoff’s Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy. The total flux would be unchanged.
All that you are seeing in the radiance value is the changing emissivity of each layer.
IOW, MODTRAN doesn’t provide anything that disagrees with what I have stated.
“Every layer follows Kirchhoffs Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy.”
That’s measured physically true only in the midlatitude tropics lower stratosphere where each layer is isothermal for about 9km in z. In the troposphere, there is a T lapse rate with z height AGL so each layer is cooler on the top and warmer on the bottom.
Line by line radiative transfer codes iteratively balance each layer and resulting T(z) is computed in very close agreement with actual soundings.
“Nate, I agree the total flux wont change.”
You are not agreeing with me. The fluxes emitted from colder layers is lower. The hole gets deeper with height.
“Every layer follows Kirchhoffs Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy. The total flux would be unchanged.”
No. That is not what Kirchoff’s law states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Nate says: “The fluxes emitted from colder layers is lower.”
Yes, that is true but the biggest factor is the decreasing number of CO2 molecules as the density of the air decreases. This is all a part of what’s called emissivity.
“The hole gets deeper with height.”
There is no “hole”. The flux remains nearly the same at all altitudes. It is just the part of that flux being absorbed and reemitted that changes. The rest of it just passes through.
“Yes, that is true but the biggest factor is the decreasing number of CO2 molecules as the density of the air decreases. This is all a part of whats called emissivity.”
An opaque layer has some minimum number of number of CO2 molecules. At higher altitudes, a layer needs to be thicker to have this minimal number of molecules.
“There is no hole. The flux remains nearly the same at all altitudes.:
So, even after seeing with your own eyes the hole appearing in the spectra with increasing height, and seeing it even in the final OLR flux spectrum, you deny that its there?
That is high level denial, Richard.
Nate goes off the rails immediately: “An opaque layer …”
The Earth still doesn’t work like a flashlight.
The flashlight view ends within about 10 meters of the surface. That’s where CO2 has enough thickness to absorb almost 100% of the surface IR in the appropriate frequencies. There’s your hole.
The energy is then shared with the rest of the atmospheric molecules through kinetic collisions. The important question is how does this layer of the atmosphere cool.
That’s what I have been talking about.
“The Earth still doesnt work like a flashlight.”
I never claimed any such thing.
“The flashlight view ends within about 10 meters of the surface. Thats where CO2 has enough thickness to abs.orb almost 100% of the surface IR in the appropriate frequencies. ”
IOW it is opaque for CO2 wavelengths.
“Theres your hole.”
No. You are mixing up the abs.or.ption spectrum with the radiance spectrum.
There is a CO2 hole in the abs.or.ption spectrum for this layer.
In Modtran you can look at the abs.orp.tion spectrum at 1 km. It has a hole in it.
But the emission from CO2 molecules in this warm layer fills the hole, so the upward flux emitted or passing through this layer is that of the surface, a blackbody.
There is no hole in the upward radiance spectrum, as you saw in Modtran at a height of 1 km.
Only as we rise in the atmosphere does the hole reappear in the upward radiance spectrum. At the TOA, the OLR flux has a deep hole. Because the upward radiance at the CO2 wavelengths comes from CO2 molecules in the highest opaque layer that are COLD, and thus don’t emit enough to fill the hole.
But you need to deny what your eyes plainly saw in Modtran.
Nate claims: “Only as we rise in the atmosphere does the hole reappear in the upward radiance spectrum.”
And why is that meaningful? The overall upward radiance spectrum is unchanged.
The hole you are seeing in the radiance also exists in the energy absorbed. Good old Kirchhoff’s Law. As you can see from the lower level radiance, there is energy emitted upward at those frequencies. If it isn’t absorbed, what happens to it?
The answer is obvious. It continues upward into space. You also know this from Modtran because the flux doesn’t change. This means all the frequencies really are present at higher altitudes, they just aren’t available to CO2’s colder, less dense molecules.
So, there is no hole in the spectrum, just reduced amounts of energy being absorbed and reemitted which also fit into a tighter window in the spectrum.
Energy absorbed/reemitted is reduced as a function of the density of the molecules. For well mixed gases that means it changes relative to the force of gravity.
This is how the atmosphere cools itself. Energy is lost to space from all altitudes. I’ve been saying this for years.
“Energy is lost to space from all altitudes. I’ve been saying this for years.”
On the contrary, Richard M was writing “almost” the opposite just a few days ago July 9 6:38 am:
“… almost all surface radiation gets absorbed very low in the atmosphere.”
Ball4 claims: “On the contrary, Richard M was writing almost the opposite just a few days ago”
If Ball4 was paying attention they should realize I was talking about surface energy at that time. Now I am referring to energy being radiated from the atmosphere.
By the way. As I’ve also stated many times, that energy is absorbed emitted many times on its way to space.
Trouble for Richard M 11:53 am is that I am paying attention or wouldn’t notice contrary statements of his or simply wrong statements like:
“As I’ve also stated many times, that energy is absorbed emitted many times on its way to space.”
No Richard. Some (~ 60%) of certain IR band atm. radiant energy goes straight thru our entire atm. from near surface to deep space.
Earth’s global atm. from 4 micron to 1 mm has absorp_tion by water vapor, with contributions from CO2 and ozone, being often so strong that the transmissivity IS nearly zero over broad ranges within this region. One important exception is 8-12 micron, where its transmissivity often exceeds 0.6.
But from 1 mm to 10 cm atmospheric transmissivity generally increases, approaching 1 at 10 cm. No wonder weather radars operate at 10 cm!
Ball4 once again shows poor reading comprehension: :No Richard. Some (~ 60%) of certain IR band atm. radiant energy goes straight thru our entire atm. from near surface to deep space.:
And, yet again I was referring to energy already absorbed in the atmosphere. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, then ask.
Readers can only see & physically correct what you actually write in comments Richard, not what you have in mind.
“The hole you are seeing in the radiance also exists in the energy absorbed. Good old Kirchhoffs Law. ”
Which you work so hard to misunderstand. Look up Kirchhoff’s and learn what it actually means. And show us.
Nate you are just ignorantly extrapolating again. Your topic of ‘holes’ here is in the spectral analysis of that which goes through the atmosphere.
So its a ‘hole’ in the spectrum. And that hole exists both for what you see from a satellite and what you see from the surface looking at the solar spectra.
So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.
Further since we know that the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work despite your totally unsupported protestations the theory you believe in still maintains it doesn’t matter where energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, it will warm the surface if it contains more energy than the surface. And of course it does because we have a greenhouse effect but the real question is what is the mechanism of that warming and that has never been fully explained by science.
As I see it the mean light from impinging on the surface is one fourth that of the solar constant. And the light impinging on the atmosphere is one half of the solar constant. That leaves a large number of ways that the surface can be heated above the level of the surface’s direct solar impingement. Science just plays a shell game to come up with an authority based way of determining how that happens by, in the past, making stuff up that you still believe after if being whitewashed from the internet over the past decade or so.
Now we are only told the means exists in the great variation of computer models regarding this atmospheric effect and CO2 has been scapegoated as the only possible culprit like Dr. Richard Kimble.
So while you either play dumb here or are dumb it doesn’t matter as your purpose is obfuscation if you are playing dumb and you have been obfuscated if you are dumb. Of course once obfuscated its not really possible to know. So you only do know which it is by being playful.
“So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.”
Solar input is at very different frequencies. A negligible fraction solar input is @ 15 microns Richard.
Nate frequencies don’t matter.
Its estimated that somewhere between 65 and 89 watts of sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere or more depending upon the selection of sources you select.
thats far more than what is attributed to CO2.
So any compositional change of molecules in the atmosphere, water, O3, CO2, ash and aerosols of various kinds, SO2 from volcanoes that is a strong absorber particularly of UV light. And we know all these go through massive natural changes. CO2 is probably the most incapable of them all.
Ozone overrides any effects from CO2 in the stratosphere. CO2 can’t take over until the mesosphere where the other elements seldom reach. HTE though was the first volcano ever observed to reach the mesosphere sending vast amounts of ash and water up there.
Not Richard, Bill.
Bill “So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.”
Me: Solar input is at very different frequencies. A negligible fraction solar input is @ 15 microns
Bill “Nate frequencies dont matter.”
And so it begins, playing whack-a-mole with Bill’s nonsensical unsupportable assertions.
Here’s your ‘3rd grader’, model. See the section ‘Calculating the effect on radiation’.
Lets see if you are smarter than a 3rd grader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrative_model_of_greenhouse_effect_on_climate_change
Nate says:
Bill Nate frequencies dont matter.
e
And so it begins, playing whack-a-mole with Bills nonsensical unsupportable assertions.
—————————
Thats nonsense Nate. You guys have to acknowledge that a joule of energy is a joule of energy. Its not a specific frequency, though some will argue low frequencies can’t warm much of anything, which makes sense as you can’t create a higher vibration rate, necessary for high energy emissions with a lower vibration rate.
So the 65 to 89/m2 watts absorbed in the atmosphere from incoming light plus the 334 watts/m2 allegedly absorbed by water products of surface radiation puts a lot of energy into the atmosphere add in 24 watts/m2 absorbed by CO2 and its all accounted for. So without CO2 we have between 399w/m2 and 423w/m2 being absorbed by the atmosphere. Why isn’t that capable of keeping the surface at 390w/m2 to 396w/m2 with variation being in the realm of uncertainty with that of co2 being impotent by virtue of final absorbing too distant from the surface up in the mesosphere.
as to your third grader reference the variation could come from unsaturated o3 and unevenly distributed waster vapor both of which are shown to be varying as well. the 3rd grade wiki article just avoids addressing those points.
Look at the reference to your ‘3rd grader model’.
It has optics that you will likely not comprehend. So your ‘3rd grader’ label is nonsense.
Absor.bed solar in the atmosphere is warming the system.
You didn’t disagree with anything I said Nate. You just handwaved it away.
Nate complains: “Which you work so hard to misunderstand. Look up Kirchhoffs and learn what it actually means. And show us.”
It’s really quite simple. The law as it applies to the atmosphere states a molecule will absorb and emit radiation equally within the same general environment. The last caveat means equal pressure and temperature.
Therefore, given we are talking atmospheric layers, the temperature and pressure are the same throughout the layer. Hence the two sides of the radiation coin are also equal.
See, not really all that difficult. Once you understand this a lot of mysteries of energy flow disappear.
“states a molecule will absorb and emit radiation equally within the same general environment.”
Richard, That is still not accurate. Find a source with a definition.
It is about the FRACTION of incoming radiation that is abs.orbed, which is abso.rbtivity. There is no T^4 involved in that, as there is with emission.
nate argues the unlimited warming theory implied by the 3rd grade level radiation model not having an equilibrium and being disconnected from t4 equilibrium limits. its amazing how many people are so attached to a never demonstrated model that is little more than a product of the imagination.
“… given we are talking atmospheric layers, the temperature and pressure are the same throughout the layer.”
No Richard 9:11 pm, that’s wrong. You’ve even been physically corrected before.
In the troposphere, there exists a temperature lapse as a function of z so T(z), same with pressure P(z) in each hydrostatic layer. T(z) IS constant in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of z height, but in that region still P(z) is NOT constant in each layer.
Nate continues his science denial. Here’s how Wiki says it:
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the abs…
Oh wait, that’s almost exactly what I stated. as anyone can see, Nate is now trying to deflect from his previous misunderstanding of the Modtran data.
Richard,
You left out some key details in the quote.
“For an arbitrary body emitting and absor.bing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity.”
“Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorp.tion (or the absorp.tivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absor.bed by the body when it is radiating and absor.bing in thermodynamic equilibrium.”
The fraction of incoming radiation absor.bed is not determined by temperature.
“the emissivity: the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed T”
As we know the emitted SB flux is sigma*emissivity*T^4.
Temperature IS a strong factor in emission.
Are you just going keep denying these facts?
Nate states: “Temperature IS a strong factor in emission.”
Yes, and equally affects how the entity absorbs energy. What part of the words “thermal equilibrium” and “equal” did you fail to understand?
Both sides of the IR coin are dependent on temperature. Just because you quote words you don’t appear to understand doesn’t change the meaning of those words.
Since we know the amount of CO2 and the temperature of the atmosphere drops as you move upward. We know the energy emitted from lower layers cannot all be absorbed by the higher layers. It must pass through and head onward to space.
This explains why Modtran shows a narrowing of the radiance spectrum as you move upward. It also means the absorbed energy must have been equally reduced due to Kirchhoff’s Law.
Richard,
So you insist on making up your own physics? Even after seeing the definition of Kirchhoff’s Law, and absorp.tivity.
Why?
There is a T^4 factor in emission, because the SB law is all about emission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
“For an ideal absorber/emitter or black body, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time (also known as the radiant exitance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, T”
There is no SB Law for absorp.tion.
If you have evidence there is one, show us! From a legitimate source, please.
I predict you won’t find one, Richard.
Then we will be done with this silliness.
Nate projects: “So you insist on making up your own physics?”
Nope, I am following Kirchhoff’s Law as it is clearly stated. You are the one making stuff up. Here it is again straight out of Wiki:
the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity
It really doesn’t get any more clear than this. Your continued denial of century old physics puts you in a unique group of science deniers.
I should add one additional thought. There’s nothing in Kirchhoff’s Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. That’s why there’s no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.
However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only absorb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.
Since we know there is more energy radiating upward from the denser, warmer atmosphere below than can be absorbed at higher altitudes, there is always plenty of energy available. Therefore, in the situation being discussed, the radiance always matches the energy absorbed.
“However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.”
No Richard that would suggest no body could ever cool or warm by radiation, which is obviously not the case.
emissivity is a dimensionless FRACTION of BB radiation emitted, IOW the FRACTION of sigma*T^4. Clearly there will be a T^4 in emission.
absorp.itivity is the FRACTION of incoming radiation absor.bed. There is no T^4 in absorp.tion.
Kirchhoff says Emissivity = absorp.tivity is only talking about FRACTIONS of different things being equal, not the AMOUNTS being equal.
Example. A body at temperature T has emissivity 0.5 = absorp.tivity.
Its emitted Flux is sigma*(0.5)*T^4
Its absor.bed flux is 0.5*(Flux input). Do you see T of the body in there?
No. It can be very different from emission.
And you offer no source that says there is an SB law for absor.ption.
That should tell you that you are mistaken.
“Theres nothing in Kirchhoffs Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. Thats why theres no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.”
I somehow misread this.
Then we agree now on what Kirchhoff’s law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.
Then this:
“However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.”
does not follow from your above statement.
“Since we know there is more energy radiating upward from the denser, warmer atmosphere below than can be absor.bed at higher altitudes, there is always plenty of energy available. Therefore, in the situation being discussed, the radiance always matches the energy absor.bed.”
No Richard, that doesnt follow from Kirchhoff.
And doesnt agree with the radiance spectrum we saw in Modtran, which has a hole in it at high altitudes that isn’t present at lower altitudes.
Any absorp.tion in the CO2 band just equilibrates via collisions with the surrounding air to reach the air temperature at that altitude.
Then the emitted radiance need not match energy absor.bed.
Nate persists in his science denial: “Then we agree now on what Kirchhoffs law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.”
No, I’ve quoted Wiki to state my position several times. You still are denying the truth.
“emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity”
Notice the words end in “ity”. This means the ability to absorb energy or emit energy is equal. It’s talking to the capability. In the atmosphere this leads to emittance = absor.ption which I have been telling you and you have been denying.
“Then this:
However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.
does not follow from your above statement.”
It follows perfectly well and fact you don’t understand this is tied to your continued denial.
Nate says: “And doesnt agree with the radiance spectrum we saw in Modtran, which has a hole in it at high altitudes that isnt present at lower altitudes.”
The radiance spectrum is tied to the temperature/density of the atmospheric layer. As that combination goes down, the radiance spectrum narrows. This is where the term “pressure broadening” comes from. Almost all of the energy absorbed is converted to kinetic energy. The emission also comes from kinetic excitement and that is what determines the spectrum.
There is no hole in the absor.ption. Only a reduction due to fewer CO2 molecules and lower temperature.
“The radiance spectrum is tied to the temperature/density of the atmospheric layer. As that combination goes down, the radiance spectrum narrows. ”
No Richard. That is not what the Modtran spectra showed. It showed a hole forming in the OLR. Deeper at higher elevations. No narrowing at all.
Your stance makes little sense.
’emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity’
Yep
“Notice the words end in ity. This means the ability to absorb energy or emit energy is equal.”
Except only one of these also depends on T^4.
“Its talking to the capability. In the atmosphere this leads to emittance = absor.ption which I have been telling you and you have been denying.”
How? You have not explained how, nor shown evidence that it is true. OTOH you deny the evidence that I show you.
You STILL have not shown any source that agrees that absor.ption is proportional to T^4.
That means you are making up your own physics.
“Nate persists in his science denial: Then we agree now on what Kirchhoffs law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.
No, Ive quoted Wiki to state my position several times. You still are denying the truth.”
Prior Richard:
“The reason the flux stays the same is that each layer altitude is absorbing and radiating equal amounts based on Kirchhoffs Law. ”
Current Richard:
“Theres nothing in Kirchhoffs Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. Thats why theres no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.”
Current Richard is correct.
Nate is still confusing reality with his imagination. While Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t define absor.ption, we already know that energy is being radiated upward and we know it reaches space. Yeah, it’s been measured. That’s how we know.
This tells us the higher altitudes have plenty of energy to absorb. Hence, we know emission = absor.ption. It can’t be more or less without violating Kirchhoff’s Law. Basic math.
The radiance keeps dropping as the air gets colder and thinner. It’s not a hole. It’s a reduction in emissivity. There’s still plenty of IR passing through from lower/warmer layers. If not, there’d be almost nothing measured in space.
“The radiance keeps dropping as the air gets colder and thinner.”
Gee, finally you agree with what has been plainly obvious.
“Its not a hole. Its a reduction in emissivity.”
Ugggh, no.
This is quite simple: emissivity doesn’t need to change. Because temperature changes. It drops a lot, to 220 K. And EMISSION depends on T^4.
“Theres still plenty of IR passing through from lower/warmer layers. If not, thered be almost nothing measured in space.”
Yes, outside the CO2 and H2O bands, the atmosphere is mostly transparent.
I don’t see why you are having so much trouble with this.
Nate spews more denial: “This is quite simple: emissivity doesnt need to change. Because temperature changes. It drops a lot, to 220 K. And EMISSION depends on T^4.”
Emissivity is not T^4 for a gas. It’s a combination of temperature and the density of radiating gases. Why am I not surprised your understanding is so poor.
“Yes, outside the CO2 and H2O bands, the atmosphere is mostly transparent.”
And even within the CO2 bands there are insufficient quantities to absorb all the IR radiating upwards from lower in the atmosphere.
This is not difficult yet Nate seems unable to understand even the simplest concepts.
“Emissivity is not T^4 for a gas.”
Again for the perpetually confused, emissivity is a unitless parameter, e, between 0 and 1. It is not emission, nor emitted flux.
Absor.ptivity is also a unitless parameter
a, between 0 and 1 and equal to e by Kirchhoff.
It is not absor.bed flux.
Only emitted flux is proportional to T^4.
Richard, of course density matters. But as you agree, there will be layers in the atmosphere which contain enough CO2 molecules to abs.orb 100 % at the CO2 wavelengths.
The are opaque, and a = 1 = e at those wavelengths.
But emitted flux upward from such a layer will be e*sigma*T^4.
If T is colder than the surface, it will emit less than the surface at the CO2 wavelengths.
Finally the highest such layer emits with T=220K. Much less that the 288 K of the surface.
While for other wavelengths the atmosphere can be transparent, will have a BB spectrum matching the surface T.
Once again Nate goes back to talking about generalities when I’ve been discussing the specific circumstances of the atmosphere.
We know that two adjacent layers of the atmosphere will emit and absorb Upward-IR around the 15 mm frequency based on their temperature and number of CO2 molecules. We also know that both of these values decrease as you move upward. Simple, long verified facts.
This tells us that there will be more U-IR absorbed and emitted by the lower layers of the atmosphere. Hence, as we move upward there’s more U-IR available to all the layers than they will be able to absorb. Some of the U-IR must bypass the next layer above it. This continues as we move upward.
This means the percentage of U-IR that cannot be absorbed increases at each layer. More and more of the upward flux bypasses each higher layer.
This simple fact based reality tells anyone not in denial of basic science that emissivity = absor.ptivity for every layer of the atmosphere above the atmospheric boundary layer.
Of course, this also explains the Modtran results. There is no “hole”, there are simply changes due to very basic physics.
“back to talking about generalities”
Not at all, Richard. I gave you specific, pertinent details, such as the equations that apply, the values that go in to them, and why those are the values.
I suggest you quote me and point out what, specifically, you disagree with, and why.
Your last post is hand-waving with no values, no equations, no real physics.
Nate complains: “Your last post is hand-waving with no values”.
I provided you basic inequalities that provide 100% of what you need to understand the science (A>B, B>C => A>C). It’s actually very simple math. Feel free to continue denying easy math because no one will hold your hand.
For anyone else interested, I have demonstrated that the flow of energy upward through the atmosphere is independent of CO2 concentration. There is only a slight decrease in OLR due to pressure broadening.
When you add in the surface evaporation driven by increasing CO2 levels that drives the high altitude reductions in water vapor, it is obvious that CO2 provides no warming of the atmosphere above very low levels (100-200 ppm).
I don’t see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height. In fact your hand-waving seems always to be trying to make the hole vanish. Nor do you quote me and tell me what specifically you disagree with. Do you disagree with my equations and the values, and why?
Seems that the discussion is over.
Nate persists in denial: “I dont see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height.”
There is no “hole with increasing height”. All you are seeing is a reduction in emissivity due to the the colder/thinner atmosphere. Won’t change no matter how often you repeat your denial.
The CO2 hole in the OLR spectrum is also related to the decreasing emissivity/absor.ptivity as you move higher. Once again the key is the absorbed energy in each layer is passed on to other molecules quickly. As a result the spectrum of emissions change within each layer. Since it gets colder, more energy is move to colder frequencies.
Keep in mind the Earth’s OLR is 240 w/m2. not the surface black body spectrum. If you are comparing to the surface spectrum that doesn’t make any sense. When you just look at total flux, it stays the same.
“There is no hole with increasing height. ”
Only if you forget to open your eyes and look.
“All you are seeing is a reduction in emissivity due to the the colder/thinner atmosphere. Wont change no matter how often you repeat your denial.”
You don’t see it as a contradiction that you try to offer an explanation for a hole that you think does not exist?!
There is a T^4 term SEPARATE FROM emissivity.
Cold affects temperature…rather directly…and a lot more so when it is raised to the fourth power.
Pretty basic and undeniable math.
‘Thinner atmosphere’ yes that affects emissivity only at high altitude where it is much colder, and mainly in the wings of the peak.
It is explained in quantitative detail here. Enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrative_model_of_greenhouse_effect_on_climate_change
Nate repeats his confusion: “You dont see it as a contradiction that you try to offer an explanation for a hole that you think does not exist?!”
A “hole” indicates something is missing. What you see is what you should be expecting. If you’re not expecting a reduction then that’s your problem.
“If youre not expecting a reduction then thats your problem.”
Ok Richard, whatever soothes you. The hole is not a hole, it’s a ‘reduction’.
Nate originally claimed: “My point with showing the deep hole in the OLR spectrum is that it shows that energy has been removed from the outgoing IR.”
Nate also said: “I dont see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height.”
I tried. Obviously, I didn’t get my point through.
Look at the 14-16 micron frequencies at 2, 10 and 50 km. Look at the flux diagram. See any difference? I don’t either. Yet, the radiance changes significantly. There’s no reduction/hole in the flux.
The initial absor.ption occurs below 2 km. The transfer of energy to the rest of the atmosphere occurs there. What we see above there is the spectrum of gases. The claimed OLR hole is simply a difference between a blackbody spectrum and one comprised of gases.
In reality, this spectra change mainly occurs within the first 10 meters. This is where almost all the surface energy is absorbed. Above that level the energy changes are due to the reduction in energy reabsorbed allowing some energy to pass through. The flux remains nearly constant.
Energy is removed at every layer, passed on to other molecules and then reemitted sometime later based on the emissivity of that layer. Because higher layers are thinner/colder, we see a reduction in the width of the CO2 radiance as you go higher.
The outside frequencies pass through thus showing up in the flux values and the OLR measured from space. This is verification of the continued absor.ption/reemission of energy as you move upward in the atmosphere.
So, if your only point was that energy is removed. Yeah, that’s true. It happens immediately and the surface skin and boundary layer continually exchange energy. It doesn’t happen “with increasing height” as you claimed. You were confused by the changes in radiance.
“Look at the 14-16 micron frequencies at 2, 10 and 50 km. ”
Look at the flux diagram. See any difference? I dont either. Yet, the radiance changes significantly. Theres no reduction/hole in the flux.”
As explained, No.
Read the Legend! It clearly is only showing flux for 0 Km, and 100 Km. Nothing in between.
The 0 Km has no hole. The 100 km has a deep hole. It is the OLR flux spectrum.
What happens in between is what you see in the radiance spectrum. There is no hole in it at 1 km, a moderate hole at 5 km, and a deep hole at 20 km.
The hole develops in the cold upper troposphere, for the reasons discussed.
Nate claims: “What happens in between is what you see in the radiance spectrum.”
Nope. It doesn’t include the IR that bypasses the layer. The amount absor.bed would be equal to the radiance. Good old Kirchhoff’s Law. That’s not the total IR.
If what you say is true then Modtran doesn’t provide enough information to prove either one of us right.
Simple logic is all that is needed to see I am right.
“Nope. It doesnt include the IR that bypasses the layer.”
FALSE. Radiance includes transmitted and emitted radiation.
“In radiometry, radiance is the radiant flux emitted, reflected, transmitted or received by a given surface, per unit solid angle per unit projected area.”
“The amount absor.bed would be equal to the radiance. Good old Kirchhoffs Law.”
FALSE.
You seemed to understand Kirchhoff, but now again reverting back to getting it wrong.
Why?
Facts just don’t seem to matter to you.
Near as I can tell from mean outgoing spectra a good deal more than half the spectra effects of CO2 are occurring in the stratosphere and mesosphere As we know CO2 has no definable effect in the stratosphere because it is totally overwhelmed by a gas far rarer than CO2.
So bottom line without a model for CO2 being the keystone gas that properly accounts for where its being absorbed in the atmosphere its just all BS.
Plus you need a model that actually works. Your 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work and here is the proof.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
“Near as I can tell”
Enough said.
Nates physics model is 100% comprised of flapping gums.
Here is the part Nate left out.
“Radiance is used to characterize diffuse emission and reflection of electromagnetic radiation”.
In this case we have specified an altitude. Seems to me the radiance would be emissions from that altitude.
Richard,
As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface. So the radiance spectra must include TRANSMITED radiation.
Oh well, sorry.
Nate says:
”As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface.”
Nate makes the ridiculous claim that the atmosphere cannot absorb heat from the sun or other molecules in the atmosphere and reradiate it back to space in the 8-13 micron wavelengths.
As usual, stalker Bill has no idea what’s going on, but butts in anyway.
Nate claims: “As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface. So the radiance spectra must include TRANSMITED radiation.”
No, it’s a software package and can be anything the programmers want it to be. With that said, let’s assume you are right.
Each layer absorbs IR based on its absor.ptivity (concentration of gases + temperature). It also emits based on them. However, concentrations of various gases change as you move up in the atmosphere. This means you will see a difference in what the gases add to a layer and what they emit from the layer.
Low in the atmosphere you have lots of water vapor. Very little at higher altitudes. As a result the absorp.tion spectrum and emission spectrum probably change.
There is also convection moving energy upward. Not sure one can look at the radiance at any layer and draw conclusions.
“Each layer absorbs IR based on its absor.ptivity (concentration of gases + temperature). It also emits based on them.”
Seems like you will never get Kirchhoff, Richard.
Nate says: “Seems like you will never get Kirchhoff, Richard.”
Your denial of a physical law will continue to be humorous to actual scientists. As long as more energy is radiated upward than any atmospheric layer can absorb, Kirchhoff’s Law will operate as expected.
The only “hole” that exists is within your understanding of the physics of the atmosphere.
“Your denial of a physical law will continue to be humorous to actual scientists.”
Considering that you were unable to produce any source that agrees with your erroneous interpretation of Kirchhoff’s law, this is rather childish, Richard.
Nate says: “you were unable to produce any source that agrees with your erroneous interpretation of Kirchhoffs law”
Wiki agreed with my interpretation. Here it is again:
“For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity.”
“Has anyone bother to try to explain why the S Hemi has a different temmp trend than the N Hemi, or why temperatures trend differently over land than sea?”
People have been trying to explain southern Hemisphere ocean for more than century.
I can’t say that they have made much progress.
The question here is — how much of this is due to the Hunga-Tonga Effect?
My guess is 0.15-0.25C.
The next question is — how long will the HTE last?
If it lasts many more months and coincides with an El Niño, we will see record anomalies.
While Hunga_Tonga could be having some effect, my view has been low Antarctic sea ice is one of the major reasons for warmer anomalies.
The ocean current around Antarctica has also slowed which appears to be reducing the amount of cold, upwelling water. Not sure if this is an effect or the cause. However, the effect on the global temperature appears to be consistent with the level of sea ice.
Let’s make it clear just how low it is.
Based on the 1981-2010 baseline for July 4, it has a z-score of -6.5.
The lowest z-score I could find in a table was -4.0, and it indicated the probability of going under this value as 0.00003.
I would suggest this would need at least 4 more zeros.
Grammie clone throws out a claim of possible effects of the massive HT eruption. Has he any data to support his claim, or is he just attempting to spread denialist information, as usual?
For example, the latest TLS data from NOAA STAR thru February 2023 shows little influence from the HT eruption.
E. Swanson, you must have missed the new rules for trolls. Immature nonsense like “Grammie clone” and “denialist information” won’t pass.
You’re welcome to revise and re-submit.
Grammie clone is using grammie’s claim to authority. Sorry, troll, the post stands. You are still acting like a moron.
Thus the need for rules —
E. Swanson has no respect for reality or science. His link to TLS chart has NO connection to the HTE. He gets to remain ignorant, by his own choice.
Grammie clone should take the time to look at the graph, which shows the very obvious spikes in temperatures after the El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo eruptions. Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is. Perhaps grammie clone has some other data to offer demonstrating his claimed impacts for our edification.
Thats Swanson’s style. Just throw something out there and make a ridiculous claim about it. Like when he wrote an entire paper on how Roy has summertime Arctic temperatures too cold. He didn’t even know Arctic summertime temperature have cooled during the ice retreat.
Grammie clone should take the time to look at the graph, which shows the very obvious spikes in temperatures after the El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo eruptions. Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is.
Perhaps grammie clone has some other data to offer demonstrating his claimed impacts for our edification.
Grammie clone and Hunter, If you don’t like my plot of the NOAA STAR TLS data, you can analyze the data from higher up.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/SSU/SSU_v3.0/SSU_AMSU_ATMS_Monthly_Layer_Temperature/
Have fun!! I hope your programming skills are up to the challenge.
Swanson says:
”Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is.”
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
Don’t play coy Swanson. HT is expected to increase global warming over the 5 years subsequent to the explosion. So that would have the warming effect in place through 2026.
Because E. Swanson is ignorant of the science, he believes everyone else is also as ignorant.
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature. Yet, quoting from his referenced EOS article, we find this:
In other words, not a big deal. That’s so small that it’s only 1/10 this month’s jump in the UAH TLT.
grammid clone chimes in with one of his usual grade school putdowns to cover up his inability to analyze the data I referenced.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature.”
Strawman alert! Swanson looking bad for playing coy is now making up shit. But hey he makes up shit all the time.
”The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years.”
Well I don’t expect it will be exactly .035C the entire 5 years. I didn’t look to see what the range of temperatures would be if they reported any of that or not.
E. Swanson says:
”In other words, not a big deal. Thats so small that its only 1/10 this months jump in the UAH TLT.”
LOL! I think I have been on record suggesting that 3C isn’t that big of a deal.
E. Swanson says:
”grammid clone chimes in with one of his usual grade school putdowns to cover up his inability to analyze the data I referenced.”
Its only a put down when you know its true or you find out later its true. You knew in advance it was true.
And oh I have no idea why you posted that dataset. Was it for a distraction?
Hunter says he has “no idea” why I posted the link to the NOAA STAR Stratosphere data set. I suppose that means he hasn’t been paying attention to the scientific discussion about the effects of the HHTH eruption, which dumped lots of water vapor into the Stratosphere. For example, he apears to have missed this quote from his EOA reference:
Thus grammie clone’s comments claiming that the HHTH eruption is warming the Earth recently. Hunter’s lack of interest is similar to his rejection of my posting of a plot of the NOAA STAR MSU 4/AMSU 9 data, which represents the lower Stratosphere.
Swanson it dumped a lot into the mesosphere also. Typical for you guys to look at one thing and extrapolate.
Hunter, Within 1 1/2 months, most of the water vapor was down to the 20-30 hPa level. It had spread into a narrow band of latitude circling the globe by then.
But, you seem to blame me for grammie clone’s insistence that the HHTH effects would produce warming which has recently appeared in some records. I just want to see some cause-and-effect work pointing to what claim. You, however, seem to grab onto any denialist claim without understanding the scientific support (or lack thereof).
Well the question is whether the greenhouse effect is the same if water vapor or co2 is laying on the ground when it absorbs sunlight or if it absorbs it somewhere up in the atmosphere. Since the theory has never been outlined beyond some vague talk about a hotspot somewhere in the atmosphere one has to wonder.
Sorry, Hunter, the GHG’s effects aren’t about “…water vapor or co2 is laying on the ground when it absorbs sunlight or if it absorbs it somewhere up in the atmosphere.” That you are ignorant does not prove the scientific foundation isn’t well known.
Well if Nate can’t explain the foundation its pretty hard to imagine you could Swanson.
You claim that little influence is shown from the HT eruption when you don’t even know how the atmosphere changes naturally and you can’t give a detailed statistically sensible argument how HT or GHEs would change anything.
Hunter troll, I think my point was that neither grammie clone nor you have provided evidence to support the claim that the HHTH eruption produced a surface warming effect as the result of the massive injection of water vapor high into the Stratosphere. I presented evidence in the form of a plot of the NOAA STAR TLS data, which clearly showed the effects of two large eruptions from sulfate injections, but show little effect from the HHTH eruption. It’s been reported that the HHTH event lofted relatively little sulfate, so my data is unsurprising.
Of course, neither you nor grammie clone have produced any evidence to support grammie clone’s contention, just more empty troll poop to clutter the conversation. Your reference to a model study suggests the effect is rather small. Is there other evidence. if so, where is it?
Clint R said:
”The question here is how much of this is due to the Hunga-Tonga Effect?
My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”
Swanson responds:
”Grammie clone throws out a claim of possible effects of the massive HT eruption. Has he any data to support his claim, or is he just attempting to spread denialist information, as usual?”
Hunter responds to Swanson:
Dont play coy Swanson. HT is expected to increase global warming over the 5 years subsequent to the explosion. So that would have the warming effect in place through 2026. (including a link supporting that from a “Nature” journal.)
To which Swanson responds:
”Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature. Yet, quoting from his referenced EOS article, we find this:
The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years. Thats a large anomaly for a single event, but its not outside the usual level of noise in the climate system, Jenkins said.
In other words, not a big deal. Thats so small that its only 1/10 this months jump in the UAH TLT.”
Well besides Swanson showing his incompetence in math the jump this month was .01 over last month which is 3.5 times smaller than the Nature study model suggests. Swanson builds strawmen like Chevrolet builds cars. Clint said “the question is” and “my guess is” which Swanson promptly turns into an attack of free speech and thought as if Clint was destroying the world. Then he calls my reference to the Nature study as my suggestion that there will be a ”big difference” in global temperature; then he promptly makes of ass of himself by saying “my reference ” suggests a very small amount of warming. . . .which promptly calls into question his sanity. Then he caps it off with a math error worthy of a 3rd grader doing his first multiplication exercise.
And you actually wonder why everybody in here thinks you are an idiot?
Hunter troll, Yes, I missed the comparison of 0.035C increase in average temperature with the 0.38C from this month’s TLT report. I realized after posting that I wasn’t clear, since the 0.38 is just a monthly value referenced to the base period.
Maybe the HHTH volcano’s water vapor is the cause of the record local and global temperatures being reported of late. If so, then that strengthens the case for projections for warming from the continuing increase in CO2. But, you guys are still ignoring the evidence in the graph I posted, which one might think would give some indication of the effects of the HHTH eruption by now.
Perhaps Hunter troll is embarrassed because he is unable to do the math himself, using the other NOAA STAR data I pointed to. That might explain his refusal to speak to the evidence, instead falling back to his usual personal attack.
E. Swanson says:
Maybe the HHTH volcanos water vapor is the cause of the record local and global temperatures being reported of late. If so, then that strengthens the case for projections for warming from the continuing increase in CO2.
—————————
well first let me recognize that you have enough self confidence to admit some mistakes. that still leaves your strawman construction business and your schizophrenic attack on me allegedly one minute championing huge effects from HTE and the next minute claiming my link suggested modest warming over a 5-year span. since i didn’t characterize the size of the effect it was like you saw it as huge when i offered it up one minute then you read it the next and minimized it then posted your schizophrenic take in a single post. and you did essentially the samething to Clint all the while insulting him. then you revert to shrill whine mode about getting an insult in return.
you need to work on your emotional problem. perhaps its dietary.
finally i don’t see the effects of water vapor warming the atmosphere of having much at all in common at all with how co2 does it. so i disagree that if water vapor happens to result in any effcts it does anything for the co2 claims. thinking it does is just another example of how you linearly extrapolate from your 3rd grader radiation model while completely ignoring anything else.
as i have said the 3rd grader radiation model violates 2lot but the ghe does not.
Unfortunately Swanson you haven’t put in the necessary homework to understand the problem.
Sulphur dioxide is a strong light absorber in the UV light ranges. Thus an injection of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere causes surface cooling by blocking the suns rays.
This process can take 3 years as there isn’t hardly any water in the stratosphere to combine with the SO2.
But overtime the SO2 does combine with water and produces sulphuric acid which is a very poor absorber of UV light and the sulphuric acid destroys ozone in the atmosphere letting more light hit the surface thus after the SO2 is absorbed 3 years later it leads to some warming because of the affects on O3. I am sure the Universities have no self interest in describing how long that might cause warming.
Now before you complain researchers don’t understand much about what affects the climate. The official doctrine is aerosols reflect light increasing the albedo but the chemicals like SO2 are not thought to reflect light until they convert to sulphuric acid at which point they start eating ozone which does absorb UV light.
But we do know that the ozone depletion peaked in 2000. Again I am sure Universities have no self interest in investigating this issue either.
Plus the ozone hole was first discovered in 1985, like 3 years after El Chichon eruption that pumped huge amounts of so2 into the stratosphere and resulted in according to your chart resulted in blockage by SO2 for 3 years of not much less magnitude than Pinatubo, both eruptions resulting in ozone depletion that may not have began to reverse for 15 years after its discovery and 9 years after pinatubo.
But I am sure none of this is of any self interest to the universities either.
And there is an area yet to be researched regarding the unexpectedly low SO2 emissions of Hunga Tonga and that is it is a rare undersea explosion that reached the stratosphere and that the SO2 could have been combined with the water immediately. . . .which if so might explain the recent acceleration of stratospheric cooling.
So I am sure Swanson you have all this already figured out and it precisely matches what your daddy told you.
And I suppose
“Have you sobered up?”
“braindead cult idiot”
“worthless willard”
“troll barry ambles along side like Sancho Panza, as they chase them windmills.”
“your keyboard got another case of diarrhea”
are indications of maturity?
And I must have missed Roy’s post on these new rules.
Wow Ant, I’m really impressed!
You went to the trouble of saving my comments to trolls and idiots. I’m flattered.
As impressive as that is, I would be even more impressed if you were interested in the science. For example, can you explain to E. Swanson why his link to TLS has NO connection to HTE?
Take your time. Do some research. Let’s see if you can figure it out.
That would be REALLY impressive.
I’ll take that as a no, as further evidenced by that reply.
So you have no interest in learning science, Ant.
At least you’re an impressive troll.
“My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”
For some, I guess science is just guessing.
Still colder than 2016.
It’s funny how when we’re in El Nino you say “it’s just an El Nino”, meaning you’re acknowledging the effect of ENSO, but once it is history the outlier suddenly becomes the standard for comparison.
Funny how you won’t admit it is still colder than 2016.
Or that AGW seems not to apply for heatsinks/radiators.
Perhaps because you haven’t defined what “it” is.
Do you mean climate? Or do you ENSO variability which is superimposed over climate?
For the former it is meaningless to compare single years, due to the latter.
‘It’ is the current global temperatures. See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
Nate says:
”My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”
For some, I guess science is just guessing.
———————
Well Climate can be predicted for about 10 days in advance. Beyond that its a guess.
Weather, which is not climate, can be predicted about 10 days ahead.
Nate, not predicted – assumed.
Naive “predictions”, based on the past, are right about 85% of the time in temperate regions, out to 5 days or so. At 10 days, a coin toss – 50%.
I’m not aware of any “expert” forecasters who can beat a 12 year old using a pencil and ruler, given historical data.
You may have noticed that hurricane path predictions, made by the “best and brightest”, backed by the finest technology can vary hour to hour.
Chaos in action (quantum mechanics if you prefer).
“Chaos in action (quantum mechanics if you prefer).”
Tee hee hee!
Science is all about making a guess and then trying to prove the guess wrong.
Well its really not about guessing if you follow the scientific method. . . .but the truth is the scientific method has never been the most popular pastime of scientists. I think accountants were like that before somebody decided that they needed to be disciplined.
Ken,
I agree.
Quote from Richard Feynman address transcript –
“.In general, we look for a new law by the following process; first, we guess it Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what it would imply. Then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. We compare directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesnt make a difference how beautiful your guess is, to doesnt make a difference how smart you are or what his name is, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.”
As you might be aware, GHE supporters cannot even describe the GHE in sufficient detail for anyone to even hazard a guess about it, if you accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that the present surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day.
No “description” of the GHE acknowledges either fact.
Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. A final Feynman quote –
“Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”
Chaos theory can also lead to absurd results where the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. Feynman came to the same conclusion in regard to the atmosphere – just using quantum mechanical theory.
Who to believe? Richard Feynman, or a confused pack of delusional SkyDragon cultists who can’t even describe what they want you to accept! Hard choice for some – I choose Feynman.
Your guesses don’t agree with the data
“the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that the present surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day.”
Nope, not true, so put it where Feynman says.
In the circular file.
Yeah well its all speculation one way or the other as no evidence exists either way.
Even the main propagandist for the scam originally neglected to put an imbalance in his estimates and recorded the budget just as specified by Swenson. His next addition tried to patch up the oversight but of course it was based on model output rather than observation.
If Alaska was a precursor or canary for warming then surely that its freezing here must be an omen. Im still having to have a morning fire in the wood stove. Its so cold it feels like the ice age has come.
darwin…I keep reminding anyone who will listen that as long as the Earth has its current axial tilt, and follows the same orbital path, the Arctic will be seriously cold each year. When you have no sunlight part of the year, it gets cold, really cold.
Never lived in Alaska but I hear on the Arctic Ocean by where the Mackenzie River meets the ocean, the average temperatures get not much higher than 5C in summer.
When explorers from Europe tried to find the NW Passage in the summer, in the years around 1850, they simply could not sail far before encountering ice that blocked them. Although it’s warmer today, due to unpredictable ice floes, it’s still not possible to get through much of the time in summer.
A Twitter Debate on Clintels IPCC AR6 Critique
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/04/a-twitter-debate-on-clintels-ipcc-ar6-critique/
The 4m and 5m lagged ENSO anomalies are -0.46 and -0.71 respectively so 2023/06 was still under the La Nina influence. My expectation was 0.18 C. I missed by -0.20 C. Last month I missed by -0.19 C. Over the last 12 months my model has been biased by about -0.10 C. I’m still not expecting a new record this year. My expectation for 2023 is 0.29 +/- 0.08 which is well below the 0.39 C record from 2016.
Sorry you got it so wrong, bdgwx. Not everyone did…
Clint R says:
June 23, 2023 at 2:15 PM
The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasn’t ended yet. We’re in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Niño builds.
Clint R says:
June 28, 2023 at 8:53 PM
The June UAH results come out next week. With the continuing HTE and the now-forming El Niño, a high Global anomaly should be expected. Certainly above 0.30C, and even above 0.40C wouldn’t be a surprise.
Science always wins over cult beliefs.
If the HTE holds, and the EN continues to build, 2023 will be a record year. The funny thing is that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.
Understanding past mean changes to the east-west asymmetry is directly relevant to understanding tropical Pacific mean state changes under future warming. Virtually all climate models project a pronounced warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific relative to the western equatorial Pacific. However, these projections fly against recently observed trends that show the opposite to have occurred during the last decades, suggesting that the model projections may be in error. This potential error has strong implications for future regional projections of climate. Like interannual El Nio, multidecadal to multicentennial changes in sea surface temperatures (SST) in the tropical Pacific that mirror the ENSO pattern can lead to changes to regional climates throughout the globe mediated through atmospheric teleconnections. Paleoproxy information that documents changes to the tropical Pacific mean climate, in particular its east-west asymmetry, can provide a valuable perspective on this problem.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00882-7
Forecast.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/08/1000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-145.09,0.50,490
”Our findings highlight the prominent role of abrupt shifts in zonal SST gradients on multidecadal to multicentennial timescales in shaping the tropical Pacific hydrology of the last millennium, and demonstrate that a marked transition in the tropical Pacific mean state can occur within a period of a few decades.”
Hmmm, robust multi-decadal and multi-centennial climate shifts. Yet another piece of science that cautions strongly against natural climate change occurring over long periods of time. . . .this study suggests 270 years for one such shift to play out. Lets see 1900 plus 270 years equals the year 2170. We could be in store for a lot of additional warming.
Am I correct in thinking that during a negative PDO, El Ninos bring COOLER temps to the US – I’m sure I read that (that they only raise US temps during a positive PDO). So we are likely to see descending temps across the US anytime soon, yes?
Strong temperature drop in the North Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_atl_1.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/07/0300Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=8.68,60.39,490
My guess was wrong by .13 C
“Clint R says:
June 28, 2023 at 8:53 PM
…”Certainly above 0.30C, and even above 0.40C wouldnt be a surprise.”
Was closer. He was not surprised. Nor was I.
The Atlantic hurricane is about month old, and haven’t had much activity- they predicted normal hurricane activity, which also seems
to be the case.
Could the warmer June prevented more hurricane activity?
Or is too soon to say anything about it?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I was having problems posting anything- but that worked, so still watching the sun. In terms my history wildly predicting solar activity- June was lower than I had been guessing for months, but had about the right amount of sunspots in regards my guessing. And I though July would also have higher activity and more sunspots- I currently not very confident about that. I think July will go sideways and down significant from June sunspot number. In terms of others who might count themselves as “experts”:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
03 July – 29 July 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
levels throughout the forecast period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 03-06 Jul and 14-29 Jul due to CH
HSS influence.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach unsettled levels on
04-05 Jul, unsettled to active levels on 09-10 Jul with G1-G2
(Minor-Moderate) levels likely on 12-13 Jul due to recurrent CH HSS
activity. Quiet to unsettled levels are expected on 14-29 Jul.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/04/solar-activity-solar-cycle-25-surpasses-cycle-24/
Yes. So, graph has two, one going flat for about 1 year.
And one going up and falling for about 1 year.
My guess was June and July would be highest spots and activity,
and be dropping by August and be crashing down before end of 2023.
And I don’t see much difference between either of two or my guess in terms of whether there is Solar Grand Min. Though what is said is:
“which means there are ample opportunities over the next three years to surpass this months 20-year record. ”
As I don’t it’s going to continue for 3 years- and might last for year rather than 6 months.
But not say solar 25 is gone in 6 months, but going lower and stay lower for 2 to 3 years.
Or it’s many years rather than many months which “count”.
Daily Sun: 05 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 388.6 km/sec
density: 9.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.44×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Below Average
The much discussed 3354 sunspot is going to farside
and can see spot coming from farside- it seems spot number will
lower a bit next couple days
Daily Sun: 06 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 459.3 km/sec
density: 10.38 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.24×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.6% Below Average
“BIG SUNSPOT ALERT: A new and apparently large sunspot is emerging over the sun’s southeastern limb,”
The big spot will keep sunspot number higher for a week or more.
Daily Sun: 07 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 472.6 km/sec
density: 10.32 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 149
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
“Sunspot AR3363 is very large, but so far very quiet. It has not produced a significant flare since it appeared two days ago.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.6% Below Average
Sunspot number is keeping high and could maintain or increase more
in next week, but unless the sun gets much more active, it would not match my guess I made months ago. Of course, still some time in which it could get more active.
But so far the sun in 25 Solar Max hasn’t been active enough to significantly reduce GCR hitting Earth or Mars. But if my guess was correct, it still wouldn’t have lower the GCR, enough {as compared to when we were in the Solar Grand Maximum during solar Max}.
Daily Sun: 08 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 422.4 km/sec
density: 5.64 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 167
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.19×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.6% Below Average
At this point, I am just going to say my guess was
correct- despite the low activity. Because sunspots
were what we been counting and I just assume more spots
is higher activity.
But my interest in matter has been about cosmic rays.
We have records of this, but in terms of periods time as short
as a few years {rather than decades]- and I simple don’t know enough
about it- and not sure how much there is to know about it.
It seems what ParKer Solar Probe doing and the other solar missions will be doing is the best pathway towards predicting this.
I had tried to post about this:
Solar Activity: Solar Cycle 25 Surpasses Cycle 24
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/04/solar-activity-solar-cycle-25-surpasses-cycle-24/
Which generally I think is overstating things- but see if posts
So predicting July, August and etc for many months going very high.
And claims no grand solar min.
It seems to me than grand solar min is still likely
Pay attention to the comments.
Ok, I will start, here:
“My hypothesis is that solar activity affects temperature also by a different mechanism, changing the amount of heat transported to the Arctic in winter. As that heat exists the planet through outgoing longwave radiation, transporting more leads to an energy content decrease in the climate system, while transporting less leads to an energy content increase in the climate system. As this effect on the energy budget is cumulative, it leads to important changes when solar activity deviates from average for a long period of time. Over the LIA it led to cooling, in the 20th century the Modern Solar Maximum led to warming.”
Well, energy content in the system is the 3.5 C average temperature of the ocean.
I agree with NASA, more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
But humans or “we” talk mostly about the weather.
Is weather going to transport more heat to Arctic- probably- though we probably aren’t measuring very well, whether it can measured would my concern. But are going to get less polar sea ice in summer.
I don’t think it’s going to be ice free within 10 years.
Willis Eschenbach doesn’t trust models, the reply:
“Javier | July 5, 2023 at 4:20 am | Reply
Your opinion over models is just opinion. For non-experimental sciences, models are invaluable to increase knowledge. A lot of knowledge on climate has been gained through the use of models. Thinking that anything that comes out of models is tainted is not a very scientific stance.”
If models are related to increased knowledge- we are doomed, as they are getting worse.
Ah,
” Ireneusz Palmowski | July 5, 2023 at 2:56 am | Reply
I remind you that 2009 was the year of the lowest solar activity in many years.
https://i.ibb.co/xJPpnkz/onlinequery.gif
This means that much of North America and Europe could be frozen in one winter.
Impact of the 2009 major sudden stratospheric warming on the composition of the stratosphere
Comparing simulations with and without mixing, we find that after SSW, polar air transport increases, not only through the vortex edge, but also through the subtropical transport barrier. Moreover, the SSW event at the same time accelerates the polar descent and tropical ascent of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Accelerated ascent in the tropics and descent in high latitudes first occurs in the upper stratosphere and then propagates downward into the lower stratosphere. This downward propagation takes more than 1 month from a potential temperature level of 1000 to 400 K.”
So, does this have anything to do Jan solar activity – “more than a month”
I will keep reading the comments, but got to get more coffee and doing other important things, it will take a while.
So during little Ice Age people in northern hemisphere were colder- and they get more sunburns?
Appears that UAH agrees with the surface instruments that June 2023 was the warmest June on record. Looks to be about the 18th warmest (anomaly) month on record.
Since records began. Maybe.
It’s very possible the upcoming months will make new records also. It will be interesting to see how long this HTE lasts.
One thing that will be interesting is how Earth will respond to the unprecedented warming. Will there be much more clouds? Much more rain? The funny one would be if the oceans ejected large amounts of CO2 to increase cooling!
We get to watch what happens.
robert…as you know, we have to be wary of records. Many so-called records have a baseline of 1960 because the alarmists don’t want to allow the heat records and heat wave records of the 1930s into the mix.
You are obviously correct, however, a quick look at the UAH record above shows many months where temps were in excess of the current June.
Also, it has not been till recently that accurate global records have been kept. We have to idea literally what took place in the past.
“Many so-called records have a baseline of 1960 because the alarmists don’t want to allow the heat records and heat wave records of the 1930s into the mix.”
Abject nonsense. There is no official temperature record with a baseline set to 1960.
The choice of baseline has virtually zero bearing on monthly anomalies. The records you are referring to are the maximum temperatures for Summers set in the mid 1930s.
1934 and 1936 still have the highest Summertime maximums in the US temperature record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/8/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2022&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2023
Gordon, you can change the baseline at that link to whatever you want and observe that Summertime maximum records remain unchanged. Perhaps you will finally learn something about baselines.
Here is the same chart of Summertime maxima with the baseline set at 1960.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/8/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1960&endbaseyear=1960&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2023
Clint R says:
July 5, 2023 at 3:24 PM
” The funny one would be if the oceans ejected large amounts of CO2 to increase cooling! ”
Perfect antiscience.
If an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere increases cooling then an increase of H2O in the same atmosphere correspondingly should increase much more cooling, as H2O’s IR absorp tion and emission effect is about ten times higher than CO2’s.
Since Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai pumped gigantic amounts of H2O up into the stratosphere, we therefore should expect drastic cooling, according to Clint R.
*
What sheer nonsense: the contrary happens, according to the same trash author:
Clint R says:
June 23, 2023 at 2:15 PM
” The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasn’t ended yet. We’re in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Nino builds. ”
*
Pseudoskeptics like Clint R intentionally distort the effect of ALL IR sensitive gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O etc, which is to absorb IR emitted by Earth and to reemit it in all directions, reducing the amount of IR reaching outer space.
Binny,
Couple of points. Argon “absorbs and emits IR” quite nicely, and composes more that 9000 ppm of the atmosphere. “Surprisingly and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air, pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal . . . ” Allmendinger – research paper -International Journal of Physical Sciences.
Experiment, not “expert opinion” founded on fantasy.
As to the atmosphere “reducing the amount of IR reaching outer space”, you are confused. The rate at which energy is lost varies, affecting both the speed of cooling, and the minimum temperature, but the temperature still falls. No heating. For example, the less the amount of GHGs, the faster the temperature falls. But fall it does, at night.
And the reverse applies during the day – the surface heats faster, and to higher temperatures, when the least amount of GHGs are present.
The surface still heats during the day, and cools during the night (losing all the heat of the day of course, as Fourier and others have pointed out). The presence of an atmosphere merely decreases the diurnal variation. Good for some who don’t like extremes, bad for those who do.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE which reflects reality yet? No? I didn’t think so. You might as well fly off at a tangent, and go full Nazi or something.
“And the reverse applies during the day the surface heats faster, and to higher temperatures, when the least amount of GHGs are present.”
No (or at least mostly wrong). Consider a simple (and reasonably good) analogy of a tank of water. The pressure at the bottom is analogous to temperature. If you put a big hole near the bottom, water escapes quickly (like no GHGs allowing heat to escape quickly at night). If you reduce the hole, the water escapes more slowly (like adding more GHGs). This agrees exactly with your conclusion at night. [And I will note, the average depth will be greater with the smaller hole.]
The analogy during the day would be a hose adding water to the tank and refilling it. But the smaller leak still helps retain water (like GHGs still help retain heat).
[There are other factors involved with climate, like clouds and evaporation, that limit the scope of the analogy, but GHGs ALWAYS limit the outflow — not just at night.)
PS The only “Allmendinger” I can find is a geologist at Cornell (primarily studying tectonics and faults, not climate and IR spectroscopy). I would be interested to know what publication he has that claims argon is a goo absorber of IR.
Bindidon, you’re trolling again. You don’t understand any of this. Take 30 days off (refrain from commenting here), come back and behave as a responsible adult and I’ll try to teach you some science.
As usual, Clint R has nothing to say.
And as usual too, Flynnson says something absolutely wrong:
” Argon ‘absorbs and emits IR’ quite nicely… ”
The absorp tion / emission wavelength is 1.9 micron:
– far away from the far-IR wavelength band which matters;
– but its intensity is so inert to such an extent that it is even not present in the HITRAN2020 database.
*
I know of this Thomas Allmendinger guy since quite a long time.
One just needs to find in one of his papers ‘refuting’ GHE
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.pdf
places showing his thorough incompetence, like this
” The first error consists in the assumption that the Earth radiates on its total spherical surface exhibiting an area of 4πR2, i.e., also on the half side which is turned away from the solar insolation, while for its absorp-tion solely the half side which is turned towards the solar insolation is taken into account. ”
or this
” The second error is related to the first one. It consists in the
assumption of a disc profile instead of a hemisphere. The latter
one exhibits an entirely different temperature distribution, due to
the different solar radiation intensity which is given by the cosine-
function of the incident radiation angle… ”
and immediately understands that the rest will be of similar level.
What a primitive idiocy!
Flynnson’s rest – including of course ‘… and go full Nazi or something.’ is as ignorant as usual.
What a dumb ass!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507352
Someone said –
“For non-experimental sciences, models are invaluable to increase knowledge.”
There are no none-experimental sciences, if you agree with Richard Feynman’s view “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.”
No experiments – no science. Just speculation versus speculation.
As to the GHE – nobody can even describe what it’s supposed to do!
Solar cycle 25 in proper context
https://i.postimg.cc/wT6LbSz1/Deu-AH-4-VMAAl-BDd.jpg
tim s and several others…
“The gauge measures vacuum from a source. Period. It is simple. It does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere”.
***
The Pirani gauge is a simple instrument that directly compares the level of heat dissipation from a heated filament in a vacuum to the heat dissipation when a gas replaces the vacuum.
The gauge does not measure a vacuum, it has no means of measuring a vacuum. It can detect a vacuum simply by indicating a pre-determined level of radiation in a tube, which indicates little or no conduction/convection is taking place.
Shula has told us radiation alone in an evacuated tube causes heat to dissipate very slowly. The moment a gas is introduced, the heat disappears quickly. That’s the point, Conduction/convection is 250 times better at dissipating heat from any surface. We have been told the opposite by climate alarmists.
“Conduction/convection is 250 times better at dissipating heat from any surface. ”
First of all, his calculations have some problems.
But beyond this, the value depends critically on the situation. Heat dissipation by radiation can vary by a factor of ~ 50 depending on the emissivity. Conduction depends on the type and pressure of gas. Even the arrangement makes a difference. For example, the Pirani gage should be mounted horizontally for best results. As another example, if you put a panel heater flat on the floor of a room, conduction/convection will be strong. If you put the same heater on the ceiling, conduction/convection will be almost nil and most of the loss will be by radiation.
Imagining that “250” is some sort of constant for “any surface” is just silly. Imagining that a filament in tiny tube is a good analogy for the earth and its atmosphere is further silliness.
Timmy,
Have you found a description of the GHE yet? One you can pass on, of course, without any worry about infringing someone’s intellectual property, or any similar nonsensical reasons for keeping it secret.
I’m only asking you for it because I don’t believe you (or any of the other idiots) have a description of the GHE which agrees with reality. Go on, give it your best shot, and I’ll do my best to make you look stupid. Of course, if I can’t find anything wrong with your description, then I’ll look pretty pathetic, won’t I?
How can a smart fellow like you wind up looking stupid?
By the way, you might let everybody know what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is fully submerged in water. Tell everyone that the photons are absorbed by the water, which promptly cools as a result. Did I get that right, or should the water get hotter after it absorbs the energy from the ice?
Only joking – you don’t understand any of this, do you? You can’t even describe the GHE!
What a fool you are.
Tim, the 250 doesn’t come from a calculation but from a current reading through a Wheatstone bridge. It’s the ratio of the current required in a vacuum to compensate for heat dissipation via radiation to the current required with a gas to do the same.
It’s actually a measure of the effectiveness of heat dissipation by a gas to heat dissipation by radiation alone in a vacuum.
A factor of 50 for a value of 0.4 is 0.6. It’s still a very small value compared to 99.6, which represents the conduction/convection.
Indeed emissivity is much lower for polished metal in the Pirani gauge, than the Earth’s surface.
A factor of 50 changes the ratio of 250 into 5!
The ratio of 250 has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
Again, there are factors that make this VERY different from the earth.
* the filament is typically coated with gold, making the emissivity very small, minimizing the radiative heat loss. This could easily reduce loses by a factor of 10x or 20x. A high emissivity surface like the earth could easily would have radiative loses more like 5% to 10%. (It seems the walls are also polished metal, reducing radiative loses further).
* the surroundings are room temperature walls (not cool clouds or cold outer space). This limits the radiative loses.
* I disagree with some here, but I think convection will be LARGE. There is a gradient of many degrees from the hot filament to the cooler walls. I see nothing to limit convection within this device.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Here is an actual weather condition to contemplate — a temperature inversion. Then there is NO loss of heat from the surface by convection/conduction — ALL of the loss is radiation (and maybe a bit of latent heat). That is a clear example for the real earth where radiation dominates, not a specialized device where conduction/convection dominates.
“conduction/convection dominates”
heatsinks/radiators in computers and analogue electronics also.
TF wrote:
I previously suggested that convection would be suppressed in the Pirani Gauge compared with the open atmosphere where natural convection occurs.
Convection requires that the gas move between the hot source and some cool sink. The small distance between the wire and the walls of the tube and the fact that the walls of the tube would likely be the nearly the same at top and bottom would combine to minimize the formation of convection “cells” within the tube. Without such motion of the gas, there could be no convection heat transfer, only conduction across the small gap.
Are you really saying that conduction in a gas is the difference measured in the gauge?
“A factor of 50 for a value of 0.4 is 0.6.”
No, a factor of 50 for 0.4 is 20!
I read that as 50%. If so, his maths is correct. If we are taking about ratios, yours is.
“If so, his maths is correct.”
But not so.
tim…another point. The selling point for me in Shula’s presentation was how long it took for a heated filament in a vacuum to cool. He claimed it took a long time but when a gas was introduced it cooled very quickly.
Come on over to our side, Tim, we need another good skeptic.
“we need another good skeptic.”
I am a skeptic! In this case I am skeptical that an unreviewed analysis of a vacuum gauge by some random guy on the internet somehow negates reviewed scientific research about the actual earth.
I am skeptical that a device specifically designed to limit thermal radiation somehow proves that thermal radiation in general is not important.
And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.
“Typically, chrome radiators and chrome heated towel rails emit between 20 and 30% less heat than radiators with paint finishes”
That probably makes the emissivity vary from close to 0 to close to 1, chrome to paint. But the heat loss only varies by 30%! How is that possible?
“And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.”
As am I! With typical room temperatures, thermal radiation is almost certainly smaller in typical situations. I don’t think anyone has disputed that – certainly not me.
Using your numbers for radiators, that means radiation is 20-30% of the heat loss. The difference in emissivity is not as great as zero to one, so that bumps up the relative heat loss by radiation. Now we are at least in the right ball park relative to typical energy budgets for earthy. Certainly closer than the “0.4%” from the Pirani gauge analysis.
Also, intuition about “room temperature” can lead you astray for the earth. A radiator is surrounded by a “room temperature” room. The earth is surrounded by 2.7 K outer space. This greatly changes the effectiveness of radiation losses for earth. Around 2/3 of the radiation loss from the surface is to space, not to the ‘room temperature’ atmosphere and clouds.
“The earth is surrounded by 2.7 K outer space”
The Earth’s surface is surrounded by an atmosphere, not space. The Earth’s atmosphere is surrounded by space.
I am glad that you admit that SB is not as simple as the IPCC says it is.
In fact the temperature difference between the Earth’s surface and the tropopause is a more than 100C!
I was just pointing out that emissivity can cover a lot of errors in SB usage.
“The difference in emissivity is not as great as zero to one”
Well polished metal (such as chrome finishes) is close to 0. Paint (at IR frequencies) is at least 0.9 if not 1 (“Most paints have an emissivity of about 0.9 to 0.95”).
“Chrome has an emissivity of 0.04 while black paint emits radiant heat at a rate of 0.95.”
“Quick question:
Two identical cars are sitting in the sun in a parking lot for four hours in the summer. One car has a black bumper, the other, a chrome bumper. Which one is hotter?”
https://www.savenrg.com/efactorfacts.htm
“The Earth’s surface is surrounded by an atmosphere, not space.”
Actually … when considering thermal radiation, the earth *is* ‘surrounded by space’ — at least for some wavelengths. For the ‘atmospheric window’, the correct temperature is indeed 2.7 K (or very close to it). For other wavelengths, the temperature can be considered the temperature of the atmosphere nearby. That is why IR thermometers measure the wrong temperature (too low) for the atmosphere. They are partially measuring the local air and partially measuring the 2.7 K background radiation and giving an appropriately weighted average of the two.
“I am glad that you admit that SB is not as simple as the IPCC says it is.”
Or perhaps thermal radiation is not as simple as you project onto the IPCC. Nothing in your discussion says IPCC is wrong about anything.
“In fact the temperature difference between the Earths surface and the tropopause is a more than 100C!”
While this is true (or a bit less than 100 C typically), I am not sure why you think this is relevant here. The ~ 200 K temperature of the tropopause is not really relevant to either convection or radiation from the surface.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, a simple breeze will create more cooling than radiation will add warmth.
“The ~200 K temperature of the tropopause is not really relevant to either convection or radiation from the surface.”
Convection will increase with a temperature difference!
RLH,
From your link –
“Reality: The chrome bumper, tools and seat belt buckles are MUCH hotter (over time), than an identical surface painted black. Why? Emissivity.”
Relative reality only. Hotter to touch, but same maximum temperature . Depending on exposure time, the chrome may actually be cooler when measured with a suitable thermometer.
An example of feeling versus reality, is the feeling that your furlined slippers are somehow “warmer” than the cold stone floor they have been sitting on all night. The slippers are exactly the same temperature as the floor, but I know which one feels warmer!
Measure the temperature of your hot seat belt buckle, and the seat belt webbing, and don’t be surprised if they are exactly the same temperature.
All very tricky, subjective temperature measurements.
For once I agree with Swenson, who made good points.
Simplistic and wrong arguments such as the Pirani Gauge give climate change believers (I love when people say they “believe” the science) a chance to claim that skeptics are simple minded, and probably some are. The only skeptical argument that works to rebut the claim, that the small increase in the total greenhouse effect is causing disaster for the earth, is to point out that the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors in a very complex atmosphere. The climate models are some of the most complex computer simulations ever developed, and they still fall short of a “consensus” with a very wide spread of results. That is the point. There is no clear answer on the future of climate, and simple minded arguments do NOT make the case for anyone on any “side”.
The argument is indeed simple, though not necessarily wrong, it’s that the consensus science might just have the numbers wrong for conduction and convection, as basic human experience indicates (it’s far from only being the Pirani gauge). I’m not sure how anyone on that side of the fence can be sure that the numbers are correct when not one of them so far has been able to explain how they’re estimated. I’m assuming a climate model enters into it.
Earlier, Norman tried to pretend he had a description of the GHE, but he’s refusing to tell anyone what it is.
He wrote – “This is similar to the GHE. As you add GHG they will transmit energy to the surface which slows the cooling rate.”
As you can see, he is claiming he knows that something is “similar” to the GHE. Unfortunately, his GHE only seems to slow the cooling rate – nothing about increasing temperature!
Completely pointless – slow cooling is cooling, and no amount of semantic trickery and evasive tactics can change cooling into heating. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools every night, radiating all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat, as Fourier pointed out.
Norman may not accept facts, but they still exist. This makes Norman an idiot.
Another low from the north is approaching the British Isles. Temperatures will be autumnal, with rain.
The northern polar field appears to have reversed polarity in late March 2023. Solar max normally occurs 0.5-2 years after the first polar field reversal. We can expect solar max for cycle 25 sometime between September 2023 and March 2025.
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
nate….[RLH]Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.
[Nate]I already made this point, which RLH seems to ignore. Every heat transfer problem has its unique properties.
Pirani gauges use polished metal wires. As a result, they emit very little radiation. Conduction is the main heat transfer mode.
***
That’s a new one on me Nate, that each heat transfer problem has its own unique properties. I guess heat has a way of distinguishing one from the other and is able to change its properties to suit.
To back up what Richard said, from my own experience, heat sinks are design largely to conduct heat to the atmosphere by using a number of fins that increase the cross-sectional area of the emitting body. Since most heat sinks are mounted on a metal chassis and surrounded by metal containers it would make little sense to rely on radiation since it won’t penetrate metal, especially grounded metal. A transistor mouted on a metal heat sink can only radiate in the opposite direction to the metal.
The factor that increases the heat dissipation is ambient room temperature. That’s why computer rooms are air conditioned, to lower the air temperature and increases heat dissipation via convection. Newton’s Law of Cooling governs that aspect.
Power transistors mounted on a heat sink use heat sink compounds to increase the thermal conductivity between the transistor base and the metal of the heat sink, usually made of aluminum to conduct heat better. From the transistor base to the heat sink and through the heat sink, the mode of heat transfer is conduction. In fact, the processor on computers is mounted to a heat sink using heat sink compound.
That leaves only one direction for radiation, away from the metal heat sink. If radiation is effective why would they go to so much trouble trying to get heat to flow in the opposite direction through the metal sink?
When the heat reaches the fins of the heat sink it contacts air molecules that dissipate the heat by conduction directly to the air molecules, then convection carries the heated air molecules away. In processors, the heat sinks have a fan that increases convection by forced air. The ultimate means of cooling is either by forced air convection or water-cooled heat sinks to carry off the heat by conduction and convection.
With regard to the Pirani gauge, most metals have a low emissivity anyway. Tungsten has a low emissivity but that does not stop it lighting a room. It should be noted that tungsten lamp filaments operate around 3000C whereas the Pirani filament between 50C and 100C.
I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity. Platinum has a high emissivity. Besides, coating the surface improves its resistance to oxidation. When you run a current through a filament wire it will quickly oxidize if not coated with something.
Gordon Robertson
You have claimed if someone demonstrates you are wrong you will keep and open mind and change your statement.
Well here is a very obvious one so we can put your values to the test.
YOU CLAIM: “I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity. Platinum has a high emissivity. Besides, coating the surface improves its resistance to oxidation. When you run a current through a filament wire it will quickly oxidize if not coated with something.”
That is wrong!
Here is the evidence:
https://www.transmetra.ch/images/transmetra_pdf/publikationen_literatur/pyrometrie-thermografie/emissivity_table.pdf
A Platinum filament at low temp has an emissivity of 0.036.
And Platinum does not oxidize in oxygen until a high temperature.
https://technology.matthey.com/article/19/4/135-140/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507557
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity.”
No! The reason to choose very low emissivity material for your Pirani gauge is to greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.
On your heat dissipation with fans.
Here:
https://engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convection.htm
A calculator to determine heat loss via convection with forced air.
Forced air convection can remove heat 10 times faster than radiant energy. Not a mystery and well established science. That does not negate radiant energy. Radiant energy does not go away just because there is a better form of heat removal.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507557
“No! The reason to choose very low emissivity material for your Pirani gauge is to greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.“
Wrong, the reason is:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3713661
“Phil, you don’t seem to understand that the emissivity of the sensor is irrelevant, because the radiative loss in the Pirani gauge is a constant, not a variable. A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.“
You say:
“Forced air convection can remove heat 10 times faster than radiant energy. Not a mystery and well established science.”
If so, why are these the reported figures for AGW:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Table 2b.
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
Herb, you were actually supporting Norm’s claim!
“greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.”
and
“to improve the sensitivity/SNR”
are the same thing! The larger the (constant) radiant heat lost, the lower the sensitivity — particularly when pressure is low.
It is not done so “conduction can dominate”.
The second point I made is 250 times more important than the first, in any case. I will assume that is why you have ignored it.
If the Pirani gauge argument does nothing more than alert people to the fact that the official AGW-approved numbers for conduction/convection vs. radiation are obviously not correct, then it will have been worth it.
“the official AGW-approved numbers for conduction/convection vs. radiation are obviously not correct”
Agreed.
“It is not done so “conduction can dominate”.”
Yes, I am pretty sure that is the reason for low emissivity in the Pirani gauge. If emissivity was higher, radiation would be greater, and conduction would not ‘dominate’ until higher pressures. Ie the gauge would not be able to accurately measure low pressures.
As to the second point, I am not sure you have a point. Forced air convection can remove heat better than radiation in many cases, as Norman claimed. Even natural convection can remove heat better in many cases.
But that does not guarantee convection removes heat better in all cases. In some cases, radiation is actually better. Having convection be 3x or 4x better in some circumstances does not preclude radiation being 3x or 4x better in others. You have not made your case yet that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~ 20 W/m^2 for convection are wrong for the earth.
So what reasons do you have for believing that radiation trumps convection and evaporation (to the extent that the IPCC does) for standard Earth’s surface conditions of wind and relative humidity between air and surface?
Conduction doesn’t need to dominate for the gauge to measure anything. It’s just what the gauge tends to show. That conduction/convection dominates.
How about AGW enthusiasts make their case that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~20 W/m^2 for conduction/convection are right for the Earth? I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s right when all human experience tells us that even the slightest breeze can have a much greater cooling effect than radiation.
I can see already, though, that anything to do with AGW must not be questioned. Funny, I thought this was a skeptic site.
“I thought this was a skeptic site”
With a lot of AGW proponents who try to dominate the conversation.
“How about AGW enthusiasts make their case that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~20 W/m^2 for conduction/convection are right for the Earth? ”
Read Trenberth’s papers that summarize the energy flows. (you could start here: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/9/jcli-d-13-00294.1.xml) Then read the papers that are referenced for more details. If you don’t understand, study the basic science behind the papers. If you disagree, contact the authors with your suggested corrections.
There is no easier way to ‘make the case’ to you. There is no one-paragraph explanation. If you don’t think scientists are right, you need to do the hard work of understanding the details yourself.
“Conduction doesnt need to dominate for the gauge to measure anything. Its just what the gauge tends to show. That conduction/convection dominates.”
When radiation dominates, then the heat flow is fixed at the values from radiation. This mean you have no idea what the pressure is other than “too small to accurately measure”.
The gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates! In other words, the relative magnitude of convection vs radiation clearly depend critically on the experimental set-up. Different sizes, shapes, emissivities, pressures, gases, etc will impact how convection and radiation compare.
The amount of radiation in the gauge is fixed, not variable.
No, there is nothing in that paper on how the values for conduction/convection were estimated.
Timmy,
You wrote –
“The gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates!”
Well gee, surprise! surprise!
That came as a shock to you, did it?
Actually, electrons absorbing and emitting photons is all there is. Conduction, convection, advection, etc., are just handy shorthand for everyday use.
Maybe you could waste your time attempting the impossible – describe the GHE in in a way that reflects reality. Or you could stick to trying to convince people how clever you are, I suppose.
How you waste your time is your affair.
Carry on.
Herb, this link might be more direct for answering your question.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.pdf
But, the basic answer still stands. You can accept what the experts say. You can become an expert yourself. Or you can question science for no particular reason. Those are basically the only three choices.
No mention of conduction in that one, either. One mention of convection, but it didn’t lead to anything explanatory.
TF: What do the experts say about domestic radiators? Especially in chrome finish.
The ratio between natural (calm conditions) and forced (windy conditions) can be as much as 10 times or more.
And that is just for convection. Evaporation adds another factor to be considered.
SOI is marching upwards
https://i.postimg.cc/Jhz7GYJT/canvas.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=spac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
In there got a disturbance has 70% chance of tropical depression:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
That graphic makes me wonder how strong hurricane it might be.
But graphic doesn’t seem like strong El Nino is developing. But should cause rain in far East.
This is obviously not a circulation typical of El Nino, rather La Nina.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=wpac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Oh, I wasn’t paying much attention- I thought posters here were saying we are going into an El Nino.
It hasn’t been very warm where I live- though it’s the hottest region in the world- and it’s summer. It’s not cold, though it’s bit too cool at night, but haven’t needed use heating for more than a month and do use air conditioner during the day when it’s hotter.
Anyways would it warmer, here, if it was an El Nino?
Or would prevent it from snowing in the winter?
The snow on hills {it didn’t snow here, this year} melted over month ago- kind of nice scenery, but it apparently too much snow was problems for those living in mountains.
It’s now 90% and got another one at 10%
It hasn’t changed much. Still 90% and 10% went to 20%.
So, the 90% was wrong, but now it might be 90%
The 90% chance, disappeared, and the 20% chance became a 70% chance
of tropical depression.
No, chance in Atlantic side of things.
Kind of like last year- and it picked up, later.
The global average temperature has reached an unofficial record for the third day in a row, measuring 17.18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday.
Give up cookers!
We’re going to see many more records broken in the coming months if the HTE and EN continue to work together. That will result in some REAL global warming, unlike anything CO2 could do.
The interesting thing will be to watch how Earth’s cooling systems work to counter the unprecedented warming (at least in the satellite era). We’ll get to witness some REAL science.
Of course the braindead cult idiots will not learn anything.
“Of course the braindead cult idiots will not learn anything”
!!!!PROJECTION!!!!!PROJECTION!!!
The concept of projection was first described by Sigmund Freud. He argued that the unconscious mind often projects its own unacceptable qualities onto others.
Freud believed that this process occurred when we recognize our own unacceptable qualities in someone else. This can happen because we are unable to accept ourselves for what we really are.
s,
Sigmund Freud? The pseudoscience of psychoanalysis?
No wonder you reject fact in favour of psychobabble. You braindead cult idiots want people to mindlessly believe in something you can’t describe – the GHE!
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the surface does every night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Make sure that your non-existent GHE description agrees with these two facts.
Otherwise, you might have to resort to trolling based on nonsensical pseudoscience.
Carry on!
swenson…I agree that psychoanalysis is pseudo-science. Carl Rogers rated it as no better than no therapy at all.
I think we need to cut some slack for Siggy. His contribution at the time was enormous. Most people before his insight were brain dead, believing they could control their lives through will-power, whatever that means.
He noted that poor souls in mental hospitals who seemed deaf, could hear normally while under hypnosis. That started him on his theory about unconscious processes. Of course, like Bohr, he undid all the good he did initially by insisting on probing into mental disorders as being related to one’s relationship with mother and father. He got far out with the sexual innuendo he brought into it.
All the same, he was the pioneer who got the process rolling. Not sure exactly what psychology has accomplished since but some seem to me more effective than others.
Dr Roy or anyone: The recent bombardment record hot temperatures for the UK (UMMO) and the world (not sure of that source) exactly how much of the eraths surface can the satellite/s? cover in 24 hours. Thanks ever so much
Another hurricane will be blocked west of Mexico.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Tropical ocean Heat engine dominates global climate and it’s a evaporative and convectional engine.
This engine absorbs most of the sunlight reaching Earth.
The rest of the world is control by ocean which has average temperature of 3.5 C.
The average temperature of ocean has basically no effect on the tropics- it’s surface water are always warm and always evaporating.
Though one make argument that the rest of world which is colder draws
that evaporative energy towards it {and does} and in terms of weather
it’s worth talking about, but tropical ocean isn’t particularly altered, it’s more of matter of it going about it’s thing, it’s warming the rest of world, but rest of world isn’t warming or cooling the tropics. Though does cause more driest- or rest of world is why there are deserts in tropics. And these deserts in tropics can have cold night- or deserts aren’t tropical and they have lower average night and day temperature.
So if we weren’t in Ice Age we would far less deserts which includes deserts in the tropical zone.
Or amount deserts earth has depends upon how cold Earth is.
But the tropical heat engine is the tropical ocean- tropical land doesn’t warm the rest of world- whether it’s deserts or forests.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/07/05/simultaneous-sunlight-brightest-moment/5131688580638/
99% of humans about to experience sunlight at same time
On July 8 but at time it will twilight in California
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Also:
“On Dec. 6, roughly 86% of the global population will experience darkness simultaneously with the sun appearing below the horizon across all of Africa, Europe and Asia. For people across the United States, the moment of darkness happens during the afternoon.”
I would have imagined to would be more darkness- but I guess, mostly, people do choose to live in the light
A powerful cold low in the North Atlantic will cause a strong drop in ocean surface temperatures in the region.
https://i.ibb.co/VYD6x5v/gfs-cape-eur45-1.png
Is Raptor Reliable? – SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6GJVvwUEGk
{short answer, obviously, yes. Long answer…}
As I posted {it might not have actually post- I just remember I tried
to make it post- oh maybe, probably at Space review blog- anyhow,
NASA should think about whether we need bigger rockets than current Superheavy Starship- and they think this, they make it govt policy.
And therefore need someway to test really big rocket engine and/or
lots larger rocket engines firing which are much bigger and powerful than Raptor {Raptor III}. And one aspect is just the noise of it.
But in terms of Starship, testing these engine is a part of the test launch. This is the case with any rocket’s first launch, but Starship is not like other rockets- they meant to be reuseable, and testing a reuseable rocket, is different to an expendable rocket.
Though regarding the starship as an expendable rocket is sort of what Starship is doing, but most of what is being done is trying to be reuseable.
Another NASA thing, is does NASA think reuseable rockets are the future {everyone does, apparently] but if this the general idea, NASA should do things, to enable it- which involve lots and long duration rocket engine tests- which will predictable have more interest in environment reviews {which waste a lot money and time}.
So, I think the environment should be in the ocean and far away from people who aren’t space cadets.
No one should expect a strong El Nino coming soon.
Firstly, forecasts like
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
or
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1
do not show this (otherwise, NCEP’s forecast wouldn’t start falling down by next November, and TCC wouldn’t forecast 10 % neutral so early).
*
MEI now just passed over the 0.0 line:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxPxDzIUAb21NknjFDJVjQh5-bk4Pi2h/view
In 2012, after a long recovery from a deep La Nina level around -2.5 in 2010, the MEI index reached about the same point over 0.0, but then felt down again for over two years, until it finally ramped up to the 2015/16 El Nino.
*
Thus, people claiming we would be right now in front a big El Nino might be ‘plain wrong’.
So are you now saying that this year will NOT be a big El Nino?
I think he changed his prediction from El Nino to La Bindigolina
Oh again this stalking dachshund, lover of Bhse Onkelsz people.
Blinny’s prediction is now, not that big.
Interesting. There has been much hysteria in Australia about this El Nino event, much of it premature.
The SOI had been trending upwards for over a month and the 30-day average is now +2.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Also, the long range rainfall forecasts for a dry winter(in Oz) have been absolute failures.
s,
I agree. The BOM “climate experts” seem not fit for purpose. Even the constant rewriting of historical temperature data, plus ignoring WMO standards for thermometric recording to enable continual “record high” temperatures, has done them no good.
They can’t describe the GHE, but then again, neither can you nor anybody else.
Wasting your time, aren’t you? Pushing others to believe in something nobody can describe. Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.
Carry on. Keep bagging the BOM. They richly deserve it.
Putting SC 25 in the right context? No problem!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nXwN72HFEd0GzqlC0tQUYv5vsKCcBc3o/view
The graph is about 8 months old but updating it wouldn’t change much: so great is the difference between the Modern Maximum in SC 19 and SC 24/25.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to the strongest cycle.
Instead we should be comparing to the boundaries of the coolists’ claim. They originally asserted that we were headed for a Maunder-like minimum. When it became clear that wouldn’t eventuate they claimed Dalton. At the other extreme, none of them were claiming SC23 was “GSM” material.
SSN at this point of the cycle (December 2022):
Maunder: essentially 0
SC06: 24 (Dalton 2)
SC05: 50 (Dalton 1)
SC24: 92
SC25: 107
SC23: 133 (median cycle for peak)
And SC25 is beating 9 other cycles at this point in the cycle.
Thanks Antonin, but I know that, and we had already an exchange about this evidence some weeks ago. I posted this chart on May 13:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yA5-g5hR7eNyZoFfiR9cD_S-e0RxV42L/view
… and the reason for me to post the SC 19 comment above was:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507357
I just wanted to show awareness of what the dachshund wrote.
Bindidong converted to Grand Solar Minimalista
Antonin Twerpy lacks common logic , gets confused by Bindiclown who cannot dispute or refute anything, bu wants to act as if he does , so he just ends up typing total blabbering, that makes no sense
… and as usual, the stalking dachshund nicknamed ‘Eben’ shows the mental level of a young German ultra-right wing.
Discredit, denigrate, lie: that’s all he can do.
Martian dunes eroded by a shift in prevailing winds after the planet’s last ice age
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Martian_dunes_eroded_by_a_shift_in_prevailing_winds_after_the_planets_last_ice_age_999.html
“Detailed analysis of data obtained by the Zhurong rover of dunes located on the southern Utopian Plain of Mars suggests the planet underwent a major shift in climate that accompanied changes in prevailing winds. This shift likely occurred about 400,000 years ago, which coincides with the end of the last glacial period on Mars.”
Some might have thought Mars was in an Ice Age {and some might also think that Earth has not been in 33.9 million year Ice Age}
” “The exploration and research on the climate evolution of Mars has been of great concern for a long time. Mars is the most similar planet to Earth in the Solar System. Understanding Martian climate processes promises to uncover details of the evolution and history of Earth and other planets in our Solar System,” said Prof. LI Chunlai from the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC), principal investigator of the study. ”
Many don’t know that China average temperature is 8 C- making China colder than Earth.
UAH Global for Jun 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropics for Jun 2923
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-tropics.jpeg
Man’s Search for Meaning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySm3_7gQ8Kw
Of course I have thoughts on the subject.
But I haven’t read the book.
But it seems to me, Viktor Frankl -someone had dialogue with
Freud- was far more significant than Freud.
Would someone from the IPCC corner tell me what wind speed they use to get their figures for evaporation and convection?
RLH
I do not know about convection but it is low because the rising air cools the surface at the Equator but then it sinks later which rewarms the surface so they are going by net convection. Local areas can have a considerable higher heat loss from convection than a Global value averaged out.
The evaporation comes from estimating the global rainfall. What goes up must come down. They use this value to estimate the evaporative cooling.
Well average wind speed is at least 8.5 knots here in the UK. Do you have a world wide figure? I think 7 knots is around correct.
That is enough to give a significant uptick on calm values.
“7-10 knots
Gentle Breeze
Leaves and small twigs move, light weight
flags extend. Large wavelets, crests start
to break, some whitecaps”
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/coast-and-sea/beaufort-scale
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html
Norman,
You wrote –
“I do not know about convection but it is low because the rising air cools the surface at the Equator but then it sinks later which rewarms the surface so they are going by net convection.”
You don’t know about anything much, do you? Why would rising air cool the surface? It’s rising because the Sun is making the surface hot. Not only that, if the surface pressure is high, the hot air will expand laterally, not vertically.
Hence, in the hot humid tropics, not a breath of air. No convection, just hotter and hotter. Waxing poetic –
“All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody Sun, at noon,
Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the Moon.
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.” – the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.
Who do you expect to believe a delusional SkyDragon cultist like you? Not can you not describe the GHE, you don’t understand basic physics!
Keep at it.
RLH
In a post you linked to you say:
“And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.
Typically, chrome radiators and chrome heated towel rails emit between 20 and 30% less heat than radiators with paint finishes
That probably makes the emissivity vary from close to 0 to close to 1, chrome to paint. But the heat loss only varies by 30%! How is that possible?”
Your post does not have even close enough information to try to determine “how is that possible?”. Do you have a source for this post? You assume emissivity but is that your guess or does your source have some actual values that one could plug in to equations and see the outcome.
https://www.bestheating.com/info/why-do-chrome-radiators-have-a-lower-heat-output/
Apparently, chrome conducts electrical current 13% poorer than copper. That should mean it has roughly the same effect on heat conduction.
I am guessing that the plating effect of chrome causes resistance in the thermal path at the radiator surface.
More likely the emissivity goes from nearly 0 (chrome) to nearly 1 (paint), making the radiation component nearly disappear. That appears to be only 30%.
“In reality, the white and black models will produce approximately 20% more heat than the chrome version, with some chrome models offering 30% less heat than their painted counterparts.”
https://www.justradiators.co.uk/advice-centre/chrome-radiators-provide-lower-heat-output
“A chrome finish will reduce heat output by up to 30% of the exact same designer radiator in a colour”
https://www.agadondesignerradiators.co.uk/news-events/2021/08/09/coloured-vs-chrome-towel-radiators/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507557
“Chrome has an emissivity of 0.04 while black paint emits radiant heat at a rate of 0.95”
I was wondering what happens if pour liquid air on fire.
Someone pour liquid Nitrogen on grease fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCaLpLURno
Pouring Liquid Nitrogen On A Grease Fire
Well, I guess it’s, N2 is rocket fuel
“Is nitrogen used in rocket fuel?
Abstract. When liquid nitrogen and heated water are mixed in a chamber, pressure increase due to evaporation expansion inside the chamber becomes high enough to generate thrust force for rocket propulsion.”
Well that one of way to use nitrogen.
“Why liquid nitrogen is not used as a rocket fuel?
Liquid nitrogen on the other side, it is difficult to store nitrogen as liquid. When nitrogen boils, excess pressure will be created which can explode the nitrogen tank. These limitations will stop liquid nitrogen from being a rocket fuel.”
https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/which-of-the-following-is-not-used-as-a-rocket-class-11-physics-cbse-5fa1055c13ca034d159b541d
Wiki:
“Proposed, remain unflown
Chlorine trifluoride (ClF3) + all known fuels Briefly considered as an oxidizer given its high hypergolicity with all standard fuels, but ultimately abandoned in the 70s due to the difficulty of handling the substance safely. Chlorine trifluoride can only be extinguished by flooding the burning area with Nitrogen or noble gases. The substance is known to burn concrete and gravel.: 74 Chlorine pentafluoride (ClF5) presents the same hazards, but offers higher specific impulse than ClF3.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant
So it put some fires out
RLH
I did some digging into your questions. It is not a new thing. I found this.
https://tinyurl.com/27y8f7vw
Since most the energy of a radiator in a home is from convection (70% convection but still 30% radiant energy). A change in radiant properties is not as big. Also with the chrome radiator it will emit far less of the 30% but in so doing it will reach a higher temperature and increase loss via convection above the painted radiator and end up with just an overall 20% reduction in heat flow.
Anyway I do not think any of your points negates radiant energy effect on Earth Surface. It is measured values. No longer a guessing game.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64a76c5bc281a.png
That is a summer desert
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64a76c859ace9.png
Wet area in summer. Less surface emission but more DWIR and less surface heat loss via radiant energy.
Norman,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
All your burbling about measurements can’t hide the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and that the surface cools every night – losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
If that’s true, then trying to get people to believe in something you can’t even describe, might be difficult.
[laughing at braindead cult idiot]
norman…the link supplied to verify their claim is from 1920. I cannot find a reference to the article or what they did to arrive at a 30% value.
Even if it’s true, which I doubt, it is the reverse of what we are being told today, that radiation is the governing factor and conduction/convection is insignificant. They claim heat from a radiator is created 70% by conduction/convection and only 30% by radiation.
The Pirani gauge would just have been developed in 1920 and they likely did not know about it. It would have done them no good to measure the radiation from a heating radiator with the gauge but it might have driven them to examine their 30% figure.
Put me down as unconvinced.
All your other links reveal is estimated radiation from a desert surface. They say nothing about the heat dissipation via conduction/convection.
In link one, they have obviously made a mistake, claiming 400 w/m^2 of upwelling IR. I think they calculated that using S-B which does not apply at those temperatures.
If you placed a real heat source radiating 400 watts/m^2, it would burn anything to a crisp placed on it, including human feet.
Gordon Robertson
You are so unscientific. You looked at a blog by a crackpot (Gary Novak) who claims, with NO EVIDENCE, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not work at room temperature because you think 400 W/m^2 is a large amount and can burn feet. Do you know how big a square meter is? I think you are neglecting geometry with your conclusions. You might think 500 watts on a stove hot plate (with a considerably smaller surface area) that makes it too hot to touch is equivalent to 500 watts in a one square meter surface. There is much difference.
I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply at room temperature. I have linked you to experiments where it does but you reject them in favor of an idea you have in your head. Why do you hold on to this idea. It is not based on any evidence at all, just a belief. You said if you were challenged with evidence you would consider it but I find you do not. You hold some belief and then that seems to become some immutable truth. What is the reason you hold these beliefs?
Do you know what the convection equation is for a square meter? Both vertical and horizontal. Natural and forced.
Norman criticizes Gordon for having cult beliefs and a lack of understanding of science!
And he can’t see the almost exact parallels to himself.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
Are you getting your quota of trolling in today? I see you troll me again.
You are just trolling and wrong. I support posts with many links to evidence and science articles and textbooks.
Maybe you should try this sometime instead of being infatuated with trolling. So far you have not supported any of your idiot ideas…
1) Fluxes don’t add
2) photons from a colder source cannot be absorbed by a hotter object
3) the Heat Transfer Equation is “bogus”
4) The Moon does not rotate on its axis
Many others but I really don’t care about your trolling posts so I am not going out looking for them. All made up, not one supported.
You do this all the time. Declare some point, don’t support it (even when asked to) and then call everyone cult minded idiots.
I don’t think it is possible for a troll but you could consider supporting even one of your many made up ideas. I would like to see it happen but know it never will.
Troll on, as you are a science denier, that is all you can do on this blog.
RLH
Here is one link that you will need to use to plug into another link.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convective_heat_transfer_coefficients__13378.htm
You use these values when you use the convection calculator.
https://engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convection.htm
The second link is the convective calculator. You plug in the value from the first link in the Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient and then you can choose your size and temperature differences to see the heat transfer in watts.
Troll Norman, I’m happy to correct your misrepresentations:
1) Fluxes don’t [simply] add
2) photons from a colder source [may sometimes] be absorbed by a hotter object, [but they could NOT raise the temperature].
3) the Heat Transfer Equation is bogus [You got that one CORRECT!]
4) The Moon does not rotate on its axis {Also correct! You’re improving.]
Also troll Norman, I have supported them, several times. You simply reject reality. There’s no better example than your rejection of the “ball-on-a-string”.
And it’s NOT “cult minded idiots”. It’s “brain-dead cult idiots”. You need to understand who you are.
Norman: Using reasonable values around that at Earth’s surface (and normalizing for 1 sq meter) I get 1000W for convection but less than 300W for radiation.
RLH
Using the calculators I do not see how you came up with 1000 Watts for convection.
In the first link you can find the Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient for a plate in air with 30 C difference is 5 W/m^2 K.
If you use this value and plug it into the calculator in the 2nd link (temp of hot object 60 C and of cold 30 C). The calculator comes up with a value of 150 Watts not even close to 1000. You would need forced air to get your values.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
This link has a radiant energy calculator. If you put in sand emissivity of 0.9 and use the same temperature, the hot value 60 C and the cold value 30 C you get radiant heat transfer of 197 watt which exceeds the convection heat loss.
Let me know how you arrived at your values. They do not match the calculator outputs.
“70% convection but still 30% radiant energy”
As bright chrome has an emissivity of nearly 0 and paint has an emissivity of nearly 1, that 30% accounts for almost all of the radiant energy from a radiator.
Slightly different to what the IPCC claims for the same temperature range.
Unless domestic radiators do not have the same physics as the globe does!
You images show what is seen from above and includes that from the hot air that is caused by convection, which is fairly strong in both cases. Wet areas also include evaporation to water vapor which will also include significant heat transfer.
edit: Your images…
norman…at room temperature, the radiation from a towel rack would be miniscule anyway. Therefore the emissivity would not be a factor.
If you hooked the towel rack up as a short circuit to a 347 volt source, before it exploded, it would glow through all the colours available as it heated. At those temperatures, greater than 2000K, radiation may be far more significant, but not at room temperature.
The maths of the IPCC do not allow different SB for radiation based on temperature. As far as they are concerned all radiation output is based on SB. Mind you, that does include a forth power of Kelvin, but that is directly modified by emissivity. Small changes in emissivity mean large changes in energy transfer.
It is just that convection and evaporation get so little contribution at room temperatures and below, that belies what simple heating engineers have known for centauries.
Norman agrees that some 70% of the energy transfer from radiators comes from convection but, apparently only a few percent comes from Earth for the same reason.
RLH
That is because in the Earth system convection is a Net surface energy balance. Where the warmed air is rising there is considerable cooling in that region, like the Equatorial zone. The air will then sink and rise in temperature heating the surface at another location (the deserts) so the Net effect of convection for the Earth is small.
https://o.quizlet.com/udJhzjqWGwGJnAZrhDTZ3A.png
So, likewise, a domestic radiator is a net radiation source. But over 70% of its energy transfer is via convection!
I don’t think that deserts are heated that much by falling air.
RLH
Maybe reconsider your thinking.
https://www.lordgrey.org.uk/~f014/usefulresources/aric/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Weather_Climate/07.html
The sinking air will warm and go above the dew point. It can also form a cap above and limit convective surface cooling creating a heat wave that might be 10F above normal temperatures for the time of year.
“So, likewise, a domestic radiator is a net radiation source. But over 70% of its energy transfer is via convection!”
You must be new here, because that has been rebutted many times here. It doesn’t apply to the Earth’s surface.
Because the Earth’s surface, is not designed like a domestic radiator with fins.
When domestic heaters are in the floor, this radiant-heating is more like the Earth’s geometry, and most of the heat transfer is by radiation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507944
Now you know.
may be dup…
norman…at room temperature, the radiation from a towel rack would be miniscule anyway. Therefore the emissivity would not be a factor.
If you hooked the towel rack up as a short circuit to a 347 volt source, before it exploded, it would glow through all the colours available as it heated. At those temperatures, greater than 2000K, radiation may be far more significant, but not at room temperature.
sorry about duplicate. My modem shut down for some reason and needed reset. Was not sure if this message had already posted since it did not show up after reset.
You still using modems?
Some wag elsewhere commented that forest fires need to be banned since they emit millions of time more CO2 than the average car.
Forest fires are banned.
But politicians passing laws doesn’t effect reality.
What would be interesting is counting in terms making list of all the things your politicians have banned.
It would require a lot of effort.
The other part of it, is enforcing what is banned.
Some people who have started forest fires have been caught and
punished.
But I have no idea of this batting average.
But it does sometime get in the news if forest fire fighter, starts a forest fire.
And if was reported enough it might even deter fire fighters from starting forest fires- though depending how it’s reported, might encourage more of it.
It seems the news has spent a lot effort, promoting police car chases, but it doesn’t seem to cause more of them.
In terms of global temperature it is remarkable about how little it changes. Or anywhere and every day it changes quite a bit, but globally, it doesn’t.
It also seems “people forget” why measure it and why we measure it over, say, a 30 year period. Though some wanted to do it over a 17 year period.
gb…that’s the point, it is illegal to start a forest fire but Mother Nature doesn’t care for our laws, she starts them anyway. We can make it illegal all we want, it doesn’t stop the fires.
We can’t change that but we think we can change warming due to natural variability. So, we get hung up on a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere while Mother Nature shoves it up our hoops with forest fires, reeking swamps, out-gassing oceans, etc., which account for about 96% of global emissions of CO2.
In other words, we humans are a load of losers.
All that smoke is coming from France.
The stories about forest fires is a ruse. There are forest fires every year. There is not usually much smoke.
Eye of the Storm – La Nina
https://youtu.be/DVpmzXel_0k
The Great Barrier Reef will not be affected by this circulation. Upwelling will remain and food for corals.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I’m sure the high temperature in June in Canada shows surface radiation during the long period of high pressure over Canada.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Few people realize that the ozone zone in the stratosphere floats the circulation in the troposphere. Even in summer, this influence can be seen. The graphic shows large amounts of ozone in the tropopause in the north and moist ozone-free air in the south. The ozone wave pushes water vapor out of the tropopause, so this air is very dry. In such air, temperatures can change between summer and winter extremes.
https://i.ibb.co/9y6wqKv/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f024-1.png
Of course, such dry air is conducive to fires in Canada.
I think many of these fires are likely being set by climate alarmists.
Sure. Just like we go around melting glaciers and ice sheets.
studentb, please stop trolling.
More or less fires over time?
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32DG6RJ
“Declining wildfire area does not disprove climate change’s role”
AFP Fact check.
Gordon, do you have a basis for that “thought”, or did it just sound good to you?
https://twitter.com/KatKanada_TM/status/1664720758952820736
test
tim f…”The [Pirani] gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates! In other words, the relative magnitude of convection vs radiation clearly depend critically on the experimental set-up. Different sizes, shapes, emissivities, pressures, gases, etc will impact how convection and radiation compare”.
***
Come on Tim, it’s not that complicated. When the tube is evacuated to the point of vacuum, there is no conduction/convection because heat transfer requires atoms/molecules. With no atoms/molecules the only means of heat dissipation is via radiation. According to Shula the level of radiation is very low under those conditions (0.4).
When a gas is gradually introduced, conduction/convection starts to play a role in heat dissipation. At altitudes of 45+ miles, the number of molecules are still so low that radiation equals conduction/convection. That’s a low pressure situation.
At sea level, where air pressure is 1 atmosphere, the gas increases to the point where it dominates in a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4. Heat dissipation is nearly all due to conduction/convection.
It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation alone.
School boy physics.
And a very young school boy at that.
studentb, please stop trolling.
So you agree that most of the heat loss is via convection?
School boy number 2: look it up in a text book lazy bones. The numbers are all there.
Which said that most of the heat loss is via convection. As do the manufacturers.
studentb, please stop trolling.
This is why I call you stupidb, you can’t think for yourself. Even when an instrument designed to measure the difference between radiation and conduction/convection states the opposite of what is taught in textbooks, you believe the textbooks.
Textbooks are guidelines for study, not absolutes. You won’t find top physicists writing textbooks.
The irony is this, the Pirani gauge has been around at least a century yet climate alarmists have never heard of it. They prefer the propaganda that surface radiation is the main heat dissipator of the surface and conduction/convection is a minor player.
“It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation alone.”
Let me fix that up a bit.
It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level pressure are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat in a device designed to minimize radiation than radiation alone.
A pirani gauge is vastly different than the earth. There is no reason to expect the same ratios to hold for the two vastly different situations.
There is a familiar line that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
The corollary is also true: “insanity is doing different things and expecting the same result.”
Domestic radiators seem to indicate that the Pirani Gauge has a pretty good balance of radiation to convection.
Are domestic radiators that different to Earth?
Domestic radiators seem to lose more than 10% of their energy via radiation.
Pirani gauges seem to lose less than 1% or their energy via radiation.
I am not sure what sort of ‘good balance’ you see between the two.
Pirani gauges lose 100% of their energy at a vacuum.
What is the IPCCs ratio for energy loses, radiation to convection?
edit: Pirani gauges lose 100% of their energy via radiation in a vacuum.
First, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There is always some gas present. So there is always some loss via gas; the number might be 1% or 0.1%, but never exactly 0%.
Second, there is loss by conduction down the wire. So even with a ‘perfect vacuum’ the loss by radiation is not 100%.
Third, the IPCC doesn’t make predictions about earth in a vacuum, so they don’t have any equivalent prediction to a pirani gauge in vacuum.
The basic “IPCC ratio” for the actual earth with an atmosphere is well-known. Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means.
“there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum”
The Pirani Gauge does not go that far either. Say a few milli Torr.
The Earth sits in a vacuum, so the IPCC sure as heck must deal with that.
“Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means.”
Which does not account for the differences seen in domestic radiators with bright chrome and paint finishes.
tim…”First, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There is always some gas present. So there is always some loss via gas; the number might be 1% or 0.1%, but never exactly 0%.
Second, there is loss by conduction down the wire. So even with a perfect vacuum the loss by radiation is not 100%”.
***
Tim…if you read Shula’s article, both of these points of yours are accounted for in the calibration. It’s obvious, that as gas is removed from the instrument filament area, when they reach a certain gas concentration, the heat dissipation will level off. At that point, they know the dissipation is radiation plus heat loss via the support structure.
It does not matter if the vacuum is perfect, the point is that the number of gas molecules become so insignificant that the main heat dissipator is radiation. Shula provides a chart showing the relationship at very low pressures. Beyond low pressure, conduction/convection takes over dramatically.
I don’t know how they distinguish between radiation and heat loss via the structure but they mention it is accounted for so they must know the ratio of heat dissipation via radiation and heat loss via the structure. At any rate, the amount of the two combined is insignificant compared to the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube (99.6 to 0.4).
In another article, it is claimed heat dissipation from a surface is 70% conduction/convection and 30% radiation. My concern is that Trenberth’s heat budget states the opposite, that convection/conduction is the minor player. If conduction/convection is given its proper status, that castes a new light on the energy budget theory. In fact, it throws the theory in the trash heap and along with it the AGW and GHE theories.
—
“Third, the IPCC doesnt make predictions about earth in a vacuum, so they dont have any equivalent prediction to a pirani gauge in vacuum.
The basic IPCC ratio for the actual earth with an atmosphere is well-known. Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means”.
***
The point is, Tim, Trenberth’s diagram is based on pure theory, a fact he admits freely in the Trenberth-Kiehle description. Obviously, they got the theory wrong as have the entire alarmist community.
The IPCC makes no predictions, according to them, they only review papers that have been carefully screened to omit papers from skeptics. When those papers are reviewed and the main report is written, it is set aside and replace by the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
I don’t understand why it has escaped you that the IPCC are a political body who have no interest is objective science. Their mandate is restricted to finding evidence for anthropogenic warming and they systematically reject any evidence that is contrary to their mandate.
“At any rate, the amount of the two combined is insignificant compared to the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube (99.6 to 0.4).
In another article, it is claimed heat dissipation from a surface is 70% conduction/convection and 30% radiation. ”
Why does it bother you that the ratio changes from about 1:2 to about 2:1 between two situations, but it doesn’t bother you that the ratio changes from 1:2 to 1:250 between two other situations. YOu calmly accept a HUGE difference, then rail against just a slightly larger difference.
Timmy,
You wrote –
“Why does it bother you that the ratio changes from about 1:2 to about 2:1 between two situations . . . ”
Why does it bother you? Do you feel embarrassed because you can’t even describe the GHE?
Maybe you could just waste your time trying to troll, and attempting to annoy others.
What do you reckon?
Could you quantify how much variation you think these differences between the gauge and the Earth might make? I hope we are not just expected to assume the differences account for all the inconsistency between the energy budget numbers and the gauge numbers?
herb…it’s quantified in the article by Shula. The mistake being made here is an assumption that the ratio of radiation to conduction/convection will be different for the Earth’s surface than for the heated filament in the Pirani gauge. There is no difference between the Pirani gauge readings and the Earth’s surface.
The only way to measure the difference is to measure heat dissipation via radiation in a vacuum versus heat dissipation with a gas replacing the vacuum. Why should that ratio be different for the Earth’s surface than for the Pirani filament with a temperature range of 50C to 100C? If anything, the radiation from Earth’s surface will be even less since it is cooler.
Richard (RLH) has supplied similar evidence for heat sinks used in electronics to dissipate heat and radiators used for heaters in a room. The question is why climate alarmist have gotten away with presenting the opposite, that radiation is the prime mover for heat dissipation and conduction/convection only a minor player.
The Pirani gauge was used initially to determine the vacuum state of a tungsten lamp bulb. People must have reasoned that connecting the filament as a resistance in one leg of a Wheatstone bridge would allow them to measure the heat dissipation by observing the current required to re-balance the bridge.
Re-balancing the bridge allowed them to very accurately measure how much power was being lost to heat dissipation.
“There is no difference between the Pirani gauge readings and the Earths surface … ”
Other than size, shape, material, emissivity, surroundings, and heat source.
“The question is why climate alarmist have gotten away with presenting the opposite, that radiation is the prime mover for heat dissipation and conduction/convection only a minor player.”
The question is why *you* think this. The ‘primer mover’ for delivering heat from the surface to the atmosphere is latent heat. Convection and radiation are both much smaller and both similar in magnitude. Just like heat from a radiator to a room is similar for radiation and convection.
‘size, shape, etc”
Size indeed matters.
Consider heat transfer across a cube, with side L, and temperatures on the opposite sides T1, T2.
For conduction, which is the primary mode in the Pirani gauge, the heat flow across it is:
Q = k(L^2)(T1-T2)/L = kLdT,
where k is the thermal conductivity of air.
and the heat flux (heat flow per unit area) is
Q/A = Q/L^2 = kdT/L.
Now for RADIATION across the cube. The heat flux is
Q/A = e*sigma(T1^4-T2^4) , e is the emissivity, and sigma is SB constant.
So right away we can see that size matters for heat flux for conduction, but not for radiation.
The ratio of heat flux for radiation/conduction is
ratio = (L*e*sigma)/k*(T1^4-T2^4)/(T1-T2)
Keep everything constant other than size and we see that the ratio scales as L.
Suppose the ratio is ~ .01 for the Pirani gauge, 1% radiation over conduction, with L ~ 1 centimeter.
Now increase L to 1 m. Then we have a ratio of radiation to conduction 100 x larger.
ratio ~ 1.
Increase L to 1 kilometer
ratio ~ 1000.
SO we can see that for the real Earth conduction becomes negligible compared to radiation.
and we find that the Pirani gauge is, for yet another reason, a poor substitute for the real Earth because of its size!
Also emissivity.
For the real Earth we also have convection, and that has been shown to be a bit smaller than radiation, and Latent heat (water cycle) which is a bit larger than radiation.
And BTW, meteorology just considers evaporation of water to be part of convection.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/our-environment/severe-weather/convection#:~:text=Convection%20is%20a%20vertical%20transport,all%20visible%20forms%20of%20convection.
“Convection is a vertical transport of heat and moisture in the atmosphere, especially by updrafts and downdrafts in an unstable atmosphere. Above – anvil cirrus plumes, towering cumulus clouds, and turret shaped mid-level clouds are all visible forms of convection.”
tim…you are missing the point about the Pirani gauge. It measures the heat dissipation from a heated filament in a vacuum, that tells you the amount of heat dissipated via radiation, then compares the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube. That ratio will be the same for the Earth’s surface since there is nothing else influencing the ratio.
Shula also points to the clincher, based on his experience with such devices and with vacuums. If a filament in a vacuum is heated and the power removed, it takes forever for the filament to cool via radiation alone. The second a gas is introduced, it cools quickly.
We know that from a thermos. The thermos bottle is based on the use of an evacuated cylinder to keep the contents hot. By stifling conduction/convection, the contents can be kept hot for hours. The minute you remove the stopper in the thermos and expose the liquid to room air, the liquid will cool to room temperature quickly.
“That ratio will be the same for the Earths surface since there is nothing else influencing the ratio.”
No. Both the geometry and the emissivity are completely different in the two cases. Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.
“If a filament in a vacuum is heated and the power removed, it takes forever for the filament to cool via radiation alone. ”
Incandescent light bulbs have filaments in vacuum. They cool within a fraction of a second — hardly “forever”.
A thermos ALSO stifles radiation — that is why they have shiny metallic surfaces. If you replaced the shiny surfaces with high-emissivity paint. that would ALSO cause the hot liquid to cool more rapidly.
Conduction, convection and radiation are ALL important. The relative contributions change based on geometry, thermal conductivity, emissivity, and type & pressure of gas (and more). There is no universal rule like “convection is 250x more effective than radiation”. A Pirani gauge does not tell us much at all about the earth!
Timmy,
You are waffling. None of what you burbled on about has anything to do with the GHE, does it?
You can’t describe the GHE, so trying to pretend to be an “expert” on anything is pointless.
Keep trying.
tim…nothing to do with geometry or emissivity. It’s about the ratio of effectiveness of radiation versus conduction/convection for dissipatig heat.
Emissivity has little to do with it. If radiation is producing 1/250th of the heat dissipation of conduction/convection the emissivity will affect that portion only.
The point you are not getting is that conduction/convection is far more efficient at dissipating heat, no matter the surface geometry or the emissivity.
“Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.“
By how much? I asked you to quantify it and you ignored me. It’s all just handwaving until you quantify how much difference, if any, it would actually make.
“Conduction, convection and radiation are ALL important”
But according to you and the IPCC, radiation caries away much more energy than conduction and convection do. Despite clear evidence tp the contary.
Tell me, oh guru, where does wind energy come from? Conduction, convection or radiation>
“timnothing to do with geometry or emissivity. Its about the ratio of effectiveness of radiation versus conduction/convection for dissipatig heat.”
Fins on a heat sink help improve convective losses. Hence geometry DOES change the ratio.
Tell me, oh guru, where does wind energy come from? Conduction, convection or radiation?
What ‘clear evidence to the contrary’?
Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.
By how much? I asked you to quantify it and you ignored me.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1508394
You are arguing from the false premise that it is conduction between air molecules that we’re talking about. The conduction is between the surface and the air molecules in contact with the surface. The energy is then carried away by convection, and cooler air replaces the warmed air, so that the cycle repeats. This is an effective way for energy to be carried away from the surface.
You have erected an elaborate straw man, and knocked it down, and the question of quantifying the differences to the ratio made by changing the emissivity or geometry remains unanswered.
Thus the whole premise of Shula’s article is that the Pirani gauge is good guide to what happens in the atmosphere.
In the Pirani gauge, because of its size, shape and emissivity, conduction is dominant over radiation and convection.
In the atmosphere radiation and convection become dominant and conduction is negligible.
He fails to mention any of this, and keeps insisting that it is a good model for the atmosphere.
“It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”
It clearly has not been demonstrated.
But, I get it, you are a believer no matter what flaws are found in his argument.
Meanwhile you’ve seen analyses of convection and radiation in the real atmosphere from a review article, and many other sources agree.
Feel free to tall us what they have done wrong.
And FYI,
Some additional evidence comes from in-floor home heating, which is closer to the Earth-atmosphere setup.
For this setup, radiation produces the largest component of heat transfer to a room.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507944
"In the Pirani gauge, because of its size, shape and emissivity, conduction is dominant over radiation and convection."
No, in the Pirani gauge, conduction and convection are dominant over radiation. It’s the combination. Again, it’s the molecules immediately in contact with the filament that are heated by conduction, then carried away by convection, and cooler gas replaces the heated gas.
"In the atmosphere radiation and convection become dominant and conduction is negligible."
The consensus science says that conduction and convection (the combination) are far less important than radiation.
You’re still attacking the same straw man.
He offers no evidence that convection is as important as conduction in the Pirani gauge. All sources indicate otherwise.
Convection depends greatly on size/geometry.
And he keeps insisting that even at much lower pressure, when conduction is most definitely dominant, the gauge is a good model for the atmosphre.
If convection is not important in the Pirani gauge, and the ratio is still what it is, then that only strengthens the argument that conduction with convection must be even more dominant in the atmosphere. You’re making the same mistake as E. Swanson.
HD wrote:
I still doubt that the convection is as strong as suggested.
For convection to cool the wire, there must be a mass flow loop. In the gauge, what’s the diameter of the outer tube? Perhaps it’s 1 inch (25mm). Does the force of gravity within the tube provide enough difference in forcing between the top of the tube and the bottom to cause the gas next to the wire to rise, then cool and sink around the outside of the tube so that it can again rise to remove energy from the wire? What happens as the tube warms, thus reducing the temperature difference between it’s top and bottom?
From the calibration curve presented, there’s variation between respective gases, but at greater vacuum levels, the slope of the curves are nearly identical, which suggests to me that convection is evident only for the initial small levels of vacuum. This situation has nothing to do with the large scale convection over many kilometers and large temperature differences as found within the Tropopause.
So you’re arguing that the effect of conduction/convection in the atmosphere is even greater than in the gauge. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, without even realising, it seems.
Herb,
Looking into convection you will see that geometry and scale matters a great deal. It is not at all simple.
Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?
As opposed to using a very different problem as a substitute.
If you agree, then you should also agree that one should find analyses of heat transport in the actual atmosphere.
“If convection is not important in the Pirani gauge, and the ratio is still what it is”
The ratio of conduction/radiation is higher, as I showed at smaller length scales, and low at larger length scales.
And thus the Pirani gauge tells us nothing about the ratio in the atmosphere of convection/radiation.
"The ratio of conduction/radiation is higher, as I showed at smaller length scales, and low at larger length scales."
You were looking at conduction between air molecules:
"where k is the thermal conductivity of air"
That is a straw man, as I said. It is conduction between the surface and the air molecules in contact with the surface, then convection of those air molecules away from the surface, to be replaced with others.
"Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?"
You need to quantify any differences that these factors might make to the ratio.
"one should find analyses of heat transport in the actual atmosphere"
One has been shown two energy budget studies, and one could not find any mention of how they estimated the amount of conduction/convection. Nobody has, so far.
HD suggests that: “You keep shooting yourself in the foot” regarding my critique of Shula’s presentation about the Pirani Gauge as an analog for the Earth’s energy balance and the GHG. After re-reading Shula’s presentation, I am even more convinced that his conclusions are grossly in error.
As Nate and others have pointed out, the geometry of the gauge is considerably different from that of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. In the video example Shula linked to, there’s a discussion of simple models of the atmospheric radiation heat transfer, models based on first one layer, them multiple layers. In these models, the area of the surface is equal to the corresponding areas of each layer. For the Pirani Gauge the surface area of the heated wire/filament is much less than the surface area of the inner side of the tube, thus the radiation exchange between the tube and the wire is grossly different.
In addition, the distances and temperature differences driving any convection within the gauge are vastly different from that found in the atmosphere. Shula picks one pressure level, “10 Torr, the equivalent of about 110,000 feet”, and claims that this represents the Earth’s energy transfer. He eventually claims that:
This conclusion is completely bogus if only because of the differences in area and temperatures involved. In addition, he doesn’t discuss the emission spectras of the different gasses, which are especially important to the flows of thermal IR radiation thru the atmosphere to deep space.
His conclusion also ignores the well known effects of water vapor on atmospheric convection, which makes atmospheric convection vastly different from that of the dry gasses used to calibrate the gauge. And, he seems to think that the models used to study climate are based on the graphic of energy flows thru the atmosphere he presented, whereas the models are actually based on the physics of fluid dynamics and heat transfer at many levels of the atmosphere combined with those of the oceans. Those models include seasonal effects and known historical influences, such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions.
“Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?”
So Herb, you do or do not agree with this?
I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to work out, by asking people to quantify the difference to the gauge ratio that the various differences they keep bringing up might make. However, nobody is prepared to move beyond handwaving, so we’re stuck where we are.
So then you think solving one heat transfer problem is good and we can assume its the same as any other?
C’mon Herb.
We know that emissivity makes a big difference. Hence the wire is gold plated tungsten, which is intended to minimize radiation. It can easily be e = 0.05 and would reduce radiation by 20 x.
We know that geometry makes a big difference for convection, eg the fins on radiators that enhance it over radiation.
I showed you a link for floor heating that is mostly radiant.
We know that at the top of the atmosphere convection is negligible and radiation takes over.
And that is where climate science actually focuses on radiative forcing.
Read about it.
You need to get the ratio down from the gauge showing 250:1 conduction/convection to radiation all the way to the energy budgets showing something like 3:1 radiation to conduction/convection. That’s a truly enormous difference to account for.
So, you point to emissivity, and state that radiation could be 20 times more if it were 1.0. OK, let’s accept that, for the sake of argument. You’re still a long, long way off from where you need to be.
It gets worse, because your arguments about geometry and convection take things in the wrong direction for you. If the gauge is limited in the amount of convection occurring compared to the open atmosphere, then that means convection could dominate over radiation even more in the open atmosphere than it does in the gauge. You are not reducing the ratio here, you’re increasing it!
OK,
“If the gauge is limited in the amount of convection occurring compared to the open atmosphere, then that means convection could dominate over radiation even more in the open atmosphere than it does in the gauge.”
Sure it could. But to know, one needs to calculate it or measure for the atmosphere with its scale, geometry and temperatures.
I showed you one numerical calculation paper for home radiant floor heating, where it was found radiation was ~ 2x larger than convection.
Then in the atmosphere, we also have the IR window to the very cold of space. Remember that radiation goes as ~ T1^4-T2^4. That, by itself seems to be about 30 W/m^2, most of the 58 W/m^2 total.
“Sure it could”.
Great, good that we have reached agreement. Emissivity might, or might not, be bringing down the ratio (but nowhere near enough), whilst the geometry/convection argument is working against you, pushing it back up. So, you have a long way to go before you get from 250:1 to 1:3. You’re nowhere near it at the moment.
Perhaps you could be the first person to explain how the figure for conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated.
HD, You are stuck on the idea from Shulas presentation that the Pirani gauge operates like the atmosphere. You are ignoring the video presentation (3), which presents a more accurate representation of the processes involved, which is based on multiple layers of atmosphere with declining pressure as altitude increases , not the small distance between the Pirani filament and the surrounding tube. The design of the gauge is clearly intended to minimize the radiation HT, especially when the filament is gold plated. the filament is likely to be a small diameter coil, so the effective surface area is a small fraction of the larger tube. Shula’s claims are his interpretation and do not represent real world facts.
Ignoring the video, you wrote:
See: Ramanathan and Coakley, 1978
Your ignorance is your problem.
So your answer is: models from 45 years ago. I had already guessed the answer would involve models, rather than any form of measurement.
I think we can agree that the Pirani gauge argument was full of holes, and it is not a good model for the atmosphere.
“Perhaps you could be the first person to explain how the figure for conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated.”
We showed you one paper. If unsatisfied, perhaps you can research this yourself. Or not.
Science often requires basic background knowledge. It doesn’t need you to understand it for it to be correct.
You’re still nowhere near bridging the gap from 250:1 to 1:3, and you obviously don’t know how the conduction/convection figure is estimated. If you did, you could easily give a brief explanation in your own words, and would have done so by now.
Weather on the Earth is complicated, and it is unlikely a simple calculation but rather based on measurements and modeling by meteorologists, which I am not.
Let me just add that Pirani gauge guy has done no calculations or measurements of the Earth and its atmosphere. There is no weather in his Pirani gauge. His gauge is not a good substitute for it.
Why should you or anyone believe his claims?
Right, so you don’t know, as I suspected. Your condescension was misplaced then, it seems.
HD now shifts his tune, claiming he wants measurements. He might try looking at the data from balloon launches, satellite measurements, ground based measurements of the radiation of short wave and long wave energy, all of which go back many decades. The whole of the atmospheric sciences and weather forecasting are based on those measurements. And, models incorporating those measurements are routinely used at all scales to describe conditions, with the accuracy of forecasts becoming better every year as the models are refined. His “gap from 250:1 to 1:3” exists only in Shula’s imagination and has nothing to do with atmospheric radiation.
But, no, HD just assumes that such measurements don’t exist. That way, he can ignore the whole problem of AGW.
Getting a bit tired of the attitude. I haven’t changed my tune. The Pirani gauge is a measurement. It gives a ratio of 250:1 of conduction/convection to radiation. Then we have the energy budget figures. They give a ratio of 1:3 of radiation to conduction/convection. So yes, the discrepancy does exist, and it is massive. We need to try to bridge the gap from one to the other. Various people are bringing up emissivity. That might close the gap a bit, but nowhere near enough. Then various people have brought up the differences in temperatures and geometry between the gauge and the atmosphere, that might effect the amount of convection. Unfortunately for you, that opens up the gap. Nobody is actually quantifying any of this, though.
I asked for an explanation of how the amount of conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated. Nobody really knows, it seems, but the best guess is, it involves models. We can’t compare measurements to models. So yes, of course I’m aware that there are measurements of the radiation. Are there measurements of the amount of conduction/convection from the surface? I’m guessing not, otherwise they would have been provided a long time ago.
“The Pirani gauge is a measurement. It gives a ratio of 250:1 of conduction/convection to radiation. They give a ratio of 1:3 of radiation to conduction/convection. So yes, the discrepancy does exist, and it is massive.”
Hardly.
It is a measurement, but not of the atmosphere. It is a different system altogether.
Apples vs bananas.
Your inability to recognize/acknowledge this takes real effort, and is quite tiresome.
“It is a measurement, but not of the atmosphere. It is a different system altogether.“
I know. If you paid attention to what I just said, you would realise that there was no need for you to make that comment.
HD complains about (my?) “attitude” but repeats his comments regarding atmospheric measurements and modeling. And, he repeats his bogus comparison of data from Pirani gauge and the data for the energy budget of the atmosphere. He is repeating Shula’s conclusions, which are based on Shula’s assertions that the Pirani gauge is a good analog for processes within in the atmosphere. When I use the word “analog” I mean “mechanical model” of the atmosphere, which it obviously isn’t. Since the Pirani gauge is a bad model of the atmosphere, the results from using it, which HD continues to spout, are totally invalid.
HD continues with:
The whole issue is about the energy flows into and out of the Earth’s atmosphere. Satellite instruments have been operated for decades to measure things from outside, that is, above the TOA. There have also been measurements of the total energy flowing into and out of the surface, so the boundaries of energy budget are well known. Measurements within the atmosphere are also common. HD juct refuses to accept the fact that tying all this together requires models, so he keeps on demanding other answers which would satisfy his preconceived result.
The top of the atmosphere, as we’ve mentioned several times, is really where the global warming originates.
It is there that climate science has been focused, because it is there the the energy input to the Earth is larger than the energy output, and thus results in global warming.
And it is there that radiation is dominant.
Again I urge you to learn about this.
It’s clear that nobody here can reconcile the results from the Pirani gauge with the energy budget values. We get endless handwaving about the differences between the gauge and the atmosphere, but nobody can quantify how much variation these differences would actually make to the ratio. To even suggest that a reconciliation be attempted seems to be taken as some sort of affront to their beliefs.
On top of that, nobody has a clue how the energy budget values for conduction/convection are estimated, or even if these values are estimated or measured. Now E. Swanson is saying:
“The whole issue is about the energy flows into and out of the Earth’s atmosphere. Satellite instruments have been operated for decades to measure things from outside, that is, above the TOA”
That is not the issue at all. The issue is about how much of the heat flow from the surface upwards is due to radiation compared to how much is due to conduction/convection.
HD wrote:
Well, for the interface between the atmosphere and the surface, we know it’s possible to measure the incoming SW energy which makes it thru the atmosphere to the surface and the albedo, so we can calculate the energy flowing into the surface. We also know how to measure the incoming and outgoing thermal IR radiation from the surface. There are also ways to measure how much water leaves the surface to become water vapor. Over the annual cycle, averaging the these flows would provide some indication of the difference, which could then be assumed to result from conduction and convection.
Of course, I don’t have a ready answer to your question, but that doesn’t mean that the energy balance results are wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. You will need to do your own homework, which might take a couple of years.
You have no idea how it’s estimated, or even if it’s estimated or measured, but you have absolute faith that whatever it is, it must be right. Despite the fact that you cannot reconcile the Pirani gauge measurements with the energy budget figures. That seems to me to be the exact opposite of skepticism.
“Its clear that nobody here can reconcile the results from the Pirani gauge with the energy budget values. ”
Herb thinks we all should become experts in meteorology and be able to calculate Earth’s global average convection, while neither he nor Shula need to.
Oddly, they are satisfied with using the Pirani gauge as a substitute for the Earth and its atmosphere.
Childish nonsense.
Herb, these are common faux skeptic tactics you are using here.
Demand others explain the technical details of science, and if we can’t, then the science must be wrong!
Of course this is a false dichotomy.
Then there is the replacement of complicated science with a simplified model or analogy that joe public can understand, but ultimately is a poor substitute for the real science.
People point out the deficiencies in the poor model or false analogy, and these are dismissed/downplayed.
And if the Earth doesnt appear to conform to the false but understandable model or analogy, then the real science must be wrong!
We have seen it all before.
More childish nonsense.
“You have no idea how its estimated, or even if its estimated or measured, but you have absolute faith that whatever it is, it must be right. ”
No. But I do have faith in the scientific method.
Lots of people with more expertise than me have vetted the science in the paper we showed you. Some of these are competitors who publish their own numbers that may differ. You can see in the paper a variety of other people’s results for the same numbers with some differences.
Ultimately science gets at the truth.
And I suggest that you have probably some faith in the scientific method as well. You probably take some medications, as I do. I take Statins for cholesterol. I don’t know the technical details behind the science of how they work, but I believe that lots of experts have looked into it. So I take it. Although I do question the amount I need with my doctor.
But you get the idea.
Yes, I get the idea that you have faith, rather than skepticism.
As I tell students, be skeptical of all science you find on the internet, especially from opinion pieces, and consider the source.
Is the piece published in a reputable publication? Does the author have demonstrated expertise in the subject? Has the work been peer reviewed by experts? Does the author appear to have a non-science agenda? Is the piece omitting or misrepresenting key facts? Are assertions backed by checkable facts?
Unfortunately Shula’s piece fails on all these counts. In some cases spectacularly so.
Perhaps you set aside your skepticism for contrarian science?
I am skeptical of Shula’s claims.
There are differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere. Do these differences account for the fact that the gauge gives a ratio of 250:1 whilst the energy budget figures are 1:3? I can’t see how they do account for that. Given that some of the differences close the gap, whilst others widen it.
That’s really all there is to it.
HD wrote:
Absolutely. As has been pointed out to you, the physical principles of the Pirani gauge are vastly different from that of the energy flows from the Sun thru the atmosphere and then out to deep space. Shula’s comparison of convection within a tube with dimensions of 0.01 meters with convection within the Troposphere where critical dimensions range from 10 meters to more than 5,000 meters, is clearly bogus. Get over it.
The difference in convection is one of the ones that increase the gap, not decrease it, as I’ve explained numerous times already.
“gauge gives a ratio of 250:1 whilst the energy budget figures are 1:3?”
There is simply no good science reason to compare the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere in the first place, since it is so different.
Looking more at the energy budget papers, I can see that in some cases they found the radiative fluxes, which are better known, or easier to find, eg from Modtran.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
From precipitation data the latent heat flux (moist convection) can be estimated.
Then they assumed energy balance and inferred the residual fluxes.
Not ideal, but is one way.
If the the solar input to the surface is 160 W/m^2, the NET IR emission is ~ 60 W/m^2, the moist convection is 80 W/m^2 and, then that leaves 20 W/m^2, and must be ~ dry convection.
There is simply no room left in the budget for dry convection to be much larger than 1:3 wrt radiation.
"There is simply no good science reason to compare the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere in the first place, since it is so different."
I know that there are differences between the two. I’ve acknowledged that there are differences between the two. But, if you take into account those differences, you should be able to get from one ratio to the other, no? That’s what the process of reconciliation is all about. The "good science reason" for comparing the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere is that the Pirani gauge at least provides a direct measurement of the amount of conduction/convection compared to the amount of radiation. It’s an empirical starting point. We know it’s "wrong", to a certain extent, compared to the atmosphere, but we don’t know how much it’s "wrong" by. It needs to be "wrong" by an enormous amount for the energy budget figures to be "right".
HD wrote:
Sorry, the analogy doesn’t work. In the Tropophere, there’s a large temperature difference between the surface and the Tropopause, which promotes the upward convection. But the upwelling air cools because of the pressure drop. The energy transport which results is mostly due to the latent heat of the water vapor contained in the air mass. Once the water vapor condenses and falls out, the remaining air must subside back toward the surface and, in doing so, warms as it descends toward the ground. Of course, in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause, convection is almost completely suppressed, due to the positive lapse rate. Shula and his Piranni gauge simply can not capture the processes of the convection in the atmosphere.
Besides, you continue to ignore the fact that the energy balance at the surface is directly measurable and that information is available for analysis. Scientific reports of these efforts have been published since 1993.
I’m not ignoring anything, but you haven’t provided any link to any measurements of the amount of conduction/convection from the surface. Presumably that’s because there aren’t any. Since there aren’t any, you have no empirical data on the ratio of conduction/convection from the surface compared to the amount of radiation from the surface. That’s where the Pirani gauge comes in. It’s an empirical starting point.
You can’t expect the gauge to be a perfect model of the entire atmosphere! It’s just meant as a rough indicator of what might be going on at and near the surface.
You keep making the point over and over again that the amount of convection in the gauge is limited compared to in the atmosphere, seemingly not aware that this is shooting yourself in the foot. You are opening the gap between the gauge ratio and the energy budget ratio, not closing it!
Herb, the differences are quite significant, when you consider the vertical structure of the atmosphere, the pressure decrease with height in the atmosphere, the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere, the weather in the atmosphere, the presence of the ocean, none of which are present in the Pirani gauge.
We can view this problem as an interesting exercise to learn some meteorology via asking why is the conduction/dry-convection such a small component of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is how I view it.
Rather than assuming that meteorology and climate science must have gotten it wrong, and you need proof that they have gotten it right, which is your approach.
One way to understand it is that in the atmosphere radiation and moist convection remove most of the surface heat, reducing the temperature differential, and thus dry convection needs to remove less. And conduction is negligible, as discussed.
"And conduction is negligible, as discussed."
Again, conduction through the atmosphere, as in, between air molecules, might well be negligible. However, that’s not what’s being discussed. What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises. It really is a phenomenon specific to the surface. This is why, the more I think about it, the more the choice of the Pirani gauge makes sense. It doesn’t need to represent the complexities of the entire atmosphere. It just needs to show what is happening at the surface, at the exchange between the surface and the molecules of air in contact with it. The gauge is kind of ideal for that purpose.
As Shula says:
"Frequency of collisions with an ideal planar surface approximately 3 X 10^27 collisions/sec-m2
To put this in perspective, the last number is quite useful. The average surface area of an adult human is around a square meter. That means that each second about 100 lbs. of air molecules collide with each of us with an average speed of about 1050 mph. More importantly, given the photon flux at 288K this means that approximately 100,000 air molecules collide with the surface for each potential infrared photon emitted. Because the energy transfer from collisions will change the equilibrium at the surface by removing energy through conduction, it is likely that the actual emitted photon flux will be even less. To believe that radiative transfer is the primary mechanism for upward heat transfer at the Earth’s surface would mean that one IR photon would transfer more energy than 100,000 molecular collisions. These numbers are for a perfectly smooth planar surface. The actual surface area at an atomic level can be much greater.
Clearly, the interface between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere is an extremely chaotic place at the atomic level. This gives perspective to explain what we see in the operation of the Pirani gauge as explained in the body of this paper."
HD, You keep on insisting stuff, like:
No, the points often repeated is that the Pirani gauge is designed to limit radiation heat transfer and that the conduction/convection within the gauge is not like that in the atmosphere. But you still insist that:
No, there’s no way that the Pirani gauge represents what happens at the interface between the surface and the atmosphere above, if only because the energy transfer includes the mass transfer from the water at the surface to the air above. Recall that the Earth has some 72% coverage by liquid water and the land is also a source of water for evaporation.
Of course, you slide by the fact that the radiation balance at the surface has been repeatedly measured for decades, thus that part of the energy balance model is not up for dispute. Not to mention the other facts about the atmosphere, such as the lapse rate in the Troposphere, which would be much different if there were a much more vigorous convective overturning, pumping energy into the atmosphere.
E. Swanson, your comments about convection being limited in the gauge compared to the atmosphere are up there for all to see. I’m not sure why you’re denying them, now. You don’t seem to be grasping any of the arguments I’m making, so there seems little point in you responding to me.
“Again, conduction through the atmosphere, as in, between air molecules, might well be negligible. However, thats not whats being discussed. What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises.”
Yes it is negligible in the atmosphere, in the sense that once the heat is transferred from the surface to the air, convection takes over and conduction plays no role in that. And then convection is the dominant mechanism for heat to move away from the surface.
If familiar with circuits, the conduction part is analogous to one small resistor in series with a very large resistor that is analogous to convection. The total resistance is the sum of the two. But the convection resistor is much larger, and dominates the sum.
Whereas in the much smaller Pirani gauge, conduction is the dominant mechanism for most of the pressure range. In his graph the curve becomes flat at high pressures, this is a signature of conduction, because conductive heat transfer becomes constant at high pressures.
At very high pressures, above 500 torr, the curve rises slightly, indicating convection, in series with conduction, is coming into play. It grows with increasing pressure. But it appears to be the much smaller component at 760 torr (1 atm).
His attempt to use the Pirani gauge to tell us what happens at 10 torr in the atmosphere is misleading. Because in the atmosphere at 10 torr conduction is negligble, and convection is diminishing, whereas in the Pirani gauge at 10 torr convection is neglible, and conduction is still larger much than radiation.
We seem to be veering off on a tangent. Not sure why. Perhaps between all of you “experts” on here you can reach a conclusion on whether convection is limited in the gauge, or not. One of you said:
“I disagree with some here, but I think convection will be LARGE. There is a gradient of many degrees from the hot filament to the cooler walls. I see nothing to limit convection within this device”.
Are they right, or are you right?
Meanwhile, the main gist of my last comment has still not been addressed.
My original suggestion was that convection within the Pirani gauge tube would be less than operating the wire/filament in an open air environment, where convection would likely be stronger. It should be quite clear that conduction across the small distance (~1/2 inch) between the wire and the tube wall would result in a large fraction of the HT being conduction leaving less for convection. And, as I’ve pointed out several times, the situation regarding convection within the atmosphere is mostly in the Troposphere where the addition of water vapor has a strong influence on the process which is not found within the Pirani gauge.
You are still just playing games to avoid the obvious differences which refute the claims that the Pirani gauge results have any relevance to the energy balance of the Earth.
I’m not playing any games, E. Swanson. Any differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere need to be quantified and accounted for, in terms of how much they affect the ratio. If you can’t do this, you’re just handwaving. If convection is limited in the gauge, then you are opening up the gap between the gauge ratio and the energy budget ratio, not closing it. How many times are we each going to repeat ourselves!?
“We seem to be veering off on a tangent.”
Not really, since if conduction is the main mechanism in the Pirani gauge, and it is insignificant in the atmosphere then that explains the difference.
“Any differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere need to be quantified and accounted for”
In your opinion Herb.
This is a faux controversy motivated by the very flawed Shula article.
IMO, the focus should be on the atmosphere and expert opinion about it.
If you can find papers with much large figures for convection, show us.
The world has many meteorologists. Surely some of them would have objected by now to the convection numbers in the widely reported energy balance diagrams.
No, this is what is going on within the gauge:
“The filament in the Pirani gauge is analogous to the surface of the Earth. The gas molecules collide with the surface and absorb energy raising their effective temperature (conduction). A “bubble” of this warmer gas then rises relative to the cooler gas around it as the cooler gas drops to the surface and repeats the cycle continuously (convection). This cools the surface and is perfectly illustrated by the response of the Pirani gauge. This is well understood by those who have worked with high temperature processes in vacuum systems, and no doubt by many others.”
Conduction AND convection. Working together, at the surface. Conduction is negligible for transporting heat THROUGH the atmosphere, as in, BETWEEN air molecules. It is not negligible AT THE SURFACE. See the numbers I quoted earlier, from the Shula article. In fact, try to respond to that comment, generally, if you can.
“A “bubble” of this warmer gas then rises relative to the cooler gas around it as the cooler gas drops to the surface and repeats the cycle continuously (convection).”
Whoever wrote that 5:23 am doesn’t understand convection in the atm. The replacement air comes in laterally at ambient so is NOT “cooler gas”. Hurricane winds hit you in the face not on the top of your head.
So the atm. can NOT be perfectly illustrated by the response of the Pirani gauge unless hurricanes form in there too.
“Working together, at the surface. Conduction is negligible for transporting heat THROUGH the atmosphere, as in, BETWEEN air molecules.”
Yes. But conduction is NOT negligible for transporting heat from the heated Pirani gauge wire to its outer shell, because the distance is very small.
As I showed previously, conduction depends on size.
Herb,
I asked if you had any other papers from meteorology on convection in the real atmosphere.
If all you are going to is keep referring back to the flawed Shula article on the Pirani Gauge, which all agree is a poor substitute for the atmosphere, then you are just a broken record, and the argument is over.
So, as I said:
"What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises. It really is a phenomenon specific to the surface. This is why, the more I think about it, the more the choice of the Pirani gauge makes sense. It doesn’t need to represent the complexities of the entire atmosphere. It just needs to show what is happening at the surface, at the exchange between the surface and the molecules of air in contact with it. The gauge is kind of ideal for that purpose."
I guess I will have to quote sections of the comment to you to get you to deal with it.
"I asked if you had any other papers from meteorology on convection in the real atmosphere"
Obviously not. Why, do you?
What would be of more interest are papers from meteorology on the specific phenomenon of the paired action of conduction and convection AT THE SURFACE, which is what this is ultimately all about. Do you have any of those?
You will note that I began this discussion by initially asking Dr Spencer’s opinion, precisely because he IS actually an expert on the subject of meteorology. However, he did not respond. So, here we are. I’m wasting my time receiving handwaving responses from faux-experts who want to appeal to their own authority on the one hand, whilst on the other they insist that only the real experts know the truth.
HD continues to pontificate about Shula’s post on the Pirani gauge. He writes:
This is a flawed assertion based on Suhla’s unproven hypothesis that the physics of the Pirani gauge is equivalent in some way to that occurs in the atmosphere, particularly convection from the surface upwards into the Troposphere.
In reality, there’s a difference between surface conduction-convection and the larger scale upward motion away from the surface boundary layer where there is no conduction. At the surface interface, the air flow is ~horizontal across a large area, while above the boundary layer, the convective motion is ~vertical. Within the boundary layer, the conduction is a function of the temperature difference between the air and the surface, which tends to be small, since the horizontal air flow limits energy losses to higher levels until the temperature and water vapor content reaches a critical level to begin vertical convection. Convective stability is a widely recognized characteristic of the atmospheric circulation within the atmospheric sciences. Vertical convection is not a continuous process, but tends to follow the daily cycle of solar insolation forcing.
HD, you can quote yourself all day long, but that does not prove that you (and Shula) are correct. Since you are claiming that the experts are wrong, it’s up to you to provide sufficient proof of the hypothesis, not those of us around here who are unlikely to be experts.
"In reality, there’s a difference between surface conduction-convection and the larger scale upward motion away from the surface boundary layer where there is no conduction."
My point exactly, E. Swanson. Strange that you’re trying to use it against me, in some way.
HD wrote:
It would appear that HD has forgotten what he previously claimed to be the problem. He wrote:
HD was comparing Shula’s conclusions, based on the Pirani gauge, with the radiation balance for the entire atmosphere. But, the setup for the Pirani gauge could only be applied to the surface transport (which it does not represent), not that of the vertical convection, as presented in the graphic for the budget. Shula’s conclusions (and HD parroting thereof) simply do not apply to the vertical convection, so there isn’t any “truly enormous difference to account for”.
Herb, If you can’t/won’t deal with the real system of interest, the atmosphere, and insist on returning again and again to what all agree is a highly flawed substitute, the discussion is over.
There’s no difference to account for? So 250:1 is the same as 1:3?
Or are you saying that there’s a separate energy budget for the "surface transport" out there, which has figures of 250:1 for conduction/convection compared to radiation? If so, I’d like to see it. As far as I know the 1:3 ratio of conduction/convection to radiation is implied to apply to the entire atmosphere, not just where "vertical convection" begins, but also at the surface, in the boundary layer.
Nate, you keep saying that the discussion is over. That’s fine with me, we weren’t getting anywhere anyway since you stubbornly refused to engage on the arguments I was making. See you later. I’ll talk to E. Swanson, instead (though I’d rather Dr Spencer had replied).
“stubbornly refused to engage on the arguments”.
Ha! Well, for no more than a week, anyway.
Looks like I won’t be talking to E. Swanson, either.
Is it possible to pull out data on individual countries from this data? For instance, the UK?
Yes. Ask Blinny to do a grid summation for you.
–India to launch Chandrayaan 3 moon lander and rover on July 14
By Mike Wall
published about 24 hours ago
The Chandrayaan 3 mission is getting ready to fly.–
“India is getting its next moon mission ready for liftoff.
The robotic lunar lander and rover that make up the Chandrayaan 3 mission were stacked atop their Launch Vehicle Mark-3 (LVM3) rocket at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre on Wednesday (July 5), according to the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), which posted photos and a video of the process on Twitter Wednesday morning.
If all goes according to plan, Chandrayaan 3 will launch from Satish Dhawan in the early morning hours of July 14.”
Maybe it will go when planned
–Chandrayaan-3’s journey
Chandrayaan-3 successfully took off from the launchpad yesterday and also got into the correct orbit around the Earth. But that is just the beginning of the mission as far as the spacecraft is concerned. In the coming days, its orbit around the Earth will get more and more eccentric with each revolution before it is ready to transfer to a lunar orbit before finally trying to soft-land on the surface about 42 days after launch.
How long will Chandrayaan take to reach the Moon?
On average, the Moon is about 384,400 kilometres away from the Earth. But Chandrayaan-3 will be taking a longer route to Earths lone satellite in a bid to conserve fuel. With that path, the Vikram lander of the mission is expected to soft-land on the surface of the South Pole region of the Moon in about 42 days from launch, around August 25. —
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/chandrayaan-3-launch-live-updates-8833802/
Emissivity works both ways. Less energy gained at low emissivity also means less energy lost.
Domestic radiators with polished chrome surfaces (emissivity of say 0.9).
edit: Don’t know what happened there. Will use ‘less than ‘and ‘greater than’ instead.
Domestic radiators with polished chrome surfaces (emissivity of say less than 0.05) can be compared to black painted ones (emissivity of say greater than 0.9).
RLH,
There are reasons for using low emissivity surfaces. Heated towel rails are one example which springs to mind.
The temperature of the rail in contact with the towel only needs to be 55 C or so, even if the air temperature is freezing. If the rail is electrically heated, consumption is reduced if the non-towel holding rails are radiating as little as possible (least waste heat). Placing towels on the rail insulates them, and temperature will rise due to the constant internal energy supply. However, you don’t want towels bursting into flame, so very little power is supplied. Over a few hours, the temperature will rise to the appropriate level. Emissivity is irrelevant under these conditions.
Likewise, towel rails supplied by hot water heating, should minimize losses by having low emissivity.
Room heating is completely different, and very complicated if the aim is to achieve maximum human comfort with minimum energy input. Too many variables, and too many subjective considerations.
All good fun.
You miss the point. The evidence shows that chrome finish towel rails lose about 30% less energy than painted ones do. Even though their emissivity is close to 0 as opposed as close to 1.
RLH,
I think the point is that for towel warmers, you want to heat towels. There are other reasons for using a chrome finish – easy to keep clean, wont stain towels, finish won’t rub off, and so on.
Domestic radiators with chrome or other low emissivity finishes are a contradiction in terms (they don’t radiate well at all), but are fashionable. If installed with enough exposed area, they can provide the same amount of radiated heat, but that’s the cost of fashion.
How warm do you want to be, how quickly do you want it to happen, what’s your budget . . . ?
Some people are happy enough to use a sledgehammer to crack walnuts, that’s their choice. You never know when you might need a sledgehammer for something else.
By the way, when you mention 30% loss, do mean system losses as waste heat, or 30% reduction in radiative intensity?
A lot of other items in a bathroom are typically in a chrome finish.
30% reduction in radiative intensity. From 1 to 0 emissivity.
RLH: “With a lot of AGW proponents who try to dominate the conversation.”
Tried to count your own comments recently, matey?
RLH 91
Nate 26
Herb Duncan 24
Me 22
gbaikie 22
Gordon 19
ren 17
Swenson 15
Clint 14
Tim Folkerts 13
Bill Hunter 12
E. Swanson 12
Norman 10
Bindidon 8
Tim S 8
CO2isLife 6
studentb 6
Ken 5
It’s you then daylight. You have more than one quarter of the comments here. And your count most likely went up another half a dozen while I was counting. As usual, you are oblivious to the fact that you are projecting.
RLH: Rather than making a response, you will now ask another inane question.
Almost right. You only added 5 more comments while I was counting.
Whereas you contribute sweatiness and light : ) Now try doing a count of lines rather than posts.
RLH makes a lot of “one-line” comments, but as a true indication of who is abusing the blog, an actual word count is necessary. That would change the ranking dramatically.
So tell me – how many words would someone have to post in a month for them to qualify as someone who is “abusing”?
This question is for RLH also.
I post a lot of comments, but few words.
That is not an answer to my question.
Make sure you make the count high enough to exclude yourself.
What makes you think I will answer your questions?
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
If someone is continually off-topic, that might be “abusing.
If someone continually trolls, such as worthless willard does, that might be “abusing.
If someone continually runs up a word total more than Spencers original post, that might be abusing.
In order to have a scientific theory, you need an author or authors
of the theory.
Who is an author of a greenhouse effect theory?
But facts are differnent.
Fact: We are in an Ice Age.
15 C air temperature is cold.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
What’s this about dominating conversations? Science is not something that can be covered, at times, in a few sentences. If you don’t make your point clear, you get harangued with red-herring rebuttals, misunderstood propositions, ad homs and insults.
Furthermore, there are people who can afford to spend more time posting and perhaps who have a greater interest than others in writing.
I an aptitude test in junior high I rated high in science and journalism. I have no idea why I have those interests but communicating science has always been a passion for me.
I enjoy writing. Sue me if you don’t like it.
You do understand you are talking to RLH and Clint, right?
They made the claims, falsely believing they were catching out our side, when in fact it is you guys who provide the most prolific writers, and that’s what my counts were designed to illustrate.
I have no issue with long comments, nor should anyone else. There is more of an issue with very short comments, case in point Flynn’s two comments in this thread, which are designed solely for trolling purposes.
I am replying to you, AQ. Presumably you supplied the list of the number of posts per poster.
It wasalso you who posted…”So tell me how many words would someone have to post in a month for them to qualify as someone who is abusing?”
That’s what I was responding to.
That’s right – I was asking him to qualify and quantify his statement that making long posts was “abusing the blog”.
Glad you understand.
Now – should I get back to a discussion on the moon’s phases?
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
“what my counts were designed to illustrate”
Sure. Idiot.
There really is no need for you to sign your name at the end of your posts. We all know who you are.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
No-body knows who AQ is.
test
Polo.
I give internet lessons, only $190 an hour
Well, if the so-called Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai Effect (HTE) still was in action, shouldn’t we see – right now – anything of it in the lower stratosphere (LS) monitored by UAH?
Here are the last few months, clearly showing a state of dormancy
June 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ELhjRDeK9OPgh1Vwk0yWuCFW9JxQoCn/view
May 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T8tTkEdQ1v0t7rvKDSPj19DW629-XHTr/view
April 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OQL4JaF3yfi-wEWcYOw2xdE-5zPYz7ye/view
*
And here are the last months possibly (!!!) indicating this HTE:
March 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TUE4leZ2uf_6TFxtF31lydvFb1gUGiEB/view
February 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13vO_2kCWdqV8gOIL3DKTED-e2OeE4B4q/view
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507352
As we can see, the Clint R troll has once more nothing else to offer than a 12-year old’s polemic:
” Bindidon, you’re trolling again. You don’t understand any of this. Take 30 days off (refrain from commenting here), come back and behave as a responsible adult and I’ll try to teach you some science. ”
Clint R ‘trying to teach some science’.
At the usual OMWAR level?
*
By the way, a search on the blog for occurrences of
” You don’t understand any of this. ”
would be quite interesting, wouldn’t it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507352
Better act fast Bin. The price could go up any time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
This is not about stratospheric warming per se. It’s about interference with the Arctic vortex and the jet stream, both of which affect climate issues like drought and flooding. It’s not hard to see a connection between the WV and local variations in weather.
No-one would know that 30N to 30S was 50% of the area of the surface of the globe according to Blinny.
Bindidon, You might also be interested in the NOAA STAR data for the stratosphere which I pointed to a few days ago. The data for SSU1 would be most relevant, since it covers the altitude just above that for the TLS.
If the world had more happy people, the world would be better, Dennis says.
I don’t know, there could be more hateful people.
And it seems there are a lot more happy people in the world- if for no other reason than we have higher population.
One could also point to the claimed significant reduction in global poverty.
Also there seems to be less Lefties.
Also it seems more people can flee their hell holes.
It seems to me the left used to be rather stringent about allowing people escape the lousy country they caused.
North Korea is still doing well, at making North Korea, almost inescapable. But a tiny population of very unhappy people.
When will the cookers here again try and deflect by bringing up the rotating moon fake debate?
No deflection, we use the Moon debate to reveal the lack of logical thinking by the alarmists. That helps reveal their lack of understanding of climate issues.
You are one of the most naive and gullible of the alarmists. You admit to being a student and you are being schooled like a student, albeit a stupid student.
studentb, please stop trolling.
Interesting that the 2 most “cooked” cookers responded to the bait.
Talk about naive!
You’re being a classic troll, Trying to disrupt the group by creating dissension.
Anything useful you want to contribute?
Pot calling the kettle black?
studentb, please stop trolling.
studentb, please stop trolling.
No. You get what you deserve cooker.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Posts of 20+ lines since June 1:
(Clint claims people who post consistently long posts are “abusing the blog”)
Gordon Robertson 111
gbaikie 79
Swenson 63
Willard 34
Norman 32
Bill Hunter 29
Bindidon 28
E. Swanson 12
Christos Vournas 10
Nate 9
Clint is not Roy Spencer.
Correct. Thanks for confirming he is talking nonsense yet again.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling,
I see, aq has set himself up as the word cop. There is always some idjit in a blog or forum who wants to take over and set rules for others.
From my experience writing emails, I have found there are those who get agitated if you write more than one paragraph. The same people tend to have problems comprehending more than a sentence. They tend to be skimmers, who impatiently scan an email looking for a basic meaning. They are also likely to misinterpret what has been written because their minds fill in the blanks with what they think should be there.
If you talk to such people directly, they tend to fidget and are unable to make eye contact. They get bored if you use words longer than 5 letters.
They are also likely to be climate alarmists.
As I’ve said, and as you already know, it was Clint who was complaining about long posts, and I say bring them on.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
In reply to AQs query as to whether I have evidence that some of the current forest fires may be lit by eco-terrorists.
Yes…I am basing it on the wacko groups who have already been prosecuted for damaging infrastructure as an act of terrorism.
It has not escaped my mind that most of the current fires are in ALberta, Canada, a province that relies on oil as an export. The Tar Sands are in Alberta.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecoterrorism
For example, there are eco-terrorists targeting SUV owners by slashing their tires. There was a group prosecuted in the states for burning down infrastructure of oil companies.
One such group is ELF…
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sandiego/news/press-releases/25000-reward-offered-in-eco-terrorism-arson-case
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP_TEVUS_Bombing-Arson-Attacks_Environmental-Animal%20Rights-Extremists_1309-508.pdf
Unfortunately there are eco-alarmists like Greta Thunberg who think its cool to disrupt society to get their points across. Some take it farther, to terrorism.
“wacko groups”??
You mean, like MAGA?
And the biggest terrorist group of all – the Jan 6 insurrectionists.
Antonin Qwerty, studentb, please stop trolling.
Cracking the Ice Age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A63IhF_rB_s
Indeed, we live in the Cracking-the-ice Age.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
The destruction of Tibet, is often, ignored.
One of China’s high crimes which should be long remembered.
So, getting to end of it.
We have to stop the Himalayas from eroding.
Or find a lot more coal to burn.
Just burning natural gas, isn’t enough.
Account for the differences seen in domestic radiators with bright chrome and paint finishes. Simple request.
RLH,
Vanity.
Can’t think of any other reason.
Well the emissivity ranges from nearly 0 to nearly 1.
Can you think of another good reason (apart from ignorance or stupidity) for choosing to use a poor radiator for a radiator?
It’s not about choice, it’s about the difference in output.
RLH,
The difference in radiative intensity is a physical fact. Do we not agree?
I thought you were wondering why people would choose different materials.
Sorry.
“The difference in radiative intensity is a physical fact”
But the energy difference in losses from the radiator is some 30%. Reducing from emissivity 0.95 to emissivity 0.
Or maybe 0.05.
RLH
I have already addressed your points. For a normal radiator radiation is not the major contributing factor. So reducing the loss by radiant energy with a chrome radiator as opposed to a painted one only reduces the heat loss by 30%. Not sure why you think this is a big issue or relates to Earth heat transfer.
I think Tim Folkerts explained it to you very well. You have to look at each system differently. A room radiator does not have to equal Earth system. The laws of physics do not change but other factors influencing heat transfer do.
If you read your own advertisement links on the radiators, chrome is used for towel drying because since it will not lose much energy via radiant means it will reach a higher temperature. It can then transfer more energy via convection is you reduce the radiant loss and so the overall energy transfer changes 30% instead of a greater value.
If you only had radiant heat transfer (say a vacuum) then the change in emissivity would be considerable.
If Chrome radiator was in a vacuum at 60 C and radiating to very cold walls say chilled with liquid nitrogen to maximize radiant heat loss…
Use the calculator on this page
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
With an emissivity of 0.04 and a temp of 60 C radiating to walls at -196 C you get a value of 27.8 watts but if you had high emissivity paint of 0.99 you radiate away 688 Watts. The high emissivity paint over chrome in this situation is about 25 times greater energy loss.
“Not sure why you think this is a big issue or relates to Earth heat transfer”
Because reducing emissivity from 0.95 to 0.05 loses 30% of heat transfer.
“With an emissivity of 0.04 and a temp of 60 C radiating to walls at -196 C”
What is the emissivity and temperature of outer space and the Earth?
“For a normal radiator radiation is not the major contributing factor”
But for the IPCC this is not true. Radiation is the bulk of the heat loss. Even though the temperatures are not that dissimilar.
P.S. What powers the wind? Conduction, convection or radiation?
RLH
If you use logic you can see where the 30% comes from.
With a room radiator 70% loss is convection 30% is by radiant energy. This does not mean the Earth surface loses energy this way only that a room radiator does. You know you can have home heaters designed to maximize radiant heat over convection so most the energy transfer with these is via radiant energy.
https://www.newair.com/blogs/learn/convection-heating-vs-radiant-heating
If radiant energy makes up 30% the maximum would be with the high emissivity paint. if you reduce it to about zero emission than the change will be 30% less heat transfer by effectively elimination of the radiant component.
Thermal conductivity of Chromium is 69.1 W/mK.
“Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases”
“Convection is a very efficient way of heat transfer because it maintains a steep temperature gradient between the body and surrounding air”
Most radiant heaters operate at a few hundred to a thousand degrees C.
“Accordingly, the tube metal must endure a high temperature of approximately 9001000C.”
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What a load of b.s.!
Spot the fudge factors that have been arbitrarily chosen to make the numbers agree.
Spot the meaningless use of significant figures.
Any estimate of the error bars? No.
studentb:
“What a load of b.s.!
Spot the fudge factors that have been arbitrarily chosen to make the numbers agree.
Spot the meaningless use of significant figures.
Any estimate of the error bars? No.”
–
***
Are you, studentb, a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
denier??
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Are you, studentb, a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier??”
***
Christos…his real name is stupid b. He got the name because he is stupid.
studentb, please stop trolling.
Am I reading that graphic correctly? In a single month the anomaly changed by 0.4 C? Really, in a single month the data can change by a full 0.4 C? People claim that there has been 1 to 1.5 C increase in temperatures since the start of the industrial age and blame it on CO2, and you can get a 0.4 C Variation in a single month? That is pure nonsense to claim CO2, a highly stable variable, can cause such variation. To think CO2 can cause that kind of variability simply means people aren’t looking for other causes. They start with a conclusion and end their research there…or lose their funding.
“That is pure nonsense to claim CO2, a highly stable variable, can cause such variation.”
That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation. There are MANY causes for variations (seasons, local weather, el nino, …). The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.
Tim argues:
That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation. There are MANY causes for variations (seasons, local weather, el nino, ). The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.
—————————–
indeed tim argues that they are many causes for natural climate change but he asked God about them and God replied. . .Son, they are all only short term.
Bill, the discussion was about short-term, month-to-month variations, and that is what I was responding to. Everything I wrote was accurate.
If you want a discussion about what God has told you about His conversations with me, you could start your thread. Me — I’ll stick with science in a science discussion.
Timmy,
You wrote –
” The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
I’ll add your description of the GHE to the other equally stupid “descriptions” from Willard, bobdroege, and Bindidon.
I’ll point out that your description is just as idiotic, because the Earth is distinctly cooler than it was when the surface was molten, and you don’t have any time period longer than four and a half billion years, so you can’t pull the “averages” trick.
Here’s your previous GHE description –
“Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures.
More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.” – both for day and night, you claimed.
Care to try for a third equally stupid description?
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The surface cools every night. No GHE.
Maybe you go back to your irrelevant and pointless “scenarios”, with your hidden heat sources and impossible materials.
Carry on.
Tim says:
”The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
No Tim a number of people claim that the LIA recovery and/or solar variation causes a small, long-term slope in addition to other natural variations.
We also have various theories for how clouds may under go longterm changes, how evaporation and precipitation may vary longterm, etc.
These are NOT claimed to be exclusively short termed. But we do know they actually can change the climate which isn’t the case for what you claim what the ”only claim” is.
tim f..”That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation”.
***
That’s a switch, Tim, a climate alarmist arguing that CO2 is not causing the warming.
Meanwhile, the “Climate Expert” on CNN says that this June was the warmest June in the past 500,000 years, and because of climate change it is the coldest June we will ever have again.
That sounds ridiculous..
What? That there is a “climate expert” on CNN?
Neither studentb nor Antonin Qwerty can describe the GHE, of course.
Hence, they are reduced to trolling. It’s a free world.
Let’s see if we can correct some of the nonsense.
First, Ant decides to do a comment count. The count indicated RLH was the leader, which Ant tried to imply meant RLH was “dominating the conversation”. I commented that a REAL comparison of domination would be by comment length. So Ant did a “line” count, revealing the REAL leaders were:
Gordon Robertson 111
gbaikie 79
Swenson 63
Personally, I can excuse Swenson because his comments are usually on topic. He typically always mentions the cult’s lack of a GHE description. His comments are often original and clever. But Gordon and gbaikie are in another league.
Gordon is clearly addicted to commenting. It’s so bad he doesn’t even care what he writes. He leaves his “droppings” all over the blog, never going back to correct them. He’s been confused about Moon phases, heat, entropy, and his latest claim that 400 W/m^2 would burn your feet! He can’t take any substantive criticism, as demonstrated by his recent meltdown with me. He viciously attacked me so harshly that he sounded like Norman.
Dr. Spencer has hinted to gbaikie several times about his commenting. gbaikie completely ignores the hints, preferring to ramble incoherently about his personal interests. He’s even admitted he doesn’t care about the AGW nonsense. Obviously, he believes this is his blog.
Maybe Gordon and gbaikie should split Spencer’s annual cost for this blog, since they seem to claim it as their own.
Ant made the false claim that I’m ONLY opposed to long comments. I have nothing against quantity, if it has value. The key is commenting with quality. If someone’s opinion is invalid, or violates the laws of physics, that someone should be open to learning.
The important thing to remember here is this blog is infested with people ready and willing to pervert science and reality. They claim passenger jets fly backward, ice cubes can boil water, Earth has a REAL 255K surface, and more. I oppose such attempts to pervert science.
As per my “troll rules”, I won’t respond to nonsense.
“Hes even admitted he doesnt care about the AGW nonsense.”
Like the father of global warming who thought 5 C of warming would be a good thing to happen- because we in an Ice Age {and he was in the little Ice Age]. I don’t care if global temperature increases by 2 to 3 C. But idea that changing in global temperature are mostly or significant increase because of higher global levels of CO2, thus to related to what caused glacial periods {or huge ice sheets on North America] was wrong. As everyone knows, today, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age due to geological process and plate tectonic activity. He didn’t know we were in a 33.9 million year Ice Age- but everyone knows this, now.
And I am very interested in global warming cargo cult which I guess is due to the followers of this weird faith is due to not understanding the planet Venus- why is Venus surface so hot?
And the faith that Venus was similar to Earth.
Though perhaps what most obvious, is that I am interested in Space- and why NASA has failed to explored the Moon and Mars.
And what important regarding this, is the global satellite market- I think NASA wouldn’t exist without it. And we wouldn’t have UAH without having the global satellite market.
And getting more {and better} satellite to measure Earth temperature and do a lot stuff, is also an interesting topic.
In winter, the troposphere looks quite miserable against the stratosphere. With such a thin troposphere, is it more likely that there will be a significant increase in winter temperatures, or a rapid decrease?
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
Did you guys know we’re suffering from EXTREME heat in the US? Not just heat, but EXTREME heat? That is the media narrative. They are the lapdogs of the left.
Tomorrow, my weather forecast is a night time of 59 F {15 C} and
15 C air temperature is cold.
I am going need to wear a coat tomorrow night. And could get colder at this rate but at least my dwarf lemon tree is not in danger, yet.
UAH USA48 (look at the top of the page) did not think so for last month.
Year Month USA48
2023 May +0.57
2023 June -0.36
The bigger the lie they can get away with the more money the media make.
Mind-Blowing Transformation at the SpaceX Starship Launch Site!
Grr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=740TF0k1V1E
It was a bit mind-blowing, I just realized the madman, is pretty
serious about launching a Starship from a launch pad, 3 times a day.
And why focus on that, now??
He making 3 towers. Or 2 with back up for one.
Why would he want such a fast turn around for a launch pad.
Two pads each doing 1 per week, anytime in next 2 years seems to be
enough.
It seems only answer is going to do ocean launch within 2 years and just going to launch most Starship from that ocean pad and just going to “start” with one ocean launch pad.
And only use land launch {in an emergency} if ocean launch has bad weather- and land launch site has good enough weather.
Of course another reason is one might need time to work out how get such a fast launch rate. So “the plate shower head” is just version 1 and could get to having version 3 [or higher].
“Quick question:
Two identical cars are sitting in the sun in a parking lot for four hours in the summer. One car has a black bumper, the other, a chrome bumper. Which one is hotter?”
https://www.savenrg.com/efactorfacts.htm
Sigma has a value of 5.670374419 10−8 watt per square meter per kelvin to the fourth (W / (m2 x K4).
To calculate differences, L = A sigma (T^4 – Tenv^4).
This mean that small differences in sigma will have a large effect on the heat transfer via radiation. Inwards and outwards.
“There are two choices: flat black or black chrome. You will pay more for the black chrome panel but you will also get hotter water as 95% of the heat collected by the absorber is trapped and only 5% is free to re-radiate out through the glazing.”
Black chrome takes a lot heat via water heat transport- it doesn’t loses heat [very much] exteriorly via radiation or air convectional process.
with car bumper there many factors, including other cars with shiny bumpers.
The article says nothing about the convectional process.
Newtons law of cooling describes that quite well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
Thermal conductivity of Chromium is 69.1 W/mK
I know it is easier to walk barefooted on concrete than on asphalt.
Not if there are a lot of small pebbles on the concrete.
“There are two choices: flat black or black chrome. ”
You have two choices to buy, flat black painted finish or black chrome painted finish.
In regards to chrome, in general.
You can get some metal plated with chrome or you can paint
anything with chrome colored paint. Or use color of paint called
black chrome.
Paints could metallic pigments in them. You could get gold paint but
it’s unlikely to have actual gold in it, likewise I don’t know what
metallic pigments are in black chrome paint, but unlikely, chrome metal. It’s mostly glossy black paint have different emission properties compare to flat black paint. And the clear gloss would probably be more significant than metallic pigments giving it a brand name: “black chrome”
Notice how small changes in sigma affects things a lot more than small changes in thermal conductivity.
P.S. Most radiators are bright (i.e. shiny) chrome plating finishes.
I have seen old fashioned water radiators coated with several layers of paint and they warmed the room just fine.
But those layers of paint do not effect the way that those same radiators spread their energy by radiation at all. /sarc
RLH,
Your source –
“The chrome bumper reflects 96% of the heat and only absorbs 4% but this heat is “trapped” in the bumper as only 4% can emit from the surface. Immersed in a bath of infrared (the sun), the steel under the low emissivity surface of the chrome bumper will soon exceed that of the one painted flat black.”
This is just as silly as the “heat trapping” nonsense of the GHE fools.
These well meaning dingalings have no clue. Put a chrome, flat black, Perspex, or concrete bumper in a freezer, exposed to 100% IR from the walls, roof, and floor, and convince yourself that the interior of the chrome bumper stays hotter because of “heat trapping”.
No free energy. No heat trapping. No GHE.
So explain why chrome tools get so hot in the sun.
RLH,
Oooooh! Another stupid attempt at a gotcha!
Either you believe you know the answer, and are trying to make me look stupid, or you don’t, but are pretending you do. That makes you look stupid, which you obviously are, posing such a witlesss, poorly framed gotcha.
You demanded that I tell you “why chrome tools get so so hot in the sun.” If you really don’t know it’s due to sunlight, you are exceptionally stupid!
Now, you can whine all you like that you really meant to say something else. Maybe you should engage your brain, before hammering away on your keyboard. If you believe that I am wrong about something, just say so, and say why, if you believe you have supporting facts.
Others can make up their own minds. I certainly change my views when I am presented with new facts. You?
So are the tools hotter than if they were painted flat black?
RLH,
You wrote “So are the tools hotter than if they were painted flat black?”
I don’t know, why ask me?
I hope you are not stupid enough to believe that two objects which have different thermal conductivities, but are at the same temperature, will feel equally hot to the touch?
Here’s a hint – trying to make someone look foolish by asking a poorly framed gotcha (particularly if you start your gotcha with “So, . . .”) is unlikely to work to your benefit.
By the way, if you are going to actually measure the temperature of your objects, you need to realise that consumer IR thermometers are calibrated for an emissivity of 0.95 in general. You will find that the apparent temperature of the chromed surface is quite different from its temperature measured by a different type of thermometer – contact, for example.
Now, you tell me what the measured temperatures were, exposure times, thermal conductivity of the paint, its emissivity at the frequency of the heat source, and so on. All about as silly as asking me how hot a 2N3055 transistor gets dissipating 5 watts! Heat sink? Liquid nitrogen cooling system? In direct sunlight with air temp of 50C? In a blizzard at -40 C?
Go ahead, try another stupid gotcha, fool.
Then go and try and get a clue.
It’s emissivity which changes, not thermal conductivities.
test
Polo
I give internet lessons, only $190 an hour
Regarding emissivity, there was something I keep forgetting to mention.
In regard to “climate science” or if like global warming cargo cult,
or popular views said about the general topic.
Earth on average is suppose to emit about 240 watts per square meter.
Which also means Earth absorbs about 240 watts per square meter.
Part of this 240 watts is suppose to come directly [or could say, not altered] and the number given is about 40 watt.
40 times 6 = 240. Or 40 watts is 1/6 of 240 watt.
Or we “know” about 16% of sunlight is radiantly emitted and is not absorbed by anything in atmosphere {it goes directly from surface and does not interact with anything and goes into space}.
Now if want to argue about the 240 or 40 number- fine. But my only point is some portion of absorbed sunlight goes directly into space.
And I would add, that ocean absorbs most of the sunlight and ocean surface is unlikely to emit a high portion of that 40 watt number.
I tend to imagine mountains emit a lot of it, though mountains are tiny, tiny portion of entire Earth surface.
So allowing for tiny portion of surface, per square meter of mountains, they do “more”.
gb,
No need for complicated calculations, if you believe Baron Fourier.
During the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Mountains, deserts, ocean, lakes – it doesn’t matter. After four and a half billion years of sunlight, all have managed to come into existence and cool.
Fourier’s conclusion seems to fit with observations.
No CO2 heating. No mysterious GHE (which nobody can describe in any way which accords with reality).
Here is a pictograph: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
Ken,
Oooooh! Multicolored graphic! How impressive! Complete nonsense of course, a fantasy created by idiots.
Supported by more idiots. The accompanying text says “Energy from the sun is mostly in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.”. That particular idiot lives in a dream world, disconnected from reality.
Maybe you share his fantasy, and would like to say why? Or you could just scuttle away, preferring not to appear stupid or gullible.
It shows about 18.4 w/m^2 being dissipated via convection, which is ridiculous.
I love it that wind and wave energy is not covered by that image at all. Of course the globe is static in that regard all the time /sarc.
“Oooooh! Multicolored graphic!”
Swenson was the bully in school who insulted the smart kids’ haircuts, outfits, big words, and really just for being too intelligent.
He never grew out of it.
So Nate is your contention that loses due to wind, wave and friction/turbulence are not needed? They all take energy from the total to operate.
Nate,
Oh dear! You might need a refund from the con-man you sold you the mind-reading course.
Trying to avoid the fact that you cannot even describe the GHE makes you look extremely stupid.
Maybe you try some pathetic and pointless trolling?
[laughing at dimwitted reality denier]
“Maybe you try some pathetic and pointless trolling?”
Ok, here goes:
Oooooh! Multicolored graphic!
Nah, that’s your thing, not mine.
“So Nate is your contention” did I say anything about any of that?
tim…” The primer mover for delivering heat from the surface to the atmosphere is latent heat. Convection and radiation are both much smaller and both similar in magnitude. Just like heat from a radiator to a room is similar for radiation and convection”.
***
Tim…I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
Latent heat does not leave the surface. It is consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in water to release molecules as vapour. Certainly, the WV has more KE than the molecules bound as water by hydrogen bonds, but I hardly think you can call that latent heat. You can feel the warmth of the vapour against your skin and that makes it sensible heat.
Any heat leaving the surface is sensible and it rises by convection only. It represent the heat in the water created by solar energy therefore it represents surface heat.
According to Shula’s experience with the Pirani gauge it is simply not true that heat dissipation is equal between radiation and convection. Conduction/convection is 250 times more effective at dissipating heat than radiation.
Besides, Trenberth’s energy budget does not claim they are equal, it’s just that he has it backwards. Radiation is an insignificant cooling agent at terrestrial temperatures.
–TimI have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
Latent heat does not leave the surface. It is consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in water to release molecules as vapour. Certainly, the WV has more KE than the molecules bound as water by hydrogen bonds, but I hardly think you can call that latent heat. You can feel the warmth of the vapour against your skin and that makes it sensible heat.–
Water vapor leaves the surface. Latent heat happens when gas becomes liquid and also when it become solid.
Before that, water vapor in the air {atmosphere} is both condensing and evaporating [this related to wet lapse rate {or dry lapse rate}].
Also the high troposphere of the Tropics has a lot ice in it.
Anyhow the energy is not “consumed”, energy is just transformed into different states of matter.
So, require heat for ice to become liquid, and heat to make gas, gas to liquid gives heat, and liquid to solid gives heat {no energy is gained or lost}
Now in dry atmosphere you a lower partial pressure of water vapor.
Or if atmosphere didn’t have water vapor, liquid and solid water will just evaporate {unless H20 is about -150 C- so water does both, evaporates and condenses- it earning money and spending money, constantly.
Anyhow tropics is warm and wet- until goes high enough then it’s cold and dry. But it’s warmer and wetter than rest of world at that higher elevation, and as goes higher, molecules can move distances “better”- though not a lot better- anyhow, the tropical ocean heat engine.
How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
Posted on July 8, 2023 by curryja | 16 Comments
by Hakon Karlsen
A comprehensive explainer of climate sensitivity to CO2
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/08/how-much-warming-can-we-expect-in-the-21st-century/
“According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmospheres climate sensitivity to CO2is likely between 2.5 and 4.0C. Simply put, this means that (in the very long term) Earths temperature will rise between 2.5 and 4.0C when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles.
A 2020 study (Sherwood20) greatly influenced how the IPCC calculated the climate sensitivity…..”
“Nic Lewis took a closer look at this study, and in September 2022, he published his own study (Lewis22) that criticizes Sherwood20. By correcting errors and using more recent data, including from AR6, Lewis22 found that the climate sensitivity may be about 30% lower than what Sherwood20 had found.”
So how much money does government want to spend- around 400 trillion
and 30% of 400 is 120 trillion. I think this Sherwood20 owes me a significant amount of repartition. And when it pays me, I might give Nic 1/2 of it.
clint…”Gordon is clearly addicted to commenting. Its so bad he doesnt even care what he writes”.
***
I have been staying away from controversial comments about you but if you want to be stupid I’ll expose all your pseudo-science.
“Hes been confused about Moon phases, heat, entropy, and his latest claim that 400 W/m^2 would burn your feet! He cant take any substantive criticism, as demonstrated by his recent meltdown with me. He viciously attacked me so harshly that he sounded like Norman”.
***
You are clearly an immature twit who cannot control his emotions for the good of skeptics and Roy’s blog. Yet, when Roy banned you years ago, you butt-kissed to be re-instated. That makes you a snotty-nosed butt-kisser.
There was no meltdown on my part, it was you who went out of your way to criticize the length of my posts, clearly envious that I have the ability to write lengthy posts wheres you are limited to insults and ad homs. You had no reason to attack me other than your immaturity and to be a legend in your own mind.
You have zero understanding of heat and entropy. Even when I quote the definition given by Clausius for entropy, a concept he invented, and offer proof from his equation for entropy, that it is about heat and not disorder, you stick to your stupid ideas it is about disorder.
Then you offer up an equal stupidity that heat is not energy but a transfer of energy. When I ask what energy is being transferred, you have no response. It is heat being transferred dumbo…thermal energy.
Now you are trying to tell me that if I wound heating elements over a square metre. rated at 400 watts and placed a thin, steel plate on it that standing barefoot on the plate would not burn my feet.
I worked on a computer that had a 2N3055 power transistor mounted on the metal cabinet door as a heat sink and it only outputs about 10 watts. If you touch the metal can of the 2N3055, it will burn your skin. You could have cooked eggs on the metal door. I’d hate to see the same 1/8 inch aluminum door with 350 watts worth of heat trace on the other side.
You offer yourself as a teacher, which is a joke. You have nothing to teach. All you do is offer acerbic comments to anyone who dares to disagree with you. You have a problem with immaturity and as far as I am concerned you are a detriment to the skeptic cause.
You don’t even know what troll means as applied to the internet. If you have ever encountered a real troll you’ll know what it means.
A real troll has many of the characteristics you possess. Trolls like to take over a group and control it. When they are resisted they resort to tactics to disrupt the group. That’s you. More recently, you have become insufferable with your on-going attacks on posters.
I am expecting you to use more harsh troll tactics in the future as posters wake up to your need for power.
As for me, I’ll use the traditional anti-troll technique, ‘Don’t feed the trolls’. I have been ignoring you but you insist on attacking me, a typical troll tactic.
“Trolls like to take over a group and control it.”
Of course, nobody would ever accuse you of doing that to this site.👀
studentb, please stop trolling.
Trolls like to ….control it.
Of course, you would never try to control who comments here🥷🏿
studentb, please stop trolling.
You mean like AQ?
stupid b…I have stated my intention several times.
Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.
I disagree with Roy on several key points but I support him fully on his stance on global warming/climate change. There’s a difference between stating my points neutrally, and owning them as my opinion, or stating them in a manner that is derogatory to Roy.
I appreciate the fact that Roy has been open-minded in that regard because I would have been censored expressing my views on many other sites. I have posted in the past on other sites and never had a problem with my opinions being stated. I mean, what good is science if people cannot express alternate views?
I have always been careful to back my claims scientifically. If I have been wrong on anything I have stated, I am still awaiting an objective critique.
Another motivation for me is to speak up on behalf of people who will be harmed by climate alarmist policies. From what John Christy has stated openly on that subject, I feel that I am aligned with John. I am talking humanitarian issues.
I tend to push my opinions on atomic structure and basic quantum theory but I have a strong background with such matters,both theoretically and practically. What is being construed as me trying to control proceedings here is my eclectic interest in science that parallels the issues about climate science. I am simply trying to point out that science in general is suffering from myopic and conventional thought.
Many in Roy’s blog have voiced their opinion about my views on time, especially as related to Einstein’s theory of relativity. I am not denouncing Einstein as a person or a scientist, I am simply questioning his understanding of time. I have spent years studying time and what it is as part of awareness seminars and as I have pointed out, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock was just as critical of Einstein’s thought experiments.
Roy wrote an essay on evolution, and although he has religious leanings, I thought his paper was very scientific. I agree with what Roy wrote on the subject. As I have pointed out, Newton was far more religious than Roy and he is still regarded by many as the top scientist of all time.
I think Newton would have laughed at Darwin’s silly theory about evolution. Or the claim that the Moon rotates on a local axis. He would have chided the interpreter for failing to dig deeply enough into the Latin used by Newton.
Anyone who thinks I am here to troll is either seriously stupid or has way too much time on his hands.
Geez!
I landed a big fish with this response today.
Don’t you love the condescending comments about Einstein and Darwin. You can’t make this stuff up!
studentb, please stop trolling.
“Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.”
This is otherwise known as blind appeal to authority.
Antithetical to how science works. And is how authoritarianism works.
The papers of even the most renowned scientists are still questioned, critiqued, challenged and not blindly accepted. Because no one is infallible.
Nate: So what is your critique of UAH processing? Remembering that NOAA/STAR is in close agreement with UAH.
Gordon, have you sent Roy your check for his blog costs yet? A blog like this used to cost about $2000/yr. I expect it’s more now.
I expect he would welcome your payment more than your vacuous brown-nosing.
Gordo posts another long rant promoting his flawed views of science. He writes:
Gordo refuses to accept the interpretation of radiation heat transfer as widely accepted by engineers and scientists, referring to early work by Clausius on thermodynamics. He ignores the fact that the Clausius 2nd Law applied to mechanical systems, particularly reversible processes. Sorry, mister expert, thermal IR radiation heat transfer doesn’t follow those rules. The absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation by a body does not depend on the temperature of the source, only the emissivity of the surface in the appropriate range of wavelengths.
Once more, Robertson intentionally lies about what Newton wrote in his Principia Scientifica.
” … Or the claim that the Moon rotates on a local axis. He would have chided the interpreter for failing to dig deeply enough into the Latin used by Newton. ”
This is a pure lie.
*
I have published Newton’s original Latin text often enough (Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV), along with a list of translators of the original text, but people like Robertson always restart their nonsense from the beginning.
Funny thing is that the Robertson ignoramus just chided poster boy Clint R but of course supports him 100% when it comes to the lunar spin.
Funniest of all is that people like Robertson always claim that others ‘appeal to authority’, but they always do exactly the same thing themselves.
Robertson’s authorities he permanently appeals to are
– Roy Spencer & John Christy
– EM Smith aka chiefio
– R.W Wood
– Gerlich & Tscheuchner
– Louis Essen (or better: the contrarian anti-Einstein blogs which misuse Essen as alleged contradictor to Einstein)
– Stefan Lanka in the virus discussion
etc etc etc.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Funny thing is that the Robertson ignoramus just chided poster boy Clint R but of course supports him 100% when it comes to the lunar spin.”
Pathetic attempt at trolling.
I assume you don’t support everything Sir Isaac Newton wrote, but correct me if I’m wrong.
I suppose because I don’t support John Tyndalls view that the heat of the sun must be due to meteoric impacts, then I must disagree with everything else he demonstrated by experiment?
You really are a silly chap, using ad hom attacks to draw attention away from the fact that you cannot describe the GHE. What an idiot you are!
Next thing, you will be claiming that you can peer into the future by carefully dissecting the past.
Do try.
nate…”[GR]Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.
[Nate]This is otherwise known as blind appeal to authority.
Antithetical to how science works. And is how authoritarianism works”.
***
A blind appeal to authority would mean blindly accepting everything Roy and John Christy state. I have already declared that I don’t agree with Roy on several points of science. Even at that, we are essentially on the same page with regard to global warming/climate change.
However, there’s also respect. I don’t think it’s cool to go onto the site of a professional scientist and try to draw him into a debate where he is the only one who can lose his reputation. I appreciate Roy making this blog available and allowing me to offer views with which he likely disagrees. I also appreciate the stance made by Roy or John on global warming/climate change, based on evidence, and I have no interest in trying to denigrate their views.
On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann over at realclimate would ban me in a second for even suggesting something other than what they preach. That’s what you alarmists think is cool.
In case it has escaped you, some good science is beginning to emerge on Roy’s blog from diverse discussions that would not be available on restrictive blogs. When you try to restrict discussion, unless the discussion is totally inadequate, you end up with bland science.
swannie…” He ignores the fact that the Clausius 2nd Law applied to mechanical systems, particularly reversible processes. Sorry, mister expert, thermal IR radiation heat transfer doesnt follow those rules. The absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation by a body does not depend on the temperature of the source, only the emissivity of the surface in the appropriate range of wavelengths”.
***
The 2nd law applies to the direction of heat transfer. Clausius dealt with the equivalence of heat and work (mechanical energy) but the heat portion is governed in its direction, by its own means, from hot to cold.
Clausius stated that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. That’s a no-brainer since energy transfer in general is governed as well by another basic rule of thumb that energy can never be transferred by its own means from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.
Unfortunately, Clausius knew nothing about electrons or the electromagnetic energy produced by them. Like his peers of that era, he thought heat could flow through space as heat rays.
Apparently you are still under the influence of that incorrect anachronism since you believe heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
Gordo repeats his old claim about me:
No, Gordo, the NET ENERGY EXCHANGE is always from hot to cold. You are confusing static temperature, such as the increase in the BP temperature in the GPE, with dynamic energy transfer from the BP to the surroundings, which is a constant. Applying your logic, the addition of extra insulation to a building’s envelope would violate the 2nd Law, as the interior of the building would exhibit a temperature increase for a constant rate of energy supply with a fixed external temperature. That’s basic heat transfer engineering. Gordo never learns.
Its not just a belief. Clausius meant a measure of kinetic energy was transferred by its own means and a measure of thermal KE transfers both cold to hot and hot to cold simultaneously between two objects in view of each other as proven by Planck’s cited experiments.
“not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.”
Again, when any scientist publishes, they are opening up their assertions to challenges.
That is the point of publishing and how science advances. And Roy fully understands it.
Obviously being polite is more likely to lead to a response from Roy.
I’m enjoying your meltdown, Gordon. And I’m especially enjoying your denial that you’re in a meltdown!
Your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations only prove how willing you are to pervert reality.
Your believe that 400 W/m^2 could burn you is just another example of your ignorance of science. The human body emits a little over 400 W/m^2.
I know it’s hard for you to ignore me when you’re so obsessed with me. That’s why this is so much fun.
Your amateur psychology is on par with your amateurish understanding of physics. You are so shallow it’s easy to see right through you.
If dremt and I had not bailed you out with your lunar theory, by bringing respectable physics to it, you’d have sunk just like you are sinking now. You have managed to alienate yourself from alarmists and skeptics alike, so you are good at one thing. You have slowly turned yourself into the quintessential troll.
The only option available to you is to back off and hope everyone forgets your bitterness and cynicism.
Gordon, I’m enjoying your meltdown. And I’m especially enjoying your denial that you’re in a meltdown!
Your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations only prove how willing you are to pervert reality.
Your believe that 400 W/m^2 could burn you is just another example of your ignorance of science. The human body emits a little over 400 W/m^2.
I know it’s hard for you to ignore me when you’re so obsessed with me.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Evidence of new volcanic process on Moon discovered
“,,,
The Chinese Chang’E 1 and 2 lunar orbiters were key in the discovery. Siegler noted, “Using a microwave wavelength instrument, we have been able to map temperatures below the Moon’s surface. We found that one of the suspected volcanoes, known as Compton-Belkovich, was incredibly radiant at microwave wavelengths.”
These findings hint at the existence of a heat source beneath the volcano, not on its surface, as infrared technology might suggest. This discovery implies that Compton-Belkovich hides a larger heat source beneath its visible structure.
Given the last known eruption of this volcano occurred approximately 3.5 billion years ago, the heat detected is unlikely to originate from molten lava. Rather, scientists believe it stems from the radioactive elements present within the now solidified rock. They concluded that only granite would contain sufficient quantities of these radioactive elements.
The evidence, collated using this groundbreaking microwave instrument, suggests that this lunar volcano was once fueled by a larger granite magma chamber beneath it, representing the most Earth-like volcanism found on the Moon to date.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Evidence_of_new_volcanic_process_on_Moon_discovered_999.html
This is really weird.
SEE O TOO Abso r p tion Distribution: Simple Calculation & Intrepretation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSm49BFKvDY
It is not surprising that there is such a variation in model conclusions. The total of all forcing net of feedbacks roughly balances the suns effect on the earth of 200 Watts per square meter. Models should first consider the total amount of CO2 and other forcing elements, rather than the changes. The proper base for doing this is Kelvin if not 0 kelvin then something close to it. So a 1C or K change in temperature is a 1/3 percent change. If a major forcing such as CO2 or a major feedback such as water vapor changed by 5%, arguably there would be a net change in forcing of 3%, which is enough to change global temperature by 9 C. This not being admissible, climate sensitivity must be adjusted to correspond to observed temperatures. The one degree C change in temperature from 1850 to 2022 could be dismissed as within a margin of error. The bottom line is that the earths temperature is extremely sensitive to changes in forcing of a few percent. This is not the first time this point has been made in the blog but it is worth emphasizing. In my opinion, the error ranges of the model inputs, and factors not considered such as, in my opinion, the misestimation of methane emissions, of decreasing aerosols and of geothermal activity in the deep ocean make it impossible to know which model, if any, is worthy of trust.
David, you start off with the cult nonsense about “forcing”. But, you end up making some good points.
Realize that CO2 has NO ability to provide a “forcing”. It supplies no energy to the system, and the energy from a 15μ photon would have no effect on a 288K surface. A REAL forcing is something like El Niño, or last year’s Hunga-Tonga eruption. Of course, don’t forget Sun!
CO2 has NO ability to provide a forcing. It supplies no energy to the system,
Will you get off that delusional hobby horse.
Co2 does not need to supply energy to the system. The energy is already in the system, delivered by sunlight. ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving.
If the climate system were a bank account CO2 would reduce your outgoings by about one cent for every ten dollars.
Poor Ent, physics is WAY over your head.
“The energy is already in the system, delivered by sunlight.”
Correct, It’s the Sun, stupid.
“ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving. If the climate system were a bank account CO2 would reduce your outgoings by about one cent for every ten dollars.”
Incorrect. Photons do NOT account as does money. 99 gazillion 15μ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface more than one 15μ photon.
Or for simpletons, ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Stick with trying to pervert reality Ent, like your claim that passenger jets fly backward. You’re not any good at science.
EM,
You wrote –
“ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving.”
At night, the temperature falls, but you might deny this. All energy radiated by the surface goes away, never to return. The temperature falls.
A cylinder of pressurized CO2, left out at night will cool. All the energy that the CO2 radiates goes away, lost, vanishes, never to be seen again.
You are quite made. Nothing can stop an object radiating energy. If the object radiates more than it receives, it cools. Just like the Earth has over the past four and a half billion years. Just like the surface does every night.
You are deluded or exceptionally gullible. Try getting a description of the GHE which reflects reality. I know it would make no difference – facts do not affect the mindset of the psychotic individual.
Keep at it. I enjoy a good chortle at the expense of the mentally challenged.
David
An energy flux of 240W/m^2 enters the climate system and 239W/m^2 leaves to space.
That is an imbalance of 1/240 *100 = 0.41%.
That is still enough to raise the energy content of the oceans by 10^22Joules/year and raise the global average temperatures by 0.2K/decade.
To put the change into perspective, we have warmed 1.2K since 1880.
5K warming brought us out of the last glacial period. Another 5K would put into Eocene conditions with hippos in the Thames.
Sorry Ent, but the 240 W/m^2, 239 W/m^2, imbalance, and ocean energy content are all imaginary values from your cult. So, like your passenger jets flying backward, you wont be seeing any hippos in the Thames.
Why do you hate reality?
If you think my numbers are imaginary, then you must have better numbers.
Since temperatures are increasing there must be more energy coming in than is going out.
How much energy is coming in, how much is going out and how big is the imbalance?
EM,
“Since temperatures are increasing there must be more energy coming in than is going out.”
Not at all. Thermometers respond to heat. Light a candle. Put a thermometer bulb in the flame, watch the temperature increase.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight – CO2 and all!
Less energy in than our!
Are you an idiot, or just a delusional SkyDragon cultists, trying to sell something that you can’t even describe?
Carry on.
Swenson has it right, Ent. Earth could care less about “energy in vs energy out”. Earth does NOT track energy. Earth responds to temperature. You can “trap” all the 15μ photons you want but you still can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Thinking that “trapping” low energy photons makes a difference is one of the many errors in the GHE nonsense.
You haven’t answered my question — Why do you hate reality?
test
My study, found now at myclimatequestions.com, finds that the recent rise of 0.2 per decade is in large part by decreasing (probably temporary) aerosols, as several excellent studies have confirmed, but that the IPCC has completely ignored. The temperature drop in the mid 20th century was on the other hand, caused by increasing aerosols. If one allows for these effects, and uses this site’s present temperatures, the temperature increase per decade over 100 years is 0.1 C with no acceleration.
I distrust projections in general, but my best guess would be another 0.8 C by 2085. Several very hard to project events could cause a large change one way or another.
Totally ignored by IPCC? No. The top-of-atmosphere flux trend/decade over 2002/09-2020/03 in aerosols is measured with 95% confidence at .01 +/- .04 W/m^2 out of a net of 0.65 in the period. Nature’s real attributed aerosol trend amount last couple of decades somewhere in that range could be very slightly positive or negative on global temperatures.
“If one allows for these effects, and uses this sites present temperatures, the temperature increase per decade over 100 years is 0.1 C with no acceleration.”
But this site’s temperatures start only 1979.
In any case, you seem to be more certain than climate science about the relative strengths of aerosol and GHG forcings over the century.
Roy.
In the UK media much has been made of the first couple of days in June being the highest ever according to Climate reanalyser.
Could I ask if you have seen anything in your satellite data that suggest the Earth average temp has suddenly jumped nearly half a degree since last month.
As Roy does not usually read comments this far down the thread, this recent jump is likely due to the combination of the warming ENSO waters and the Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE).
Mark
It’s not as unlikely as it sounds.
For three years La Nina conditions have been storing more heat than normal in the oceans and surface temperatures have been low.
Now we have switched to El Nino and all that stored heat is coming back out to the ocean surface and the atmosphere.
Hence the jump in measured temperatures.
Look at the monthly graph above. You can see the same effect in 1998 and 2016.
EM,
You wrote –
“For three years La Nina conditions have been storing more heat than normal in the oceans and surface temperatures have been low.”
Physically impossible. Get some water, store some heat in it for three years. Let the heat put. Put your fingers in your ears to block out the sound of people laughing at your gullibility.
You are as delusional as the idiotic Keven Trenberth, and it’s a travesty.
ent…”For three years La Nina conditions have been storing more heat than normal in the oceans and surface temperatures have been low”.
***
I agree with Swenson, this statement makes no sense. ENSO is defined based on a difference of temperature in the central Pacific between Australia and Tahiti. The definition tells us nothing about what caused the difference in temperature or why there is a difference.
Please describe the mechanism of ENSO as you see it.
EM,
You wrote –
“Please describe the mechanism of ENSO as you see it.”
And if he doesn’t respond to your gotcha, what then?
Do you value his opinion, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you cannot describe the GHE?
The atmosphere acts chaotically, as the IPCC agrees. It is not possible to forecast future climate states, as the IPCC also agrees.
It’s OK, the IPCC hasnt been able to describe the GHE either!
As Gordon said – “The definition tells us nothing about what caused the difference in temperature or why there is a difference.” You don’t disagree, do you?
Idiot.
Actually I’m curious. Gordon’s world view is so different from mine that I have trouble understanding it.
EM,
Gordon wrote “The definition tells us nothing about what caused the difference in temperature or why there is a difference.”
I take it you arent disagreeing, because you don’t understand the explanation.
Or are you disagreeing, but don’t know why?
What is it that you are curious about? I don’t believe that you are curious at all – you are just trying to make someone look foolish. I’m not at all curious why you are trying to pretend that a GHE (which you can’t describe, of course) exists. You are delusional.
Keep wriggling and avoiding.
Mark…see graph at top of the page. Roy states it is statistically the same as last month.
Mark,
The entire month of June was a record high for global surface T.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/
“Typically, the reflectance grows very rapidly with an angle of incidence above 60 degrees.”
–
It is very much agreed, and
the combined diffuse (albedo) reflectance and specular reflectance of the smooth surface planets and moons:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
includes the strong specular reflection, which has to be taken in consideration.
We have now the Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and roughness coefficient, which is for smooth surface planets and moons
Φ =0,47)
So, the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux, for those smooth surface planets and moons is:
Φ(1 -a)S
where a is the average surface diffuse albedo,
and the S is the solar flux.
The above provides a lower-bound on the amount of light that will contribute to warming – the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux, which is referred to the planet’s cross-section cycle.
When calculated for Earth:
0,47(1 -0,306)*1.362 W/m = 444 W/m
Thus the combined reflection of the SW incident on planet Earth solar flux of 1.362 W/m is:
1 – 444W/m /1362W/m = 1 – 0,326 = 0,674
or 67,4%
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The life runs on See O Too
https://youtu.be/RLy2mLOEQoU?t=301
If Earth stopped rotating and was tidally lock with the sun, what would it’s average temperature be?
One thing is certain, it’s average temperature would be lower. But it would depend on where it stopped in terms of cold the average temperature was.
Earth spin could stop where 99% of human population was in sunlight, ie, as posted, above:
” July 6, 2023 at 1:28 PM
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/07/05/simultaneous-sunlight-brightest-moment/5131688580638/
99% of humans about to experience sunlight at same time”
Why it’s certain, is uniformity of global temperature is global warming.
Or Earth could be stopped/tidal lock where the sunlight shined +90%
on Earth’s ocean, would mean, Earth would probably absorb more sunlight, but it would be colder.
But if stopped at spot where it increase the uniformity of global temperature {got some kind of super rotation of ocean currents} that could be different.
Or we in ice age because geological factors {the arrangement of land in comparison ocean- Earth’s topographical arrangement. Though maybe when/where Earth southern hemisphere pointing at sun, it might work.
But it seems might easier if you pick a past earth which was in Greenhouse global climate it might easier or more probably to find best location for the sun to always be shining.
If Moon was tidally with sun, the Moon would simply get average temperature of about 50 K, colder. Or Moon doesn’t have any greenhouse effect.
What a load of trash, gbaikie.
The trash begin with
” If Earth stopped rotating and was tidally lock with the sun… ”
Tidal locking does NOT mean that a celestial body orbiting another one stops ‘rotating’.
It means that it spins about an internal axis in exactly the same period as it orbits the other body.
*
And when you write such a nonsense:
” Earth spin could stop where 99% of human population was in sunlight, ie, as posted, above:
July 6, 2023 at 1:28 PM
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/07/05/simultaneous-sunlight-brightest-moment/5131688580638/
99% of humans about to experience sunlight at same time ”
then you are about to reach the maximum of trash possible in a single post.
What an incredible nonsense!
Binny,
Are you trying to divert attention away from the fact that you can’t describe the GHE?
It won’t work, you know.
Carry on.
“Tidal locking does NOT mean that a celestial body orbiting another one stops rotating.
It means that it spins about an internal axis in exactly the same period as it orbits the other body”.
***
Binny the rocket-scientist thinks it’s perfectly natural for a body to rotate with exactly the same period as the period of its orbit. He can’t give evidence based on physics of how that works, but he thinks a belief is enough.
If Earth stopped rotating and was tidally lock with the sun, what would its average temperature be?
Almost no atmosphere would be left. It’d be frozen solid on the far side and eventually boil off in the vacuum.
Human population would be extinct. No one would care what the temperature is.
Well, I agree Earth would be colder and perhaps, could be much colder.
gb,
No problem. Just burrow down a bit. The geothermal gradient varies, but is around 25 C/km.
Just ensure that your caverns are sealed – you don’t want to lose your artificial atmosphere, do you? Easy to replenish, just nip up to the frozen dark side, and snaffle as much as you want.
Make sure to look for places in perpetual shadow. The water found on the Moon doesnt seem to sublimate – it’s in perpetual darkness, and very cold as a result. Been there for millions or billions of years, I guess.
I’m not making preparations just yet.
I don’t think the O2 would freeze out- though CO2 could and I don’t think Earth would be as cold as Europa, which suppose to have liquid ocean, but since 1 atm of air at 15 C is cold, the air on dark side
could be extremely cold compared to vacuum conditions of Europa.
It seems Earth has had greater extinction events as compared to these conditions. Whales could be happy and polar bears, thrilled.
In regards to polar bears and climatic questions, one could how much polar sea ice there was and how much tropical sea ice there was.
One would have to assume the tropical ocean surface temperature in sunlight could or would be about similar to our tropical ocean temperature which averages about 26 C.
And assume it extends much wider than peak solar hours, though could possibly diminish significantly at the terminator lines of day and night.
As I mentioned before, the tropical ocean heat engine, isn’t affected by average ocean temperature, nor whatever else is going on in the rest of the world. And heats the entire world.
Also why I say snowball Earth hasn’t been proven and why lots of reasonable people say, maybe a slushball but not a snowball Earth.
Also if there was mythical slushball Earth, Earth “might” absorb more sunlight than ideal thermal conductive blackbody in a vacuum could absorb. So at Earth distance, 340 watts on average.
I assume you mean no rotation relative to the Sun.
In the short term the subsolar point would receive about 900W/m^2. Convection would lift the warm air to the tropopause and pull in more warm moist air from all directions.If it were on land conditions would resemble the Amazon rainforest in the afternoon with almost continuous rainfall.
Where the dry air descended, as with the Hadley circulation, the air would move North or South and you would get a permanent ring of desert.
Further out with permanent slanted sunlight you might get something resembling temperate conditions. With no Coriolis force there would be no rotating weather systems and no trade winds. Winds would be North or south following the Hadley circulation or land and sea breezes.
Near the terminator the sea would freeze and ice sheets form on land. With no Summer to melt them ice would accumulate. You would get descending air around the terminator, some of which would flow into the dark side and deposit more ice.
From space above the subsolar point Earth would resemble a target with rings of different colours around the hottest centre.
In the longer term all the oceans would be deposited as ice and the whole lit side would become desert at various temperatures.
In the longest term the centre of the dark side would cool enough for the atmosphere to start precipitating out in layers. With no atmosphere the lit side would end up resembling the daytime surface of the Moon.
“I assume you mean no rotation relative to the Sun.”
Yes, tidally locked the Sun.
Mercury semi- tidally locked.
Venus spins very slow and backward and in terms of it’s rocky surface has the longest day of any known planet {and perhaps any body}.
Or somewhat making Earth like Venus in terms of it’s rotation, but Earth of course wouldn’t have night and day, it would be tidally locked with Sun- one side has constant daylight and other side always in night.
” From space above the subsolar point Earth would resemble a target with rings of different colours around the hottest centre.
In the longer term all the oceans would be deposited as ice and the whole lit side would become desert at various temperatures.”
Ocean one current Earth is limited in terms of it’s temperature- our Earth rarely get ocean water above 30 C. But lakes and inland seas are different. Anyhow the spot would be about 4500 km in radius and shouldn’t have much variation temperature within the spot {+/- 5 C}.
A problem is you have to pick the spot- otherwise it would be all over the place in terms of global temperature.
If don’t pick a spot, then assume zenith is Earth’s south pole.
Or Antarctica would quickly loses all glacier ice, and sea level is 60 meters higher and Antarctica continent would become islands- until it rebounded- maybe, in thousands of years.
RLH…”So Nate is your contention that loses due to wind, wave and friction/turbulence are not needed? They all take energy from the total to operate”.
***
These are excellent points, that energy is used up within the system and needs to be replaced to maintain the global average temperature. Add in heat lost naturally due to the properties of our gravitational system and you have a perfect explanation for what alarmists claim is due to a greenhouse effect and anthropogenic causes.
There is no doubt that energy is expended to space via radiation but we know, based on the analysis of Shula, that radiation is very inefficient compared to conduction/convection when it comes to dissipating surface heat. That means N2/O2 are somehow radiating energy away or energy is being dissipated inside the system.
I have argued that we are not looking at an energy budget situation as much as a heat maintenance situation. In other words, the Earth has always been a lot hotter than it should be, not due to the GHE but due to heat retention by the oceans, land, and atmosphere.
“radiation is very inefficient compared to conduction/convection”
At values that pertain to the Earth’s surface to air.
” That means N2/O2 are somehow radiating energy away … ”
Somehow.
Robertson has been shown many times that neither O2 let alone N2 absorb any relevant IR and hence can’t radiate it out.
But Robertson prefers to invent things which match his egocentric narrative, like this:
” … or energy is being dissipated inside the system. ”
Energy being ‘dissipated’ …
Incredible level of ignorance and arrogance.
Bindidon says:
or energy is being dissipated inside the system.
Energy being dissipated
Incredible level of ignorance and arrogance.
———————-
Bindidon you need to consult a dictionary.
”Dissipated or Dissipating:
1
a
: to break up and drive off
dissipate a crowd
b
: to cause to spread thin or scatter and gradually vanish
one’s sympathy is eventually dissipated
Andrew Feinberg
c
physics : to lose (heat, electricity, etc.) irrecoverably”
The primary dissipation of radiant energy absorbed by CO2 is to dissipate most of it to the other 99.96% of the rest of the atmosphere via collisions with other molecules and by far secondary as net emissions of radiation to space and or other cooler greenhouse gases. So the additional 3 watts of energy alleged to be absorbed by CO2 by the time it has dissipated to other molecules or lost to space the remainder is just slightly more than a thousandth of a watt. thats damned dissipated.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Robertson has been shown many times that neither O2 let alone N2 absorb any relevant IR and hence cant radiate it out.”
Well, according to experiments carried out by John Tyndall, at certain pressures, for every ray intercepted by oxygen and nitrogen, 1750 are intercepted by CO2.
Out of 10000 molecules of air, about 4 are CO2.
4 CO2 molecules intercept 7000 rays. 9996 other molecules intercept 9996 rays.
All irrelevant, anyway. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, as does the surface every night. No heat is trapped, or prevented from leaving the surface. Everything above absolute zero emits IR, and nothing in the universe can prevent this happening.
You are delusional if you believe otherwise. You even claim to believe in a GHE which you cannot even describe – how sad and pathetic that!
test
Polo.
I give internet lessons, only $190 an hour
Earth surface air has density of about 1.2 kg per cubic meter and when the air temperature is around that density and has temperature of 15 C it is cold air. Though water at 15 C is even colder and damp air at 15 C is colder than dry air at 15 C.
On Mars the surface air density is about .02 kg per cubic meter which is about 1/60th or .02 times 60 = 1.2 and Mars surface air pressure is about 1/100th of Earth surface air pressure. And at such low density and pressure, Mars air isn’t actually warm or cold.
But Mars is called a cold and dry desert of a planet- the ground of Mars is very cold and very dry- but ground can be considered warm when there is sunlight.
The ground of the Moon is both very hot and very cold {when sun is at zenith the ground can be over 120 C but at night it can be colder -170 C though a meter below the lunar surface the temperature is fairly constant whether it is daylight or night- it’s around about -30 C – or colder. Or during day, one could store ice cream under the ground. During daylight when sun is low on the horizon, a large rock which vertical to level surface could be 120 C, but level surface has a weak amount of sunlight per square meter {it could be well below 0 C}.
The lunar polar region which we going to send crew is region which always has the sunlight near the horizon and has craters which never have sunlight reaching them and can have a ground surface is colder than minus 220 C.
The Moon’s thin atmosphere has less atmosphere than the International spacestation orbits thru- which has tiny amount drag if traveling at
orbital velocity {7.8 km/sec or about 17,000 mph}.
The vacuum of space or very low air density is not cold or warm.
And one could guess that people who don’t like hot or cold air, might like living on Mars. It could even be a sub-conscience yearning for such people.
binny…thanks for the opportunity to clarify…
“Robertsons authorities he permanently appeals to are
Roy Spencer & John Christy
EM Smith aka chiefio
R.W Wood
Gerlich & Tscheuchner
Louis Essen (or better: the contrarian anti-Einstein blogs which misuse Essen as alleged contradictor to Einstein)
Stefan Lanka in the virus discussion”
***
-I don’t recall using Roy or John as authority figures, without offering my explanation as an indication of understanding. Not my style. I don’t ever claim something to be true because someone else said it was true.
-I have offered EM Smith as someone who has meticulously collated evidence about NASA GISS and NOAA. He does it objectively as opposed to you who fudges lies about the data.
-R. W. Wood was an expert on gases like CO2. Bohr consulted with him about sodium vapour. I liked what he said about CO2 being unable to heat the atmosphere and I passed it along.
-G&T are experts in thermodynamics. Why should I not listen to what they have to say? Makes a lot more sense than what I have read from climate alarmists.
Moral…trust authority figures who make sense.
-Louis Essen is an authority on time, having invented the atomic clock. He claimed Einstein did not understand measurement and I agreed with him. It’s obvious. Einstein thought time is the hands on a clock, whereas a clock is simply a machine synched to the rotation of the Earth.
Major error.
-Stefan Lanka offered 100,000 Euros to anyone who could supply evidence that the measles virus has been isolated. The only person to challenge his claim lost in court bcuse he could not provide the required evidence.
Lanka is motivated by his extensive research into the history of viruses. He thinks science got it wrong, making claims about viruses that cannot be substantiated. He does not deny the existence of viruses only the claims that were made to claim viruses have been isolated.
He claimed HIV was never isolated and the scientist credited with isolating HIV, Luc Montagnier, admitted he did not isolate HIV physically but inferred it by a different means. Since then, all major viruses have been claimed isolated by the same means. Lanka has only claimed those methods are bogus.
That’s why the test for covid and the vaccine claimed to fix it are bogus. We will never discover that truth till we take off the blindfolds and look closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/virus-isolation
And Robertson continues to extract his lies out of contrarian blogs.
R.W. Wood for example never has been an expert on gases like CO2.
He was a worldwide renowned expert on visible light and associated radiation, like UV and very near infrared, and was of course busy with the action of such radiation on gases.
Wood wrote a small 1.5 page long pamphlet about a CO2 experiment
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FRwisYlwsjGiM6hseCRZSgGFl5b-Rg9Y/view
in which it is clearly visible that he misunderstood the effect of solar near-IR radiation in his experiment, and himself admitted at the end:
” I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter… ”
*
Now imagine that Svante Arrhenius was a 100% skeptic who wrote a 90-page paper disproving the IR effects of CO2, and that R.W. Wood would have been a 100% supporter of CO2’s very same activity!
His pamphlet would have been fiercely questioned by thousands of pseudo-skeptics a la Robertson.
Bindidon says:
”R.W. Wood for example never has been an expert on gases like CO2.
He was a worldwide renowned expert on visible light and associated radiation, like UV and very near infrared, and was of course busy with the action of such radiation on gases.”
LMAO! Thats a hilarious take Bindidon!
So what you are saying being an expert in in light and radiation isn’t sufficient because CO2 is a miracle gas that does more than what the 3rd grader radiation model is claimed to do and R.W. Wood showed to be nonsense?
We need to parse this thought of yours out as the logic doesn’t seem to fit.
As usual: no contradiction of what I wrote, just Hunter boy’s cheap polemic.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
what I saw bindidon is the argument that you have to be an expert in CO2 and being an expert in light and radiation and having the mental capacity to construct such an experiment to dispute the 3rd grader radiation model is inadequate. Thats not a cheap polemic that amputating the waving hand of somebody doing a piss poor job of impugning the highly qualified scientist that R. W. Wood was.
Binny,
“Wood’s glass is an optical filter glass invented in 1903 by American physicist Robert Williams Wood (18681955), which allows ultraviolet and infrared light to pass through, while blocking most visible light.” – Wikipedia.
Wood didn’t need to go into the nonsensical GHE very deeply. His experiment just demonstrates the GHE is rubbish.
It’s amazing how many people don’t know why Wood used window glass to filter incoming sunlight. They obviously are ignorant of the explanation provided by John Tyndall and others many years before.
We might be getting dumber, not smarter.
binny…”R.W. Wood for example never has been an expert on gases like CO2″.
***
Wood has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and part of his grad studies were in chemistry. He switched to physics during his grad studies.
I would say he had sufficient expertise with molecules like CO2 given his specialization in radiation. Gases are principle sources of radiation.
IIRC Lanke won the court case for technical reasons having nothing to do with evidence.
He tightly specified the form in which the evidence was presented. For example, he insisted that all the evidence must be contained in one peer reviewed paper.
Since a proper rebuttal would require evidence from a number of areas of microbiology this made his bet impossible to lose.
Like most denialist bets it was a con, designed to impress gullible fools like you, but otherwise meaningless.
Entropic man says:
”He tightly specified the form in which the evidence was presented. For example, he insisted that all the evidence must be contained in one peer reviewed paper.
Since a proper rebuttal would require evidence from a number of areas of microbiology this made his bet impossible to lose.”
———————–
So what in essence you are saying is a paper with dozens of authors is prepared to for the purpose of elevating the fallacy of an appeal to authority rather than to span multiple disciplines in a paper designed to do what you just declared impossible?
?
As usual: no contradiction of what Entropic man wrote, just Hunter boys cheap polemic.
Bindidon and Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Just called out the ”establishments” fraud and they don’t like it a bit! Double standard university thats where they got their educations.
bill…Lanka on the trial…
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-won-measles-virus-process.pdf
ent…if your interest was science you’d read what Lanka had to say in his own defense.
Lanka has explained why he offered the 100,000 Euros to anyone who can supply a scientific paper that proves the measles virus exists. He had already read all the scientific papers available on measles with an expert eye. You regard it as a con because your stupid and too lazy to research for yourself. Lanka is a whole lot smarter than you and far more educated on viruses than you.
Lanka did not claim measles does not exist, or that there is no measles virus, he simply stated there is no scientific proof that such a virus exists. In a way, that’s a challenge to virologists to clean up their acts and do proper research.
Although he singled out measles for his contest, he has listed several other popular viruses that fit in the same category, namely that no valid scientific proof has been supplied for their existence. He points out on the alleged micrographs supplied how a virus is inferred when all that has been supplied is cell structures.
This link is to an article when Lanka was much younger…
http://www.whale.to/a/lanka5.html
Lanka on covid…
https://ourfreesociety.com/article-by-dr-stefan-lanka/
Gordon Robertson
Lanka is a clown and dangerous! You make a hero out of this vile person. He preys upon gullible people like you to peddle his phony alternative medicine.
I have asked you so many times and yet you ignore it as you seem to love this Lanka dude who is a very bad person.
If scientists did not isolate the measles virus then how did they make a successful vaccine using a weakened strain of the virus? That the measles vaccine exists and has nearly wiped out the disease in children (except for the gullible that believe these dangerous people like Lanka and won’t vaccinate their children).
I await your logic answer that will never come. You are too much in love with Lanka to see him for who he is. A dangerous peddler of false medicine to enrich himself. Someday a light might shine in your dim mind but it won’t be today. You seem in love with Lanka so it won’t be for some time.
norman…”Lanka is a clown and dangerous! You make a hero out of this vile person. He preys upon gullible people like you to peddle his phony alternative medicine”.
***
Your opinions are becoming more ridiculous as you go along. Lanka is a microbiologist and a marine biologist yet you refer to him as a clown and dangerous. I think your opinion is based on the fact that an acquaintance of yours died from AIDS and Lanka has declared that AIDS is not caused by a virus.
Lanka offers this…
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-won-measles-virus-process.pdf
With regard to your argument about a viral strain of measles being isolated and used in a vaccine, how do we know it was the vaccine healing people?
Polio peaked in 1910 and has peaked several times since. Each time it went away naturally without a vaccine. When Salk produced a vaccine in the 1950s, that epidemic was already on the wane and apparently on its way out just like the rest. It should be noted that Salk’s first polio vaccine killed people.
Measles, polio, et al, peaked during periods of war or lack of modern health protocols when immune systems were affected by malnutrition. We don’t know if the outbreaks would have cleared naturally because it was presumed to the point of a religious belief that it was a vaccine curing people and preventing it in future generations.
I have no proof either way but you seem to have your mind made up just as you have with global warming/climate change. Heck, you even believe that heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
“Viruses do exist and no, no lawsuit denied their existence.”
Richard, this is disappointing, you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying. I think viruses exist and so does Stefan Lanka. In fact, he discovered the first virus in the ocean. He is an expert on viruses and that’s what lead him to go back in history to follow the development of viral theory.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me but at least supply an adequate scientific rebuttal rather than a one-liner. I realize this subject is off-topic but I supply it as evidence of how science is being brutally assaulted by corrupt and or incompetent researchers, much the same way as climate science is being embarrassed by alarmists and their pseudo-science.
You make it sound as if the German court who ruled in favour of Lanka was incompetent or dishonest. They heard all of the facts from both sides and ruled accordingly. Lanka won.
The problem here is the criterion for declaring a virus isolated. That’s why Lanka won his case. He knew what he was doing when he offered 100,000 Euros for anyone who could provide scientific literature to prove the measles virus has been isolated. He asked for specific proof which the plaintiff could not supply to a level that satisfied the German court. Even the court appointed expert sided with Lanka.
No one is claiming that HIV or covid don’t exist, at least, I’m not. The claim is that neither virus has been isolated and that means isolated to the point the virus can be seen on an electron microscope. With covid, it is more serious. It means the test and vaccine offered for covid are based on unproved science.
Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted freely that he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope. His lab technician is on record as admitting the same, that he has not seen HIV on an electron microscope.
The irony here is that Montagnier worked out of the Louis Pasteur Institute and they wrote the gold standard for isolating a virus. In fact, a member of Montagnier’s team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the LPI panel who defined the method in the 1970s. They tried to follow the LPI method and failed. Montagnier admitted that and I can provide you a link to the 1 hour interview in which he admits it.
Rather than stand up and claim there was no virus seen on the electron microscope, Barre-Sinoussi decided to bask in the glory of being a member of the first team to discover HIV. Anyone with integrity would have immediately objected to declaring a virus when it could not be seen on an EM as required by a method she helped formulate.
Montagnier admitted that he inferred HIV using an unproved method using a theory from retroviral theory, which was not developed till the 1970s. In other words, retrovirology was a brand new and largely untested science when Montagnier applied it to HIV.
The theory is that an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, can be a marker for a virus. However, the scientist who made that statement cautioned that the presence of RT does not necessary indicate a virus because RT is also present in many other natural bodily functions.
It was what Montagnier said years later that casts serious doubt on HIV. In the same interview, he admitted that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The interviewer was so taken aback that he asked Montagnier to repeat it. But here’s the clincher, he also claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
A world renowned expert, Peter Duesberg, had his career ruined years before for saying the same thing, that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. Duesberg claimed AIDS is a lifestyle issue long before Montagnier came to the same conclusion.
Duesberg discovered the first cancer gene and was inducted into the National Academy of Science for his brilliant work in that regard. It was Fauci who killed his career because Fauci held the purse strings to funding and he ensured Duesberg would never get funded again.
The covid test and the covid vaccine are based on the method developed by Montagnier and that’s what Lanka is attacking. He claims it is bogus science and he should know since he is an expert on viruses.
The covid RNA-PCR test does not test for a virus but for a sequence of RNA ‘PRESUMED’ to be from covid. No one has ever proved that. In fact, Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method they use to amplify RNA by converting it to DNA, was adamant that amplifying material in which a virus cannot be seen on an electron microscope will not reveal a virus.
Lanka won on a technicality, not merit.
P.S. There are many, many pictures on the internet of electron microscope pictures of virus.
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/lab-that-first-isolated-coronavirus-in-australia-shares-how-it-was-done
The master of the one-liner. Care to elaborate on the technicality? I won’t hold my breath. You are full of hot air on this one.
re your alleged micro-graphs of covid…I have no expertise in isolating viruses and neither do you. How do you know these micrographs are legit?
Neither micrograph has a size marker on it. The one on the left shows a raised bump and that makes it an unlikely candidate since the sample has to be shaved to about 100 nanometres in order to be penetrated by electrons in an EM.
Besides, no virus with protrusions would show them as regular as that since shaving the specimen to 100 nm could possible include a halo of legs around the virus.
The micrograph on the right does not show the multiple viruses of the same size as is required to prove isolation. All that is shown is one particle alleged to be a virus.
Appears I know more about this than the Ozzie researchers.
Lastly, Montagnoer admitted he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope. Because no one could find the virus on an EM, a method was invented by idiots like Fauci to amplify a specimen using PCR. The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, told them that would not work since PCR cannot amplify something that cannot be seen with an EM.
That same fraudulent method is passed off today as a test for covid.
The technicality was that it was not all in one document. It was in many separate documents.
“How do you know these micrographs are legit?”
So now people who publish things in scientific papers are lying?
And
https://www.scimex.org/
accepts things without verification.
“So now people who publish things in scientific papers are lying?”
Richard, I know you are capable of better stuff. I have admired your analysis on statistics and more recently on heat dissipation regarding radiation versus conduction/convection. This is far below the standard you have set for yourself.
I did not accuse anyone of lying, only suspected of being misinformed. I got that from Lanka, who is an expert with viruses. You are suggesting that any scientific paper produced must be true since it was produced by scientists.
I wish you could be a little more serious about such matters because the prospects are unimaginable if the pundits are wrong. You might at least have been suspicious of Pfizer, convicted criminals to the tune of 5 billion dollars, for lying and misleading people about their products. Yet, they were anointed by the FDA as the producers of a vaccine, rushed out in 3 months, when the standard period for such a vaccine is 6 years.
If you cannot see through the charade presented on behalf of covid with your level of intelligence then the planet is in seriously tough shape.
Quoting –
According to independent pharmaceutical journal DAZonline, the higher regional court judges in Stuttgart, where Lanka filed his appeal in 2016, did not doubt the existence of the virus.
But they did say Lankas challenge was neither a bet nor a competition but an award. And only the promoter of the award, Lanka, could determine the rules and decide if its criteria had been met.
The judges said their decision was purely a legal judgement and did not make any statement on the existence or nonexistence of the measles virus.
The judges ruled according to other facts, such as the wording of Lankas offer which stated that the prize money would only be paid when a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and, among other things, its size is determined.
According to DAZ online, the presiding judge suggested that they could also have submitted 600 papers, he would have accepted none.
As to HIV and AIDS
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/conditions/hiv-and-aids
The scientist credited with discovering HIV, the late Luc Montagnier, claimed the opposite in the end. Who are you going to believe, an expert who discovered a virus or some hack in the medical community putting out a misinformed opinion?
Montagnier stated clearly in a video interview that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. He added that HIV does not cause AIDS but is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle.
Look up the 30 opportunistic infections listed as AIDS and tell me how many are known to be caused by a virus. Is dementia caused by a virus? How about hepatitis or cancer? Tuberculosis is known to be caused by bacteria and if you get it you are treated for the bacteria. If you happen to test positive for HIV, you are treated with dangerous retrovirals. Since when does a retroviral cure TB?
So, opportunistic infections are claimed to be diseases that invade a system after HIV kills off the immune system. Besides the fact that no one has ever demonstrated how HIV does that, how does one acquire such diseases? Many of them are fungal infections, lung related as in cancer and pneumonia, and several have known bacterial sources or viral sources other than HIV. Does on acquire such diseases sitting in an armchair at home watching TV?
Where does a normal, healthy person come by such disease? On the other hand gay males are known to have lifestyles that are conducive to such illnesses due to their sexual and drug practices. They make up 60+ % of all AIDS deaths. Another 30% are accounted for by IV drug users, another practice wherein users are not exactly healthy.
Using your logic, Richard, what is more likely? That a virus causes all this trouble or the lifestyles practiced by 90% of people who get AIDS?
RLH,
A win is a win, isn’t it?
Except if you are Michael Mann, and the person you sued wins. Then you claim you should have won, refuse to pay as the court ordered, and flee the country.
Or if you claim to have won a Nobel Prize – even printing a certificate to prove you won. Michael Mann once again.
Facts don’t care about winners and losers.
The GHE can’t even be described – not much fact there.
You can make the rules say that everything must be in crayon if you like.
RLH,
You wrote before –
“Lanka won on a technicality, not merit.”
Then you wrote –
“You can make the rules say that everything must be in crayon if you like.”
I cant quite see the connection. Does it have anything to do with the fact that you can’t describe the GHE, and you are somewhat annoyed that you can’t?
Maybe you could try another diversion.
In this case the technicality would be if things were written in ink rather that crayon.
EM,
You wrote –
“In this case the technicality would be if things were written in ink rather that crayon.”
You can’t find a description of the GHE written in ink, or crayon, or anything at all, can you?
Call it a technicality, if you like. I call the GHE a fantasy.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/down.png
John Kerry scarry forecast
https://youtu.be/Kw13v8XlpX8
I’d rather read an autobiography by Josef Goebbels than an essay by Kerry. Seldom have I encountered such an abject fool.
Yesterday, I addressed more of Ent’s nonsense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1508665
But I probably need to emphasize his blatant mistake. “If the climate system were a bank account CO2 would reduce your outgoings by about one cent for every ten dollars.”
The erroneous point he is trying to make is that CO2 doesn’t let energy out of the system so the energy will build up, heat the planet, and we’ll explode, I guess!
All nonsense, but that’s what the cult is taught. That’s the nonsense you can find all over NASA links. All over the Internet. But, it ain’t science.
First, CO2 re-emits the energy it absorbs. So at some time later, the energy gets emitted to space. Second, if NONE of the 15μ photons ever got emitted to space they still could not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. The photons are too low energy. Photons do NOT build up like money in a bank account. 15μ photons all have the same frequency. More of the same photons does NOT mean higher frequency. The frequency doesn’t change. Higher frequency is required to raise temperature.
That’s one the reasons ice cubes cannot boil water.
Gordon Robertson
From a post to Bindidon from above…
Tidal locking does NOT mean that a celestial body orbiting another one stops rotating.
It means that it spins about an internal axis in exactly the same period as it orbits the other body.
***
Binny the rocket-scientist thinks its perfectly natural for a body to rotate with exactly the same period as the period of its orbit. He cant give evidence based on physics of how that works, but he thinks a belief is enough.
Gordon it is not belief. It is science you can not understand so you ignore it. It is complicated and would take some rigorous study to understand and work through this material but tidal locking is based upon physics and many moons in the solar system are tidally locked by the larger planet they orbit.
Read through this and then tell me Bindidon is wrong.
https://tinyurl.com/bdf622cs
Gordon Robertson
In the link click on Download PDF and it will bring up the complete article on tidal locking. Everything you want to know (or maybe not know).
Gordon Robertson
Or click view PDF
Norman,
Tidal locking? What happened to a description of the GHE?
Keep wriggling and ducking. Still no GHE description, is there?
Idiot.
Swenson
You are the “idiot”, I have given you a valid description of GHE many times and I have given you measured values that prove it.
The question is are you a human or a Chat bot? You repeat the same things over and over. Why do you think endless repetition of points makes you a human?
I’ve seen your *valid descriptions*, Norman. They fail miserably. And you attempt to use the Surfrad data but you don’t understand. The measurements fail to show ANY GHE. You just don’t understand the links you find.
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“I have given you a valid description of GHE many times”
Is that the earthen GHE, the planetary GHE, or your other GHE?
Which one is responsible for four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Is it the same one responsible for surface cooling at night?
You idiot – you can’t provide a description of any GHE. All you can do is blather.
Carry on being an idiot. Others might also enjoy a good laugh at your expense.
Who knows?
norman…this paper is a theoretical argument based on Cassini’s Law and his law is obviously wrong. Newton touched on none of this in Principia, otherwise we’d have a formal explanation of it. There is zilch about it in Principia. Newton covered anything to do with it in such a minimalist manner that I take the translation to be wrong and based on the translators belief in Cassini and his misunderstanding of what Newton was saying.
Newton made it clear…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)Earth’s gravity bends the linear motion into curvilinear motion
3)the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth
There is no doubt in my mid that Newton knew the Moon did not rotate on a local axis otherwise he’d have gone into it in detail as he did for the orbit. He certainly would not have passed on the opportunity to talk about the torques claimed in this paper.
That’s because they don’t exist. A torque requires a force, or part of a force, perpendicular to a radial line to the axis about which the torque is applied. At the distance of the Moon, Earth’s gravity has barely the strength to keep the Moon in orbit let alone cause a torque about the Moon’s local axis.
Gordon Robertson
Why do you ask for proof or evidence when you obviously don’t care about any of it. You said you don’t like Ad hominem attacks and just want science evidence. But when given science evidence you just deny it. On all things.
You seem to plug your ears and close your eyes to any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
You make statements: “Thats because they dont exist. A torque requires a force, or part of a force, perpendicular to a radial line to the axis about which the torque is applied. At the distance of the Moon, Earths gravity has barely the strength to keep the Moon in orbit let alone cause a torque about the Moons local axis.”
Have you ever calculated the actual force? I don’t think so you just claim it is too weak. The article goes into detail on the forces at work and you can use them to calculate the actual forces not just make assumptions about forces. You don’t calculate it but make a declarative statement.
Not easy to discuss ideas with someone who will deny any evidence which he does not agree with.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Not easy to discuss ideas with someone who will deny any evidence which he does not agree with.”
You must be an idiot for wanting to pointlessly waste your time, then.
Why do you bother?
“Have you ever calculated the actual force?”
***
Yes I did, and I presented it here. It’s so small as to be laughable yet its enough to divert the Moon from a straight line by 5 metres every 8000 metres. If it was as strong as you think, it would accelerate the Earth to the point it would lose orbit and crash into us.
Newton calculated it based on the number of Earth radius between Earth and Moon. The effect of gravity at the Moon is very small.
Some argue that the Earth is accelerating the Moon toward it but I can’t buy that argument completely. The Earth diverts the Moon about 5 metres for every 8000 metres covered by the Moon. That’s enough to make the Moon follow the curvature of the Earth but it’s hardly an acceleration.
My argument is that an acceleration means a constant change of velocity and in that case, the Moon would have to lose orbit. Technically it is an acceleration but I’d classify it as insignificant, It’s like trying to move a car with your legs. It moves but it doesn’t really accelerate unless you classify the initial motion from stopped to moving as an acceleration. Or unless you are pushing it downhill with a gravity assist.
Gordon Robertson
Moving the Moon 5 meters every 8000 would take enormous force. Have you looked up how much the Moon’s mass is? It takes a lot of force to move this massive of an object.
Anyway that there is a force tells you that the tidal locking can take place. Both Moon and Earth are deformed by gravity and that creates bulges that have different acceleration on each side causing the tidal torque discussed in the videos.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/11/what-did-the-moon-look-like-from-earth-4-billion-years-ago/?sh=4652af411515
The tidal locking was not instant in this article it claims it took 100 million years of slow deceleration.
The Earth rotation is slowing down from tidal friction.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-earths-rotation-is-gradually-slowing-down
If you accept the Moon is going further from Earth, it’s unlikely.
And most moons in solar system are tidally locked.
gb, you always support the nonsense. See if you can help Norman, below.
He can’t answer the two questions, but someone with your vast knowledge could surely help him.
I won’t hold my breath.
–Norman, we know youve swallowed the cult nonsense. But, its all wrong.
1) What is your model of orbiting without spin? If you dont have a viable model, youve got NOTHING. (Hint: The simple ball-on-a-string is such a model.)–
As I said, ball-on-a-string is an analogy- I don’t disagree with it, as analogy. And you could actually hang a string from Earth/Moon L-1, and in that case it’s more than analogy- it’s an accurate model
“2) For the bogus tidal locking to work, a torque must be applied to Moon. How does Earths gravity apply a torque to moon?”
Gravity gradient.
An analogy is how a pipelauncher works. But put a pipelauncher in orbit, and it’s a model of how it works.
Gravity gradient is nothing more than the slight variation in gravity with distance. That does NOT mean it can apply a torque.
What will you try next?
“Gravity gradient is nothing more than the slight variation in gravity with distance. That does NOT mean it can apply a torque.
What will you try next?”
The Moon is 1/81th of Earth’s mass, but it is big.
Is that your strategy, gb? Finding factoids on wiki that are irrelevant?
Your task is to show how Earth can create a torque on Moon. If you can’t, yet you readily swallow the “tidal locking” nonsense, then you’re a cult idiot. If you can’t learn the reality, then you’re a brain-dead cult idiot.
What will you try next?
“Your task is to show how Earth can create a torque on Moon.”
Gravity gradient is nothing more than the slight variation in gravity with distance. That does NOT mean it can apply a torque.”
The moon is big.
It has a large distance.
Gravity gradients is slight variation of force which is insignificant
over short distances.
Example of a short distance, 100 meters. Long enough: thousands of km.
But if make an object long and narrow rather a sphere, 100 meter is
long enough, to be significant.
A pipelauncher is a tall and narrow, such as 10 meter diameter and 100 meters tall. Or dimension of wooden pencil, but much bigger.
But pipelauncher is used in the ocean and uses huge differences in densities: Water vs Air: a thousand to one.
So, an analogy.
You can small object, a beer bottle. Throw into a lake or ocean.
It will float vertically as water enters open end.
Btw, there is another thing which is a “weak force” and it’s not exactly about gravity {which is well known as the weak force} but it is related global climate {which we talk a lot about, here}.
And that is vapor force of the partial vapor pressure of water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
Without this property of water, the tropical ocean heat engine, which warms entire world, does not exist.
gb, pipe launcher, beer bottles, and ocean heat have NOTHING to do with the issue.
Your task is to show how Earth can create a torque on Moon. If you can’t, yet you readily swallow the “tidal locking” nonsense, then you’re a cult idiot. If you can’t learn the reality, then you’re a brain-dead cult idiot.
What will you try next?
Norman, we know you’ve swallowed the cult nonsense. But, it’s all wrong.
1) What is your model of “orbiting without spin”? If you don’t have a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING. (Hint: The simple ball-on-a-string is such a model.)
2) For the bogus “tidal locking” to work, a torque must be applied to Moon. How does Earth’s gravity apply a torque to moon?
Again, if you can’t correctly answer both questions, you’ve got — wait for it — NOTHING.
Clint R
Your 1) is Wrong! A ball on the string does not represent orbit without spin. It only represents rotation. A ball on a string is not different than a solid rod rotating on an axis. Would you say a rotating rod is orbiting? Maybe you would most would not consider a rotating rod as an orbiting rod or a ball on the end of it as an orbiting ball on the end of a rod.
2) Read the article I linked to. It will explain what you are asking.
1) You dont have a viable model. Blah-blah is NOT a model.
2) A link is NOT your answer. If you truly understand your false beliefs, you should be able to support them in your own words. You love keyboarding, like Gordon.
Reality is — youve got NOTHING.
Clint R
I did not give you blah-blah. I can’t help it if you do not know how to read. I just pointed out reality that a ball on a string is not an orbiting object. It is just rotation not orbit.
I have already given you a model but you did not accept it. Many blog posts ago. I can give it to you again but for what gain? You don’t care about anything but trolling (On that point I totally agree with Gordon Robertson about you and your trolling ways).
A link is a great answer. You need to read it. I am not an expert on tidal locking but there are people who are so why not read what they say.
I also can’t help it if you never took a typing class and can only post by looking for the keys.
Nope, your attempt to answer was blah-blah.
A model is NOT a perfect replication. It only indicates a point. With the ball-on-a-string, the ball is the actual model. The string just replicates gravity. The ball, like Moon, orbits but does NOT spin.
A link you cant understand is NOT an answer. You need to explain, in your own words, how gravity can produce a torque on Moon. I have explained why it cant.
You dont understand ANY of this.
Actually Clint R 9:01 pm misses that the string just replicates gravity AND insures the ball rotate on its own axis once per rev. wrt operator. The ball, like Moon, orbits but does NOT spin wrt to the operating observer.
b4…how does the ball rotate on its local axis if it is being constrained by the string? The ball is performing curvilinar translation, just like the Moon.
As I wrote, Gordon, the string ensures the ball rotate on its own axis once per rev. during its curvilinear translation in orbit about the central observer. The ball is not spinning on its own axis once per rev. wrt to that string since as you write the ball is constrained by that string in such a manner!
Ball4 is spinning on his axis, as usual.
norman…please explain how a body like the Moon is slowed down to be synchronized to its orbital period and never slows any further. Where is the physics to explain that. Tidal force are far too weak to cause such an effect at the distance of the Moon.
Gordon Robertson
I guess you won’t look at the article. Tidal force are NOT too weak to cause effects at the distance of the Moon based upon high and low tides on the Earth caused by the Moon and even more distant Sun. Not sure where you get these ideas from. Tidal locking is a very slow process.
Since you don’t want to read the article and really try to understand Tidal locking and how it works (the article goes into great detail, more so than most).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmc5XqChJpY&t=219s
Watch this video it is a simplified version of it but it explains the basics. It answers you question of why the Moon does not slow any more. I recommend you watch the video and maybe read the article.
My point was not that you would read the article and try to learn the concept. You said Bindidon could not provide any physics to explain it so I provided you physics that explains it in great detail.
Gordon Robertson
This video will also give you a nice explanation of how tidal locking takes place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivCstgXlDo
norman…if the Moon is oblate to the degree suggested, Earth’s gravity acts on both bulges simultaneously and that cancels any torque.
Besides the guy in the video is too much of a buffoon to be taken seriously. For the Earth, it is 43 km wider at the Equator than at the Poles. That’s about 22 km wider on each sides. Given that the radius is about 6371 km, making a diameter of 12,742 km, that’s an increase of 22/12,742 = 0.17%. Do you seriously think that can produce a torque?
The Moon’s oblateness is far less. I think it’s seriously dumb to even consider a torque on the Moon due to Earth’s gravity.
norman…the effect of lunar gravity on the Earth is barely able to lift the oceans by a metre at the water peak in mid-ocean. The force can only move the solid surface by a centimetre, although Richard will likely chime in with a bigger value. It would take an enormous force to produce a torque on the Moon large enough to slow it down.
The Sun, a much larger body, has not be able to slow the Earth’s rotation down is several thousand years, yet it holds the Earth in orbit.
Let’s face it Norman, this torque theory was dreamed up by frustrated mathematician and a lot of delusion.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Earth-tide
“The actual amplitudes of these tides in terms of vertical movement of the surface of the solid Earth are about one foot or less”
About 30 cms.
Norman,
You might feel like adding your GHE descriptions (I believe you claim to have several), to the collection contributed so far –
From bobdroege –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
From Willard –
“Not cooling, slower cooling.”
From Tim Folkerts –
Nighttime GHE –
“Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures. More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.”
Daytime GHE –
“Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures. More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.”
From Tim Folkerts (revision 1) –
“The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
So, Norman, do you fancy the “cooling results in higher temperatures”, or “reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter”? You say you have a planetary GHE, an “earthen” GHE, and another GHE of unknown effect. Do you have a summer GHE and a winter GHE, also?
Join the idiots club, also known as the delusional SkyDragon cult.
Carry on.
I wonder what happened to wee willy. Likely off on a seminar for alarmists, learning how to talk to skeptics. Hasn’t worked so far.
Whatever happened I hope it’s permanent
For those who are more interested in reading scientific information than in endlessly repeating their own silly ideas about everything, here are two articles about the historical changes within the Earth-Moon system:
1. Proterozoic Milankovitch cycles and the history of the solar system
Meyers, Malinverno (2018)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1717689115
*
2. Milankovitch cycles in banded iron formations constrain the EarthMoon system 2.46 billion years ago
Lantink & al. (2022)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117146119
*
The usual idiots of course will discredit and denigrate the articles.
So what!
Bin, your links don’t even apply to the fact that Moon does NOT spin.
But thanks for showing you have no understanding of the science.
The Moon spins once on its axis per orbit around the Earth.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1509220
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1509236
ENSO averages for week ending July 8:
ENSO 1/2 … +3.3 (up 0.4)
ENSO 3 … +1.5 (up 0.1)
ENSO 3/4 … +1.0 (up 0.1)
ENSO 4 … +0.7 (up 0.1)
__________________________________________
SC25 Sunspot averages:
Year 4 so far (223 days) … 131 [days under 100 spots … 50]
Last 90 days … 145 [6]
Last 60 days … 155 [1]
Last 30 days … 162 [1]
Corresponding periods for SC24:
Year 4 so far (224 days) … 90 [126]
Last 90 days … 102 [36]
Last 60 days … 100 [21]
Last 30 days … 88 [12]
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
(1) Tinytidbits is not an official climate monitoring site.
(2) The CDAS data page states that this data set is old methodology and suggests using newer data sets.
(3) You don’t seem to know where the ENSO regions are on that map:
https://tinyurl.com/ENSO-Regions
“Tinytidbits is not an official climate monitoring site”
It uses CDAS data for its plots and calculations. Are you saying that CDAS is wrong in its data?
“The CDAS data page states that this data set is old methodology and suggests using newer data sets”
Are you suggesting that tropicaltidbits is not using the latest data? Do you have a plot that shows significant differences?
“You dont seem to know where the ENSO regions are on that map”
I know them quite well thank you.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
All 4 separate if you like.
Oh boy – you don’t know the difference between old vs new data and old vs new methodologies.
I am not saying anything – merely reporting what the CDAS page says about their own data.
And there are no maps on that page, so don’t know what you believe it shows.
Are you suggesting that tropicaltidbits is not using the latest data?
As usual AQ has no evidence, just implications.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse.
I have told you TWICE that that are using an old METHODOLOGY, not “old data”, whatever that would mean.
But I understand why you need to create a straw man.
What evidence do you have that tropicaltidbits is using old data? Other than your assumptions that is.
Or old methodology for that matter.
P.S. I don’t control what tropicaltidbits uses. Despite your implications that I do. I note you carefully don’t actually give the url that makes such claims. Nor do you show that tropicaltidbits is in error.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
is what tropicaltidbits shows. What is your proof that it is wrong?
Are you seeing significance in noise again?
Gordon Robertson
The ball on a string is a model of lunar motion.
Like all models, it’s wrong.
Apparently these people believe that if they were standing on the moon and observing all objects in space bar one rotating around them every 27.3 days, that these objects must actually be doing the rotating.
It’s a very traditional viewpoint.
After all, it took the Foucault pendulum to prove that the universe did not revolve around the Earth.
The main non-spinner here still believes that the universe rotates around Vanvouver, Canada.
Ant and Ent, false accusations ain’t science.
When you see an object apparently completing a loop about you, then either it IS rotating about you, or YOU are spinning relative to that object, or it is a combination of both. There are no other possibilities. Perhaps you should try leaving your well-rehearsed phrases behind and actually make an argument.
Ant, it’s amazing how you cultists will support your cult’s false beliefs even though you haven’t the faintest clue about the subject.
There are TWO motions involved. ONE is “orbiting”. The OTHER is “spinning”. Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits.
It’s so simple, yet people that are brain-dead can’t grasp it.
Now, go find one of your cult links that claims Moon rotates on it’s axis in synch with its orbit. I bet you’ll believe it —
“Moon only orbits” wrt to the Earth.
wrt to the stars (and the rest of the universe) the Moon spins also.
RLH, it’s amazing how you cultists will support your cult’s false beliefs even though you haven’t the faintest clue about the subject.
Are you disputing that is obvious facts?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1509220
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1509236
AQ,
I agree with Sir Isaac Newton. The moon is continuously falling towards the center of the Earth. We only see the bottom of the falling object.
You are free to believe otherwise. It wont make any difference, will it?
Yes, the earth spins 366.25 times in one revolution about the sun, leading to 365.25 apparent rotations relative to the earth.
AQ,
You wrote-
“Yes, the earth spins 366.25 times in one revolution about the sun, leading to 365.25 apparent rotations relative to the earth.”
The earth is spinning relative to the earth? Is that apparent rotations, real rotations, or did you really mean to say something else?
Maybe your brain is performing rotations relative to your brain – or you are just sloppy and inept.
Keep it up.
Yes, the earth spins 366.25 times in one revolution about the sun, leading to 365.25 APPARENT rotations OF THE SUN relative to the earth.
Only an idiot would think “apparent” rotation (as measured by us) could refer to the earth. Looks like I’ll have to spell out the baby details for these idiots in future.
Qwerty: You were the one who asked me to screen out comments that call someone an “idiot”, and you just did it twice. -Roy
Yes, the earth spins 366.25 times in one revolution about the sun, leading to 365.25 apparent rotations OF THE SUN relative to the earth.
Only an ignoramus would think apparent rotation (as measured by us) could refer to the earth. Looks like Ill have to spell out the baby details for the unschooled in future.
Ent claims: “Like all models, it’s wrong.”
Ent, you’re thinking of your cult’s GHE computer models. They’re wrong because they violate the laws of physics. A PHYSICAL model, like the ball-on-a-string, is not violating the laws of physics. It’s reality.
Why do you hate reality?
“A PHYSICAL model, like the ball-on-a-string, is not violating the laws of physics”
But it is inherently limited.
NOT for its intended purpose — that of showing orbiting without spin keeps the same side facing the host.
A physical link between 2 objects is not the same as 2 objects linked by gravity.
The string acts on the ball’s center of mass, just as gravity acts on Moon’s center of mass.
The ball-on-a-string is a good model of “orbiting without spin”. Before continuing to make a fool of yourself RLH, you need a viable model if you can’t accept the simple ball-on-a-string. Then you need to show how Earth’s gravity can create a torque on Moon.
Put up or shut up. Anything else is merely trolling.
The string acts as a physical link.
Yes, the string represents gravity. The string acts on the ball’s center of mass, just as gravity acts on Moon’s center of mass. The ball-on-a-string is a good model of “orbiting without spin”.
Before continuing to make a fool of yourself RLH, you need a viable model if you can’t accept the simple ball-on-a-string. Then you need to show how Earth’s gravity can create a torque on Moon.
Put up or shut up. Anything else is merely trolling.
No physical link can correctly represent gravity.
RLH,
So the string exerts a force, does it? That is a special type of force which you can’t actually describe, I suppose? Not a physical force?
You obviously don’t accept the Wikipedia definition “In physics, a force is an influence that causes the motion of an object with mass to change its velocity i.e., to accelerate. It can be a push or a pull, . . . ”
Gravity seems to be an influence which results in the Moon falling towards the Earth. If you don’t like “falling”, you can substitute whatever words you like. The result should agree with the observations which result in the Moon getting about 1.25mm per second closer to the Earth each second. A clever chap like you should be able to work out the speed required to ensure that the Moon remains orbiting the Earth without getting appreciably closer or further away.
You really don’t understand physics, do you?
Don’t worry – most physicists just regurgitate what some other physicist told them.
“So the string exerts a force, does it?”
There is a tension in the string.
“The string acts on the balls center of mass, just as gravity acts on Moons center of mass.”
Nonsense. The tension in the string (something another science denier below denies) acts on the point where it contacts the surface. When you pull on the string for the first time, the ball will momentarily rotate about that point of contact until the centre lies on the imaginary extension of the string, at which point there is no more applied torque.
The string exerts a force deflecting the ball’s motion from linear to circular.
In that respect it reasonably simulates gravity.
To keep visible face of the Moon facing the Earth requires a torque analogous to the torque exerted by the string to keep the attachment point facing the centre of rotation.
If , as you claim, gravity cannot exert a torque on the Moon, what is keeping it aligned?
Something mut be. The lunar month is getting gradually longer as the Moon’s orbital radius expands. To keep it facing the Earth, the Moon’s day must be getting longer too
The string exerts a force through the ball’s center of mass. That creates NO torque.
You don’t understand the basic physics, Ent. But, you keep trolling trying desperately to protect your cult. You’re even willing to make crap up, to support the nonsense. That ain’t science.
Why do you hate reality?
The string exerts a force through the ball’s center of mass which constrains the ball from rotating wrt the string and rotating once per rev. wrt the fixed stars
Clint Rookie usually misses the important physics.
The string is attached to the surface. While spinning up the string exerts a torque which turns the ball until it is aligned.
The string then exerts a force through the centre of mass once the ball is aligned, exerting a stabilising torque which keeps it aligned.
Try using a steel ball and a magnet to attach the string. With the point of attachment free to move over the surface every random perturbation will move the ball to a different alignment.
Without some force keeping them in alignment both the ball and the Moon would not stay aligned.
Ent, look up “centrifugal force”. Then get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Centrifugal? Now Clint Rookie 1:55 pm admits to frames of reference motion being important as that is only an inertial force in a non-inertial moving frame. Perhaps Clint Rookie meant centripetal?
Would be just another of many science rookie mistakes by Clint R. All are funny & great entertainment.
Poor Ball4, he doesn’t understand the difference between centripetal and centrifugal.
That’s not a surprise, as he doesn’t understand ANY of this.
Another slow day in the advancement of science. *yawn*
Every day is slow in your cult, Ken. There is never any advancement of science there.
It must be your nap time.
Ken, please stop trolling.
All planets and moons in solar system are solar illuminated all the time (except for short eclipses), and all planets and moons in solar system have their diurnal cycles.
–
Planets in solar system orbit sun, and they also rotate about their own internal axis.
–
Moons in solar system orbit sun, and at the same time, moons in solar system orbit their mother planets.
–
It is a different thing planet is, it is different from what a moon is.
Planets rotate on their axis – moons do not rotate on their axis.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planets rotate on their axis many moons do not rotate on their axis wrt to their planet.
Thank you, Ball4.
–
Now let’s see:
Earth’s and Moon’s orbital period around sun is
365,25 days
–
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days
–
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days
–
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days
–
*****
Let’s have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
–
Moon’s diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
–
Moon’s sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
–
*****
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
–
Let’s do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
——————————–
=========0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moon’s sidereal period rate!
–
*****
Conclusion:
There is not any Moon’s rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correct conclusion including the kinematics Christos left out:
There is not any Moon’s rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis wrt Earth.
“Correct conclusion including the kinematics Christos left out:”
–
Thank you, Ball4.
Now, please explain, what wrt is. You use wrt very often, please explain what it is. Today you referred to wrt twice.
–
Is it something like btw? Please explain, what it is. I am very interested to learn.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Many books on kinematics & lecturers abbreviate “with respect to” so many times that wrt becomes part of the vernacular. All measurements of position and velocity must be made relative to (i.e. wrt) some frame of reference.
” relative to (i.e. wrt) some frame of reference.”
–
Thank you, Ball4.
Vournas
” There is not any Moons rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis. ”
What you show here is something pseudo-scientific like Clint R’s ‘ball-on-a-string’.
Why don’t you try escape out of such trivial blah blah, and scientifically contradict Steven Wepster’s English description of the work of Tobias Mayer?
Here it is:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
Move to section 9.5.1: Locating the rotational axis
Look at the picture
https://i.postimg.cc/SRzMC55C/Screenshot-2023-07-11-at-22-24-33-c9-pdf.png
and at all the explanations related to it in the text, and show us EXACTLY how you prove that Mayer, and indirectly Wepster, were wrong.
“What you show here is something pseudo-scientific like Clint Rs ball-on-a-string.”
–
Please, Bindidon, are you a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier?
Bin, this has been explained to you months ago. You just continually show how brain-dead you are.
Moon’s [fictional] rotational axis can be debunked with a simple coffee cup and pencil. Merely tape the pencil in the cup so that it leans outward. Then, orbit the cup around a point on a table, keep the cup handle always facing the point. Notice the pencil points in different directions.
A REAL rotational axis always points in the same direction.
As usual, this is WAY over your head. You’re brain-dead.
Then, orbit the cup around a point on a table, keep the cup handle always facing the point by rotating the cup on its own axis 360 once per rev.
Again, funny Clint Rookie 3:14 pm leaves out some important details. Great entertainment.
” Please, Bindidon, are you a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier? ”
No, of course I am not.
YOU, Vournas, are the denier of your own exercise.
YOU are the one who tells in his own blog that Earth spins faster than Moon, but says the contrary on this blog.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for July 11, 2023.
En fuego!
If the HTE holds long enough, we should see that beat. Easily.
I doubt the veracity of that temperature recording. 100F is about 38C. Here we are on Tuesday and its 26C in the same location. It’s expected to reach 32C tomorrow.
The inference is that anthropogenic gases are responsible but Norman Wells peaked at 38C at 6 PM on Saturday and quickly dropped off. Why is 6 pm the hottest part of the day?
Trying to find a historical record is almost impossible. I looked up 1932 on one engine and it listed nothing before the 1950s. That’s how they get these records, by chopping off temperatures from the 1930s when record temperatures and heat waves were recorded in North America.
By Gordon’s own logic the ball on a string is wrong.
It relies on the string to create a torque on the ball to keep it oriented with one face towards the centre of revolution.
Yet Gordon says that Earth’s gravity cannot create a torque on the Moon.
A paradox!
If had lunar mass driver- 20 km long track accelerating in horizontal
direction and it shipped a hundred million ton per year to lunar orbit and did this for decades.
Would it cause the Moon to spin?
gb and Ent make quite a team. The blind leading the blind.
ent…how do you create a torque on a ball with the force of string tension acting straight through the middle of the ball? A torquing force needs to have at least a component of a force acting either side of centre.
Consider the BoS rotating CCW on an x-y plane rotating about 0,0. Stop the ball instantaneously at 12 o’clock. The string is acting straight down the y-axis and the momentum of the ball acting tangentially straight along an x-coordinate, say along x = 5 in a negative direction.
There is zero torque on the ball. A torque would require another force acting beside the string at x = 0+0.1 or x = -0.1 at least. The farther the force is from x = 0, the greater the torque produced.
It is far more complex than that because a force has to be applied by the twirler to keep the momentum constant. It’s not just the string but the force applied judiciously by the twirler that keeps the ball orbiting. There must also be a vertical component to the force applied upwardly to keep the ball rotating horizontally, otherwise gravity would pull it down.
This Moon issue was finished months ago. The cult was unable to present any valid model of “orbital motion without spin”.
But the issue won’t go away, because it’s a cult. This time, it was restarted by gbaikie. Then Bindidon jumped in to add fuel, followed by Norman. So, just for the record, the cult restarted it.
You are delusional.
The Moon is tidally lock {as are many other moons} and tidally lock is related to or concerning a gravity gradient.
Considering that gravity is a weak force, that a gravity gradient involves weaker force, is not saying, jack.
Yes gb, you fully believe in your cult. You can’t understand or explain “tidal locking”, but you BELIEVE.
gbaikie usually appears as a harmless wino, muttering incoherently and clogging up the sidewalk. But, when his mask is pulled off, you find he’s not so harmless.
That’s why this is so much fun, Jill.
A string can be strong enough to hang you against gravity. But no string is strong enough keep the Moon orbiting Earth.
Gravity is a weak force which works over great distance.
And at lunar distance, Earth’s gravity is very, very weak, as is the Sun’s gravity at Earth distance from the Sun. Earth is very far from the huge very hot Sun.
The Moon orbits Earth at about 1 km/sec {or about 2232 mph} and Moon is big. The Moon has weak gravity compared to Earth, you weight 1/6th your weight on the Moon.
Gravity is acceleration force. What happens if jump from a high story building on the Moon.
Distance = acceleration 1/2 x time squared.
So jump off building and in one second of time, you going 1.62 / 2 =
.81 meter. you fall less than meter and going 1.62 meter per second {not going very fast}. What about is 10 seconds, you .81 times 100 = 81 meters. and going 16.2 m/s [about 36 mph, so one hit something like car accident.
How about 100 seconds? You are a grease mark.
Given enough time, gravity can result in a lot force. But one measures force in second of time and amount of mass, but we realize gravity is an accelerative force.
And with more mass to move, it take more force, this isn’t true with gravity, more mass, is a stronger gravitational force.
So Moon take about month of time to orbit Earth- gravity has a lot time and distance to travel. And Moon’s been in orbit around Earth for more than 1 billion years for graviational forces {ie, a gravity gradient] to effect it
And during that time gets hit with objects million times the force nuclear bombs- which a tiny force in regard to Moon’s mass.
Of course, as I think you mentioned, the Moon might never had a spin-
it might be interesting, but we don’t have evidence- yet.
There still debate about how Moon got there.
It also possible moons had retrograde spins, but a gravity gradient would tidally lock that too.
What about idea that Moon got further from Earth?
Again, it is roughly a different topic.
How about Earth spin changing over time- again another topic, and regards how Moon got where it is.
We need to explore the Moon.
All that time on wiki still didn’t answer the question, huh gb?
How does Earth create a torque on Moon?
The nearside half of lunar sphere has more gravity effect.
Gravity is about two bodies- nearside half is more attracted to Earth and Earth is more attracted to it.
And in terms nearside surface which closest to Earth if amounts to 1/2 of nearside half, it’s more attracted than the other 1/2.
Or however way you want to look at gradient- ie furthest farside 1/2 has less gravitational attraction.
Still no torque there, gb.
“Still no torque there, gb.”
There is no torque, now.
Because the Moon is not spinning on it’s axis, now.
And it’s possible it has not spun on it’s axis within last million or billions of years.
But could mass driver throwing enough into mass lunar orbit, cause the moon to spin, or would there be enough torque to inhibit it.
Dodging and evading is what trolls and cult idiots do, gb. You believe in the tidal locking nonsense, so the question to you is — How can Earth create a torque on Moon?
How? Our Moon is not uniform in mass; there exist measured lunar mass concentrations (mascons).
RLH, you can have all the mascons you want. It doesn’t matter. Gravity acts on center of mass.
You still haven’t answered: How can Earth create a torque on Moon?
IOW, you’ve got NOTHING.
— Clint R says:
July 12, 2023 at 7:51 PM
RLH, you can have all the mascons you want. It doesnt matter. Gravity acts on center of mass.–
This explains a lot.
Gravity has do with entire mass of a body. And one could determine the mass of the entire mass and then determine the central point of this mass.
This roughly works if one has a sphere.
But there are irregular shapes in asteroids and irregular shapes have irregular gravity.
Generally if far enough from the irregular shaped asteroid, one could count the center of mass as point of gravity. But if you going to orbit close to such an asteroid, you have to take into account it’s irregular gravity.
So a point couldn’t have torque, but gravity is about entirety of the mass.
We went to Eros {and other space rocks}:
“Surface gravity depends on the distance from a spot on the surface to the center of a body’s mass. Eros’s surface gravity varies greatly because Eros is not a sphere but an elongated peanut-shaped object.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/433_Eros
“INTRODUCTION
To date, few probes have been sent to study asteroids. In fact, only three probes were launched having the main goal to study asteroids. In 1996, the American probe Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR)-Shoemaker sent images of the asteroid 253 Mathilde and in 2002 it approached and landed on the asteroid 433 Eros. In 2005, the Japanese Spacecraft Hayabusa reached the asteroid 25143 Itokawa, and began a period of vicinity operation about the body. ,,,”
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/438/3/2672/973654
Continued:
“The irregular gravitational fields induced by small bodies add new complexity to classical celestial dynamics. Generally, these gravitational fields are non-central and asymmetrical vector fields with zero divergence and vorticity; in such cases, some trajectories can exhibit strongly unstable and chaotic motion near the surface of the small bodies (Scheeres et al. 1998). Previous studies used to start with some simple specific geometric objects, for example, triaxial ellipsoids were more frequently used for asteroid gravity approximation (Scheeres 1994). Werner (1994) and Werner & Scheeres (1997) developed a polyhedral method that describes the gravitational field of a constant density polyhedron and can evaluate with a certain precision the gravitational field around a specific asteroid.”
Also we sent a spacecraft to a rubble pile space rock and it’s almost back to Earth to bring a sample return {within year or something}.
We going to send mission to Psyche, with planned launch in Oct 5 2023 using a Heavy Falcon rocket:
— October 5 Falcon Heavy Psyche
Launch time: 1438:37 GMT (10:38:37 a.m. EDT)
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch NASAs Psyche asteroid mission. The Maxar-built spacecraft will travel to the metallic asteroid Psyche, where it will enter orbit in 2029. This is the first spacecraft to explore a metal-rich asteroid, which may be the leftover core of a protoplanet that began forming in the early solar system more than 4 billion years ago. The Falcon Heavys two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station for recovery. The center core will be expended. Delayed from 2022 due to payload software issues. Moved forward from Oct. 10, 2023.–
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Ball4
” Planets rotate on their axis many moons do not rotate on their axis wrt to their planet. ”
What for a antiscientific nonsense are you telling us here, Ball4?
Tell us which moons do not rotate about an internal axis – except those few around Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto which are so small that they can’t show any tidal locking!
I want to see your list, in order to compare it with the data anyone can find here:
https://solarviews.com/eng/
Bindidon answers the nonsense (Bindidon term) question sensibly. Hyperion and Phoebe are a couple of Saturn’s bigger ones, there are more in our solar system. I have no list, google is your friend.
Ball4
Didn’t you understand that I gave you the list?
From
https://solarviews.com/eng/
you easily move down to
https://solarviews.com/eng/hyperion.htm
and to
https://solarviews.com/eng/phoebe.htm
What, do you think, do these two celestial bodies have in common?
What do they not share at all with e.g.
https://solarviews.com/eng/tethys.htm
or
https://solarviews.com/eng/rhea.htm
Please have a look at the texts, compare their mass, their shape to those you mentioned.
You’re bound to notice something that might prompt you to make a similar comparison with the moons of other planets, starting with Jupiter.
I still don’t have such a list, apparently the internet does. I do see Bindidon has google as a friend confirming some solar system moons are tidally locked to their planet and some solar system moons are not tidally locked to their planet which I pointed out Christos needed to study 6:41 am.
No, Ball4: I don’t have Google as a ‘friend’: I read since 25 years many scientific articles providing links to what they discuss.
*
What about thinking that these moons you mentioned and which show no tidal locking
– are all too small to do that
and
– have all a shape which should let us think that they weren’t satellites built up together with their planets in the solar accretion disk, but rather were small bodies (asteroids, or Kuiper belt objects) caught later on by these planets?
Then Bindidon should cultivate google as a friend where questions are AI answered in seconds and the 25years already spent enable Bindidon knowing which is correct. At any rate, Christos is now informed some solar system moons are not tidally locked to their planet different than in the lunar scenario.
OK Ball4: you just proved to be opinionated.
No need for any further exchance.
“Correct conclusion including the kinematics Christos left out:”
–
Thank you, Ball4.
Now, please explain, what wrt is. You use wrt very often, please explain what it is. Today you referred to wrt twice.
–
Is it something like btw? Please explain, what it is. I am very interested to learn.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“wrt” is short for “with respect to”.
CV, don’t be concerned if you can’t understand Ball4. No one can. He just rambles incoherently believing he can fake a knowledge of science. He only fools poor Norman.
Thank you Clint.
–
Now I know, wrt is short for with respect to. Like “btw” is short for “by the way”.
christos….
LOL = laugh out loud
AFAIAC = as far as I am concerned
LMAO = laugh my ass off…probably doesn’t translate well
UR = you are, or you’re
peeps = people
sheeple = people who act like sheep (aka climate alarmists)
I was on a Russian site for a while that dealt with repairing hard drives for computers. The Russian language is full of such acronyms and slang which makes it difficult to translate.
For example, the disk on a disk drive is also called a platter, likely named after a round dish plate. For some reason, the Russians called it a pancake. The hard drive itself, often shortened to ‘drive’ in English, was called a ‘screw’ for some reason.
Incidentally gravity is not a weak force. If I dropped you off a building 100 feet high you would hit the ground two seconds later doing more than sixty miles an hour.
I challenge you to find a sports car powerful enough to go from 0 to 60 in two seconds.
ent…gravity as a force is subject to the inverse square law. That means it gets weaker by the square of the distance the farther you get from a mass. By the time you go to the distance of the Moon it is very weak in comparison.
Whereas gravity can accelerate a human as you describe near the surface, it cannot accelerate the Moon in the same manner. If it could, we’d be in serious trouble. All Earth’s gravity can do at that distance is bend the Moon 5 metres out of its path for every 8000 metres the Moon moves along its linear path.
Furthermore, the effect gravity has on atmospheric molecules is variable. Unlike the mass of a human, they have a buoyancy due to inter-atomic forces and collisions. That creates a natural negative pressure gradient around the Earth. Why more molecules accumulate around the surface and less with altitude is the mystery. May have something to do with the Sun.
According to Einstein, this gravity does not exist. The attraction between masses is due to a mysterious space-time continuum. I’ll stick with newton and his gravitational theory.
EM,
Gravity is by far the weakest force. From Stanford university – “Well it turns out that Gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces and it isn’t just a little bit weaker. It is weaker than you can even imagine! ”
Your efforts to appeal to your own authority are not particularly impressive.
Try telling people that you dont believe it is necessary to describe the GHE, nor specify its quantifiable effects – just believe that it exists, and is responsible for anything you say.
Idiot.
I tried many times to explain that writing
” … wrt to the stars (and the rest of the universe) the Moon spins also. ”
is of no help in this discussion.
Simply because celestial bodies spin about an internal axis – independently of the point from which the spin is observed.
The expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ is used by astronomers to measure the motion periods of celestial bodies, and not their motions themselves.
This has been clearly mentioned by Newton in exactly that sentence in which he explained that the Moon spins about its axis:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/2wNYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA51
” Maculæ in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in disco Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terræ ; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
Nothing to add here!
“The expression with respect to the fixed stars is used by astronomers to measure the motion periods of celestial bodies, and not their motions themselves.”
–
If moon rotated about its local axis once per its orbit around Earth,
with respect to the fixed stars the motion period would have been measured by astronomers as:
1/27,32 + 1/27,32 = 2/27,32
and the motion period would have been:
27,32/2 = 13,66 earth days, or twice as much fast.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”If moon rotated about its local axis once per its orbit around Earth….”
***
Christos…I have tried to visualize that, even drawing it on paper, but I cannot see how it would work while keeping the same side pointed at Earth.
Bindidon tries another of his troll tactics.
He claims his quote, in another language, proves his belief that Moon spins. Here is the quote translated:
The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disc in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; ideque, with respect to the fixed points, the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days.
The quote has NOTHING to do with Moon.
Bindidon has tried such nonsense before. He tried to publish the number of comments, to prove someone commented too much. But, he omitted the #1 commenter — worthless willard!
What will he try next?
Now you both become really ridiculous.
1. ” If moon rotated about its local axis once per its orbit around Earth,
with respect to the fixed stars the motion period would have been measured by astronomers as:
1/27,32 + 1/27,32 = 2/27,32
and the motion period would have been:
27,32/2 = 13,66 earth days, or twice as much fast. ”
More unsupported nonsense.
2. ” The quote has NOTHING to do with Moon. ”
No one claimed that.
I repeat: the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ has to do with motion periods, and not with motions.
According to Google translator your Latin quote from Newton reads…
“The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disk in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and, with respect to the fixed points, the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days. ”
***
There that word ‘revolves’ again, used in lieu of rotates. Convinces me that the translator got messed up in the Latin and without Newton to clarify he turned to someone like Cassini.
Anyway fixed stars, or fixed points, are used as a reference because the stars are essentially fixed wrt the rotation of a planet over the short term. So, they make a good reference frame with which to express a local motion.
So, if we look at a spot on the Moon, which is on the same side to everyone observing from Earth, we should see it move, if the Moon is rotating about a local axis. From the time we observe the Moon and see the spot to the time it disappears after 14 days, that spot should move across the face of the Moon every Earth rotation.
It doesn’t!!!
Gordon Robertson
From above: “normanif the Moon is oblate to the degree suggested, Earths gravity acts on both bulges simultaneously and that cancels any torque.
Besides the guy in the video is too much of a buffoon to be taken seriously. For the Earth, it is 43 km wider at the Equator than at the Poles. Thats about 22 km wider on each sides. Given that the radius is about 6371 km, making a diameter of 12,742 km, thats an increase of 22/12,742 = 0.17%. Do you seriously think that can produce a torque?
The Moons oblateness is far less. I think its seriously dumb to even consider a torque on the Moon due to Earths gravity.”
You did not like the videos which explained it. You say you can do the math well this link will supply you with the equations for you to do the math. Read through this. They have equations for both the rate tidal forces slow Earth’s rotation and the Moon’s. You can plug in numbers in the equations and then you will know.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node54.html
Norman, no one is going to waste any time with links that you don’t understand. This issue is really easy. All you need is a viable model of orbital motion without spin. If you had such a model, it would be the ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of the orbit, just like Moon.
Your problem is you dont understand the science. You get tricked by your cult, and that makes you angry at the world, as demonstrated by your numerous meltdowns.
Cults don’t work — reality does.
Clint R
Since you won’t let it go I have already told you a model which shows no rotation and orbit far better than your ball on the string model. I told you to do the setup yourself but you seem to have refused. Maybe I need to make a video of it and post it on YouTube but that will not change your view. You are stuck where you are stuck and your wheels spin but you go nowhere.
You take two cans. You have one in the middle (represents Earth) and you tape a rubber band to the top of the other one (represents the Moon) and put the other part of the rubber band on a fixed point (say a nail in wood above your cans).
Now the rubber band represents the Moon’s spin axis and it is oriented to a fixed object (like the stars for the Moon…they are at such great distance their motions do not interfere with nearby motions you are trying to observe).
You move the Moon can around the Earth can. If you do not rotate it (the rubber band does not wind up) you can only do this by not rotating the can as you move it around the Earth center can. As you move it around it is acting like an orbiting body. With no rotation the Earth will see all sides of the Moon but the Sun will only see one side,. the same side will always face the Sun but will appear to rotate to an Earth observer. You will know it is not rotating because you are NOT rotating it with your hand as you move it around the Earth can and the rubber band is not winding up. The Moon is not rotating on its axis in this case. If you move the Moon can and rotate it once per orbit the rubber band will wind up and you hand will have to rotate the can as you move it around the Earth can. The Earth will see the same side of the can but it has to rotate once per orbit to achieve this condition.
Please do not blah blah without at least trying this. Maybe if you try it and come up with a half-way intelligent point it would be interesting to hear. Your snark and trolling serve no value.
Norman, that’s just the same as looking at it from the *fixed stars*. If you walk around a table, always keeping one side toward the table, that is orbiting. But if you tied your rubber band to your head and the ceiling as you orbited the table, it would wind up. The rubber band is recording orbits as rotations.
You don’t understand any of this. Your cult has NO viable model of orbital motion without spin.
What will you try next?
Clint R
When you walk around the table you are rotating your body on its axis. You can easily know this by observing your feet. As you pick your foot up you must rotate it to keep walking around the table. If you don’t rotate your feet and body you walk in a straight line away from the table. Not only can’t you understand this you also can’t observe it. Your mind is stuck in closed mind mud spinning your wheels endlessly but not moving. Also note the links I posted are not for you. You can’t understand them. They were for Gordon Robertson.
Norman, if you’re confused by your feet, use a toy train on an oval track.
You may need a responsible adult to help you.
Norman,
Describe the GHE better than the delusional SkyDragon cultists bobdroege, Willard, and Tim Folkerts, if you dare.
Or you can just keep claiming you have provided hundreds of descriptions – all different, I assume.
Just like the rest of the idiots.
Here you are, Swenson. A description of the greenhouse effect simple enough that even you might understand it.
https://skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_09_Greenhouse_effect_stack_of_blankets_2023.html
EM,
You idiot.
“SkS Analogy 9 – The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets” – from your link.
That’s not a description of anything. It’s a stupid, pointless, and irrelevant analogy. If you were not such a witless fool, you would realise that blankets contribute no heat. Wrap a corpse in as many blankets as you like, it will continue to cool if the ambient temperature is below that of the corpse.
You may deny that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, or that the surface cools every night, but those facts won’t go away.
I will add your description of the greenhouse effect as being “a stack of blankets”, to other bizarre and nonsensical offerings from bobdroege, Willard, and Ball4.
At least your cultist gullibility seems boundless.
Do you also deny Sir Isaac Newton’s conclusion that the Moon is falling continuously toward the Earth? I’ll suggest that if you look at the Moon, all you can see is the bottom of the falling object, and a bit of the sides, if it is not directly overhead.
You could always claim the Moon is propelled around the Earth by celestial beings.
Carry on believing nonsense.
ent…I am going to offer a rare ad hom without corroborating it. Skepticalscience is a serious joke. The leader claims to be a solar scientists but only has an undergraduate degree. He does not work in the field of science but as a cartoonist.
The leader of SkS is behind the most recent attempt to claim 95% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic meme. His study was refuted, just like the other two studies. One of the other two, by Naomi Oreskes, polled 1000 scientists with a question that could only be answered yes or no. No scientist with integrity could claim that anthropogenic gases don’t warm the atmosphere even if the amount is negligible.
That’s the kind of sources you are quoting when you use the likes of SkS.
norman…this is more of the same Cassini bs from the other link you posted. From this link…
“As we saw in the previous section, spatial gradients in the Moon’s gravitational field produce a slight tidal elongation of the Earth. However, because of frictional effects, this elongation does not quite line up along the axis joining the centers of the Earth and Moon”.
***
This is a typical example from astronomers who fail to grasp the physics of the actuality. They have taken equations and blindly applied them without consideration of the physical reality.
The forces they are using to create a torque simply don’t exist. If you did the same in water, with an object at the centre and a concentric swirling action about it, there would be a torque applied to the object. However, there is nothing between the Earth and Moon that supplies such a connection.
In the quote above they talk about mysterious ‘spatial gradients’ in the Moon’s gravitational field. Those gradients are supposed to somehow reach out across space and apply a torque to the Earth’s surface. Then they talk about equally mysterious ‘frictional effects’.
Having experienced such differences between faculties at university I always wondered why these faculties don’t talk to each other. It would be just as easy for someone in the astronomy faculty to walk across campus and talk to someone in the physics faculty or the engineering faculty, but it seems they’d rather be hit by a bus than create the impression they don’t understand something.
Spatial gradients and frictional effects do not exist between Earth and Moon. The notion that a bulge created in the ocean of about 1 metre can be affected by friction related to the Moon so as to create a torque is sheer fiction.
So is the notion that the Earth and Moon are rotating about a barycentre, as they suggest in the article. That idea comes from the theory of a binary star system but no one has ever explained how it was created in the first place. I posted a link a while back to an article which claimed the wobble on the Earth about its axis is measured in several feet. If there was a rotation about a barycentre the wobble would be at least 1000 metres.
I await a snarky comment from my friend Richard. I may not be his friend but I have made him my friend, whether he likes it or not.
☺ ☺
Clint’s my friend too even though he gets a bit intense at times.
☺ ☺
And, yes, Norman, you’re my friend too.
“So is the notion that the Earth and Moon are rotating about a barycentre, as they suggest in the article. That idea comes from the theory of a binary star system but no one has ever explained how it was created in the first place. I posted a link a while back to an article which claimed the wobble on the Earth about its axis is measured in several feet. If there was a rotation about a barycentre the wobble would be at least 1000 metres.
I await a snarky comment from my friend Richard. I may not be his friend but I have made him my friend, whether he likes it or not. ”
Someone else wants to know if Gorden thinks the Sun has barycentre.
I think the existence or non existence of Sun’s barycentre is related
to Earth’s global climate.
Though I do like how everyone is so, excited about exploring the lunar polar region- I think it’s important, too.
gb…there is an alleged barycentre for the Sun but it is also admitted that the forces applied to the Sun by the planets is minimal. There are times when nearly all the planets line up on one side of the Sun and one would think that would pull it considerably off its centre. Does not seem to budge. There are other times when the planets are all over the place pulling in in different directions.
One might think that would pull the Earth significantly off its orbit as well, but it does not seem to happen. The effect of even huge planets like Jupiter on the Earth are trivial compared to the effect of the Sun and the Moon’s gravity. The Moon, due to its proximity has far more effect than the Sun, so there you have it.
I have heard the story about the Sun’s barycentre but it would be a brute to calculate. Personally, I think its more a mathematical definition than an actuality.
“I have heard the story about the Suns barycentre but it would be a brute to calculate. Personally, I think its more a mathematical definition than an actuality.”
Hmm, observation or calculation. I would guessed calulation, though measurement in terms of how close Earth was from the sun.
So, googled it.
And you aren’t going to like it:
This new, super-accurate way to pinpoint our solar system’s center may help spot monster black hole crashes
By Mike Wall
last updated July 14, 2020
The technique could aid the hunt for galaxy-warping gravitational waves.
https://www.space.com/solar-system-mass-center-gravitational-waves.html
“Astronomers have found a way to pinpoint our solar system’s center of mass to within a mere 330 feet (100 meters), a recent study reports.
Such precision equivalent to the width of a human hair on the scale of a football field could substantially aid the search for powerful gravitational waves that warp our Milky Way galaxy, study team members said.
Astronomers have typically located our solar system’s center of mass, or barycenter, by carefully tracking the movement of the planets and other bodies orbiting the sun. Such work has revealed that the barycenter is in constant motion; it can lie near the center of the sun, just beyond its scorching surface or pretty much anywhere in between, depending on the positions of the planets.
But these previous calculations are compromised by an imperfect understanding of planetary motion, specifically that of Jupiter, which is the solar system’s gravitational second-in-command. In the recent study, researchers took a new approach, analyzing observations of pulsars made over more than a decade by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) project.”
gb…”Astronomers have found a way to pinpoint our solar systems center of mass to within a mere 330 feet (100 meters), a recent study reports”.
***
Astronomers, to me, are generally people who could not hack the rigor of studying physics. A certain amount of physics and math is required in astronomy but it’s trivial compared to actual physics or applied science. Furthermore, much of the study in astronomy, as in geology is speculative.
There are properties of rocks, for example, that can be examined directly, but it becomes speculative as to how certain rock formations came to be. Some of the theories like geosynclines (folds in the Earth’s crust) are interesting but in the end no one can prove the theories. The entire field of plate tectonics is speculative since no one has ever witness a plate let alone witnessed it move.
Most of what we know about the solar system or the universe in general is based on the study of gas spectra from stars. The theory of proto-planets is based on speculation which is based on perturbations in gas spectra from a star. More recently, we have sent probes that scan planets on their way past and offer a cursory amount of information.
Two of them (Pioneer series) that were designed to crash into Venus were sent to Venus in the late 1970s. They returned valuable information about the surface temperature of Venus which was about 450C. That completely abolished the theory of Carl Sagan that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. Yet that theory still hangs around like a stinky odour.
Meantime, James Hansen of NASA GISS, a Sagan groupie, spread the nonsense that Earth could be headed toward the same runaway greenhouse effect. He offered no proof of that, just a lame theory that described a greenhouse effect based on radiation, that does not exist.
I may sound like I am down on astronomers but I am not. I still find astronomy to be a fascination subject. However, I took a course in it expecting a fascinating course and found only very dry calculations based on the spectra of stars. There is nothing much drier than classifying stars based on brightness, etc., where the brightness cannot be measured directly but only by inference.
For example, a very large bright star will appear at the same brightness as a much duller star that is closer. When you look at an asterism like the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor), all the stars are at different distances but appear in the same physical area. The only way to tell the difference is by examining the gas spectra of each star and quantifying it.
“Astronomers, to me, are generally people who could not hack the rigor of studying physics. ”
I am impressed if they can make telescopes.
Wiki:
“The Newtonian telescope, also called the Newtonian reflector or just a Newtonian, is a type of reflecting telescope invented by the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, using a concave primary mirror and a flat diagonal secondary mirror. Newton’s first reflecting telescope was completed in 1668 and is the earliest known functional reflecting telescope.”
“There are properties of rocks, for example, that can be examined directly, but it becomes speculative as to how certain rock formations came to be. ”
Geologists want to make a lot money- tend to be excited [feverish] about gold and oil.
“The entire field of plate tectonics is speculative since no one has ever witness a plate let alone witnessed it move. ”
The plates are rather big and they are mapped.
“Two of them (Pioneer series) that were designed to crash into Venus were sent to Venus in the late 1970s. They returned valuable information about the surface temperature of Venus which was about 450C. That completely abolished the theory of Carl Sagan that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. Yet that theory still hangs around like a stinky odour.”
The US mapped the planet at around 100 meter radar resolution and Soviets landed on it {briefly}. It’s easiest planet to get to, if you don’t want to land on it.
“I may sound like I am down on astronomers but I am not. I still find astronomy to be a fascination subject. ”
Mostly amateur astronomers have determined that we probably aren’t going to hit by big space rock, anytime soon.
So if there is no barycenter (a central point around which things operate) is there not an equal pull from the Earth and the Sun (or the Earth and the Moon) and if so how come there is no barycenter?
Richard, I am not claiming there is no barycentre, only that a barycentre by definition is a calculated centre of mass for a system. I am claiming only that other factors are present which override the calculations.
I think the problem here is trying to compare a definite centre of mass, like with a set of dumbbells and a calculated centre of mass like between planets where the only relationship is gravitational attraction.
With a dumbbell, presuming both end weights have identical mass and the connecting bar is of uniform density, the COM should be exactly in the middle of the bar. You can both calculate that and verify it, although you should expect that the COM may be a trivial amount either side of the bar centre.
With a system like the Earth-Moon system, the forces attracting them to each other are variable with distance (inverse square law). But we have another problem. Newton’s f = ma = mg applies only if the pertinent force is capable of moving the pertinent mass. If the Earth and the Moon are to pull each other enough so both orbit a barycentre, that should be obvious both as a perturbation of the lunar orbit and in a perturbation of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
We know the Moon can move the Earth only by raising the levels of the oceans, at peak, of about 1 metre. In other words, it’s not moving the Earth physically as a mass. We also know the Earth can move the Moon only 5 metres for every 8000 metres the Moon moves in its orbit. That is just enough to make the Moon follow Earth’s curvature.
If the Earth was pulling on the Moon enough to cause it to orbit a barycentre, the Moon could no longer follow its current orbital path. That would mean any calculation of the current lunar orbit would be far more complex. If you calculate the centre of mass indicating the barycentre, and calculate the orbits required for the Earth and the Moon they would look far different than they do now.
Gordon Robertson
The bulges are at opposite ends of the Moon and they are small and it is known they are small that is why it took 100 million years to slow the Moon’s rotation.
The Torque exists because the gravitational attraction is greater for the close bulge as compared to the further one causing the twisting motion.
Clint R is convinced no torque can exist because if you drop a rod with a weight on one end, in a vacuum, the rod will fall all at the same time. There is more force on the weighted side but the greater mass needs more force to accelerate it so the rod falls equally. With the Moon there is a difference in gravitational attraction for each bulge. The closer one has more force than the further one so a torque exists in this case. I think the equations will show this if you plug numbers into them.
Gordon Robertson
This article gives an equation you can use to calculate the torque. You can use this result to see how much this effect would slow down a much faster spinning Moon.
https://theoretical-physics-digest.fandom.com/wiki/Tidal_Torque
Norman, there are millions of links you don’t understand. We already know that.
You couldn’t make a free-body diagram of bulges on Moon that result in a torque from Earth’s gravity if your life depended on it. You have no concept of the physics involved. You’ve got NOTHING.
ClintR
“Youve got NOTHING”
How ironic, fool.
Some active process has kept the Moon aligned with the Earth for a billion years through every disturbance the Solar System can throw at it.
Yet despite your prattle about physics you can provide no explanation.
Ent, I always enjoy it when you cult idiots go into meltdown. Your meltdown is kind of a wimpy, effeminate meltdown, but that makes it even more interesting.
You don’t know what Moon was doing a billion years ago. Youre just trying to make crap up, again. Things could cause Moon to rotate, that’s physics. But it is currently NOT spinning, that’s reality. Again, use the simple model of a ball-on-a-string. The ball is NOT spinning.
“it is currently NOT spinning”
Yes it is.
Ah the good old moon spins on it axis memories (ok not exactly the same) but I always like to poke the ignorant on it.. the moon does NOT spin on it’s axis like the Earth does. In relation to the Earth (and only relation to the Earth) the moon faces one side of it’s surface at all times… while the Earth spins… the moon not so much..sorry. If a body spins on it’s own axis, it can’t also not spin ..ie…one side faces the Earth always. always fun to discuss this old flat earther ..fake moon landing stuff when shoving facts that can’t be denied….I can’t wait for the bbbbbut bbut but posts… the moon does based on how it gets sun on all sides…..but that is actually orbital sun exposure and not axial spin. spinny spin spin silliness
Exactly, Martin.
Ironically, the people who support the rotating Moon theory are also climate alarmists. They cannot explain how the Moon can rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth nor can they explain how a trace gas can cause catastrophic global warming/climate change.
“In relation to the Earth (and only relation to the Earth) … ”
And there is a key issue! If we instead look in relation to the stars, then the moon DOES rotate on its axis. So we have two different answers, depending on our *choice* of reference frame. (and we could have a 3rd answer if we look relative to the sun).
The question then becomes “is there one choice that makes more sense than the other(s)?” Should we prefer to use a non-rotating frame, a frame rotating every 27.3 days, a frame rotating every 29.5 days, or a frame rotating every 365.25 days? In different cases, different choices make sense.
Look at how Fraudkerts attempts his perversion: …then the moon DOES rotate on its axis”
“Does” in all caps! Nowhere in his comment does he capitalize “does not”. HIs entire comment seeks to pervert reality.
That’s why he’s such a fraud.
tim….”If we instead look in relation to the stars, then the moon DOES rotate on its axis”.
***
Not on it’s axis, about its axis which is an external axis, the Earth. Ask Dremt.
… in Gordon’s view inhabiting an accelerated frame.
Yes, Martin!
We have here a lot of geniuses who know it better than Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer, Mädler; Belkovich, Habibullin, MacDonald, Capallo, Calamé, Eckhardt, Migus, Moons (*); the American, Russian, Japanese and Chinese Moon landing preparation crews; all Lunar Laser Ranging crews in America, France…
(*) I named only a few
*
The denial goes so far that some of these geniuses distort and misrepresent even Newton’s original Latin text wrt Moon’s spin – until it fits their egomaniacal narrative.
Absurdistan at its best.
Binny,
None of the authorities to whom you appeal have provided a description of the GHE.
Obviously, the greenhouse effect is a modern phenomenon, or a product of delusional SkyDragon cultists’ imagination.
Would you like to provide a description of the GHE? Surely you can find at least one authority to whom you can appeal?
How hard can it be?
Ignorant fool.
Ah, once more the Flynnson boy with his GHE dementia.
Bin, speaking of your GHE dementia, do you have a viable description of your cult’s GHE yet?
ball4…”Then, orbit the cup around a point on a table, keep the cup handle always facing the point by rotating the cup on its own axis 360 once per rev”.
***
Where is the hand that rotates the Moon? The Moon, as verified by Newton, moves with a linear motion and it is bent into an orbit by Earth’s gravity. Not that simple, however. The Moon has to have the proper linear momentum and be at the proper distance to allow the orbital curvature to follow the Earth’s curvature. That means gravity has to pull the Moon toward Earth by 5 metres for every 8000 metres moved in a linear path by the Moon.
It’s obvious there is no force or momentum acting to cause the Moon to rotate about its local axis. The Moon has only linear momentum and no angular momentum. It doesn’t need angular momentum,the combination of its linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field does the trick. No local rotation required.
There is no hand imparting lunar momentum, Gordon. The Moon has only instantaneous linear momentum and no angular momentum wrt Earth.
Our moon has plenty of curvilinear momentum & angular momentum wrt to the fixed stars. All measurements of position and velocity (thus momentum) must be made relative to (i.e. wrt) some frame of reference.
b4…where is the curved velocity vector causing the curvilinear momentum? You cannot have a curvilinear momentum unless you have a mass attached to an axle by a solid like a spoke. The Moon has no momentum along a curve only in a straight line.
Inertially, our moon has angular momentum about two axes (with two angles changing in time), Gordon. Can you find these 2 axes & 2 angles?
Angular momentum is NOT an inertial consideration, Ball4. An object either has angular momentum, or it doesn’t. Frame of reference does not artificially create angular momentum.
Moon has no angular momentum.
… in spin as viewed from Earth.
You are the man who said that gravity cannot torque the Moon.
What active process do you think keeps it aligned with the Earth despite constant disturbance.?
Gordon – are you familiar with the parallel axis theorem?
Or is it yet another piece of established physics that you deny because you don’t understand it?
Perhaps you’ll pull the classic deniers’ call: “it’s only a theory”.
EM and AQ, please stop trolling.
aq…don’t see what the parallel axis theorem has to do with this discussion of the lunar orbit. The theorem is applied if you have a barbell with its COM in the middle of the bar and you move the axis to the centre of one of the balls on the barbell.
Richard would like the theorem because he could play with the COM between Earth and Moon. Problem is, the COM would tell us nothing about the physical reality. The Earth wobbles no more than a few feet about its N-S axis whereas a rotation about a COM, or barycentre, would require a wobble of about a kilometre.
One more of these usual Robertson lies…
Sources for Principia Scientifica, Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
1. Newton’s original text in Latin, commented in 1739-1742 (in Latin too) by Thomas Le Seur and François Jacquier
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/2wNYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA51
2. Motte’s translation in English
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. Du Chatelet’s translation in French
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
4. Wolfers’ translation in German (on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file, §21 Lehrsatz)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
All four texts show the same:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. “
Bin, thanks for another example of you being braindead.
This has been explained to you several times, but you STILL don’t get it. Newton wasn’t talking about Moon spinning. He was talking about day/night on Moon and planets. Day/night on planets is caused by their spin. Moon day/night is caused by its orbit, as Newton phrased it — …with respect to the stars.
You can’t take something out of context just to pervert reality.
An orbit does not imply a rotation. They are 2 separate motions.
Insert spin for rotation if you so desire.
Dang RLH, are you finally learning?
As I wrote above:
The denial goes so far that some of these geniuses distort and misrepresent even Newtons original Latin text wrt Moons spin until it fits their egomaniacal narrative.
Absurdistan at its best.
Correct Bin, your cult only exists by perverting and denying reality. This Moon issue is as simple as a ball-on-a-string. Realists have no need to pervert science and reality. Your cult has NO model of “orbital motion without spin”.
That’s why you have to constantly take things out of context.
And of course: all the geniuses posting on this blog still don’t understand what ‘… with respect to the stars’ exactly means.
No chance for any mental improvement.
Here is the complete translation of Newton’s Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in Book III of the Principia Scientifica.
What is here ‘taken out of its context’, Clint R?
*
” That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb;
but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercator in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him. ”
*
I clarify a priori: we can get an English translation of Newton’s original Latin text out of numerous sources (the latest is of Ian Bruce), so not just by Andrew Motte (you know, the one whose skills the Robertson ignoramus dares to doubt, and even called a ‘cheating SOB’ a few years ago ).
*
For interested persons: you can find within Mercator’s treatise
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA285&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
the place where he refers to what Newton explained to him in 1675 with regard to Moon’s libration in longitude:
The text starts with
” Harum tam variarum atque implicitarum Librationum causas Hypothesi elegantissim explicavit nobis Vir Cl. Isaac Newton… “
Bin, this has been explained to you before, several times!
The title tells is all: That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.”
Newton was explaining how day/night occurs on planets and Moon. The planets orbit and spin, but Moon only orbits.
The planets orbit and spin, but our Moon only orbits wrt to an observer on Earth.
Daily Sun: 11 Jul 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 317.4 km/sec
density: 4.14 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 227
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 191 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.88×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.1%
That is high daily sunspot number.
Meanwhile the thermosphere in not very warm {it’s decreased}
and not active in regards to Neutron Counts.
I sort of decided not to continue “follow it”- constantly, but
that is high sunspot number, and high spot number will continue for few days.
And in terms tea leaf reading, not much in terms of coronal holes on near side. And haven’t really been watching, but as a guess spots are growing.
Maybe I will continue to watch this show.
Solar wind
speed: 305.8 km/sec
density: 2.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Jul 23
Sunspot number: 227
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.88×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Below Average
More big spots coming from farside {to replace those leaving
to farside] so sunspot number going remain high for a while.
Very surprising, thermosphere and neutron counts is decreasing rather
than increasing. I am expecting it to change, maybe in few days.
“HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR VENUS SHADOW? When the sun goes down tonight, step outside and face west. Venus is dazzling in the evening twilight. According to JPL’s Horizons ephemeris, Venus’s brightness is peaking this week at magnitude -4.71, almost 200 times brighter than a 1st magnitude star. It’s so bright, it’s casting shadows:”
Daily Sun: 14 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 353.6 km/sec
density: 11.44 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 203 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.08×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.1% Below Average
Sunspot number fell more than I imagined it would.
Thermosphere energized a bit and Neutron counts seem
going in direction of not being a solar max condition.
There are spots coming from farside, but many have and are fleeing to farside.
I would wildly guess spots are currently, decaying more than growing.
We aren’t going to get spotless in a week of time, but we will see what happens before July month ends.
Let’s check forecast:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
10 July – 05 August 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
levels throughout the forecast period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Low activity seems to be correct.
Daily Sun: 15 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 586.3 km/sec
density: 12.50 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 141
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.18×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.6% Below Average
48-hr change:+1.6%
Spots don’t appear to me to be growing, don’t spots coming from farside, and nearside spots going to farside. Within 2 or 3 days
sunspot number should lower. And say in week, number might be around
100 or less. July had highest spot number day but the month I would guess is less have June.
And guessing Aug will be much lower, as will Sept. And by Oct falling like a rock, has been my guess. And my guess is very weak Solar Max 25. And my guessing is directly related to what V. Zharkova
predicted. And she seem to indicate we going to have a couple dead cat bounces {or Solar Max will go on for years, but years of weak Solar Max activity. And there could be a giant sunspot during these years but there also could be days or weeks of spotless conditions.
But what I interested in, is GRC cosmic radiation, and imagine in coming years, have more of it, and during 25 Min have a lot more of it. So less of it would be Oulu Neutron Counts being +0.0 or higher,
such as like +5.0 or higher. And “today: -0.6% Below Average” indicates low solar activity for a Solar Max, particular at the peak of a solar Max.
And/or my guess is we are now past the peak of solar Max 25.
My guess, and it is not suggesting or implying it’s a V. Zharkova guess.
Guessing global weather on Earth or Sun is probably going to be wrong.
Daily Sun: 17 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 549.3 km/sec
density: 1.43 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 99
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.47×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.4% Below Average
48-hr change:-0.4%
Some spots are growing, it’s more active, but
100 sunspots is not high number and it seems it’s staying
around there. And still could continue around there
and July might be similar month as June sunspot number,
which roughly what I guessed. But neither June or July was
as active as I guessed- Jan holds the record of active during
this solar Max so, far. And I am guessing with hold the record
for most active for entire Solar Max period {Which I didn’t guess}.
If it bouncing around 100 to 140 spots for a year or more, it’s a weak Solar Max, two years or more, still doesn’t make it, strong.
But I think it will be crashing by Sept, and might look like a trend by Oct. And more obvious by Nov.
Daily Sun: 21 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 429.0 km/sec
density: 12.90 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 131
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.44×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.4% Below Average
48-hr change: +1.3%
It seems neutron counts could bounce back to -2% or lower
and maybe get warmer thermosphere. I am not added up the sunspots
daily numbers, but is seems Jul could highest or second highest
month {as I guessed it would be- but not as active as I thought it would be} and I guessed Aug would lower spots and activity- but since June and July seemed high- it’s more of safe guess at this point, but my guess is for longer term of Sept, and Nov of a continuous decline,
which might not considered a safe bet. And by end of year, we get prediction of double peak, which I predict will be regarded as barely countable as a double peak- or more of dead cat bounce or bounces.
Or in accordance with that women, who thinks we going to get solar grand min. [and much later, a solar grand Max cycle starting, again and it being better than your 20th century Solar grand Max.
Daily Sun: 22 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 428.9 km/sec
density: 4.81 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.43×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.8% Below Average
48-hr change: +1.3%
Alarming deterioration of US National Weather Service tornado warnings
Posted on July 11, 2023 by curryja | 7 Comments
by Mike Smith
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/11/alarming-deterioration-of-us-national-weather-service-tornado-warnings/#more-30312
“In spite of better meteorological technology than ever and more raw scientific knowledge about storms, we are seeing a serious regression in a vital government program: the National Weather Services tornado warning program.”
In unrelated news {hurricanes}
Atlantic has disturbance with 40% chance of tropical storm:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And one my side:
Have, Three-E, and tropical storm [not going anywhere near me, or anyone on land- unless it’s some tiny island somewhere].
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Three-E tropical became hurricane Calvin and it’s got some island it’s heading towards:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_ep3.shtml?start#contents
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_ep3.shtml?start#contents
Little islands were Hawaiian islands, and it’s a significant hurricane now, but will probably weaken 3 or 4 days from now.
Or maybe not.
“As of 11 a.m., the National Hurricane Center in Miami said Calvin was a Category 3 hurricane about 2,050 miles southeast of Hilo, with maximum sustained winds of 125 mph, and moving west-northwest at 16 mph. Hurricane-force winds extend up to 35 miles from the center and tropical storm-force winds extend up to 115 miles.
Weakening is forecast to commence tomorrow and continue through early next week, the hurricane center said.
Calvin is expected to move into the Central Pacific late Sunday as a weakening tropical storm, according to forecasters. At the end of the current five-day forecast period, Calvin is expected to be a post-tropical storm with maximum winds of 40 mph, and could still bring heavy rain and strong gusts to the islands.”
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/07/14/breaking-news/calvin-grows-into-major-hurricane-on-march-toward-central-pacific/
— When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships everything.
What is the correct quote and where does it come from?–
https://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to-worship/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“As G.K. Chesterton never actually wrote, When a man ceases to believe in God, its not that he believes in nothing, its that hell believe in anything.”
I should confess, that I am a bit of a fan of everything.
Which God is that then? There are many on offer.
It doesn’t really matter.
The conspiracy between he priests and the kings cut down on rebellions. God was on our side and had appointed the king. Members of the tribe were more willing to die fighting for the tribe if they thought they would go to afterlife.Any one who disagreed was exiled or killed
Tribes with a religion were more successful than those without, so after a while religious belief became bred into us.
None of this actually needs a god and the universe functions well without one, so I doubt she exists.
Even if it does exist, why would anyone want to associate with such a clear case of histrionic personality disorder.
“Tribes with a religion were more successful than those without”
Possibly.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion
Whitmarsh describes the existence of atheism as an individual stance in ancient sophisticated atheistic societies, an indication of tolerance.
He does not suggest that any atheist societies existed.
I suspect that my original thesis holds. In the evolutionary sense tribes believing in Gods passed more copies of their genes to the next generation. A few atheists might be tolerated as long as they kept their heads down.
In such a society atheism might be like albinism, not fatal but reducing your fitness.
Later, when religion was more overtly a tool of authority, failure to confirm to the official religion got you killed and the selection pressure against atheism got much more intense.
They mean the Jewish God- God which create our universe and Earth and everything.
The Islam and Christian God.
But it could also be the Big Guy in Hinduism and what that Budhha going going on about. But Jewish God was quite angry about ancient Egyptian gods of nature and the Dead. And hated child sacrifices made to God- and it seem would be very opposed {unforgiving} to suicide bombers killing people in his name. As using his name in vain was the worse- if done by believers in God {ie, lying about Him and betrayal}. And would also apply to corrupt Popes.
gb claims: “I should confess, that I am a bit of a fan of everything.”
gb, you don’t seem to be much of a fan of reality.
How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/08/how-much-warming-can-we-expect-in-the-21st-century/
Courtesy of Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether
A non-rotating tether system has a stable orientation that is aligned along the local vertical (of the earth or other body). This can be understood by inspection of the figure on the right where two spacecraft at two different altitudes have been connected by a tether. Normally, each spacecraft would have a balance of gravitational(e.g.Fg1) and centrifugal (e.g. Fc1) forces, but when tied together by a tether, these values begin to change with respect to one another. This phenomenon occurs because, without the tether, the higher-altitude mass would travel slower than the lower mass. The system must move at a single speed, so the tether must therefore slow down the lower mass and speed up the upper one. The centrifugal force of the tethered upper body is increased, while that of the lower-altitude body is reduced. This results in the centrifugal force of the upper body and the gravitational force of the lower body being dominant. This difference in forces naturally aligns the system along the local vertical, as seen in the figure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether#/media/File%3AFig11_Gravitational_Gradient.PNG
As for the spacecraft, so for the Moon. On the nearest part of the Moon to the Earth Fg exceeds Fc and on the furthest part Fc exceeds Fg. This stretches the Moon along the axis perpendicular to the Earth and pulls it into an oval with the two bulges.
While the Moon’s day was shorter than its orbital period the bulges shifted like tides and the work done was taken from the angular momentum of the Moon’s rotation relative to the Earth. This slowed the Moon’s rotation until it’s rotation on its axis and it’s revolution in its orbit were equal.
Continued
Now the Moon’s asymmetry acts like a gravity stabilisation tether, keeping it oriented with the same face towards the Earth because this is the minimum energy configuration.
EM,
According to Newton, the Moon is merely falling towards the Earth under the influence of gravity. Maybe you could find an analogy to a stack of blankets, or an imaginary space tether?
Simplicity suits me. How about you?
You forgot he also included radial velocity as a component that prevented the Moon from hitting the Earth.
RLH,
No I didn’t. You can’t deny that what I said is correct, so you try to confuse the issue. Go on, start waffling about what would happen if the Moon’s speed was greater or less, and indulge in flights of imagination about all sorts of things.
In the meantime, I’ll gently point out that using radial velocity here is meaningless.
But carry on trying to sound authoritative.
Stop pretending to be thick, Swenson. I’m discussing a mechanism which keeps one side of the Moon facing the Earth. This is something which is necessary for the Moon’s stability and which ClintR, Gordon and yourself seem unable to explain.
Ent, just a few mistakes in your current effort to pervert reality —
The issue is NOT whether Moon was ever spinning. The issue is Moon is NOT spinning now. One side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit BECAUSE it is NOT spinning.
That’s the issue you need to pervert. That’s why you claimed passenger jets fly backwards. You’ve lost the issue so you’re trying to change to another issue.
That’s what idiots and trolls do.
“One side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit BECAUSE it is NOT spinning.”
You have not explained why one side of the Moon always faces inwards, despite meteor impacts turning it.
Does “the Hand of God” keep it there?
Ent, what makes you believe meteors would create torque? Wouldn’t meteors strike in line with center of mass?
Oh, I forgot. You don’t understand gravity and physics.
Were you able to find a responsible adult to explain centrifugal force to you?
“Wouldn’t meteors strike in line with center of mass?”
Actually radial hits have a very low chance of occurring.
“Wouldnt meteors strike in line with center of mass?”
No, they wouldn’t!
Haven’t you ever seen a meteor streak ACROSS the sky? Meteorites and other debris can hit at pretty much any angle. The angle is based both on earth’s gravity AND on their initial velocity as they approach earth.
“The angle is based both on earth’s gravity AND on their initial velocity as they approach earth”
Likewise for the Moon.
Did I fall victim to yet another distraction?
If you want to continue with this issue, please provide a viable model of “orbital motion without spin“. So far, all I’ve seen is “passenger jets fly backward” and poor Norman hanging himself with rubber bands.
I need to see some progress.
I think we have established that a ball-on-a-string is not a model for “orbital motion without spin”.
Wrong RLH. That is your cult belief. You have to deny, reject, distort all science to hold on to your cult belief.
You’re doing a great job of that!
We have established that a ball-on-a-string is not a valid model for “orbital motion without spin”.
Regarding the moon, I think there’s a simpler way of saying the same thing.
There is a separation of centres:
the centre of gravity is nearer the earth than the centre of mass, due to the decreasing gravitational gradient from near side to far side.
The moon wants to rotate about its centre of mass.
Gravity effectively acts at the centre of gravity, so the centre of gravity “wants” to be closer to the earth, thus slowing the rotation.
AQ,
You wrote –
“The moon wants to rotate about its centre of mass.
Gravity effectively acts at the centre of gravity, so the centre of gravity “wants” to be closer to the earth, thus slowing the rotation.”
If this is supposed to be a simplification of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, (which explains the motion of the Moon pretty well), you are obviously a delusional SkyDragon cultist, or someone of that ilk.
Maybe you could provide your simplification of the description of the GHE, as the pea brained efforts so far don’t seem to make any sense at all.
[laughing at simpleton]
Ent, your desperation is especially entertaining. Your center of gravity vs. center of mass nonsense is right up there with your passenger jets fly backwards nonsense.
You have NO problem attempting to pervert reality.
But, reality always wins.
What will you try next?
Perhaps you would care to describe your precise issue with it.
Or does unjustified denial count as science these days?
And perhaps you would care to link to where I claimed passenger jets fly backwards.
Yes Ant, it was Ent that claims passenger jets fly backward. But, all you cultists believe the same. Can you admit that passenger jets don’t fly backward?
As to your nonsense about centers of mass/gravity, it’s a desperate distraction. Moon’s centers align with Earth’s gravity. That’s just how it works.
Clint acts like a flat Earther. Planes do not fly backwards wrt to the air they are in.
“Centers” – plural. Glad you agree that the force of earth’s gravity on the far side of the moon is weaker than on the near side, causing the centre of gravity to shift forward of the centre of mass.
Yes – the line joining the centres attempts to align with earth’s gravity. Which it will do if given enough time.
Let me ask the same question I asked Gordon:
Are you familiar with the parallel axis theorem? Or is it yet another piece of established physics that you deny because you dont understand it?
Ant, first admit that your “centers” nonsense was a desperate distraction. Then, I’ll address your next distraction about the PAT.
I need to see some progress.
“Admit” based on what new reasoning that you have brought to the table? It seems your only “argument” is “it is nonsense”.
If you can’t explain the relevance of your CoM/CoG nonsense, then it’s a distraction. You’re just throwing crap against the wall because you have NOTHING.
Got a viable model of “orbital motion without spin” yet?
Clint echo’s his reality.
“you have NOTHING”
I explained the relevance. Try improving your comprehension.
Ant, your pile of crap ain’t explaining the relevance. It’s just a pile of crap.
The moon wants to rotate about its centre of mass.
Wants to rotate? Pure crap.
Gravity effectively acts at the centre of gravity, so the centre of gravity wants to be closer to the earth, thus slowing the rotation.
But you stated the CoG was already closer???
And, what rotation?
Making crap up ain’t science.
Did you notice that my original comment was not directed at you?
Did you think perhaps it was relevant to the comment I was responding to?
But of course, someone who jumps in on EVERY thread believes that everything is about him.
Ant, if you can’t explain the relevance of your own comments, you shouldn’t be commenting.
I’m not responsible for your mistakes and confusion, YOU are.
In relation to the comment I was replying to, my opening line clearly explains the significance.
For someone who complains of butt-sniffers, you are certainly providing them with good competition.
Antoninus
I find a similarity to a pendulum. If you disturb a pendulum it oscillates for a while bleeding off energy , then settles in the vertical.
Disturb the Moon, perhaps with a meteorite impact and it might oscillate in direction until the excess energy becomes heat then settle in its original position.
I don’t thing we’ll get anything sensible on this from the usual suspects. They seem unable to follow the physical implications of their odd beliefs or explain how they work.
Ent must be running out of ways to pervert reality. His “passenger jets fly backward” remains his best effort.
Passenger jets do not fly backwards wrt the air they are in.
Thanks for confirming your idiocy, RLH.
I believe everyone has the right to be an idiot. We need an “Idiot Appreciation Day”.
Passenger jets do not fly backwards wrt the air they are in.
I may have misinterpreted your one-liner, RLH. Can you clearly state that a normal passenger jet does not fly backward?
wrt to the air they are in passenger jets do not fly backwards.
If the air is surrounding a planet, then it moves (approximately) at the rotation speed of the planet.
Can you clearly state that a normal passenger jet does not fly backward?
wrt to the air they are in passenger jets do not fly backwards.
So Ent (and his cult) is wrong with the claim that passenger jets fly backward?
Ent never claimed that passenger jets fly backwards compared to the air they are in.
You can’t answer the question, RLH.
That’s really the point.
You won’t accept that Ent never claimed that passenger jets fly backwards compared to the air they are in.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1509861
So you won’t accept that Ent never claimed that passenger jets fly backwards compared to the air they are in.
RLH
Something in ClintR doesn’t understand frames of reference.
I once described an airliner flying East in daylight as flying forward through the air at 0.3km/sec while being carried backward at 30km/sec by the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun.
Every time he mentions it I smile. Don’t really know whether I’m feeling pity for him, or schadenfreude.
Passenger jets do not fly backwards wrt the air they are in.
Ent, you don’t get to choose a “frame of reference” that denies reality. You are upside down to someone on the other side of Earth. Are you REALLY upside down?
The Moon issue is NOT about reference frames. The ball-on-a-string is NOT spinning in ANY reference frame. If it were, the string would wrap around it.
So how come the Moon and the Earth rotate at different rates? Unlike if they were attached by a string.
RLH, rather than distracting, why don’t you have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
It’s almost like you’ve got NOTHING.
So how come the Moon and the Earth rotate at different rates?
“Ent, you dont get to choose a frame of reference. ”
Why not? You do.
I’m special. I adhere to reality.
You should try it.
“I’m special”
You sure are.
A moon could in principle rotate on any internal axis at any speed in any direction as it orbits. What would it mean to not rotate about any internal axis (ie 0 rev/day about every internal axis)?
There are two schools of thought present here.
For a perfectly circular orbit, zero rotation about any internal axis would mean…
SPINNERS: keeping the same face toward a particular star.
NON_SPINNERS: keeping the same face toward its planet.
For an elliptical orbit, zero rotation about any internal axis would mean …
SPINNERS: exactly the same as above.
NON_SPINNERS: [[ crickets ]]
If you can’t fill in the blank “For an elliptical orbit, zero rotation about any internal axis would mean _______” then you don’t even understand your own position on the matter!
would mean one side always faces the inside of its orbit
What will you try next, Fraudkerts?
That answer is ambiguous. Would you care to clarify?
If you mean exactly toward the earth at the ‘inside of the orbit’, then there would be no libration.
If you mean exactly toward some other point inside the orbit, then describe that point (in a way that is consistent with libration and conservation of angular momentum).
“Ambiguous”??? “One side always faces the nside its orbit” is ambiguous?
Talk about desperation.
Fraudkerts, if I answer your new diversion, you will come up with another. You’re not about truth, science, and reality. You’re about perversion.
If you were sincere you would admit your cult has NO viable model of orbital motion without spin. You just keep trying to pervert the simple ball-on-a-string.
Provide a viable model of orbital motion without spin, and I’ll answer your desperate, diverting question.
A ball-on-a-string is not a model for gravity.
RLH, test question: What is the ball-on-a-string modeling?
a) Gravity
b) Horses
c) Copper mining
d) Orbital motion without spin
e) a ball-on-a-string
ClintR
“Provide a viable model of orbital motion without spin, and Ill answer your desperate, diverting question. ”
We don’t have to.
Orbital motion without spin is you fantasy. It’s up to you to provide a viable model.
Sorry Ent.
No viable model, no cookie.
A ball-on-a-string is a viable model for a ball-on-a-string. Only.
I think someone is both obsessed and jealous.
After a, b, c and d are ruled out, only e is left standing.
As expected, Clint avoids the issue and switches to red herrings and strawmen and diversions.
For Spinners, a non-rotating object always exactly maintains it orientation in an inertial reference frame (ie ‘with respect to the stars’). This is true for circular orbits, elliptical orbits, and even motions that are not orbits at all!
For Non-Spinners, … well … nothing.
This is not a ‘diversion’. This is sticking to the point. Sticking to an important point. What — precisely — does “no rotation about an internal axis” mean? Which ‘point inside the orbit’ does the non-rotating moon face?
To highlight the ambiguity for everyone, here are three DIFFERENT motions along an ellipse where “one side always faces the inside its orbit”
A) one point always faces directly ahead along the direction of motion (like a car driving around an oval)
B) one side always faces directly toward the planet, ie the focus of the ellipse (like a ball on an extendable rod)
C) one side always faces directly toward the center of the ellipse ie where the major and minor axes cross.
Which one is “orbital motion with no rotation on an internal axis”? Or perhaps you have a different choice you want to propose.
Fraudkerts, your false accusations go well with your fraud.
The answer is A.
But you are finished unless you have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
I’ve put up with nonsense long enough.
Thanks for answering. (A) is wrong, but at least we now know what you think. (A) does not accurately predict the observed orientations as a moon moves around a planet.
Specifically, consider a moon travelling 1/4 of the total *distance* around an elliptical orbit starting at perigee (ie from where the major axis touches the ellipse to where the minor axis touches the ellipse). We know the moon is travelling faster than average here (as Kepler determined over 400 years ago), and this takes less than 1/4 of the total *time* for the orbit. The moon would have turned 90 degrees in your model, but in fact it turns less than 90 degrees in reality. Only after the moon has traveled farther and completed 1/4 of total *time* will it have rotated 90 degrees from its initial orientation. .
You are ‘finished’ since your answer fails to agree with observations.
Sorry Fraudkerts, but A is correct. Moon always has the same point facing its direction of travel. That’s why we see libration.
Your rambling about the varying speed, due to the elliptical orbit, has NOTHING to do with the question you posed. Now, you have to pervert your own question! You got caught again in your fraud.
You can go on attempting to pervert reality all you want, but don’t expect a response from me.
“Moon always has the same point facing its direction of travel”
Its instantaneous direction of travel is towards the fixed stars.
Repeating yourself does not strengthen your position.
Name-calling does not strengthen your position.
Yes, your model (A) produces libration, So does (C). So does my model. The mere existence of libration in a model is not sufficient. The model needs to predict the correct amount of libration!
Libration in longitude is almost 8 degrees. Eccentricity is 0.055. Show us how this agrees with your model.
[Hint: I just did some quick, approximate calculations for libration. Your model is about half as large as it should be (3.2 degrees). Mine is about right. ]
I don’t need to strengthen my position, fraudkerts. I can just let others continue to prove me right.
Got a viable model yet?
A ball-on-a-string is only a viable model for a ball-on-a-string.
“I dont need to strengthen my position …”
Nope, you don’t. You can continue to present an unsupported claim that produces incorrect results and proclaim that you are right and all of science is wrong. And no one can stop you.
Fraudkerts, your false accusations and lack of a viable model make you a fraud and prove me right.
tim…”If you mean exactly toward the earth at the inside of the orbit, then there would be no libration”.
***
That would be true only for a circular orbit. For an elliptical orbit, there would be libration.
Libration in lunar longitude can be explained by the Moon’s elliptical orbit. Libration in lunar latitude cannot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
To see libration in lunar latitude requires the Moon to have axial tilt relative to the plane of its orbit.
For axial tilt to exist you must have a spin axis and a spin axis requires spin.
The Moon spins. You lose.
Wrong again, Ent.
Moons orbit is tilted, providing the extra libration.
And Moons imaginary spin axis is easily debunked with a coffee cup and a pencil.
You dont understand ANY of this. You just make crap up.
Wheres your viable model of OMWS?
“Moons orbit is tilted, providing the extra libration.”
Afraid not.
The Moon’s orbit is tilted 5.14 degrees, which accounts for 10.28 degrees of libration in latitude.
To account for the full 23.64 degrees you need to add in 6.68 degrees of axial tilt which adds the extra 13.36 degrees required to match observation.
Oh, and in case you think I made it up:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File%3ALunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Thanks for confirming you dont understand libration, Ent.
(I wish I had kept all these examples of cult incompetence.)
You’ve got it. Movement must always be described with respect to a frame of reference.
The airspeed indicator of an airliner measures its movement relative to the local frame of reference, the air it is flying through.
But that is not the only frame of reference. Because of the effect of wind ground speed and airspeed are different. For example an aircraft approaching to land at 70mph into a 10mph headwind has a ground speed of 70-10=60mph, which is why we land into wind.
I once flew a Tiger Moth at 35mph into a 40mph headwind and the sat nav said I was flying backwards at 5mph. (Smile emoji),
It is not normal practice to describe an aircraft’s motion relative to the Solar System, but it is possible. For spectrographs taken by SOFIA it would be necessary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy
“Movement must always be described with respect to a frame of reference.”
Moon is orbiting. You can describe that “movement” in any frame of reference you want, as long as you don’t pervert reality. Moon is orbiting.
Moon is NOT spinning. There is NO “movement” to describe. Moon is NOT spinning.
Moon is NOT spinning wrt to observer on Earth.
Clint R always leaves out the important part.
Moon IS spinning.
Inertially. To an observer on Earth though, inhabiting an accelerated frame, our Moon presents only one lunar face thus is seen as non-spinning.
Agreed.
Ball4
” Moon is NOT spinning wrt to observer on Earth.
Clint R always leaves out the important part. ”
Ball4 still does not grasp that with this statement, he in fact contributes to the utterly wrong, pseudo-scientific claim that Moon’s spin depends on the observer’s position.
Moon spins since it was born in an accretion disk, and won’t stop spinning until the Sun extends up to it as a Red Giant, before it finally collapses as a Supernova.
*
Moreover, I ask Ball4 why Chaldeans, Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks already understood some millennia ago that the Moon MUST spin just BECAUSE it shows us always the same face.
Bin, Ball4 is just trying his own method of perverting reality. You have your method, and Ball4 has his method.
Neither of you is right, as reality always wins.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And entertainer Clint R has fiction.
Bindidon 12:29 pm, again all measurements of position and velocity (thus momentum) must be made relative to (i.e. wrt) some frame of reference. There is no absolute motion observed such as you claim for the moon. It is why the field is called relativity.
“Chaldeans, Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks already understood some millennia ago that the Moon MUST spin just BECAUSE it shows us always the same face.”
No. Millennia ago those folks had no scientific basis for that understanding. Aristotle, for example, did believe that wherever there is mass motion, there must be a force. However, he was puzzled by the observation that the motion of a body continued even when the source of motion was no longer applied. To advance, Galileo added acceleration, inertia, and transformations between ref. frames. Then Newton added the inertial frame of the “fixed stars”.
Only in that inertial frame is our moon naturally spinning on its own axis. There exist infinitely other accelerated frames which give rise to the need to account for fictitious forces such as Coriolis and centrifugal along with fictitious motion.
The best you can write on a scientific basis then is our moon’s non-spin is fictitious (so I keep correcting Clint R to remove Clint’s fiction) when observed from an accelerated frame. An observer on Earth inhabits an accelerated frame where the acceleration of that frame must be accounted back to the inertial frame.
Ball4
You get more and more opinionated, and pervert simple reality.
There is NO NEED for using reference frames in the Newtonian physics we are here dealing with.
*
In 1750, astronomer Tobias Mayer computed Moon’s spin period on the basis of 1.5 years of observation and processing the data by using spherical trigonometry, and obtained as result
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 60eths of a second:
27.321665 days
And this result now compare to the most recent value computed using Lunar Laser Ranging data
27.321661 days
*
Does that speak to you, Ball4?
These values could have been obtained by people working at any place somewhere in the Solar System when having the corresponding observation tools at hand.
*
Thus, when you write:
” There is no absolute motion observed such as you claim for the moon. It is why the field is called relativity. ”
you are simply boasting, with regard to the discussion in this blog, a detail up to the major point.
*
The difference in computing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury in Newtonian mode and relativity mode is 43 arcseconds / century, but this is due to Mercury’s near to Sun and to Sun’s mass, Ball4.
When we look – as lay(wo)men – at things happening around Earth, such differences become negligible; if they were not, the difference between Mayer’s and LLR computations for the lunar spin would be far greater.
*
This OF COURSE does not mean that when computing lunar ephemerides, we could ignore the most recent results including physical libration phenomena or relativistic matters.
” Then Newton added the inertial frame of the ‘fixed stars’. ”
There is NO NEED, in such a blog, to speak about an inertial reference frame when talking about motion periods computed with respect to the fixed stars, Ball4.
You are somewhat arrogant, and do not contribute in any way to a better understanding of things like the lunar spin on this blog.
“Does that speak to you, Ball4?”
It says those lunar spin results Bindidon reports were measured wrt Newton’s inertial frame. Observed wrt an accelerated frame as on Earth there is no lunar spin on its own axis since we see only one lunar hemisphere, the man in the moon face, or our Moon wouldn’t be tidally locked to its planet as it has been for eons.
If you account for the accelerated frame as viewed from Earth, then recover the lunar inertial spin as measured.
Again, all measurements of position and velocity (thus momentum) must be made relative to (i.e. wrt) some frame of reference. To be clear about, and account for, dynamic fictitious forces and motion, the frame of observation will be mentioned – by Bindidon or Clint R or anyone.
b4…you can harp on all you want about reference frames but this is a very simple problem. The Moon is moving with a linear motion and Earth’s gravity bends it at such a rate that it follows Earth’s curvature on a permanent basis.
Since the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth it is obviously moving with curvilinear motion without rotation. Your harping is aimed at defending an incorrect position, that the Moon is also rotating on a local axis.
When Linus Pauling was asked why he did not use a double-blind study in a proof he replied that such a study was not required when the outcome was so obvious. Same with this problem, reference frames are not required when the context is so obvious.
In Newtons inertial frame the moon is spinning, Gordon. In your view it is not; simple as that.
Seems fair to me.
“curvilinear motion without rotation” is a phrase you invented/adopted. It has no scientific meaning.
ent…”Movement must always be described with respect to a frame of reference.
The airspeed indicator of an airliner measures its movement relative to the local frame of reference, the air it is flying through”.
***
Frames of reference are human inventions. Are you trying to tell me the real world cannot exist without human inventions?
You can analyze the relativity all you want but what you are dealing with is a motor driving a propeller, which supplies a force. The force propels the aircraft at a certain speed. Meantime, you have a force opposing it, the wind. If the summation of those forces does not exceed the stall speed, the aircraft can’t fly and it falls. Ergo, this problem can be worked out without resorting to reference frames or relativity theory.
You can analyze that all you want using relativity and reference frames but what it comes down to is basic common sense.
There are far more complex problems that require reference frames and relativity math to make calculations easier. That’s because the human mind has a hard time keeping tract of relative motion. It has trouble with simple relative motion like sunset and sunrise. What did people do before relativity theory and reference frames? They figured it out using what they had available, common sense and observation.
On Earth, movement seldom has to be described wrt a reference frame. I told you, in our engineering physics classes we never once used a reference frame to do calculations. No need for them unless relative motion gets too complex.
Engineers seldom deal with such problems. Maybe an aeronautical engineer would but chemical, electrical, geological, mechanical engineers, etc., would not.
That goes for the lunar motion as well wrt the Earth. You will never see a reference frame stated because that would be far to anal. Some call that an inertial reference frame but you have to be really anal to get into that.
The term is a human invention, the concept is real.
And you seem to believe that the concept of a reference frame only began with Einsteinian relativity.
Newton’s F=ma does not work in a non-inertial frame of reference without introducing fictitious forces, so that concept is definitely not “anal”.
“On Earth, movement seldom has to be described wrt a reference frame. I told you, in our engineering physics classes we never once used a reference frame to do calculations. ”
In scientific or engineering discussion many concepts are implicit. Everybody accepts that they are true and factors them in without the need to mention them. Often they are incorporated into the tables you use, so their effect has been pre-calculated For you.
For example, when was the last time you explicitly mentioned
1.6*10^-19 Coulombs when discussing an electric circuit?
Similarly a civil engineer will quote the maximum load for a crane without feeling the need to mention that this only applies to a 9.8ms-2 gravity field.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that because something is not specifically mentioned, it can be ignored. It makes me nervous to think that I may be using something you designed without consciously considering all the variables.
You are a Scotsman. You will remember the Tay bridge disaster. The bridge collapsed because Sir Thomas Bouch calculated the static load on the structure but neglected to calculate the dynamic load due to wind. When a train crossed the bridge during a gale it was loaded beyond its structural limit and failed.
Ant and Ent, wheres your viable model of OMWS?
I don’t need a viable model of orbital motion without spin.
I have a model of orbital motion WITH spin which accurately predicts and explains all the observations.
You are the one who needs a viable model of orbital motion without spin, but you have NOTHING.
That’s my point, Ent. In your cult beliefs you don’t need any reality or science. You just make up crap as you need it.
“You just make up crap as you need it”
Sounds like you.
Youve been sniffing my butt a lot lately, RLH.
Are you filling in for the other worthless one?
When you post crap, I clean up our messes.
The stratospheric polar vortex in the south is not as stable as it seems. Ozone blockages also occur there.
https://i.ibb.co/tKxkQLw/gfs-toz-sh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/GsdMM7q/gfs-t10-sh-f120.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/17/1000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-225.89,-65.49,281
The blockage begins in the upper stratosphere in the Southwest Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly area.
https://i.ibb.co/1byQYxg/gfs-t05-sh-f120.png
Solar wind despite high sunspot number remains weak.
The PV seems to be holding together but wind speeds are dropping. I suspect it will be much weaker this time next week.
Word of the week – metastasized
climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/07/another-skeptical-nobel-laureate-of-physics-climate-science-has-metastasized/
Brilliant!
The smoke is actually coming from France. 😉
Gordon,
Responded to what you said about a “1960 baseline” being used to get rid of record hot temps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1510001
barry
Robertson is an absolute ignorant who still doesn’t understand anything about temperature time series, especially when they are anomaly-based.
All he is able to do is to insult e.g. me and claim I would produce ‘unsupported graphs’ out of faked data.
I would understand if he could technically contradict me; but that’s exactly what he can’t do, which is why he has no choice but to polemically discredit me.
*
You wrote upthread:
” Perhaps you will finally learn something about baselines. ”
He will never learn anything because he prefers to guess and to paste pseudoscience out of contrarian blogs.
*
There are however other ignoramuses who for example think they can replace anomaly construction by simply filtering the data.
This is wrong; such people’s attitude is due to the fact that they too do not understand how anomaly construction works, because they misunderstand what e.g. Roy Spencer exactly means with ‘removing the annual cycle’.
There is no one here who competes with Gordon in
(self-perception of understanding) : (actual understanding)
The saddest thing is, unlike Swenson and Clint, he actually believes what he says.
Anomalies do not actually ‘remove the annual cycle’ but only approximately so. That is why different base base year ranges produce different results.
Instead of making a raw claim, how about justifying it for once. In doing so please quantify this discrepancy. And no links – explain it yourself. And then explain how it can be done better.
Different base reference periods will produce different anomalies. This is well known,
An accurate 12 month/376.25 day filter will remove the annual cycle. Precisely.
edit: 365.25
Damn fingers.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-decade-brings-reference-period-change-climate-data
“different base base year ranges produce different results”
Not really. You can get very slight differences (by thousandths of a degree) for monthly averaged anomalies by changing the baseline, but the differences are so negligible that there is no perceptible difference (in trends, yearly/seasonal rankings etc).
That’s why I showed Gordon that nothing changed regarding record-setting US Summertime maxima in the 1934 and 1936. No matter what baseline is chosen, that ranking doesn’t shift.
Here – click on this link and change the baseline to your heart’s content very easily, and see for yourself that there is no perceptible difference in the relative rankings.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/8/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2022&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2023
“You can get very slight differences”
Accurate filters do not even have that slight differences.
P.S. Please detail why the anomaly values changed so much when Roy switched his reference period (that people got, and still do, so worked up about).
The current reference period is 1991-2020.
The previous reference period was 1981-2010.
The monthly averages are based on the averages for each month over a 30-year period. So, 30 years of Januaries, 30 years of Februaries, etc, averaged, and the result is deducted from the absolute value of each January, February etc.
The 30-year averages is the baseline, and the difference between that value and each absolute monthly value gives you the anomaly.
The monthly 30-year averages have a different average value from each other. When the baseline shifts by 10 years, those differences (between January and February average) can change very slightly, which means that the offset between monthly anomalies for January and February also changes.
However, we looked at this when the baseline changed occurred, and found, as expected, that the differences were very negligible.
The trends stay the same (changing by a couple thousandths of a degree per decade), and the relative rankings of months – the point of Gordon’s post – remained almost entirely unchanged for the whole record.
In short, changing the baseline doesn’t change anything significant. We’re talking a few thousandths of a degree changes for trends and at worst a couple hundredth of a degree relative differences for monthly anomalies, which doesn’t affect any big-picture stuff at all.
“Please detail why the anomaly values changed so much when Roy switched his reference period”
The baseline changed by about +0.14 on average, if memory serves. That’s what happens when you remove 10 years of colder temps from the baseline and replace them with 10 years of warmer temps. The result of this was to shift all anomalies down, relative to the old baseline. No problem.
But for each month the baseline changed by anywhere from 0.12 or 0.17. This means that the relative differences between anomalies of different months (say, comparing January 1984 with March 1984), shifted by a couple hundredths of a degree.
This has virtually no influence on trends or long-term averages or seasonal values or monthly rankings. In any case, people familiar with the record don’t compare rankings across months – we always compare between Januaries, Februaries, etc.
The reason people made a fuss was that changing the baseline introduced an annoying (and seemingly unnecessary) extra step for certain things we were discussing. For instance, those who prior to the baseline change predicted that the UAH anomaly would hit 0C in a given year, now have to account for the baseline change when testing their prediction post baseline change.
So, if you predicted in 2017 that UAH monthly anomalies would hit the zero line by the end of 2021, you would have to account for the difference for each monthly anomaly, as now monthly anomalies are (on average) -0.14C cooler than when you made your prediction.
So say you get a month with a 0.14 anomaly on the new baseline. Now you have to search for the old posts detailing the monthly baseline change, or dredge up some old data set you saved on your computer to work out the difference afresh to see if the 0.14 anomaly on the new baseline = 0 for that particular month.
The kerfuffle was about the inconvenience – and all that that it would add to the confusion in discussions for people who don’t understand what changing the baseline means.
For example, here I am 3 years later explaining what the issue is.
This crap could have been avoided by leaving the baseline as is. Which the WMO recommends for datasets that deal with global climate (different to global or local weather).
“So say you get a month with a 0.14 anomaly on the new baseline.”
That should read -0.14.
“The baseline changed by about +0.14 on average, if memory serves.”
A bit more than thousandths then.
“This crap could have been avoided by leaving the baseline as is. Which the WMO recommends for datasets that deal with global climate (different to global or local weather)”
Roy’s change was not just arbitrary
“Until the end of 2020, the most current and widely used standard reference period for calculating climate normals was the 30-year period 1981-2010. WMOs recent Services Commission meeting recommended that the new 30-year baseline, 1991-2020, should be adopted globally and pledged support to Members to help them update their figures. Many countries in Europe have already switched to the new baseline.”
“This crap could have been avoided by leaving the baseline as is.”
Tell the WMO then.
I’m well aware of the WMO’s position.
From the web page you quoted (but didn’t provide a link for):
“The move is in line with a World Meteorological Organization recommendation that the 30-year standard reference periods should be updated every decade in order to better reflect the the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience…
Thus, it is necessary to update the climate normals for operational services for decision-making, for example for as forecasts of peak energy load and recommendations on crop selection and planting times.
However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate
For the purposes of monitoring the global climate, as we do here, it would have been better to keep the baseline the same, as RSS do. Or to have both – a data set based fixed on the old baseline, and another updated every decade. We even suggested that here at the time.
A baseline is not a statistical ‘filter’, in that it doesn’t seek to remove any frequency from the signal, or bound the signal in any way. All a baseline does is provide a reference frame. The monthly method removes the seasonal signal by treating each month separately, not by processing their differences to damp the annual sine wave.
RLH,
barry: “The baseline changed by about +0.14 on average, if memory serves.”
RLH: “A bit more than thousandths then.”
RLH, I don’t think you understands what a baseline is for climate normals. Could you explain in your own words, so I can see where you have it wrong (or right)?
The thousandths of a degree refers to linear trends, not baseline changes. You appear to be mixed up.
Part of the WMO says
“WMOs recent Services Commission meeting recommended that the new 30-year baseline, 1991-2020, should be adopted globally”
So Barry, do you accept that using a climate normal is just another way of creating a low pass filter?
“However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”
I think you missed this RLH.
RLH,
Are you saying you are going to ignore what the WMO said about using a fixed baseline for long-term climate monitoring?
No, the method of creating climate normals is nothing like a low-pass filter. Why do you keep ignoring things I say and remarking as if I haven’t said them? I’ll repeat.
“A baseline is not a statistical ‘filter’, in that it doesnt seek to remove any frequency from the signal, or bound the signal in any way. All a baseline does is provide a reference frame. The monthly method removes the seasonal signal by treating each month separately, not by processing their differences to damp the annual sine wave.”
” Anomalies do not actually remove the annual cycle but only approximately so. ”
It seems that Blindsley H00d (aka ‘RLH’) is teaching Roy Spencer he’s utterly wrong!
Once more, we see that RLH still did not manage to grasp what
– Roy Spencer, and with him
– all scientists computing anomalies with respect to a given reference period, and lastly
– little layman Bindidon
really understand under removing the annual cycle.
Like Robertson, Clint R and a few other ‘specialists’, RLH dislikes what experienced people do, and shows off with his personal narrative instead.
*
” That is why different base base year ranges produce different results. ”
That is really the most ridiculous sentence I have ever read about anomalies. How could they produce the same results? They rely on different data.
*
But that nonsense is not the problem here: unless he claims the contrary, it seems that for RLH, the annual cycle removal really consists of filtering all monthly ‘disparities’ out of the data, whereas real anomaly construction performs the inverse, by averaging units (days, months, whatsoever) separately over a reference period, thus enhancing them all in the same way, what can for example result in a cold December month having a higher anomaly level than a warm July month.
An accurate 12 month filter will only leave the differences on display. It does not need a reference period, taking as it does, the whole of the data from the start to the finish.
It is like having the whole of the data as a reference period, all of the time.
See the 12 month green line on
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
P.S. That is how filters work, by taking data that is, in this case, 12 months apart and using it to only display the differences. Roy does quite a good job with his 13 month SRM but, as you can see quite clearly, it leaves a lot of high frequency, monthly, wriggles in the output.
There is a lot of news recently about record temperature and 1,000 year floods. I am disappointed that so many so-called climate experts are not being truthful — some who are very famous, or is that infamous.
I have seen and heard many different comments to the effect that these events would not be “possible” without climate change. Nothing in the data says that odd weather events or floods have never happened in the past, or are not possible without a 1 deg. C increase in global temperature. More troubling are the persistent claims that it is all our fault and only “we” can stop the most destructive future effects. What about the 91% of emissions that come from other countries? They must know about that. And then there are the foreign leaders who want money from the developed world while their own countries continue to increase fossil emissions. It all seems very political.
That is loose language, usualLy used by the media rather than the scientists. “There’s a tendency to use “impossible” when they mean “improbable” “.
For example, if I plot daily average temperatures for Spain as a frequency distribution the right hand limit, the record high temperature is somewhere over 40C. Such temperatures occur rarely, perhaps once a decade in the past record.
In recent years these “unlikely” temperatures are occurring much more often.
The change due to climate change is not that previously impossible temperatures have become possible. It is that previously improbable temperatures are becoming normal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66183069
Entropic man
Your word choice “much more often” is the media unscientific language with vast room ror interpretation of meaning. Science is about precision so better would be give a percentage increase. Is it 10%, 20, 50? That gives a much more stable ground to view the climate Change objectively and not emotionally. Media makes money of viewership so they must create emotional states to draw viewers. Science does not need this. It needs objective verifiable evidence.
Norman
I don’t have the mathematics to do that calculation.
Spain had a “once in a decade” heat wave last year, another is happening this week and they expect another later in the year.
What is the difference in probability required to produce a change from once a decade to thrice in two years?
Norman pontificates: “Science does not need this. It needs objective verifiable evidence.”
Yeah, like where’s such evidence for Earth’s “real 255K surface”.
Or, that passenger jets fly backward.
Or, ice cubes can boil water.
Or, —
Clint R
Are in competition with Swenson to determine which of you two is more repetitive. Everyone of claims you posted has been explained to you in detail numerous times. You are like the broken record Swenson who posts the Earth has cooled for 4.5 billion years and no one has presented a valid description of GHE. You act like you have zero memory and are not aware your points have been explained over and over.
Norman, your comment is lacking in clarity, coherency, and accuracy.
Please consult with a responsible adult before resubmitting.
Tell me, statehood think of rolling coal?
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/coal-rollers.htm
I hate my autocorrect!
Tell me, what do you think of rolling coal?
I hate my autocorrect!
What do you think of rolling coal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
Entropic man
Coal Rolling sound like a hobby for self-centered assholes. They can call it whatever they want but they are really just jerks who think being an asshole is funny. Not sure where that type of mentality develops.
Norman,
All your opinions plus $5 cash will buy you a $5 cup of coffee.
Do you think that puts an appropriate value on your opinions?
Beware! Beware! According to Sir Isaac Newton, the Moon is falling!
Run for your life!
Beware! Beware! You and DREMT can no longer say “please stop __ing”.
Your life has no meaning!
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/moonfall-what-would-happen-if-the-moon-really-fell
From the link –
“In truth, the moon is falling toward the Earth all the time. It’s just that it’s moving so quickly, laterally with respect to the Earth, that it never quite hits the surface. ”
Strangely, they still can’t quite understand why the Moon is slowly receding. It’s pretty simple, it’s moving just slightly faster than would keep it neither coming closer, or receding.
What luck!
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/why-is-the-moon-moving-away-from-us/
“The famous English astronomer Edmond Halley first suspected the Moon was receding nearly 300 years ago, after studying records of ancient eclipses. His suspicions were finally confirmed in the 1970s, when laser beams bounced off mirrors put on the Moon by US and Soviet missions showed that it is moving away at the rate of 3.8cm per year”
“It’s driven by the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the rotating Earth. Tides raised in the oceans cause drag and thus slow the Earth’s spin-rate. The resulting loss of angular momentum is compensated for by the Moon speeding up, and thus moving further away.”
RLH, if Earth’s rotation slows does that mean Moon moves away?
Or, as usual, are you just believing everything you find on the Internet?
RLH,
Your quote is silly enough to come from NASA.
For the Moon to “speed up”, it needs to have a force applied. The Earth slowing its rotation speeds up nothing. You are simply accepting nonsense.
rlh…”Tides raised in the oceans cause drag and thus slow the Earths spin-rate”.
***
How do tides cause drag? What are they dragging on other than the air in our atmosphere on a windy day? Internal forces won’t slow the planet. So, it must be the Moon’s gravitational field.
There is braking on an electric motor that operates in such a manner. It works by inducing a current into a moving drum attached to the motor shaft. Currents are induced in the metal that set up circular currents in the drum called Eddy currents. The Eddy currents interact in such a manner they set up an opposing magnetic field that interferes with the field that produced them and that slows the motor.
However, that effect works over a fraction of an inch with relatively powerful fields. At the distance of the Moon, Earth’s gravitational field is so weak it could not possibly have an effect on the Moon’s alleged rotation.
This is a theory based on Cassini’s nonsense. The calculations are all theoretical.
Gravitational force acts over the entire surface of the Moon. It’s a field, not a vector force per se acting on a point. Of course, a field can be a field of vectors. Makes no sense to me that it should affect a tidal bulge on the Moon, especially a slight symmetrical bulge.
rlh…”when laser beams bounced off mirrors put on the Moon by US and Soviet missions showed that it is moving away at the rate of 3.8cm per year…”
***
I would regard 3.8 cms over that distance to represent an error margin, not an actual distance of orbital change.
“How do tides cause drag?”
Where does the energy in the tides come from then?
“I would regard 3.8 cms over that distance to represent an error margin”
I think that a consistent 3.8 cms year is more than an error margin.
Geostationary orbit, space elevators, L-points, and the Moon.
Earth has geostationary orbit because Earth spins on it’s axis. GEO can be used by satellites by constantly hanging above spot over Earth’s equator.
An Earth space elevator would be roughly hanging a string from GEO down to the Earth surface.
And this “works” because the Earth spins on it’s axis. And since Mars also spins on it’s axis, there is also geostationary orbit for Mars.
We can’t make space elevator for Earth because Earth gravitational force is too much in comparison to known [or available] material strengths. But due to Mars lower gravity, space elevator could built for Mars.
The Moon has even less gravity than Mars, but the Moon doesn’t spin on it’s axis, but lunar surface is fixed in terms of it’s L-points and the material strength is easily enough to hang a string from Earth/Moon L-1 to lunar surface.
Despite not having the material strength, people think Earth should have a space elevator- but they are wrong. Space elevators wouldn’t lower the cost of “launch costs” even if we had strong enough material to make them. Or whole point of space elevator is the idea they could lower the cost of getting stuff from space to Earth and/or
getting stuff from Earth to space. And it wouldn’t work.
What is working is using chemical rockets.
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate. While it’s true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation”
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Gosh, RLH found a cult link to support his cult belief!
The Internet probably has about 10,000 more examples of such nonsense.
But RLH has NO viable model of OMWS.
Facts, clearly presented, are not a cult belief.
“OMWS”
This?
https://omws.co.uk/
The Internet fails you again, RLH.
My search engine is tuned to UK addresses first.
Clint doesn’t understand about facts. A real setback to the science community; he’d prefer to wallow in his ignorant beliefs.
Ken, why do you claim to be a Skeptic, yet attack Skeptics.
Is that a Canadian flaw?
Am I reading this correctly??? Clint attacked me, a skeptic, in an unwarranted manner, claiming essentially that my posts are too long and my physics incorrect, even though I had staunchly supported him to that point.
I have been meaning to ask, Clint, in all sincerity, if something is going on in your life that is making you particularly tense. You never used to be on the attack like you are today. You would take shots from time to time but today everything that comes out of you is a shot, whether at alarmist or at skeptics.
Gordon, I was responding to Ken’s unwarranted attack on me.
You can’t take constructive criticism because you consider this blog as your own. If your brain worked, you would see Norman’s attacks on me identical to your own attacks. Two phonies trying to pervert reality.
You’re nothing more than another “blog-clogger”.
Have you sent Spencer a check to cover his annual blog fees?
Ken,
You wrote –
“Clint doesnt understand about facts.”
What facts are these, and what doesn’t he understand about them?
Or are you just attempting to be annoying?
clint…your attack on me was not constructive criticism, it was rude and an assault. I still think you are under some sort of stress. Your anger and irritation level has increased noticeably and I have gone through that myself in the past. Not a fun place to be.
BTW…I don’t even come close to thinking I am important in this group. Furthermore, I don’t care about status, it bores me.
If stress is the issue with you, get it off your chest and admit it. I have admitted to having bad hair days.
You attacked on two points. One was that my posts were too long which is not your business. If Roy does not want long posts he could make a comment and I would abide by it.
Your other attack was that my theories on heat and entropy are wrong. Swenson has disagreed with me without being abusive and we’ve had an amicable discussion, agreeing to disagree. I have no issues with anyone disagreeing with me but I prefer a scientific rebuttal free of ad homs and insults.
I have a skin much thicker than most. I don’t give a hoot about insults or ad homs. I thought you and I had a common cause as skeptics, to back up UAH. Guess I was wrong.
I noticed a good point in a video recently. The idea that entropy is related to disorder came from Boltzmann, not Clausius, who invented entropy. Boltzmann had no right claiming that about entropy because he changed the definition. The Clausius definition is about heat whereas Boltzmann’s is a mickey mouse effort related to statistical mechanics, and in the end, it was wrong. He committed suicide over it.
As far as heat is concerned, you failed to reply scientifically to my point that if heat is a transfer of energy, what energy is being transferred? There is no other energy that could possibly be transferred than thermal energy, better known as heat. According to you then, heat is a transfer of heat.
Quit clogging the blog, Gordon.
Youre the one with problems. You should be able to see yourself in comments by other blog cloggers like Norman and gbaikie. But, you cant. You often sound just like them.
I wonder if Venus or our Moon have orbit like Earth and Mars geostationary orbits.
richard…lay it out on a piece of paper and satisfy yourself that the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit.
Save your time, it can’t be done.
“it can’t be done.”
Yes it can, and has been done repeatably.
I breathlessly await your proof, Richard. Been waiting a couple of years now.
hint: you can’t supply a proof using one-liners.
You can’t predict the climate but you can predict what the climate shisters will do and say
https://youtu.be/vxRfc__ZcKA?t=3396
Yes its true. Climate deniers get their science from cartoonists.
Who are climate deniers ? I have never seen one, how does one deny climate
Where have you been?
Short for Climate Science denier.
Breaking:
Looks like another plume of Canadian wildfire smoke will work its way down into the Northern Plains & Great Lakes region today-Friday. In addition to the [more] hazy skies, “near surface” smoke looks to get quite thick in spots which could lower air quality to unhealthy levels.
https://imgur.com/a/lk4Sa69
Related:
When the wildfire smoke came to Pittsburgh: https://imgur.com/fMQDK52
I thought the smoke came from France.
He’s right about Justin Beiber and Nickleback, they are welcome to both. Didn’t even know Bieber is Canadian.
Heck, we send them all our water and they still whine.
Glad to see that the US is having a normal Summer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66195721
Good thing these wusses were not around in the 1930s when they had real heat waves and record temperatures.
And don’t forget the coldest February on record – February 1936.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave
US anomalies based on daily averages for 1930-39 vs 1900-2019 baseline:
1930 … -0.15
1931 … +0.71
1932 … -0.29
1933 … +0.41
1934 … +1.03
1935 … -0.20
1936 … -0.06
1937 … -0.39
1938 … +0.51
1939 … +0.56
—————
1930s … +0.21
.
.
.
US anomalies based on daily averages for last ten years vs 1900-2019 baseline:
2013 … +0.09
2014 … +0.16
2015 … +1.19
2016 … +1.48
2017 … +1.27
2018 … +0.70
2019 … +0.23
2020 … +1.17
2021 … +1.25
2022 … +0.63
—————
2013-22 … +0.82
And don’t forget the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. We are currently re-warming from it.
But nice try with your red-herring.
Yeah – I wonder what caused us to leave a cooling period which otherwise would have fed into the next glacial period many millennia hence?
AQ,
Have you figured it out yet, or are you being silly?
“Silly” … hahaha
test test
troubleshooting posting problem…
Having trouble calling someone an i..ot, or a m..on, or br…dead, or st..id, … ?
brain-dead?
Eejit?
Thou sodden-witted gumby! Thou hast no more brain than I have in mine elbows
Apologies to Wm Shakespeare.
rlh…from NASA…”An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesnt rotate. While its true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion…”
***
I wrote to them about that and they did not disagree with my position. They replied that they were observing the Moon from the stars. Since they seemed to have accepted my point that the Moon did not rotate on a local axis they seemed to be claiming it appeared that way wrt the stars.
Of course it ‘appears’ that way. Closer examination reveals it is not rotating on a local axis but merely changing orientation in space wrt the stars. Someone at NASA is very confused about the difference between re-orientation, a property of curvilinear translation, and a rotation about a local axis.
When I replied that a body that is not rotating in one reference frame is not rotating in any reference frame, they did not reply. When I contacted them again, they referred me to an animation which was seriously hokey. They showed the Moon orbiting the Earth with the Sun shining on it from the right.
Of course, the light/shadow from the Sun moves on the surface of the Moon as the Moon orbits. That was what they used as proofthat the Moon rotates…an illusion.
Seriously, if that’s all NASA can produce, it’s not worth listening to anything they say. That’s not to say there are not brilliant engineers at NASA. It’s just too bad that NASA is so large they cannot keep tract of incompetent people representing them.
“Seriously, if thats all NASA can produce, its not worth listening to anything they say.”
Yes, generally.
But NASA does say, more than 90% of all global warming is warming our cold ocean.
[[Though, how much more than 90%, is a significant question.]]
The Vatican, govts as in all, and corporations {or say used car salesmen} are “not worth listening to anything they say”.
Dumber than bricks would be a kind thing to say.
Vogons were the best bureaucracy in the universe.
And notably,”bad” at poetry.
NASA might be a better a bureaucracy {though Vogons were a lot better} and NASA is actually rated highly. But they lose billions of dollars in terms accounting errors, and they did Shuttle Program.
It’s not much of wonder, that some space cadets want to abolish NASA- though a lot them are ex-NASA- though an ex of anything can have very dim views of things.
Something to add:
–FLASHBACK: James Lileks: The West is a set of ideas that need defending. Forgive us our passable wines; forgive our standardized veal. Forgive us our simple-mindedness, for we from Alabama on outward to outer, distant Alabama and beyond have a gut feeling that quarrels usually boil down to two sides. Forgive us for believing that fascisms side ought to lose.
But now it runs our corporations, our universities, and much of our government.
Posted at 5:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
James lileks tends to have amusing things to say. I question “now it
runs…” wording. As in, when didn’t it?
Glenn might be suggesting conservatives aren’t fascist. And US invented fascism {and it landed in Italy- where is got it’s name}.
I will repeat, now is the best of times {and of course there is fascism- as we still have politicians. If they don’t start out as fascist, given enough time in politics, they all rot into it}.
” They replied that they were observing the Moon from the stars. ”
Robertson doesn’t even see when he writes the proof that he never sent any mail to NASA wrt the lunar spin.
That is clearly Flynnson’s nonsensical blah blah.
No one anywhere – except some ignoramuses on this blog – would write s/he oberves a celestial body from the stars.
We observe them with respect to the stars – as Newton already explained in his Principia Scientifica centuries ago: namely in order to obtain their real motion period.
Binny,
You wrote –
“We observe them with respect to the stars”
I observe the Moon with respect to myself, the observer. I observe that I cannot see the far side. I observe that the Moon rises and sets, that it waxes and wanes, and sometimes it gets between me and the Sun, resulting in a partial or even total eclipse.
Newton’s laws explain my observations.
You may consider this nonsensical blah blah, and call me Flynnson as you wish. If this just makes you look like a petulant child who doesn’t like realty, don’t blame me. You don’t need my help to look like a cheese-headed gobshite
You may observe anything you like in any way you wish. Have you observed the GHE lately? How would you describe it?
Off you go, take your anxiolytic of choice. Accept reality.
“Newtons laws explain my observations.”
How so?
Explain how Newton’s Laws explain your observations.
Of course you can’t. Because this is just namechecking.
binny…I guess your English is not good enough to differentiate ‘from the stars’ from ‘with respect to the stars’. I guess I am going to have to pay better attention to stating my English in a less slangy manner. That’s a good point, it’s too easy on an English-speaking blog to get sloppy and to forget that people who don’t speak English as a first language are participating.
“Someone at NASA is very confused”
Or you are.
richard…re confusion…I am referring to the NASA personnel who acknowledged my proof that the Moon is not rotating and their only objection was their perspective of viewing from the stars. From the stars, the Moon does appear to rotate through 360 degrees but its not a rotation about a local axis but a re-orientation wrt the stars.
BTW…I offered the NASA rep an aircraft example like the airliner example I have offered here. If an airliner is flying above the Equator at 35,000 feet and circumnavigates the Earth, it always keeps the same face pointed at Earth. Just like the Moon. If the airliner rotated on any local axis, it would likely crash.
I offered an analogy a while back. If you view a race car circling a track, when you are inside the track, you always see one side of the race car. If you view from the stands, which is the equivalent of viewing from the stars, you see all side of the race car.
To the uneducated, it would appear the car is rotation about its COG but we know that is impossible without the car spinning out. Therefore we must acknowledge the truth, the car is re-orienting wrt the viewer as it laps the track.
Now don’t be stubborn, Richard, admit you ‘might’ have been wrong.
“I am referring to the NASA personnel who acknowledged my proof that the Moon is not rotating”
I doubt they did that.
They?
Someone at NASA.
They tend to be agreeable and it’s not their job
argue with someone who doesn’t think plate tectonic
is “proven”.
richard…doubt away. I’ll try not to lose sleep over it.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. NASA is just another authority figure and if I could not prove my case independently there would be no point referencing them. I have proved my case and you have refused to refute it. I could understand that from people with a lower education than you but it is disappointing that you won’t even try to make your case.
Or, maybe you have checked it out and found it impossible for the Moon to rotate locally and still keep the same face pointed at Earth. You have rejected the very simply model of the ball on a string but you could not even state why you think it does not apply.
It does not bode well for you as an academic when you resort to one-liners, repeated as in a mantra. We need more scientific rebuttals around here, which you could supply, but for some reason you steer away from it.
gb…you have the NASA PR crowd right. The only people they allow to be in touch with the public are PR types who pat you on the head and offer trite explanations, even if the explanations are juvenile and wrong.
tim s…”There is a lot of news recently about record temperature and 1,000 year floods. I am disappointed that so many so-called climate experts are not being truthful some who are very famous, or is that infamous”.
***
Tim…this chicanery is not just happening in climate science, it is right across the board. Science is being assaulted by incompetents who are trying enforce their incorrect views on the rest of us.
Ego and arrogance have always been issues in science but it seems to have reached epidemic proportions today. Long standing science like gravitational theory is being arbitrarily replaced in university curricula with space-time theory, even though the latter makes no sense compared to gravity as a force.
In medicine, the recent covid hysteria was based initially on a computer model projection from a modeler who has never been right about previous predictions dating back to 2000. We had theorists running our governments while real scientists who objected were censored and accused of supplying misinformation.
Robert Malone a scientist who has expertise in mRNA technology, the basis of the alleged covid vaccine, was censored by Google for revealing facts about mRNA that ran contrary to the views of the pharmaceutical ‘pushers’.
We live in dangerous times for science and we are fortunate to have Roy and John Christy of UAH with the integrity to tell it as it is.
Elon Musks SpaceX nears $150 billion valuation after secondary share sale
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/elon-musk-spacex-near-150-billion-valuation.html
“The company did not announce a raise of new capital at this time, with the purchase offer representing a secondary sale of existing shares. Musk in April said that the company does not anticipate needing to raise funding to further bolster the programs for Starship, Starlink and other initiatives. SpaceX typically performs these secondary rounds about twice a year, to give employees and other company shareholders a chance to sell stock.”
Let’s do this one also:
China succeeds where Elon Musk has failed with first methalox rocket
“China’s private space industry took a giant leap past Musk, Bezos and everyone else today with the first successful orbital launch of a methane-powered rocket.”
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/12/china_methalox_rocket_launch/
I don’t think China going anywhere.
Musk is probably going land crew on the Moon in couple years.
Some worry China will mine lunar water- and such people are overly optimistic.
It seems china mining ocean methane hydrate is far more likely- and it’s more something “dangerous”, China mining the ocean- is far more chinese thing to do, and slightly easier {and far more profitable in near term, than mining lunar water.
Unless lunar exploration has fairly surprising results- such as much more than 1 billion tons of mineable water.
Discovering 1 million tons lunar water, might be mineable.
Though also finding 1 million tons of frozen CO2- might be more exciting than just 1 billion tons of water.
Index Nino 3.4 stops at 0.8 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Ah, but wait. The warming will resume shortly. /sarc
Ren, you claimed earlier in the year that there was NO CHANCE of El Nino forming this year.
AQ: Whereas others indicated that this year would be the ‘warmest eva’.
That’s looking like a pretty good prediction. BEST is now saying there is an 80% chance that 2023 will be the warmest in their dataset. My analysis shows about an 80% chance for GISTEMP as well.
We’ll see won’t we. Warmer than 2016 seems unlikely.
If the HTE holds and combines with the building El Niño, you can be sure we’ll set new hot records.
Warmer than 2016 seems unlikely.
2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest in the surface datasets. For example, via GISTEMP 2016 and 2020 are both 1.01 C. As of right now 2023 is 1.01 C and that is with about -0.06 C effect from ENSO. It would not be unreasonable to expect the 2nd half of 2023 to be even warmer as the surface temperature begins to respond to El Nino.
But not in the satellite ones (including NOAA/STAR).
“The NOAA team went step-by-step through the data construction process and ended up with results almost identical to those of the UAH team.”
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/04/19/noaas-star-has-fallen/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
“It was enough of a change for the authors to state that their new data set confirms findings in a 2020 paper by McKitrick and Christy that showed models are warming too much, indeed the satellite data is now showing warming of about half the average model-simulated warming rate over the same period. Dare we say QED?”
“Until a new study came out from the STAR team at NOAA who decided they hadn’t done the data processing correctly and once they fixed it, their series showed the same warming as UAH or even slightly less IRL. LOL. Which, they admit, has ‘strong implications’ for climate models”
and the surface data sets.
RSS seems to agree that 2016 was warmer than 2020.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/rss-global.jpeg
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
EL NIO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO)
DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION
issued by
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP/NWS
13 July 2023
….The equatorial Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) remained negative (0.5 standard deviations below average), while the traditional, station-based SOI was near zero. Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system reflected a weak El Nio.”
Depends if looking at ocean or atmosphere- and/or etc, I would say.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
An absolutely independent source:
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/about-us/
” Questions about funding often imply, or state outright, that we take money from the fossil fuel industry and that doing so somehow compromises our integrity. Because we do not believe fossil fuels are having a disastrous effect on climate we would feel no unease at all in receiving donations from people in the energy sector. On the contrary, we regard Canadas energy industry as a world leader in everything from technology to environmental and labour standards and a vital contributor to our way of life, and believe those in it ought to be more vigorous in defence of what they do. Including clicking on the Donate button below.
donate
In our view it is people who take an alarmist position about the impact of fossil fuels on climate who are vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy for personal gain if they continue to do things like put gasoline in their cars or heat their homes with natural gas. But we prefer to debate facts and logic rather than question motives, and if you agree we hope you will donate today. ”
OMG… how disinterested, how noble!
Are you implying that their assessment of NOAA/Star is wrong?
Are you?
I just report what is out there.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1510760
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation
Of course Mann ‘discovered’ the AMO and now claims it is all down to volcanoes. It has no connection at all to the NAO /sarc
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation#/media/File:Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation.svg
Did You Hear About The $25-Year Bet Between the Philosopher and the Neuroscientist?
https://www.hillfaith.org/hillfaith/did-you-hear-about-the-25-year-bet-between-the-philosopher-and-the-neuroscientist/
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Koch, who holds the title of meritorious investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, began his search for the neural footprints of consciousness in the 1980s. Since then, he has been invested in identifying the bits and pieces of the brain that are really essential really necessary to ultimately generate a feeling of seeing or hearing or wanting, as he puts it, reports Natures Mariano Lenharo.
As for Chalmers, he told Lenharo that It was always a relatively good bet for me and a bold bet for Christof. Chalmers, who is co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University, says the case of wine he won from Kristoff as a result of the wager is not the end of the story.
Theres been a lot of progress in the field, Chalmers told Lenharo. And Kristoff is equally optimistic, saying he is ready to double down on another 25 year bet. ”
Not yet.
I think it’s still a good bet for the philosopher.
Of course it would be big news- even if, it was, fake news.
Do you think it will happen in next 25 years?
In 25 years, maybe AI will find it.
I tend to think a lot things will happen in 25 years.
So, we aren’t going to have global warming in 25 years.
China will have mine something other than coal.
We could mining oceanic methane hydrates.
We could have a lot ocean settlements and possibly hundreds to thousand of people living below the ocean surface.
Should have a lot experience with living in artificial gravity- and lots of people living in Venus orbit {I would guess more at Venus than living under the ocean on Earth}.
AI is very good at compiling information on the internet.
But it remains a GIGO instrument; it can’t think for itself.
No one is going to be living under the ocean surface; too expensive.
US Scientist to Live Underwater For 100 Days in Record-Breaking Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sZh2F0nm0E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R59hBduRtNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_quuNa9DMA
https://www.sciencealert.com/us-scientist-to-live-underwater-for-100-days-in-record-breaking-experiment
“oe Dituri, a former US navy diver and expert in biomedical engineering has been living in a 55 square meter (592 square feet) space 30 feet below the surface of the Florida Keys since March 1, and plans to stay for 100 days.”
Smoky (again) this weekend as another “lovely” round of Canadian wildfire smoke blows into the Ohio Valley. You know the drill.
Health authorities reissued air quality alerts Friday in the U.S. as Canadian wildfire smoke engulfs parts of the Upper Midwest and other nearby states.
The Minnesota Department of Health issued an alert for 8 a.m. Friday through to 3 p.m. Saturday for the entire state, as air quality levels across the region are all unhealthy for sensitive groups. Alaska Division of Air Quality issued its first alert of the year on Thursday due to Canadian wildfires raging just shy of the border.
As hundreds of fires burn over the northern border, it’s expected that smoke will also impact parts of the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa. The forecast could shift depending on weather patterns across the U.S., which have been chaotic since the start of 2023.
https://imgur.com/p1CW4g1
Not too long ago, we in Canada were whining about smoke invading our air space from a Washington State fire. Heck, a couple of years ago we were flooded out by a river overflow from a Washington river.
Small appeal to authority (from Wattsupwiththat) –
“In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors CO2 Coalition Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.””
Oh well, I suppose someone who won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022 knows less than Michael Mann who fraudulently claimed he was awarded Nobel Peace Prize.
The “science is settled” after all – according to the outstandingly useless IPCC!
World Population Political Statistics
…
“In my view, there are obvious outright errors in the data presented if anyone wishes to chase those up, give us the scoop in comments. One quick example readers are encouraged to ferret out others is the projection (allegedly by the UN) of Chinas population in 2100. The chart shows that The UN Projects that Chinas population will be reduced to its current level in the next 75 years. Yes, dropping from 1,426 million to 767 million.”
…
“How is China going to get rid of over half a billion people in just 75 years?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/14/world-population-political-statistics/
The question is how are the Chinese going to keep 767 million people by 2100 AD.
I doubt they will keep 500 million people by 2100 AD- it would require a competent govt- and that is not China.
From the same article –
“There is no data about the future.
There is no evidence about the future.
Not yet, at least.”
Free Will, Children, and the Great Filter
Thoughts on the Population Implosion
Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Jul 14, 2023
“Is the great filter simply choice?
People looking for alien civilizations have posited that we havent found any because something kills them off before they reach the point of being able to travel across interstellar distances. This something is an unknown monsters from subspace? Nuclear, biological, or nanotechnological war? — but whatever it is, it’s generically referred to as “the great filter.” ”
I think it’s rather complicated.
…
“Anyway, its at least conceivable that wealthy, technologically advanced societies in general hit a death spiral: Fewer people, less dynamism, fewer children, etc.
Alternatively, more traditional cultures will gradually replace everyone else simply by continuing to breed. (In American history, the Shakers died out, the Mormons flourished). Perhaps in a few generations the world will be disproportionately composed of Amish, Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims, traditionalist Catholics, and the like.
Such a world might get along fine, at least from the perspective of its inhabitants, but be less disposed to interstellar travel, which suggests that the great filter may not actually be fatal to a species, just to its capacity to be noticed by others.”
I tend to think religious people are requirement for humans to be a spacefaring civilization.
But interstellar travel is quite different.
Leaving Earth is hard, leaving solar system is at least 10 times harder, but you have to first, be a spacefaring civilization in order to have any chance of doing it.
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/free-will-children-and-the-great?sd=pf
From: https://instapundit.com/
clint…”Quit clogging the blog, Gordon”.
***
You mean clogging it with science? Go figure, a poster posts lengthy posts on a blog based on science, about science, and he gets harassed by the blog’s self-appointed blog-keeper.
Have you checked WUWT to see the length of the posts over there? I have been posting for over 15 years and no one has ever complained about the length of my posts. On some blogs, the owners get concerned with people quoting an entire post as reference rather than quoting the pertinent parts.
I spend a good deal of time editing my posts to remove superfluous material. Sometimes I re-write the entire post. However, there is nothing I can do about people with comprehension problems, who freak out when more than one sentence is offered.
The length of my posts are determined by the number of words it takes to offer a scientific analysis. It’s simply not possible to talk about atomic theory or quantum mechanics without offering detail.
What I am getting from you is envy that you cannot do the same. If science really interested you it might not be a problem. It interests me a great deal and I express that in words.
You have mentioned in the past something about you wanting to teach people. How do you teach anyone anything if all you offer is venom and criticism?
Quit clogging the blog, Gordon.
Your obsession with me is no excuse.
Please explain how “clogging” results from a long post. What precisely in the negative outcome? (ignoring for a moment the lack of science in them)
in=is
And if he doesn’t explain, what then?
A lightning bolt? A plague of boils?
You are really not at the top of the evolutionary tree, are you?
I see you’re not able to answer.
Of course you will pretend that is a choice you’ve made.
Now the deluded, whiny little boy thinks I am obsessed with him. Can you stop your whining and sniveling long enough to do some science?
Answer the question…is heat a transfer of energy, and if so, what kind of energy?
While you’re at it, show me in the Clausius equation for entropy where there is a reference to disorder.
And, show me why hydrogen cannot emit/absorb IR. You claimed only high energy EM like UV can cause electrons to radiate EM during transitions.
The fact that you cannot answer these questions makes it clear to me that your understanding of physics is what you learned from reading textbooks.
Don’t bother wasting my time with insults and oblique reasoning. I had a friend like you who has OCD and his way of arguing was to repeat a statement ad infinitum till anyone arguing with him gave up in despair. Dealing with your type is like taking candy from a baby, after learning the hard way how to deal with someone with OCD.
Gordon, seek help about your obsession with me. Denial is part or your obsession.
The man who saves the planet from bad weather
https://youtu.be/zjqZiJ-oG5c
The key NOAA/STAR paper is here
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472
Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach
First published: 03 March 2023
“Major differences in STAR V5.0 from the existing data sets is that recalibration has removed large spurious warming drifts in NOAA-11, NOAA-12, and NOAA-14 and a large cooling drift in NOAA-15 observations”
“Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach”
Nonsensical word salad – unless you can show otherwise, which of course is highly unlikely.
Go on, try.
Are you saying that NOAA uses “Nonsensical word salad”?
1) “Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record”
2) “Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations”
3) “With Backward Merging Approach”
RLH will notice that the referenced paper does not discuss their TLT, only the correction to the TMT called the “TTT”. The paper is rather dense with lots of math and it’s built on more than 40 years of previous research. I hope you will read it carefully and the references as well. Maybe then your comments will contain some serious scientific content, instead of posting your usual flurry of mindless replies.
The paper references Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record. So I guess it covers that.
I just noted that they claim that they show that UAH is closer in their approach than RSS is.
There is a lot of talk about the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the atmosphere, even above 100 km, where it radiates in infrared into space. Where does CO2 come from so high up?
The answer is simple, CO2 in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere is increasing as a result of increased galactic radiation, the levels of which have increased significantly since the 24th solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/Ytbqt0R/onlinequery.gif
ren,
Rubbish. Galactic (or any other form) of radiation doesn’t create CO2.
You lack knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
ren,
Carbon is not carbon dioxide, regardless of which isotope it is.
C14 decays to nitrogen, not the other way round. Somebody is confused, and I don’t think it is me.
Mlynczak et al. (2015, hereafter, M1) presented a combined solar and geomagnetic index using the F10.7, Ap, and Dst indexes to accurately represent the observed 15-year record of global infrared power (W) at 5.3 μm wavelength radiated from Earth’s thermosphere by the nitric oxide (NO) molecule. The observations were made by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the NASA Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. Mlynczak et al. (2016, hereafter, M2) extended this concept to the global infrared power at 15 μm wavelength radiated from Earth’s thermosphere by the CO2 molecule.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682618301354
Your “logic”: ‘If A => B then B => A’
Assuming the converse is a common theme amongst your posts here.
Who is Antonin Qwerty and what is his knowledge?
Irrelevant to ren assuming the converse.
(Properly called ‘assuming the consequent’, but I didn’t expect someone unfamiliar with propositional logic to understand what that means. You will now madly google then pretend you knew all along.)
.
.
.
For your information (assuming you have any interest in learning):
(A => B) => (~B => ~A),
but
~[ (A => B) => (B => A) ]
(Let’s see if the nested implications confuse you.)
.
.
.
Also, ren has provided no justification for his claims:
(1) that CO2 levels have increased at altitude at rates significantly beyond the anthropogenic trend
(2) that the majority of such increase is due to C14 formation
Not saying those aren’t true, but who would know.
.
.
.
And he seems not to understand that CO2 at altitude radiates only after first intercepting IR radiation that was already destined to escape the atmosphere.
.
.
.
So perhaps you should be asking ‘who is ren and what is his knowledge’.
.
.
.
And I have to say that Clint’s description of you as a butt-sniffer is pretty much on the money.
Antonin Qwerty hides behind anonymity.
Says “RLH”.
And what exactly would I want to hide from?
How does my butt smell?
Who are you?
I see you have no knowledge of propositional logic.
And no … no fisting please.
You assume that I have no knowledge of propositional logic.
You still hide behind anonymity.
You pretend that my identity is your business, that it will somehow be useful information, and that you won’t go a-stalking with that information just like ALL of your ilk. I don’t want to know your identity and I wouldn’t know what to do with it.
As usual, you butt in here without any intention of addressing the issues raised, with the sole intention of creating conflict like the attention-seeking butt-sniffer you are. Either make a meaningful contribution to a discussion on ren’s claims or find something more adult to occupy your old age.
“You pretend that my identity is your business”
You are careful to hide behind anonymity.
The thermosphere (or the upper atmosphere) is the height region above 85 kilometres (53 mi).
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ioUcMM9N2cAU8SbXjyJHa9.jpg
Prove that CO2 from the troposphere reaches altitudes of 85 km and above.
Oh, how interesting!
Blindsley H00d, aka RLH and hence known as Richard Linsley Hood (a known failure as director of the tiny ‘Perch Ltd’ about a decade ago) is whining about ‘Antonin Qwerty’ keeping behind anonymity.
No one ever requested from ‘Bindidon’ to leave this anonymity he has since yearts good reasons to keep.
And I can’t recall the RLH guy having ever requested from his GHE friends-in-denial ‘Gordon Robertson’, ‘Mike Flynn’ aka ‘Amazed’ aka ‘Swenson’, ‘Clint R’ and a few others to publish their real names.
RLH – You mean I am careful not to give my name out to stalkers like you.
Ren – When did they start measuring CO2 concentrations in Watts?
No AQ, it means I don’t have any problem with people (even Blinny) knowing who I am.
Blinny. What very good reasons are those?
P.S. AQ: Calling me a stalker is one step towards jail.
There is no accounting for some people’s insanity. Apparently you have no local stature to protect. Why should your lunacy be a model for others?
And your last comment shows just how disconnected with reality you are.
AQ: Are you saying that calling me a stalker is of no consequence to you?
I have many reasons not to be afraid of people knowing who I am. My name has been (and is) in public in many ways that even Blinny has yet to find.
That’s right – calling you a stalker has no consequence for me.
I challenge you to prove me wrong.
There are courts in the UK who take you calling me a stalker without any evidence to be a breach of the law. This may, or may not, also hold or transfer in the jurisdiction you are in.
Proof involves you following through with your nonsense claim.
The evidence is here – you demanding my identity.
And you really need to learn the difference between criminal and civil matters.
The proof you need is that I am a stalker. You do not have that.
I am trying to establish the validity of your statements, not mine.
As you calling someone a stalker here in the UK
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06648
The Act gives both criminal and civil remedies.
You clearly have no issue with people laughing in your face.
I guess you are used to it by now.
rlh…”As you calling someone a stalker here in the UK”
***
I thought they had rescinded that Draconian law.
AQ: It is obvious you have no evidence that I am a stalker, despite you claims above.
GR: You must be thinking of libel, not stalking.
Well? Have you started action yet?
Are you still calling me a stalker?
Are you still demanding my identity?
If so, then yes you are a stalker.
And what sort of old man is still up at almost 3 am?
Are you still demanding my identity?
If so, then yes you are a stalker.
And what sort of old man is still up at almost 3 am?
(BTW – my error will surely give you a laugh if Roy approves my previous version of this post. Roy – there is no need to.)
I demand nothing. I merely observe that you are a coward who hides his identity behind Antonin Qwerty.
Others will probably judge you for your choice of words, which apparently depend on not if they are accurate but purely on if you can be sued for them across the world.
Bullies like you are easily recognized as reading above clearly shows.
YOU are the one bullying me matey.
YOU were the one who butted in uninvited demanding my identity.
YOU were the one threatening me with legal action because you didn’t like my reaction to that demand. (Despite the fact we both knew that that threat was empty.)
YOU could have walked away from the mess YOU CREATED at any time, but you didn’t because you are a professional victim. You don’t know how to walk away.
You are just like those annoying mozzies from school who would unnecessarily provoke people to the limit and wonder why they got bashed in return. And just like you, they would threaten people with reporting for the reaction that was provoked by them.
STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL.
So you continue to blame your cowardice on me. Typical.
I the same vein, I also blame you for Santa Claus, “god”, the tooth fairy, the “coming ice age”, and your charming wit.
You are just like the men who blame all rape on women dressing provocatively. You made me bully you at school, etc.
Except I don’t believe that.
And I never bullied anyone at school – you really need to improve your comprehension.
Your words precisely
“You are just like those annoying mozzies from school who would unnecessarily provoke people to the limit and wonder why they got bashed in return.”
So even if you didn’t do the act you sympathized with the bullies.
No mate, just reporting. I was also the victim of these bullies until I grew. You certainly have a wild imagination, fed by an insatiable need to be “right”.
So now you are saying that you were one of those ‘annoying mozzies’. How convenient.
Hahaha – as we cycle back to this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1510809
I think you mean this post
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1510849
No, I was definitely referring to you assuming the converse:
“Annoying mozzies get bullied, therefore anyone who gets bullied must be an annoying mozzie”.
I suggest you research the concepts of one-to-one, many-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many relationships, and the related concepts of functions and invertibility.
How about you look at my comment again and try to find the real reason I was bullied. It’s not too difficult … for most people. Hint … I told you why the bullying stopped.
Anyway, time for sleep. I look forward to reading the next instalment in your justification of your unmerited superiority complex.
BTW … you don’t actually have anyone to talk to in your life, do you.
You are careful to hide behind your anonymity.
You have nothing left to say, but feel compelled to have the last say, so will now repeat the same comment over and over in a failed attempt to get that.
Your anonymity is apparently important to you. Yet, along with that anonymity, you just expect us to believe you have particular knowledge and expertise. Why would we believe you?
You seem to believe “RLH” is not anonymous.
Who is RLH and what is his knowledge?
The timing of the Hunga-Tonga eruption couldn’t have been much better for a learning experience. The eruption occurred in January, 2022. Now, after about a year and a half, its effect has not completely gone away. The eruption occurred during a long La Niña. Earth was able to maintain temperatures even with the ENSO cooling.
The eruption was an “impulse forcing” to the climate system. And, as with most impulse forcings, there is the resultant “ringing”.
An El Niño is now trying to form. AN EN is another REAL forcing, unlike any bogus forcing from CO2. If both EN and HTE forcings can exist together, we’ll get to see some record high temperatures. Areas that are depending on “alternative” energy for air conditioning systems may be in trouble.
Its going to get serious if the activists get their way and shut down fossil fuels. AC will not work. Billions will die.
Fossil fuels run out. Civilization shuts down. Billions will die.
You paint a very depressing view of the future.
It seems fossil fuel will run out, somewhere, first.
It seems we could pick Russia as where it will last the longest.
It seems to me, China will run out, first {and don’t seem concerned
about it} is another country which run out soon and are concerned about it?
Grammie clone’s obsession with the HH-TH eruption seems to have run into a brick wall. There’s no apparent impact on the upper air as recorded by satellites.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/
If Grammie clone were serious, he might use that data and focus in on some region region in search of such effects. Not likely, gremmie clone doesn’t “do science”, he just pontificates random thoughts.
E. Swanson, do you have a responsible adult you can use as a consultant? You sound like an uneducated teenie-bopper.
You can NOT see the effect of the HTE in infrared. THAT is not how the effect reveals itself.
When you grow up, maybe I can explain it to you.
If Grammie pups ever grows up and learns some physics, He might figure out that the NOAA STAR satellite data I referenced is NOT IR DATA, but microwave data just like the RSS and UAH products. NOAA includes three additional bands at higher altitudes where one might also find an influence from the extra water vapor.
IR, microwave, UV, gamma, visible — it doesn’t matter. No part of the spectrum explains the HTE.
As usual, Grammie clone thinks he knows the answer when he doesn’t understand the question.
Clint R
Where is your data about what you claim?
Or are you, as usual, OMWSing?
Sorry Bin, but you’d have to know some science to understand.
I claim that that humans used to have wings. But I won’t justify my claim because you’d have to know some science to understand.
Is this how your pseudoscience works?
AQ,
You can claim anything you like.
It’s your right. You may even claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
I think it was Ant that got so confused about CoG and CoM. You can’t teach orbital motion to someone that confused.
And yet you were unable to explain in what way I was confused, instead giving yet another vague reference to “not understanding science”.
It’s amazing what you can “prove” using this “technique”. It seems to be your bread and butter.
Actually it’s a little more than “not understanding science”, Ant. Your cult rejects reality. You can’t learn science if you reject reality.
Yet another vague unsupported claim which does nothing to prove your assertion regarding centres of mass and gravity. Show me you have SOMETHING.
ClintR does have SOMETHING.
A very low signal to noise ratio.
Haha – indeed. But I haven’t picked up a signal yet.
Ant, you must want a “reality check”.
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Responsible adults can get that simple question correct every time, by cultists can’t.
As I’ve said many times before, no they don’t.
But I understand your need for a straw man. Still can’t explain what I got wrong about the centres of mass and gravity? Surely you can’t keep your impressive “knowledge” secret forever.
Well, you got it correct Ent! You have a brain and it works somewhat. Now, drop the “straw man” nonsense and the snark, and you’ll look like a real responsible adult.
Your “centers” has no relevance to the Moon issue. Moon’s center of mass and center of gravity are at the same point. That’s true for ANY object that is free-falling in a vacuum. You may be confusing center of mass with barycenter.
That’s the simple explanation. If you require more clarification, just remember to behave as a responsible adult. I’ve learned I can’t teach science to children.
No mate. That assumes a uniform gravitational field. The distribution of the gravitational field affects the location of the centre of gravity, but not the centre of mass. Apparently you believe that gravity of the earth pulls equally on the near and far sides of the moon.
Any chance you could avoid making another bald assertion?
Ant, you’re STILL confusing CoM with CoG. It appears you’re confusing CoG with barycenter, which has NOTHING to do with Moon’s lack of spin. Even if you imagined Moon’s CoG was different that CoM, they would instantaneously align with respect to Earth.
Gravity is reduced by distance, but that simple fact does NOT imply torque. You need to sketch a simple free-body diagram of Moon to understand Earth can NOT produce a torque on Moon.
Also, you need to stop the snarky, immature questions. You can’t learn if all your interested in is snark.
The centre of MASS IS the barycentre.
And I am speaking to the second most snarky person on this site after Swenson.
Further:
“Even if you imagined Moons CoG was different that CoM, they would instantaneously align with respect to Earth.”
To avoid the dispute about rotation, assume an ancient moon rotating on its axis at the same angular velocity as the earth.
Look up the mass of the moon and calculate its angular velocity.
Look up the mass of the earth and the earth-moon distance, and use the universal law of gravitation to calculate the force of gravitation of the earth on the moon.
The separation of centres of mass and gravity is only 2 km.
Assuming the earth-moon vector is perpendicular to the CM-CG vector, work out the torque applied, and use the fact that torque is the rate of change of angular momentum to work out how “quickly” the moon’s spin rate would change.
Come on …. prove you actually know some first-year university physics.
Ant, now you’re reached the point where you can no longer fake being a responsible adult. You’ve moved into your tr?ll tactics. You’re just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick.
You want me to do the calculations for a fictitious scenario, using false data, to somehow teach you reality?
That’s not being a responsible adult, is it?
And, look at this: “The separation of centres of mass and gravity is only 2 km.”
Where did you dig up that crap? You haven’t learned a thing.
That’s why I no longer waste time trying to teach science to children.
As usual you run away when the physics passes the level you get from reading blog articles.
Canadian wildfires have burned more than 10 million hectares (24.7 million acres) this year, a record-breaking figure which will continue to rise in the coming weeks.
In an awful way, this might help. Seeing is believing. Instead of watching it on the news, they’re living it.
https://imgur.com/a/yAmYh51
Living what? It’s weather and we’d need another 29 years of the same before we could refer to it as climate change.
Here is Bloedel fire 1938:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/scv/scv871.pdf
Note the bit about fires from California to Alaska and from the Coast to Saskatchewan.
10 million hectares (24.7 million acres) this year, is not a record-breaking figure
Good catch, Ken.
The fires were in 1938, during the hot decade from the last century, even though Mann et al tried to pass the 1990s off as the hottest decade in 1000 years.
I imagine Bloedel was the precursor to MacMillan Bloedel, the Mac-Blo we know today.
From top of post:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
So, it’s been +0.13 for a fair amount of time, did go up to +0.14 for many months-year then returned to +0.13 C/decade.
And I thought it would more likely go to +0.12 C/decade rather than back up to +0.14 C/decade. But I am not a climate alarmist and I actually think the world would better planet if it wasn’t so cold.
Anyhow, it didn’t go back up to +0.14 C/decade or down to +0.12 C/decade, yet.
So, wondering if there were any alarmist who thought it might go back up to +0.14 C/decade or may do something more alarming.
Afterall the Chinese are buring more 1/2 of coal burnt in the world and are going to burn a lot coal in next few years.
gb…don’t forget that is the linear trend since 1979. It was significant from 1979 till about 1998 when the EN hit and following the EN it has essentially leveled off. There was a shot of warming in 2016 but the average is now closer to the baseline.
What I am seeing is an initial significant recovery from cooling followed by a long, relatively flat trend and that has maintained the 0.13C average for the short term. I’ll defer to experts like RLH for the statistical analysis, if interested.
The fact that it’s still 0.13C/decade suggests the 2016 EN and its sustained effect has influenced the trend.
NOAA/STAR has TLT at 0.130K/decade also
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/
RLH, The NOAA TLT has the same problems as the UAH LT, only worse. Their weighting function peaks at ~2.5km, so there’s a strong influence from high elevations, particularly the Antarctic, Greenland and regions with high mountains, including the Himalayas and the Andes. Remember that RSS excludes those regions, which add a cooling trend. And, the algorithms for calculating both Lower Troposphere products are based on theoretical models using another theoretical model, The U.S. Standard Atmosphere.
But, we know those issues won’t stand in the way of your continued glowing praise for both UAH and now, NOAA STAR products. It’s only science, after all.
All the satellite series, UAH, RSS and NOAA/STAR, show the same (or similar) results in recent years.
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
Richard…note the ‘per decade’. Let’s break it into decades.
1979 – 1989 -> trend
1990 – 1999 -> trend
2000 – 2009 -> no trend
2020 – 2019 -> no trend followed by trend
2020 – present -> no trend
It’s plain to see that 0.13C/decade does not hold and is a mathematical average over the range.
“a mathematical average over the range”
The 0.13C/decade is over all of the data shown.
UAH whole-decade averages:
1980s … -0.28
1990s … -0.14
2000s … -0.03
2010s … +0.12
2020s … +0.22 (42 months)
Increases:
1980s-1990s … +0.14
1990s-2000s … +0.11
2000s-2010s … +0.15
2010s-2020s … +0.10 (w/o the likely warmest 2/3 of the 20s)
Pretty damn consistent if you ask me.
Sure. Numbers that all start with 0.x (some plus, some minus) are all really close together. Only in climate would this be considered definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxSbYk2epmw
Unleashing the Power of the Mars Cycler: SpaceX Starship to play a huge part?
Any of you all know what Cycler is?
I have given them much thought- and not much of a fan of them.
Basically they are space stations which are in hohmann trajectories and crew get to them {and leave them] with non-hohmann trajectories.
I would prefer just doing the non-hohmann trajectories and skipping the “having space station, part”.
Also not a fan of nuclear or ion rocket engine for crewed missions.
One of Buzz Aldrin’s two best ideas.
The nice thing about a cycler is that you only have to accelerate the structure once.When the structure is up to speed you only have to accelerate and decelerate the payloads and consumables.
A very economic way of moving people and freight between Earth and Mars.
Trip times are comparable to the England-Australia voyage before steamships.
I don’t recall Buzz Aldrin’s other idea.
I am focused upon the near term ways of getting to Mars.
An issue with getting to Mars is the planetary launch window between
Earth and Mars.
Or I am talking about the synodic period between Earth and Mars which is every 2.1354 years.
In regard to Venus and Mars the synodic period is 0.9142 years.
And Venus to Earth synodic period of 1.5987 years.
In the near term, we going to explore the Moon to determine if the Moon has mineable water.
I don’t think NASA should mine lunar water or mine anything, but it should explore the lunar polar region to see if there is mineable water, and then NASA should explore Mars. And an issue with Mars is determining whether Mars is actually a habitable planet- as it is often claimed to be.
One aspect of whether Mars is habitable in the near term, is also whether it has mineable water.
I believe that for Mars water to have mineable water, the price of Mars water needs to be about $1 per kg or $1000 per ton. This price with a future price of it being cheaper.
Or eventually water in space will be cheaper than water on Earth but we can call that something which isn’t going happen in the near term.
Lunar water can cost a lot money per kg or ton.
Lunar water in near term is about making rocket fuel and with Mars water is largely about using water for farming purposes.
One could say that Mars water can much cheaper, because there a demand for a lot of it {if cheap enough} and aspect of why lunar water could be priced hundred times more than Mars is lack of demand of a lot of lunar water.
So, let’s go back to the issue of Venus, Venus orbit could have demand for a lot of water to be used for rocket fuel and where it could get the water, is from Earth, the Moon, and Mars. And longer term, space rocks.
Mars settlement need to use Venus, and Mars settlement could export the their $1000 per ton water to Venus. If the Moon has enough water, it can also export water to Venus.
But before there are settlements on Mars, the exploration of Mars, will use Venus orbit. Venus has always been regarded as emergency return to Earth, option from Mars.
Venus is the closest planet to Earth and Venus is closer for Mars than Earth is, due orbital mechanics of hohmann transfers.
And if using Venus orbit, rather than the gap of time of every 2.1354 years {either way: to Mars and back to Earth] the “average time gap” if include Venus is 1/2 that time or about 1 year.
So: “Trip times are comparable to the England-Australia voyage before steamships”
But did you have wait 2.1354 years for any ship leave from England to Australia and wait 2.1354 years for any ship leave Australia for England?
If include Venus the average time gap is about 1 year, both ways.
Cosmic Train Schedule:
https://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html
Now, if using Cyclers and Non hohmann planetary trajectories that also should shorten “the gap” to less than 1 year average of Mars to Earth- say lower it to average of less than 6 month.
And if want to talk “long term” like 2100 AD+, less than a month.
Or we will get Cyclers if there is enough market for it {and probably not operated by NASA- and will be a cheap way to get to Mars]. And if can’t wait 6 months then more expensive ways could be the only option.
In terms of travel time. If Starship or New Glenn can use atmosphere to slow down a lot. Ie, if Starship can go from Earth to Mars in 6 months by braking a lot using Mars atmosphere. The Starship can get to Venus from Earth in 2 months {by using Venus atmosphere to slow down a lot}.
With fueled Starship at Venus, a simple hohmann and not arriving a Mars fast, is Trip Time: 0.5954 years:
https://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/VMa.htm
365 day x 0.5954 = 217.321 days / 30 = 7.24 months
In comparison, simple Earth to Mars: Trip Time 0.7087 Years
365 days x 0.7087 = 258.67 days / 30 = 8.6 months
From Earth to Mars, NASA does 7 month with hohmann + patched conic-
and doesn’t arrive screaming fast to Mars.
And from Venus to Mars one can likewise hohmann + patched conic
and not arrive fast at Mars in about 5 months or screaming fast in about 4 months.
And it’s roughly the same going other way: coming from Mars to Venus.
But these are hohmann transfer “ways”- known ways, and other than Musk 6 month and hit atmosphere really fast, done ways.
But on topic of Mars Cycler, it discusses “non hohmann trajectories”
needed to get to the Cycler. Or Cycler doing hohmann but to get it- isn’t hohmann.
But also, using nuclear and ion engines also, isn’t hohmann.
Nuclear and ion engines is way to solve problem of not having enough chemical rocket fuel- and mining water and making rocket fuel is solving the same problem. As is refueling in orbit.
When Gemini capsules beganrendezvous tests with Agena target vehicles the first attempts were laughable.
A capsule would attempt to move in close to the Agena and go off in completely the wrong direction.
Buzz Aldrin worked out that “point-and-go” would only work when you were within 30 metres of your target and effectively in the same orbit.
Beyond 30 metres you had to move closer by adjusting your orbit.
His five rules were expressed in more technical language but summarised by Larry Niven as follows. Note that they apply to normal near-Earth orbits moving West to East.
“In takes you East”
Use you manoeuvring thrusters to thrust inwards towards Earth. You move into a slightly lower orbit and move East relative to your target.
Curses.
“East takes you out, out takes you west, west takes you in, and in takes you east.”
“East takes you out.”
Thrust East in the direction of your orbit. You gain orbital velocity and move outwards relative to your target.
” Out takes you West. ”
Thrust outwards relative to Earth. You move into a higher slower orbit and fall behind your target.
” West takes you in. ”
Thrust West. You lose orbital velocity and drop to a lower orbit so you move inward relative to your target.
“North and South being you home.”
You change the inclination of your orbit. You move away from your target for 1/4 orbit and then move towards it for 1/4 orbit.
Quote of the day
Politicians have gotten in the bad habit of blaming everything on climate change to shift responsibility away from themselves.
https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/15/climate-expert-climate-change-is-not-to-blame-for-everything/
Eben
I will agree with the content of your linked article. I also share that view. I do not like the blaming of all bad weather events on Climate Change. Anyone can check historical weather and see that there have always been bad weather events. It only appears more events because media now has global reach and instant access.
Now there is a heat dome (High Pressure) creating a heat wave in the SowthWest US. It has taken place before but does not happen every year.
I do not see the rigor of science in any of this. It is my opinion that media hypes it in order to get more viewers and generate more income.
“Sometimes, the scorching heat is ensnared in what is called a heat dome. This happens when strong, high-pressure atmospheric conditions combine with influences from La Nina, creating vast areas of sweltering heat that gets trapped under the high-pressure ‘dome'”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
Thanks for that. We had one a couple of summers ago and everyone was screaming climate change. Ironically, NOAA was one of the only sources pointing to the fact it was caused by La Nina.
The SOI has stabilized at 2. Is it a neutral SOI?
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Negative eastern Pacific surface anomalies accurately show the current Pacific atmospheric circulation, which is more consistent with La Nina than El Nino.
The Pacific hurricane, in line with this circulation, is moving westward.
https://i.ibb.co/GCPC0TG/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/PMkBJFZ/946c267f-ac0f-477c-bda9-17dddf8b36d1.jpg
There is currently a conflict between SOI and ENSO (as reported by TropicalTIdbits). Which will win out? I’m hoping for ENSO, and we see a strong El Niño fully develop. I don’t want anyone to suffer, but the world needs to see what REAL forcings can do. Then, down the road, the world needs to see how the planet deals with the REAL forcings.
Earth responds: “Hold my beer”.
A dramatic demonstration like that would shut up most of the ignorant Alarmists, or at least convince the folks on the fence.
TTb reports ocean surface temperatures, not ENSO.
Apparently you don’t know that ENSO includes the SOI.
Ant, your not understanding what ENSO is fits in with your other lack of understanding.
“The El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)”
“Sir Gilbert Walker discovered the ‘Southern Oscillation,’ or large-scale changes in sea level pressure across Indonesia and the tropical Pacific.”
“The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is a standardized index based on the observed sea level pressure (SLP) differences between Tahiti and Darwin”
Clint got it wrong. And tries to blame the messenger. No surprise.
Nate,
Just measuring atmospheric parameters tells you nothing about the reasons for the measurements.
Can you usefully predict future changes better than a 12 year old child? If you can’t, the measurements remain a curiosity of no utility.
A scientist might ask himself “Why is it so?”, make some guesses, do some experiments, and see if his guesses are well-founded.
A pseudo-scientist might think that an observed pattern actually causes something!
I know which approach appeals to me – the scientific method. How about you?
A good model for anyone with literally nothing to say…
Nate and Ant are two anonymous tr?lls that hate science and reality. They have nothing against misrepresenting, insulting, and making false accusations.
Mostly I just ignore them.
Clint thinks he can ignore facts when they plainly show that he is totally wrong.
Then he tries to bully and belittle anyone pointing out such contradictory facts.
Yes, ladies, he he is quite a catch!
Tropical storms in the South China Sea indicate a circulation consistent with La Nia. Downpours reach the Korean Peninsula.
https://i.ibb.co/q91M1y0/mimictpw-wpac-latest-1.gif
A tropical storm in the South China Sea is turning into a powerful typhoon.
https://i.ibb.co/VJnSmHV/9ea7307b-38e3-4035-8fd9-bba82f6abf4c.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/DbMbjgY/b0ec59a0-ad72-4663-8378-c16c01bd95ae.jpg
I experienced a typhoon during an extended stay in New Zealand. I thought it was windier than usual. Why do they call them typhoons down under and hurricanes elsewhere?
ps. experienced ‘minor’ hurricane force winds here in Canada. I was riding my bike down a steep hill on the way to school when a gust picked me and the bike up and deposited us in a ditch.
The year 1921 was exceptional in terms of the height of temperatures in Poland. Those in July 1921 reached 40 degrees C. Of the five highest temperatures recorded in Poland’s history, as many as three came in 1921.
These records should be referred to the period when temperature measurements were conducted in Poland. Climate historians speculate that during the drought of 1540, the temperature may have been about 5-7 degrees C higher than in the 20th century. So it is quite possible that at that time temperatures in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland were even higher than in 1921.
Link please to Poland’s historical temperature data.
Numbers please, not meaningless graphics.
And all dates, not cherry-picked dates.
Twerpy thinks everybody works for him
He doesn’t do google.
https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2021-41/cp-2021-41.pdf
The 1921 European drought
“2.2.5 Poland
A striking impact of the 1921 drought in Poland were its many fires, the of which occurred in August. These include the one
on August 7 in the town of Pinsk (population in 1921: 23.497), eastern Poland, where loss of life was reported and a third of
180 the town, predominantly built of wood, was destroyed, including the town centre and an almost 1000-year-old synagogue. The
losses were so great that the Polish Government decided to move the authorities of the region to which Pinsk belongs to Brest,
located 150 km westward. On the same day, the smaller town of Kłodawa (population in 1921: about 2.200) in central Poland,
saw a large part of the town completely destroyed by fire where at least 130 buildings burned down. The town of Rudnik on the
San (population in 1921: 2.959) in the southern part of Poland was densely covered in smoke from the fires in the surrounding
185 bogs, meadows and forest, making it difficult to breathe.
Between 9-16 August 1921, forest fires raged in the Sandomierz Forest in the southern part of Poland. At least a dozen
square kilometers burned down in this fire. For August 13, reports on forest fires in the region of Upper Silesia are found. The fires have been estimated as the biggest ones in the region of Silesia for at least several dozen years. Not only many square
kilometers of forests but also suburban districts of the town of Mikołw (formerly: Nikolai) were burned down. The railway
190 traffic on the route Zabrze/Gliwice – Kedzierzyn (formerly: Hindenburg/Gliwitz – Kendrin) was temporarily suspended due to
the risk of flames.
An assessment of the production of annual crops in Western Poland on August 1, 1921 showed that many crops for human
consumption or fodder rated between medium and poor up to bad for potatoes, sugar beet and pastures. Widespread deficits
in the availability of dairy products due to a strong reduction in milk production was reported, as well as low availability of
195 meat and sausages, which resulted in price increases, particularly in Western and Central Poland. Restrictions in drinking water were issued in Poland as well”
So no daily temperature data as requested.
I guess you couldn’t find it either.
Droughts are not caused by high temperatures. /sarc
There are plenty of temperature records covering Poland. Or more accurately, Polish cities.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511247
Then you will have no problem finding me a daily temperature record that goes back to 1921 and earlier.
https://theearlypages.blogspot.com/2018/03/a-short-story-of-struggle-to-get-long_20.html
“A Short Story of the Struggle to Get Long Records of Air Temperature in Torun, Central Poland”
Yet another basic English word you don’t understand – DATA.
Yet another basic English word you don’t understand – DATA.
“Droughts are not caused by high temperatures. /sarc”
Supposedly the famines in the Little Ice Age were caused by cold.
But now the skeptic meme is no longer ‘warm = good, cold = bad’ ?
“”It rained excessively in the months when it would usually be dry. The extreme cold shortened the growing season by just three weeks, but that can be dramatic,” says Collet”
“Hunger in the Little Ice Age
During the famine, crops failed for three years in a row, halving the annual grain harvests. As a result of starvation and hunger-related disease, one million people died across Europe, more than in all the wars of the 18th century combined”
“DATA”
Strange how my blog is mostly concerned with posting graphs that are based on data (and also has that word in its name).
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
It is clear that droughts are BAD and caused by warming.
The Meme from faux skeptics is that warm is GOOD and cold is BAD (based on anecdotal evidence from the LIA).
My point is this is overly simplistic.
Actually Nate the simple way is to look to see if the center of population is nearer the poles or the equator.
Informed scientists know that and talk about it all the time regarding all migratory species. If you don’t like it where you are at get your backside off the couch and move.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Link please to Polands historical temperature data.
Numbers please, not meaningless graphics.
And all dates, not cherry-picked dates.”
Initial temperature of Poland – above the melting point of rock (conservatively, >1000 C).
Temperature now – far less than it was. The Polish surface has cooled.
Too easy. Try another silly demand.
No data in GHCN daily prior to 1931.
Top 10 of the temperatures since then
PLM00012375 56-80 2006 7 27 30.32
PLM00012330 56-78 2006 7 26 30.26
PLM00012424 56-78 2006 7 23 29.76
PLM00012330 56-78 2019 6 16 29.57
PLM00012330 56-78 2015 8 19 29.54
PLM00012205 57-77 1994 7 27 29.51
PLM00012497 56-81 2015 8 31 29.48
PLM00012424 56-78 1994 7 29 29.23
PLM00012424 56-78 1992 8 28 29.10
PLM00012424 56-78 2019 6 23 29.05
*
Palmowski is the one who posted his 1921 40 C claim; thus, it is HIS job to post a link to real data.
*
Concerning 1540, Palmowski should be able to post at least a link to such a document like this below:
https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/2612/1149_ftp.pdf?sequence=1
1921 is before 1931.
Blindsley H00d
Do you have difficulties to understand
” No data in GHCN daily prior to 1931. “
So your GHCN data (which is later) is not relevant to 1921.
“The historic Polish heat record is 40.2 C (104F), set in 1921 in Proszkow near Opole in present day southern Poland.”
https://tvpworld.com/38362850/weather-high-temperatures-to-remain-in-august-h1
Blindsley H00d
You indeed have difficulties to understand
” No data in GHCN daily prior to 1931. ”
because if you would understand what I mean, you would supply the blog with data going back to 1921 and before.
Do you understand the futility of using data that only goes back to the 1930s to answer a question about the 1920s?
Which question about 1921 do you believe he tried to answer?
Provide evidence for your reponse.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511120
I see no question there.
“The year 1921 was exceptional in terms of the height of temperatures in Poland.”
Oh boy – you don’t even understand the difference between a question and a statement.
And Bindidon made no attempt to address that STATEMENT, as he clearly states.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114021
Did European temperatures in 1540 exceed present-day records?
“In this study, we investigate the probability that the 1540 summer was warmer than the extreme 2003 summer, and than average summers in the past 5 decades”
“Based on these analyses, we can state that our results confirm that the large drought reported in 1540 also implied above-average summer temperatures in Central Europe that summer, as suggested by W14”
“in Central Europe that summer”
Point?
Europe has been warm before.
Of course it has, but no thermometers then.
“Concerning 1540”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511247
The problem is that climate change doesnt mean that the summer temperature will be a record every year in Europe, or anywhere.
It only skews the probability distribution. Explained here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ClimateDice.13July2023.pdf
And oh btw, we don’t really know what the summer temperatures were in 1540.
The 1921 European drought: impacts, reconstruction and drivers
Gerard van der Schrier & al. (2021)
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/17/2201/2021/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511220
binny…from your link…re 1921 drought…
“Figure 10 shows the daily maximum temperature for this day, where temperatures in France locally exceeded 40C, and about three-quarters of France, including Paris, saw temperatures of 38C or higher…”
“From the perspective of climate dynamics, there are similarities between the 1921 drought and other major droughts, especially in the atmospheric circulation patterns that give rise to the stable, sunny and dry weather found during spring and summer of 1921. Similar atmospheric conditions occurred in the 1976 and 2018 droughts”.
Hottest Days Manipulation
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/hottest-days-manipulation/
From your link, Tony Heller on how the scam is done…
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/cooling-the-past-is-the-foundation-of-this-scam/
Not really. His screenshot is that day’s predicted temperatures estimated at 9:30 AM THAT DAY.
The times series shows the ‘observed’ temperature for the day.
Is The Dry Getting Drier?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/#comment-3750304
Good article by Willis. Reveals the chicanery of the IPCC.
If he has done a good and proper analysis then it should be publishable. Is it published? Why not?
re droughts…Richard (rlh) joked that droughts are not caused by high temperatures. Catching his ‘dry’ humour, it struck me immediately that the Tibetan Plateau is likely a cold place, ue to altitude, but a part of the planet where droughts are normal.
Sure enough, there is a good article on it…
Please ignore references to climate change. Papers don’t get published these days unless they liberally seed the paper with such references.
https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-73/nhess-2021-73.pdf
It begin…
“Drought is a recurring natural phenomenon (Wilhite et al., 2000) and includes meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic droughts, with meteorological drought acting as the driver of other forms of drought (Zargar et al., 2011)”.
Made me go, ‘Hmmmm’. So droughts cause other droughts? And they are perfectly natural. Double ‘Hmmmm’.
It goes on…
“The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau [aka Tibetan Plateau] is situated in Asia’s and Europe’s hinterlands. This region receives a weak wet signal due to the influence and limitations of atmospheric circulation and altitude (Fan et al., 2003), as water vapor from the ocean is difficult to transport to this area (Chen et al., 2011)”.
Places other than ones with high temperatures (like Antarctica) also exhibit dry spells.
RLH,
The Gobi desert, for example. -35 C in winter. Up to 40 C in summer, though.
Severe lack of that most important GHG (H2O), results in both higher and lower temperatures.
Rather awkward for GHE enthusiasts, I suppose.
“The Gobi is overall a cold desert, with frost and occasionally snow occurring on its dunes. Besides being quite far north, it is also located on a plateau roughly 9101,520 m (2,9904,990 ft) above sea level, which contributes to its low temperatures. An average of about 194 mm (7.6 in) of rain falls annually in the Gobi. Additional moisture reaches parts of the Gobi in winter as snow is blown by the wind from the Siberian Steppes. These winds may cause the Gobi to reach −40 C (−40 F) in winter to 45 C (113 F) in summer.”
rlh…”GR: You must be thinking of libel, not stalking”.
***
I am thinking of the UK law that had Brits fired up about freedom of speech. It’s about Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Here’s Rowan Atkinson talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc&ab_channel=TheChristianInstitute
Example offered by Rowan…a man being arrested for calling a horse gay or a man arrested for claiming Scientology is a cult.
https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-police-horse-gay-in-the-u-k/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/20/1
An Englishman, overweight, heavy smoker, hard drinker, manic depressive, apparently racist and guilty of white privilege (amongst other terrible sins), said –
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” – Winston Churchill.
I support unfettered free speech – not just for me, for everyone.
Don’t be surprised when the outraged appear – telling you that you should keep quiet if you spot a fire in a theatre, and all the other bits of silliness they use to justify telling you what you are allowed to say, when, and where. What are they so scared of?
There are times when things are best left unsaid, for reasons of compassion if nothing else.
Just because you have the option of free speech does not mean that you should always exercise it.There are times when one should not open ones mouth and put ones foot in it.
“This is the offence of disorderly conduct. If you are accused of this, the Police will need to prove that:
You have used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour;
Within the hearing or sight of somebody likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.”
So calling you a stalker because you demanded my identity has caused you distress, has it?
Breaking the (UK) law is of no consequence to you. As you said.
So the answer is no – got it. In fact you revel in the attention.
And you revel in breaking the law. Weirdo.
I can’t think of the last time I broke the law. Unless you mean speeding by a couple of Ks.
Climate shyster of the week
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679571734712795137
As the host said the climate shysters give clowns a bad name.
swenson…”C14 decays to nitrogen, not the other way round”.
***
An interesting point that had escaped me till you posted it.
C12 is standard carbon and has an equal number of electron and protons. C13 is the first isotope with an extra neutron and C14 has two extra neutrons. I would have thought C14 would decay to C13 first but you are right according to wiki, it decays to nitrogen.
Being a stubborn Scot, I have added this to my list of questions. I am skeptical of any physics related to sub-atomic particles below neutrons, protons and electrons.
Do you think we could do the same with gold? Nitrogen sits right above carbon in the periodic table and mercury sits right above gold. Do you think we might get mercury to decay into gold?
If we got really tiny tweezers and carefully removed an electron from mercury then removed a proton, we should have gold. But wait, we’ need to remove a neutron as well.
Then again, if ee did that an atom at a time it would take a mighty long time to have enough gold atoms to form an ounce.
Seems straightforward enough.
Cosmic rays produce high-energy neutrons when they hit the atmosphere.
14N has seven protons and seven neutrons. Hit by a high energy neutron 14N gains a neutron and loses a proton. It becomes 14C with six protons and eight neutrons.
This is unstable and undergoes beta decay. One of the neutrons decays into a proton by shedding an electron.
This returns the atom to having seven protons and seven neutrons i.e. 14N.
You don’t usually see atoms shedding individual protons except as a result of collisions. Usually they are ejected as alpha particles(2 protons + 2 neutrons ).
If 14C decayed by alpha decay you would not get 13C, you would get 10B, the boron isotope with 5 protons and five neutrons.
Oops!
That would be 10Be, a beryllium isotope with four protons and six neutrons. This is radioactive and eventually decays by beta decay to 10B.
Sorry, it’s been a while since I needed to think about this.
The sort of processes that turn 14N into 14C and back again only work because they only requires you to swap single neutrons and protons. That does not work for heavier elements such as mercury and gold because you have to juggle too many neutrons.
To convert 201Hg into 197Au would require the atom to convert one proton into a neutron and eject another four neutrons. Can’t think of a natural, or even artificial way of doing that.
EM,
The internet is a wonderful thing.
Here’s something that either I didn’t know, or had forgotten –
“Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive. In 1924, a German scientist, Adolf Miethe, accomplished the same feat.”
I sit corrected.
What was the yield?
“I sit corrected.”
Something we will never catch Flynn, g**e**r**a**n or RLH saying.
Clint hides behind the skirts of ad homs and insults lacking the manhood to become involved in a scientific debate. Of course, this is smart, he knows he’d get his butt kicked good discussing science with me.
I guess Clint is busy going through his text books trying to find answers for the physics problems I gave him. It’s pretty hard to teach someone who doesn’t want to learn, especially when that person learned it incorrectly in the fist place.
I could understand someone misunderstanding the meaning of entropy, or basic atomic theory, but how could anyone think that heat is not energy? That’s as bad as Swannie claiming heat can be transferred from cold to hot by its own means.
It’s a bit mind-boggling after hearing Clint lecturing others on the 2nd law which is clearly about the direction of heat transfer. If heat is being transferred how could it possibly be mistaken as a transport mechanism of heat? And entropy was designed by Clausius to be a mathematical measure of heat transfer.
The unit for entropy is calorie/degree K or joule/degree K. Nothing there about disorder or a measure of disorder.
In chemistry, the Gibbs free energy, G, equation is…
G = H – T.delta S
H = enthalpy
S = entropy
Since Gibbs free energy is about heat it means each element of the equation must be expressed as heat, therefore G is measured in calories or the heat mechanical equivalent, joules. That means entropy, S, must be measured in calories or joules.
Nothing there about disorder either.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
I’m surprised that an electronics man hasn’t encountered information theory and information entropy.
I would have thought that Claude Shannon ‘s work would be meat and drink to you.
https://machinelearningmastery.com/what-is-information-entropy/
An electronics technician could do fine without a knowledge of Shannon’s work. But, NOT a real electrical engineer. Shannon’s work is mandatory for a real EE.
Gordon has been faking it. Others, like Bindidon, saw it long before I did. I guess I didn’t want to believe Gordon was faking it. I was hoping he would realize how ineffective he is, and improve. I was wrong on that also.
Gordon’s only goal here is just to comment. He has an obsession to clog this blog with his rambling nonsense. He has no concerns about what he says, or who he attacks.
He is not the only one faking it.
At least Gordon TRIES to back up his claims with an argument.
Even Swenson will do that at times.
You just make unsupported assertions, and find yourself an excuse whenever asked to show justification or deeper understanding.
“That means entropy, S, must be measured in calories or joules.”
No, that means T.delta(S) is measured in units of energy. Entropy itself is measured in units of (energy)/(temperature), or J/K in metric units.
Entropy was designed by Clausius to be a mathematical measure RELATED TO heat transfer, but which ALSO factored in the temperature at which the transfer takes place.
Ayuh, you’ve sure got him writhing in the grasp of reason ….
The typhoon hit will be in Macau. A clear eye can be seen, indicating the great strength of the wind.
https://i.ibb.co/vsDkXD4/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-07-17-085800.png
Earlier, AQ wrote –
“STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL.”
Gee – shouting, unenforceable demands, implied obscenity, and misogyny – all in five words.
Not too brilliant at providing an explanation for the mythical GHE, so I suppose resorting to pointless diversions restores his self-esteem.
AQ is always consistent. /sarc
Looks like “/sarc” is your new “thing”.
What did Gordon say about people who repeat the same thing over and over ad infinitum … ?
I am just making sure that people understand UK humor.
Writing “/sarc” is “humour”?
AQ,
I don’t know. What did he say? Is it a secret, perhaps?
AQ is a weirdo in many ways.
Projecting again I see. You seem like a gamer – disconnected from reality yet believing you are the smartest person you know.
The only projection is you hiding behind anomynity.
Did you or did you not say
“STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL”?
And we now have another English word you don’t understand – projection. And another you apparently don’t know how to pronounce – anonymity.
I’ll ask again – in what way is “RLH” not an attempt to “hide behind anonymity?
Did you or did you not say
“STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL”?
“in what way is RLH’ not an attempt to ‘hide behind anonymity'”
Because those are my initials and the translation of those into a real person is also out there on the internet, ask Blinny.
P.S. The difference between anomynity and anonymity is just a typo.
How would I know who this “real person” is? Where have you provided this “translation”?
And once you tell me, will that answer the question “Who is RLH and what is his knowledge?” ?
And why would I answer your ridiculous question given that the answer is here for everyone to see? You seem to be falsely implying that I have denied saying that. Do you also believe that is a crime?
“Where have you provided this ‘translation’?”
On here at least. Ask Blinny who has all this in his pocket.
“Who is RLH and what is his knowledge?”
See above. I hold a MSc in System Design (now retired) with a strong background in DSP, filter usage and design (See my uncle JLH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Linsley_Hood). I have been actively engaged in Climate since the first post on my blog and posts on WUWT and Judith Curry’s site (which is where I first encountered Vaughan Pratt) as well as here.
P.S. Did you or did you not say
“STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL”?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
Which was apparently quite a time ago, 2014.
So your only connection to climate is through blogging site – no more expertise than anyone else here.
I tend to major in filters (Gaussian, or near Gaussian, is my preference as they carry less distortions than most).
Only climate uses ‘climate normals’ and Simple Running Means. All other sciences know the distortions and complications they bring.
I also have opinions in statistics where I strongly believe that Nyquist and sampling distances are quite important. Both in space and time.
AQ: Did you or did you not say
STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Projecting again I see. You seem like a gamer disconnected from reality yet believing you are the smartest person you know.”
Not content with demonstrating your puerile petulance by writing “STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL”, you now resort to patronizing psychobabble!
You really are a trick, as one of my colleagues would say.
Divert and wriggle all you want – you cannot even describe this mythical GHE, can you?
Accept reality.
A Paradigm Shift: OLR without Surface Infrared Radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-KpzGD9yV0
A paradigm shift — from physics to fantasy. There are many issues that are unresolved, but this video is wrong in many different ways.
So refute it.
So I am only 3:48 mins of it.
My first thought is what is meant by surface. Such as ocean or land surface. Land surface is roughly irrelevant in terms global average surface temperature. Or ocean warms and land cools.
And second thought is how high above the surface- if talking say 100 meters above ocean or land surface as roughly the surface, I agree, almost.
But next thing, is I agree {roughly} that roughly 40 watts per square meter of IR goes directly to space from the surface. Though this surface “could” include cloud surfaces also. But some of it seems to coming directly from the land surface.
I will listen to rest of it.
Well, listen to end of it, and it’s “stay tuned”.
I think global temperature is the ocean temperature of 3.5 C.
As does everyone else.
Weather is different topic. And seems the focus is on global weather- and calling that global climate.
We measuring global surface air temperature to find out global temperature. If global surface air temperature was global temperature, we would not need to measure global surface temperature over a 30 year [17 year or whatever time period],
But anyhow listening to rest of it, didn’t change my thoughts of listening to just 3:48 mins of it.
The paper it is based on is at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511527
“it could be argued that the widely used assumption cannot be justified in the presence of the isothermic gaseous atmosphere that is physically attached to the surface”
RLH says:
So refute it.
————————-
Tim left the room. Guess he couldn’t think of anything this week.
Folkerts gets this one correct. The video is nothing more than rambling word salad. It’s an example of “Skeptics Without Science”. We have several here. They’re often more trouble than Alarmists.
So, of course, you can refute it.
What point do you need refuted, RLH.
Your choice.
You can start with this
https://www.ptep-online.com/2023/PP-65-10.PDF
And that’s MY point, RLH. He has nothing new that you are willing to defend. It’s just a large rambling word-salad, of no consequence. He’s a Skeptic Without Science, like you.
” the temperature gradient should be zero at the surface in the presence of the gaseous atmosphere. ”
No. It is observed that there is a temperature gradient throughout the atmosphere. And heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which can only happen when there is a temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere.
“it is reasonable to assume that the OLR is merely the cumulative
thermal radiation by the atmosphere from different isothermic
layers”
No. There atmosphere is transparent to OLR in the atmospheric window, and in this wavelength range, the OLR is from the surface (or the top of the clouds).
“the OLR … at the top of the atmosphere can be formulated in terms
of … the following integral”
No. Again, because there is an atmospheric window, the OLR is not going to come only from the atmosphere.
That is three egregious errors in the first paragraphs.
“It is observed that there is a temperature gradient throughout the atmosphere”
What is the gradient actually at the surface? It is in contact with the atmosphere.
“The atmosphere is transparent to OLR in the atmospheric window”
What is the summary across all of the radiation window, including the ‘atmospheric window’?
“Again, because there is an atmospheric window, the OLR is not going to come only from the atmosphere”
See above. He is arguing about the total, not the separate elements.
“heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere”
But, as the chrome radiator example shows, this is mainly via conduction/convection and not via radiation.
“What is …?”
“What is …?”
If you don’t know, then why are you sure that he is right? You are admitting that you don’t have the knowledge to assess the claims.
The ‘summary across all the radiation window’ is well-known — looks it up. The gradient varies but 6C/km is a good estimate. Satellites measure the OLR and it is NOT the integral of the radiation from the atmosphere.
Learn the science — don’t expect some random guy on the internet to spend hours explaining basic physics to you.
“The gradient varies but 6C/km is a good estimate.”
But if the distance is 0 (as it is at the surface) then the gradient is 0 also.
“heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere”
But, as the chrome radiator example shows where the emissivity is close to 0, this is mainly via conduction/convection and not via radiation at all.
I forgot evaporation which is probably where the bulk of the energy transfer occurs.
rlh…”I forgot evaporation which is probably where the bulk of the energy transfer occurs”.
***
Problem is, Richard, the latent heat of evapouration is absorbed by water to break water vapour molecules free. It’s not transferred to the atmosphere, if anything it is absorbed from the atmosphere, or more likely, directly from solar EM.
The heat that leaves the surface as WV is no different than any air leaving the surface. It will be representative of the water temperature from which the WV molecules broke free.
tim…”And heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which can only happen when there is a temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere”.
***
Not true, Tim. No heat can ‘flow’ through the atmosphere but it can be transported as convection, which is a bulk movement of heat, this time by air molecules.
No temperature difference is required in this case although a pressure difference is required. When air molecules are heated by the surface they rise naturally, not due to a temperature difference but due to a pressure difference.
When air is heated at the surface, the atmosphere and the surface at the contact point are in thermal equilibrium. There is no temperature difference. The heated molecules become agitated and rise, being replaced by cooler molecules from above, which are more dense and help force the heated molecules upwardly.
clint…”What point do you need refuted, RLH”.
***
Why??? Do you know someone who can refute them?
GR: Latent heat does not alter the temperature of the item in question. It does take energy from (or to) the system.
” And heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which can only happen when there is a temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere. ”
It happens if the surface is evaporating.
Most of the sunlight is absorbed by the ocean.
“No heat can flow through the atmosphere …”
I understand what you mean. But the standard terminology in modern thermodynamics is that heat, Q, is a transfer, and internal energy, U, is the energy within an object.
“When air is heated at the surface, the atmosphere and the surface at the contact point are in thermal equilibrium. ”
Nope! In thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no conduction, no convection, no radiation and no evaporation from the surface to the air. By definition, if the surface and air are in thermal equilibrium, neither is heating the other.
rlh…”GR: Latent heat does not alter the temperature of the item in question. It does take energy from (or to) the system”.
***
Agreed. In order for water to evapourate to water vapour, it needs a source of heat, and that heat source is created generally by absorbed SW solar.
I am simply arguing that once the liquid water is broken down into WV, that latent heat is gone. It cannot contribute to surface heat loss via convection.
We need to be careful here. When water boils, the temperature of the water remains constant at 100C while liquid water is converted to gaseous WV. That’s not a general ROT at other temperatures as far as I know. It seems the term latent heat is reserved primarily for changes of state like boiling, melting, freezing, etc.
What about in-between? If you have ocean water at 20C at 9 am and the temperature changes to by noon, the evapouration still takes place. In fact, water will evapourate at almost any temperature between 0c and 100C.
I’m not so sure that the term latent heat applies across the board. If you have a large container of water and heat is being added, it makes things more complex. The water certainly will change temperature and at the same time, evapourate. Maybe right at the surface layer the temperature will remain the same.
tim…”the standard terminology in modern thermodynamics is that heat, Q, is a transfer, and internal energy, U, is the energy within an object”.
***
Tim…can I interest you in being more specific when you use the word energy? Energy is really a vague word in that no one knows what it is. It is described loosely a the ability to do work? Duh!!! We can really only talk about energy in a specific sense by talking about the work it produces, if any.
Clausius is credited for the definition of U in the 1st law. He described your internal energy as being a summation of heat and work. Work comes from the vibration of atoms in a solid and heat causes the vibrations.
Clausius was talked out of using that description of U and simply using the word energy. Thompson, who influenced him, was seriously envious of Clausius and threw up roadblocks to his success.
—-
When air is heated at the surface, the atmosphere and the surface at the contact point are in thermal equilibrium.
Nope! In thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no conduction, no convection, no radiation and no evaporation from the surface to the air. By definition, if the surface and air are in thermal equilibrium, neither is heating the other”.
***
Makes no sense to me, Tim. How can you have thermal equilibrium with conduction if one body is not exchanging heat with another body to an equal rate?
Normally, thermal equilibrium would suggest what you are saying but we need to remember that the atmosphere/surface interface is not a normal state of affairs as science goes. Normally, science is done in a lab with containers that behave appropriately for lab conditions at STP.
In the atmosphere, you have a negative pressure gradient. Air that contacts the surface absorbs heat, becomes excited, and rises.
Here’s the trick. As it rises, it is replaced by cooler air from above. Now you have a temperature gradient until that parcel of air is warmed and rises.
duplicate
tim…”the standard terminology in modern thermodynamics is that heat, Q, is a transfer, and internal energy, U, is the energy within an object”.
***
Tim…can I interest you in being more specific when you use the word energy? Energy is really a vague word in that no one knows what it is. It is described loosely a the ability to do work? Duh!!! We can really only talk about energy in a specific sense by talking about the work it produces, if any.
Clausius is credited for the definition of U in the 1st law. He described your internal energy as being a summation of heat and work. Work comes from the vibration of atoms in a solid and heat causes the vibrations.
Clausius was talked out of using that description of U and simply using the word energy. Thompson, who influenced him, was seriously envious of Clausius and threw up roadblocks to his success.
—-
When air is heated at the surface, the atmosphere and the surface at the contact point are in thermal equilibrium.
Nope! In thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no conduction, no convection, no radiation and no evaporation from the surface to the air. By definition, if the surface and air are in thermal equilibrium, neither is heating the other”.
***
Makes no sense to me, Tim. How can you have thermal equilibrium with conduction if one body is not exchanging heat with another body to an equal rate?
Normally, thermal equilibrium would suggest what you are saying but we need to remember that the atmosphere/surface interface is not a normal state of affairs as science goes. Normally, science is done in a lab with containers that behave appropriately for lab conditions at STP.
In the atmosphere, you have a negative pressure gradient. Air that contacts the surface absorbs heat, becomes excited, and rises.
Here’s the trick. As it rises, it is replaced by cooler air from above. Now you have a temperature gradient until that parcel of air is warmed and rises.
sorry about duplicate. Normally when a post does not show up following a duplicate error I just change a word and repost. It usually shows up. This time, both showed up. Go figure.
“How can you have thermal equilibrium with conduction if one body is not exchanging heat with another body to an equal rate?”
The definition of thermal equilibrium is basically ‘at the same temperature’. And a temperature difference is required to drive a heat exchange.
Perhaps you are thinking about how two objects ORIGINALLY got to thermal equilibrium, which does require heat moving from the hotter object to the cooler object.
Or perhaps you are thinking about the continuous exchange of energy between objects at the atomic level (eg individual photons and individual atomic collisions). Two objects in contact and at the same temperature are “exchanging ENERGY with another body to an equal rate”, but the HEAT is zero.
the atmosphere/surface interface is not a normal state of affairs as science goes.”
Yeah … it really is. The definition of “thermal equilibrium” applies to any solids or liquids or gases. It applies to large and small objects. It applies to hot and cold objects. If there is not heat flow when the two are placed in thermal contact, they are in thermal equilibrium. There is no “asterisk” on the definition that says “this applies to the whole universe EXCEPT for the surface of the earth, because it is special.”
A temperature difference is also required for convection and lapse rate (wet and dry).
Tim Folkerts says:
The definition of thermal equilibrium is basically at the same temperature. And a temperature difference is required to drive a heat exchange.
Yeah it really is. The definition of thermal equilibrium applies to any solids or liquids or gases. It applies to large and small objects. It applies to hot and cold objects. If there is not heat flow when the two are placed in thermal contact, they are in thermal equilibrium.
There is no asterisk on the definition that says this applies to the whole universe EXCEPT for the surface of the earth, because it is special.
———————–
Gee Tim and I agree on something, again. Except last time he backtracked. Here he acknowledges that for a heat exchange from the sun to the surface to occur there must be a lack of equilibrium, i.e. if the surface is colder the surface will warm. If the surface is as warm nothing happens. You might work on educating Nate on that cause he seems a bit lost on the topic of equilibrium.
clint…”Folkerts gets this one correct. The video is nothing more than rambling word salad”.
***
Translation: Neither Tim nor Clint can understand the science being discussed.
“surface and immediate air layer are in thermal equilibrium as far as their temperatures are concerned’
And so the surface cannot emit?
Bizarre non-physical nonsense, that ignores the transparency of a thin layer of air to most of the IR spectrum.
And of course satellites are regularly use to measure the sea surface temperature via its emitted IR in through the IR window.
This falsifies his weird notion that the surface IR radiation will be 0.
Oh well.
So why are people so gullible?
Try to distinguish between the surface and a thin layer of gas immediately next to it. They will both be at the same temperature.
Until convection takes place there will be no lapse rate.
Says nothing about radiation.
Radiation goes from the surface direct to space through the atmospheric IR window. An air layer does nothing to block it.
Anyone claiming it does has to back it up with real physics. He doesn’t.
Well the question does remain as to if there is an atmospheric window in the first place. After all there really hasn’t been a global effort to measure it. Water vapor is poorly distributed but that doesn’t mean its so poorly distributed than anything gets through.
Rather humorously Nate has switched his argument here from his usual one way emission warming theory and is now fully embracing net emissions to make his case.
Kind of shows how his ilk selectively embraces physics.
In order to support the CO2 control knob theory one must adhere to an established rate of convection, and established rate of evaporation, and an established pattern in the distribution of water vapor all having no control over climate.
When working with models in litigation support thats enough to make an expert lick his chops.
RLH
I would consider Yong just wrong. There are actual measured values that demonstrate his hypothesis is not good.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/3k4y3cxx
The Earth surface (in this case hot sand) emits more IR energy than the atmosphere emits.
This is the NET heat loss via radiation from Desert on a clear sunny day.
https://tinyurl.com/3puu2vfu
The air temperature is not has hot as the surface sand temp.
https://tinyurl.com/7cr5kpkp
Radiant heat loss is far above zero. It can go to zero on a cloudy night and then the temperature will not change. So what happens with convection and conduction is this case? Why doesn’t the night time temperature fall?
RLH
Here is a sample of a wet are with cloudy nights.
How does your logic explain this with your current understanding of energy transfer?
https://tinyurl.com/28ypj4bx
If the link works it shows both DWIR, UWIR with an air temperature that stays close to the same all night long.
If Swenson is scanning in the background this one can help him understand GHE. When the radiant energy loss is lowered to almost zero than the temperature does not drop during the night.
Back to RLH, so where is the evaporation loss? The Convection loss? Loss by conduction? The temperature is not dropping as it would on a clear night. The radiant energy loss is close to zero but that means the other ones are not as important as you believe.
“where is the evaporation loss?”
In a desert?
So you find limited examples where IR has a large part to play and then imply that it applies everywhere.
Chrome radiators show that when emissivity gets close to 0 then the equation for IR transmission of energy goes to 0 also. The dependency on conduction/convection then becomes close to 100%.
Emissivity of gases is an interesting subject
https://shorturl.at/mBOR8
So you would think that you would say this directly to him then (on the video at least).
I think it is fair to say that 65% of the planet is covered by clouds at any one time, and that by far the majority of those clouds are over the oceans.
It is Zhong not Yong
RLH
I believe his first name is Yong and his last name is Zhong.
I would tell him directly but would that alter his beliefs? I give you evidence does it change yours?
I do not think most are evidence based but opinion based. They are not science minded as they only seek evidence that supports their opinions and will reject information that contradicts them. I find this to be true for both sides of this debate.
“I would tell him directly but would that alter his beliefs?”
His videos are on YouTube. But it appears you don’t want to challenge him directly.
A Graphical Explanation for Climate Stability (Version 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nbof8KGOVw
See at the top about Yong Zhong and his qualification.
RLH
Qualifications are valuable but they do not matter in science. You need evidence to support any claim.
He is wrong about the temperature difference between Earth Surface and air above. In the heat of the day the surface temperature rises above the air temperature and that can be seen in the graphs I linked you to. He makes an assumption they are the same so no heat could transfer.
In the Earth Global Energy Budgets, radiant energy is NOT the dominant process of surface heat loss.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?itok=43dwxKEV
In this budget…Radiant heat loss is 57.9 W/m^2 while latent heat is 86.4 W/m^2 and thermals are 18.4.
Those are averages based upon studies. I gave you local conditions.
“In the heat of the day the surface temperature rises above the air temperature and that can be seen in the graphs I linked you to.”
At contact (i.e. 0 distance) the difference is minimal/a lot less than you claim.
Indeed there is a skin difference but it is a lot smaller than you (and others) observe over greater distances.
It is in this area that conduction between solid/liquid and gas becomes important, which your concentration on purely radiative matters ignores.
If the emissivity gets close to 0 then the radiation component becomes small also.
RLH
Your post nails it! At really close to surface the air will be as hot as the surface which is why conduction heat flow is minimal in atmosphere. Air is a good insulator. With radiant energy from a gas it is not the same as a solid surface. The energy from DWIR does not come from just the skin layer but from a few meters worth of air and that is shown in the graphs. Also air is transparent in the “window” band of IR so this loss has no compensation.
Time to give it up. Most scientists are fairly intelligent and do lots of thinking. There are no major mistakes with the understanding you might find small ones. The global energy budget is based upon measured values. It is not just a made up fantasy. You could debate the weighing functions or statistics they use coming up with their averages but the underlying physics is well established. Radiant energy is a player in surface heat loss.
“With radiant energy from a gas it is not the same as a solid surface”
The solid surface of a chrome radiator shows that if the emissivity is low (towards 0) then the radiative transfer is almost 0 too. The conductive and convective transfer of energy is not effected by the emissivity even if it is 0.
Noman, you got it backward. It should be: The global energy budget is based upon made up fantasy. It is not based upon measured values.
It’s not even an *energy budget*. They’re trying to balance flux, which doesn’t balance!
Clint R
If the area is the same fluxes balance. Removing the area term you then just get power which is watts (joules per second). The total Earth area receives so many watts and must get rid of the same amount or it will warm or cool until the incoming power equals the outgoing. Once you have the total power in and out that balances you can average out to a form of every square meter equivalent.
But the areas are NOT the same, Norman. You start off with a false premise. You don’t even know the areas! That’s how you pervert science.
You’re still trying to treat flux as energy. You’re still trying to add/subtract/average flux. You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Like Ent, you must believe nonsense to support your cult beliefs.
Clint R
The area of the Earth is the same. It can change slightly if a new mountain chain comes along but for practice purposes the Earth surface area is a constant. The global budget is designed to take huge numbers and make them manageable for most people. The goal is to get relative contributions from all heat transfer processes. In the messy real world some areas have lots of evaporative cooling, others have lots of convective cooling. Some areas have more loss by radiant energy than others. By taking the total power of each process on a global scale and reducing it you can then get some idea of the contribution.
The emitting area of Earth is NOT known. All that is known is it’s much larger than the area of a sphere with Earth’s radius. For example, what is the emitting area of a 50′ oak tree?
One of your cult’s major violations is trying to separate flux from temperature. That’s how they work their con. You can NOT separate flux from temperature. That changes the game.
Remember the example of a spherical chicken on a spit. The chicken is receiving 2000 W/m^2 from one direction. It will cook just fine. But if you divide the flux by 4, so that the chicken receives 500W/m^2 from four different directions, it will NOT cook just fine.
Your cult is feeding you raw chicken!
“For example, what is the emitting area of a 50′ oak tree?”
Both in temperature and evaporation.
Clint R
The emitting surface of the Earth is known good enough for a global budget. We already went to that discussion some time ago. Someone actually did a good study on the area of land with its mountains and valleys. It still would not matter because all the heat transfer mechanisms are part of the same surface even if the exact area is somewhat unknown and it would not change the relative contribution
Clint R
For some reason you form the incorrect idea that more CO2 cools the surface. I do not know why you choose to believe this or what type of logic you use to conclude this.
More CO2 can cool the atmosphere but it would have no means to cool the surface.
Norman, as usual, you just keep parroting your same cult nonsense.
They’re feeding you raw chicken and you swallow it down religiously.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“The emitting surface of the Earth is known good enough for a global budget”
That is like saying that the coastline of a continent is a known relatively small figure, when in fact the actual water/solid interface is a much larger figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
norman…”This is the NET heat loss via radiation from Desert on a clear sunny day”.
***
I think your graph is wrong. It is not explained how they created the graph, that is, what science is it based on. They seem to think all heat dissipation at the surface is related to infrared radiation.
Do you have a source for the graph that explains how they created it?
As Shula’s gauge showed, radiation from a surface at terrestrial temperatures is a small fraction of the heat dissipation via conduction/convection.
Gordon Robertson
It is not a Shula gauge, it is a Pirani gauge and it is designed using a very low emissivity wire to try and eliminate radiant energy loss to maximize another heat loss. The Earth emissivity for IR is in the 0.95 range.
Shula chose a very poor device to generate an argument in favor of his opinion.
An intelligent poster tried to reason with him but it did not seem to change his mind.
He may have taken science courses but he is not scientific. A scientific person goes where the evidence takes him. He might want to believe his or her ideas but the evidence available is what is accepted (until other evidence shows this view is wrong, until then it is accepted).
Norman, what Shula says is also supported by his calculations here:
“This is neglected in climate models. It assumes that with the surface temperature of 288K the power radiated upward from the surface is 398 Watts/m2 and that it is all longwave IR radiation. It then becomes necessary to “balance” that upwelling radiation with “back radiation” to obtain “radiative balance” in the atmosphere.
What is happening is quite different. At 288K temperature the photon flux (generously assuming it is all at 15 micron wavelength to maximize the number of IR active photons) is approximately 3X10^22 photons/sec-m2. That is a lot of photons, and if the surface was in a perfect vacuum that radiative flux would be the only way for the surface to release energy.
But we have an atmosphere. At standard temperature and pressure, air has some very interesting properties. It is much denser than we typically imagine.
Average molecular velocity approximately 470 m/sec (1050 mph, supersonic at the macro level)
Molecular collision frequency (each with another) approximately 7,000,000,000 collisions/sec (7 GHz)
Mean free path approximately 70 nm (about 1/10 wavelength of visible light)
Frequency of collisions with an ideal planar surface approximately 3X10^27 collisions/sec-m2
To put this in perspective, the last number is quite useful. The average surface area of an adult human is around a square meter. That means that each second about 100 lbs. of air molecules collide with each of us with an average speed of about 1050 mph. More importantly, given the photon flux at 288K this means that approximately 100,000 air molecules collide with the surface for each potential infrared photon emitted. Because the energy transfer from collisions will change the equilibrium at the surface by removing energy through conduction, it is likely that the actual emitted photon flux will be even less. To believe that radiative transfer is the primary mechanism for upward heat transfer at the Earth’s surface would mean that one IR photon would transfer more energy than 100,000 molecular collisions. These numbers are for a perfectly smooth planar surface. The actual surface area at an atomic level can be much greater.
Clearly, the interface between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere is an extremely chaotic place at the atomic level. This gives perspective to explain what we see in the operation of the Pirani gauge as explained in the body of this paper.”
I have not seen anyone mount an argument against this, yet.
100,000 to 1 is quite a large ratio.
HD pops up again, trying to justify Shula’s conclusions wrt his WUWT post on the Pirani gauge. Shula appears unaware that the surface interactions occur in both directions in the boundary layer, so the important result is the net transfer of energy between the surface and the boundary layer via small scale conduction and convection.
That heat transfer process can result in heating of the boundary layer if the net energy exchange is a transfer from the surface to the boundary layer, but, in other situations, the transfer can go in the other direction. Under clear sky conditions, the land surface can cool faster than the air above, thus the air will warm the surface. This is often seen when conditions result in the formation of dew or frost on the surface as water vapor condenses as water or ice. On larger scales, the energy transported with air mass motions can result in warm air moving over a cold surface, for either land or ocean. Then, the net energy flow is from the air to the surface. Shula’s basic assumption is that the transfer goes only in one direction, which is false.
Then to, as I pointed out previously, Shula attempts to compare the net upward transport in the atmosphere with the surface processes within the boundary layer, whereas the flow directions are different. The upwelling transport follows different physical rules than that within the surface boundary layer. Shula post is another example of an individual with expertise from one field trying to apply his experience in another area with bogus results.
Nowhere is Shula saying or implying that the energy transfer only goes one way. What you have avoided dealing with entirely is that there are in excess of 100,000 collisions between the surface and neighbouring molecules for every potential photon that is emitted from the surface. So how can radiation from the surface possibly dominate over conduction/convection? Why is there not a separate energy budget for the surface and boundary layer as opposed to the rest of the atmosphere? Clearly the figures are not going to be the same.
The 100,000 to 1 ratio will apply in both directions, meaning that both the surface and the air next to it are likely to be the same or similar temperature.
“the air next to it are likely to be the same or similar temperature.”
Depends on what is meant by “next” & “similar” since there will still be a lapse rate. Near a surface, the local atm. temperature lapse rate can be way above zero and way above even midlatitude wet lapse ~6C/km thus very different than often measured in the well mixed freely convective atm. far enough from surfaces.
RLH can prove this by standing on solar illuminated asphalt with nose near enough a mercury thermometer on a hot, clear, calm summer day (say in Phoenix) just after high Noon with an IR thermometer. With mercury thermometer showing inhaling 35C air (or less as verified at the nearby weather station) & the inexpensive IR thermometer pointed at the asphalt registering 40C.
The inhaling distance from just above reasonable adult shoes is of order 1 meter. Thus lapse rate is order of ~5C/m or 5000C/km, 500 times the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
“Depends on what is meant by ‘next’ & ‘similar’ since there will still be a lapse rate”
There will only be a lapse rate if buoyancy and convection is involved.
I was allowing for mm or less distances when I said the same or similar.
If you add in moisture then the differences can be quite large.
Herb Duncan
I find your post very interesting. It may seem that conduction would remove more heat but in the 100,000 to 1 collision to emissions how much heat is transferred? If the air molecule has a nearly identical kinetic energy to the surface molecule kinetic energy then a very small amount of heat will transfer upward. With the photon you would have to go a bit deeper and determine the amount of energy lost of gained in each encounter. I think you would find that with air the heat transfer is quite small as the molecules cannot move very far (small mean free path) so they just keep exchanging energy with each other with not NET motion of heat.
Heat flow in air is fairly small, it is a good insulator.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities#Analytical_list
Air is a very insulating material, it does not transmit heat well at all, that is why the Pirani Gauge works well with much fewer air molecules, they can move much further and act to remove heat more effectively. If you look at graphs of the Pirani gauge after the air is thick enough it starts to insulate and you can no longer see any change.
https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2002/05/the-thermal-conductivity-of-thermal-insulators/
Shula is not suggesting that conduction between air molecules is an efficient way for energy to be transferred. Far from it. It is not conduction through the air he is talking about, at all. It is conduction between the surface and the air molecules in contact with the surface. Then the cycle of convection which takes the warmed air upwards and replaces it with cooler air for the surface to warm via conduction, and so on. This is how the surface could be losing the majority of its heat. This seems likely given the ratio of collisions at the surface compared to potential photons emitted. Well, evaporation will also feature heavily. It is hard to see how radiation can be anything but a minor player at the surface.
People may point to observations of upwelling IR recorded at or near the surface. Where is the sensor located? Is it really recording IR from the surface itself or is it coming from IR active molecules right next to the sensor?
“This seems likely given the ratio of collisions at the surface compared to potential photons emitted.”
This appears to be designed to obfuscate. The number of collisions is not telling us anything about the heat transferred.
The real issue is how much energy is carried away by different modes. As Norman noted, collisions at the surface could carry NO heat away from the surface, if the surface and adjacent air are at the same temperature.
While at the same time, radiation can transmit from the surface all the way to space in the IR window, and space is most definitely much colder than the Earth’s surface.
Nate says:
”The real issue is how much energy is carried away by different modes. As Norman noted, collisions at the surface could carry NO heat away from the surface, if the surface and adjacent air are at the same temperature.”
I guess Nate hasn’t yet noticed that when the sun comes up in the morning it heats the surface which in turn heats the atmosphere. I guess he was confused about that as he isn’t aware of any significant increase in CO2 at dawn. Sheesh!
RLH 3:01pm: “I was allowing for mm or less distances when I said the same or similar.”
Convection will be involved as the ~1atm. fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field so there will be a lapse rate.
According to the energy budgets the amount being radiated through the atmospheric window is a measly 22 W/m^2. So I ask again, how can radiation from the surface possibly dominate over conduction/convection when there are in excess of 100,000 collisions between the surface and neighbouring molecules for every potential photon that is emitted from the surface?
“The number of collisions is not telling us anything about the heat transferred.”
It tells us about the opportunity to do so.
“Convection will be involved as the ~1atm. fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field so there will be a lapse rate.”
You need to study about gas layers close to solid objects and friction/drag.
Convection is modified the closer you get to a surface.
“The real issue is how much energy is carried away by different modes.”
And the example of a bright chrome radiator shows that radiation is not as big as is sometimes claimed. Bright chrome radiator still transfer 70% of its energy via conduction/convection when radiation losses are very small because the emissivity is close to 0.
Why would any serious person try to use low emissivity chrome or gold plated tungsten in the Pirani gauge, as a substitute for high emissivity dirt or ocean?
This time it is not about the Pirani gauge. Arguing about the Pirani gauge just gave you all limitless opportunity to complain about various differences (such as emissivity) between the gauge and the real surface/atmosphere system, without ever quantifying the variance to the ratio of 250:1 that these differences would actually make.
This argument is, instead, just about the numbers presented, which you can either dispute, or accept. Do you challenge the numbers?
“According to the energy budgets the amount being radiated through the atmospheric window is a measly 22 W/m^2. So I ask again, how can radiation from the surface possibly dominate over conduction/convection”
More like 30 W/m2. It is what it is. And no one in climate science has claimed that the total radiation, 58 W/m2, is dominant over the total of convection, moist and dry, which is 90 W.
“So I ask again, how can radiation from the surface possibly dominate over conduction/convection when there are in excess of 100,000 collisions between the surface and neighbouring molecules for every potential photon that is emitted from the surface?”
I’m not sure why that 100,000 number impresses you, Herb, since it tells you nothing about how many W/m2 are transferred.
So tell us all Nate, is the whole of the weather for the Globe contained in that 30W/m^2?
Sorry, wrong figure 90W/m^2.
Including the inertial, frictional and turbulent losses to accelerate/decelerate that moisture/air in 2 directions, ‘left’/’right’ and ‘up’/’down’?
Nate: It is common usage to use bright chrome in towel rails and radiators in bathrooms even though they provide less (about 30%) energy transfer because the radiation component all but disappears.
This is in the temperature range that the Globe operates in too.
Small changes in emissivity mean large changes in energy transfers, almost as though that is used to get the figures to work out ‘right’.
22 W/m^2 according to Trenberth:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-global-annual-mean-earths-energy-budget-for-2000-2005-W-m-2-The-broad-arrows_fig1_257564838
With an even more measly 17 W/m^2 for “thermals” (conduction/convection). I assume you’ve decided to lump the energy from “evapotranspiration” (latent heat) in with conduction/convection in another misleading move.
Those numbers simply cannot be correct, at the surface.
“A chrome finish will reduce heat output by up to 30% of the exact same designer radiator in a colour.”
“So tell us all Nate, is the whole of the weather for the Globe contained in that 30W/m^2?”
Obviously not. Why would it be? Weather, as in storms, are driven largely by the 90 W/m^2 of mostly moist convection.
“With an even more measly 17 W/m^2 for thermals (conduction/convection). I assume youve decided to lump the energy from evapotranspiration (latent heat) in with conduction/convection in another misleading move.”
Measly? Your feelings that it should be larger is not science, Herb.
And your feelings that moist convection should be set aside makes absolutely no sense. The Earth surface is largely water-cooled and it drives most weather.
Moist convection is larger because all rising air in the atmosphere has moisture in it, and the latent heat contained in it transfers heat. Thus less is required to be transferred by dry convection.
Its like some computer processor chips are water cooled. If so, then obviously there will be less need for air convection from the chip.
My feelings that the energy budget figures are wrong (which I have always had, long before this Pirani gauge argument) are at least as valid as your feelings that there is nothing wrong, everything is fine, move along, nothing to see here.
I’m not ignoring latent heat. If you want to include it, please do, it only means the radiative contribution is even less, proportionately.
There is absolutely no way that the energy budget figures can be correct at the surface. Sure, there might be some level of the atmosphere at which they do apply, but not at the surface. The simple fact that there are in excess of 100,000 molecular collisions for every potential photon emitted means that conduction/convection must dominate there. Your response that this tells you nothing about what is emitted in W/m^2 is just more of your handwaving. The surface might be emitting the 22 W/m^2 to space, through the atmospheric window, and that’s it, as far as the net transfer is concerned. We shall see, since it seems that experiments have been proposed to test the hypothesis that there is no (or little) net radiation from the surface, according to the Yong Zhong paper.
“Weather, as in storms, are driven largely by the 90 W/m^2 of mostly moist convection”
I changed that figure to 90W in the post below the one you chose.
Does that include the losses for inertia (times 2 directions to and from 0), friction and turbulence?
Nate: I suppose that the roughly 505,000 cubic kilometers of water (and vapor) that is raised/falls from the clouds each year is included in your figures somewhere?
low clouds: from the surface – 2 km (from the surface -2 km at equator)
medium clouds: 2-7 km (2-8 km at equator)
high clouds: 5-13 km (6-18 km at equator)
“Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometers (121,000 cubic miles) of water falls as precipitation every year. More than 78 percent of it falls over the oceans.”
P.S. Weather is more than storms. It includes such things as fronts and low and high pressure systems.
“If the air molecule has a nearly identical kinetic energy to the surface molecule kinetic energy then a very small amount of heat will transfer upward.”
Except that home radiators convey most of their energy via conduction/convection and not radiation.
rlh…”The 100,000 to 1 ratio will apply in both directions, meaning that both the surface and the air next to it are likely to be the same or similar temperature….
There will only be a lapse rate if buoyancy and convection is involved”.
***
Richard….don’t forget convection in part 1 above. Thermal equilibrium is over-ridden by heated air warming and rising. When it rises, cooler air from above replaces it and conduction carries on. Without convection, thermal equilibrium would rule.
Re lapse rate. I think the formal definition is wrong. Lapse rate is not about convection, it is about the pressure gradient produced by gravity.
Consider Everest. The air pressure year round at the top of Everest is 1/3 the pressure at sea level. Temperature should fall in the same ratio but there are other factors affecting temperature such as solar radiation during the day. Everest is at its most dangerous near the top at night, when temperatures plunge dramatically.
Kilimanjaro is close to the Equator but night time temperatures range from -7C to -30C. Everest in summer at the top averages -19C. There is a difference in altitude between the two of about 10,000 feet. The temperature of the air convected from the surface obviously makes little or no difference.
Lapse rate is produced by gravity since pressure and temperature are both inversely proportional with altitude. At least till the altitude of the stratosphere where another heat source is available.
“Lapse rate is produced by gravity”
You think I don’t know that?
“Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometers (121,000 cubic miles) of water falls as precipitation every year. More than 78 percent of it falls over the oceans.”
OK, and from that should be able to figure out the heat transported from the surface by latent heat of water vapor.
“The simple fact that there are in excess of 100,000 molecular collisions for every potential photon emitted means that conduction/convection must dominate there. ”
Again, Herb, IMO this is a red herring and pure obfuscation on the part of Shula. It impresses people who don’t know any better. But it says nothing about the amount of heat transferred.
Obviously the heat transfer ratio between conduction/radiation in the atmosphere is NOT 100,000.
It is fully expected that lots of molecules of air will be colliding with the surface, equilibrating with it.
So that means a thin layer of air above the surface will be at ~ the same temperature as the surface.
But unless that warmed layer of air has a means of carrying that heat away from the surface, little to no heat transfer will occur.
It is very well known that air is a poor conductor of heat. Thus double paned windows have the thin trapped air layer that does most of the insulating.
The number of collisions between the air and the glass is not the limiting factor in transferring the heat to the other pane of glass. The limiting factor is the mean free path before colliding with other molecules, it is ~ 1 micron = 1/10,000 of a centimeter. And each collision changes the direction of travel. Heated air molecules will thus take long time to move heat across the gap in between the window panes.
Only convection can transfer significant heat from the thin layer of warmed air away from a surface. And convection has NOTHING to do with how many collisions there are between the surfaces.
Dry convection need not be large in the atmosphere because there is moist convection. The Earth is water cooled.
Latent heat transfer is very effective.
“We shall see, since it seems that experiments have been proposed to test the hypothesis that there is no (or little) net radiation from the surface, according to the Yong Zhong paper.”
Again, satellites detect the Earth’s surface temperature via its radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_very-high-resolution_radiometer
That would not be possible if he were correct.
His speculation is wrong.
“But unless that warmed layer of air has a means of carrying that heat away from the surface, little to no heat transfer will occur.”
It does. It’s called “convection”. Gordon explains it once again, elsewhere. I’m not sure why you’re still not getting it. As far as I can tell there is no way to currently quantify or measure the amount of energy that could be carried from the surface by the COMBINED action of conduction and convection. It must be huge in proportion to radiation, though.
Y Zhong might be wrong that there is no radiation from the surface, but he might be more right than those saying radiation from the surface is 390 W/m^2. I think that is his point.
“But it says nothing about the amount of heat transferred.”
Bright chrome radiators with emissivity of 0.05 and 70% of their energy transfer via convection says you have a very one sided view.
“COMBINED action of conduction and convection. It must be huge in proportion to radiation, though.”
Again, we get your unsupported feelings, Herb, which are not science, and are not logical.
Repeat them as often as you like. They don’t gat any more convincing, and only show us that facts are not the basis for your opinions.
Why not learn some actual meteorology facts?
“Bright chrome radiators”
Once again, RLH, you are lured into obsession with shiny objects…
I see you are just resorting to ad hominem.
Herb your opinion seems not based on any knowledge of the atmosphere or meteorology nor awareness of flaws in the methods used to calculate these numbers.
So your certainty that meteorologists must be getting these numbers wrong is hardly justified.
Your opinion is noted.
rlh…”You can start with this
https://www.ptep-online.com/2023/PP-65-10.PDF
***
Have not had time to digest this fully but Zhong has made some profound statements. One of them is interesting on the face of it, that since the immediate surface/atmosphere interface is in thermal equilibrium, there should be no heat dissipated from that layer by radiation. I’ll need to read his paper to extract more detail.
He also seems to be suggesting that different layers of the atmosphere can radiate energy but he does not specify that the radiation is from trace gases. I’d like to know more on what he means by that.
R. W. Wood stated circa 1909 that nitrogen and oxygen cannot radiate energy to dissipate heat but that was before Bohr’s discovery in 1913 that related electrons in atoms/molecules to EM/IR. We know that oxygen radiates in the microwave band around 60 Ghz and it seems inconceivable to me that N2 and O2 cannot dissipate energy via radiation.
ent…clint…tim…and other members of the Great Alarmist Unwashed…
“Im sur.prised that an electronics man hasnt encountered information theory and information entropy”.
***
What I don’t get is how someone like you with a degree in biology can’t see beyond the end of his nose.
CLAUSIUS ***DEFINED*** THE WORD ENTROPY!!! ENTROPY IS HIS INVENTION AND HE DEFINED IT AS A SUMMATION OF HEAT QUANTITIES.
If someone wants to come along and steal the word and use it to define disorder, then he/she is a cheating essohbee. He/she needs to find his/her own name for a measure of disorder.
I just explained to you the Clausius derivation of entropy, a word he created from Greek to mean energy transformation. The energy in question is heat.
Again…
S = integral dq/T and can be written…
S = 1/T integral dq
The dq is an infinitesimal quantity of heat and the integral sign tells us to sum the quantities.
That fact that so many people in the science community cannot even begin to understand the meaning of entropy, as presented by Clausius, is a scary thought. I can understand it somewhat since they have been led astray by ijits teaching it incorrectly in universities.
Clausius created the statements that related entropy to disorder. At no time did he declare that entropy is a measure of disorder, rather he equated entropy to irreversible processes, for which it is positive. That’s because irreversible processes give off heat, in general. Since entropy is a relative measure of that heat then entropy is related to disorder but is, by no means, a measure of it.
Gordon you can claim you understand entropy, but you can put that claim in the pile of crap you constantly spew.
Entropy, as Clausius first introduced it, refers to the organization of energy. For example, consider the simple example of dropping an ice cube into a cup of hot coffee. After the ice melts, the system is said to have more entropy (less organization, more disorder). As more and more people understood the implications of that, the meaning of entropy increased. Finally, Shannon proved the 2LoT applied to a lot more than heat transfer.
You won’t understand this. That’s why you get so frustrated and angry.
This is like watching two people argue over whether the ocean is red or yellow.
The ocean is mostly blue.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/living-ocean/ocean-color
With Rain Man watching me watching them.
Facts are not your strong point, apparently.
Which fact, SPECIFICALLY related to my first post in this thread an hour ago, do believe I have wrong?
If you think I am claiming that the ocean is not blue then you are indeed Rain Man.
I simply posted that the facts are that the ocean is normally considered blue.
Which is exactly what you’d expect from Rain Man.
Ignoring facts is what I expect from you.
Did you or did you not post
“STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL.”?
Yes I did.
Now answer MY question – which fact, SPECIFICALLY related to my first post in this thread an hour ago, do you believe I have wrong?
If you provide another diversion then your answer is NONE.
The ocean is mostly blue.
Plus, you are a misogynistic bully.
As I made no attempt the ocean was not blue, that’s a fail for you.
And the bully is the one who follows me wherever I post making comments unrelated to mine just for the sake of being contrary – as in this thread.
… no attempt to claim …
I simple stated that the ocean is mostly blue.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511824
And them implied TWICE that I was challenging this.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511846
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511895
So I’ll ask AGAIN:
Which fact, SPECIFICALLY related to my first post in this thread an hour ago, do you believe I have wrong?
NCEP ENSO SST anomalies for week ending Jul 15.
1.2 … +3.4 (up 0.1)
3 … +1.6 (up 0.1)
3.4 … +1.1 (up 0.1)
4 … +0.7 (no change)
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
Indeed – look how the majority of 1.2, 3 and 3.4 have warmed in the past week.
A look at all the Earth’s oceans is a lot more constructive than a look at small areas of the planet.
For instance a lot of the North and Central Atlantic and Northern Pacific is blue in various colors.
Did you notice that my original post was ONLY about ENSO?
If you want to show a useful difference map, compare the last 10 years to the previous 10 years.
“Did you notice that my original post was ONLY about ENSO?”
Did you notice that my post was about the whole of the oceans?
When your post contains only words, and when this time last week you made it clear that your link was about ENSO, who would know.
And why would you demand that the totality of the world’s oceans warm every week?
What is most interesting about your map though is that big red blob off the west coast of North America. That is precisely that part of the ocean which the PDO has been cooling.
An image is worth a thousand words (or something like that).
Current PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/pdo.jpeg
I should say – a bit more than half of the ocean which the PDO has cooled.
So now you want to present last month’s PDO as evidence against what I said has happened only in the past week. Cuckoo.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-definition-and-indices
PDO area (and it is a lot bigger than ENSO).
“While ENSO is primarily an interannual phenomenon, the PDO is decadal in scale. Thus, relatively long data records are needed to define and understand the PDO”
I said only that it was interesting – nothing more.
The PDO area in
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
probably has a lot more blue than red.
“why would you demand that the totality of the worlds oceans warm every week”
Strawman. I never said or implied that.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
That’s more comparable to
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
” A look at all the Earths oceans is a lot more constructive than a look at small areas of the planet. ”
Except when the pseudo-skeptic Blindsley H00d aka “RLH” tries to point out that there was no warming between 1877/78 and 2015/16 on the sole basis that temperatures in the Nino3+4 region (less than a M km^2!) were quite similar in these two El Nio periods.
I tried to explain the huge difference between HadISST1 SST’s global average and that for the minuscule Nino3+4 area, but… opinionated persons are always right.
Binny fails to acknowledge that ocean data is very sparse over large sections of the planet, especially in the southern hemisphere and earlier times.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Blinny also fails to admit that there are many papers which show that the 1877/78 and 2015/16 El Nino where similar if not the same.
And Blindsley H00d the coward fails to admit that he just wrote upthread:
” A look at all the Earths oceans is a lot more constructive than a look at small areas of the planet. ”
But cowards always try to throw sand in the eyes…
Spot the difference between modern satellite based maps and previous ones.
Of course Blinny can only do distorted grids.
Someone here doesn’t understand that the baseline for the ENSO regions is reset every five years to “the last 30 years”.
The current baseline is 1991-2020. Twenty years ago the baseline was 1971-2000.
AQ: So you have not looked at the paper that shows that the 1878 event was at least as strong as 2016.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nio appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16”
You seem to be confused about the difference between
(1) the strength of an El Nino
(2) the temperatures of the Nino regions, and
(3) global temperatures during an El Nino
The strength is determined by a temperature GRADIENT across ENSO 3, 3.4 and 4, not the absolute temperatures of those regions. In general, the lower the East-West gradient, the stronger the El Nino. And the strength is a measure of the expected rise in global temperatures OVER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS.
ENSO region temperatures have risen, but no one has claimed this has changed the east-west gradient, so no one has claimed the strength of El Ninos has grown.
All datasets show that 1878 and 2016 were both about 0.25C above the immediately preceding years, indicating roughly equal strength.
Yet the global average for 2016 was almost a degree above that of 1878. Saying two El Ninos are of equal strength is NOT saying that global temperatures were the same.
“Saying two El Ninos are of equal strength is NOT saying that global temperatures were the same.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
Of course this didn’t happen. /sarc
Or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Chinese_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931879
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03127-8
https://disasterhistory.org/north-china-famine-1876-79
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/
3 ocean basins and 3 continents!
“Yet the global average for 2016 was almost a degree above that of 1878”
Because the ocean data for 1878 is SO complete!
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Yet none of those articles claim that global temperatures were higher than today. Drought means only lower rainfall. High temperatures by themselves do not cause lower rainfall.
Your statistic is based on the absence of data rather than actual facts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1512174
It is about time that land and satellite measurement series were brought into agreement.
“Warmer temperatures enhance evaporation, which reduces surface water and dries out soils and vegetation. This makes periods with low precipitation drier than they would be in cooler conditions.”
“In some areas, droughts can persist through a vicious cycle, in which very dry soils and diminished plant cover absorb more solar radiation and heat up, encouraging the formation of high pressure systems that further suppress rainfall, leading an already dry area to become even drier.”
My statistic is based on the N.O.A.A. and H.a.d.c.r.u.t data sets.
It is YOUR claim which is unsupported by data.
My claim is supported by acknowledged experts on ENSO and well researched data on oceans as well as on the 1878 event.
H.a.d.c.r.u.t.5 May 2023 data in a set of graphs
https://shorturl.at/asJKV
Thanks for your graph of h.a.d.c.r.u.t data which clearly confirms that global temperatures are significantly higher now than in 1878.
In fact no Jan-Dec average has been lower than Jan-Dec 1878 since 1976.
Do you dispute that
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
shows that the global ocean data is lacking in its coverage in early years?
Please indicate:
(1) where I would find the TIME axis, or other indicator of the passage of time
(2) the source
“where I would find the TIME axis”
The caption clearly states 1955 to 2017.
“the source”
Try https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Southern-Ocean-data-desert-as-seen-in-the-global-distribution-of-temperature_fig3_334126444
“The Southern Ocean data desert, as seen in the global distribution of temperature observations between 1955 and 2017. The dominance of the Northern Hemisphere in the data is clear; by contrast, the Southern Hemisphere south of 60 S is especially poorly covered. Whilst innovations such as the Argo programme are addressing this data desert, it remains as problematic as ever for parameters that cannot yet be measured autonomously. The bar charts show the distribution of observations by longitude (top panel) and by latitude (right-hand panel). The smooth curve in the right-hand panel is the expected distribution of those ocean observations if they were spread equally on a sphere; the irregular curve is the expected distribution of ocean observations also taking into account the shape and size of the Earths land masses”
Michael P. Meredith
British Antarctic Survey PhD
“It is thus beyond question that the Southern Ocean deserves special attention, so that we can better understand it and better predict its changes and its future impacts on the rest of the
world. However, the Southern Ocean is also arguably the biggest data desert on the planet. Global shipping tends to avoid the Southern Ocean, focussing instead on major trade routes that
lie predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere.
Indeed, there are large regions of the Southern Ocean that remain virtually unvisited each year, and from which very few direct ocean measurements are obtained (Figure 3).
The problem is especially severe in winter, when some of the strongest winds on the planet drive massive seas, and when the Antarctic continent effectively doubles in size due to the expansion of sea ice. This makes collecting data from the Southern Ocean using conventional ship-based methods extremely challenging (cf. Figure 4). Robotic and other innovative techniques are
beginning to fill this data void, and the advent of floats capable of operating under ice and long-duration gliders offers great potential for the collection of the sustained, systematic ocean
datasets that are required. Nonetheless, many of the measurements we need cannot yet be made using automated techniques, and still rely on collection of discrete water samples for processing and analysis; this makes such data as are collected from the Southern Ocean, especially in winter, of disproportionately high value.
A sustained, year-round ocean series in Antarctic waters: RaTS
One example of a sustained, coherent measurement programme in the Southern Ocean is the Rothera Time Series (RaTS), which is conducted by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and operates out of Rothera Research Station on the Antarctic Peninsula (Figure 5). This series has been providing quasi weekly ocean data for more than two decades”
“The caption clearly states 1955 to 2017.”
Do you not understand “PASSAGE” of time?
How would one compare “the early years” to recent years, as per your claim?
And how do MILLIONS of reading come out with an average systemically low? ie. How does adding more readings increase the average?
“Do you not understand ‘PASSAGE’ of time?”
Yes. Do you?
“How would one compare ‘the early years’ to recent years”
How do you think that image would look using data from before the 1950s?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126444_The_global_importance_of_the_Southern_Ocean_and_the_key_role_of_its_freshwater_cycle
Please explain your point in posting the article I had already found after your earlier reference. How does it answer my question about a systemic incorrect average with MILLIONS of observations?
Turn up the heat back on climate shysterz
https://youtu.be/M5ktReqbmzs
Perhaps data providers should try harder not to put their agenda on show when choosing their presentation language.
Going back to the start of the decade, the words are Dr Spencer’s, describing the comparison to the previous month, where the change was no more than 0.05.
Decrease:
Sep 2022: “down slightly”
Feb 2022: “down a little”
Aug 2021: “down slightly”
Apr 2021: “down”
Jan 2021: “down a little”
Oct 2020: “down slightly”
Increase:
Jul 2023: “statistically unchanged”
Nov 2020: “essentially unchanged”
Jul 2020: “essentially unchanged”
Perhaps a bit more consistency is in order.
Did you or did you not post
STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL?
He is a Twerp
A misogynistic one.
Some people have way too much time on their hands.
The down range -.02 to -.04
The up range +.01 to +.02
Who needs facts when approximations are so convenient? /sarc
Me: Stop being an effing girl
RLH: Did you or did you not post Stop being an effing girl?
Me: Why would I deny having said that?
RLH: Did you or did you not post Stop being an effing girl?
Now THAT is someone with too much time on his hands.
“Me: Stop being an effing girl”
So you are a misogynist.
How so? Are you saying you are a girl?
Because you make make misogynistic remarks.
The only person I was attacking was you, so you must be claiming to be a girl.
You make make misogynistic remarks, therefore you are a misogynist.
Misogyny: “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”.
None apply to me. Replace “women” by “RLH” and you have a true statement.
Calling ‘women’ ‘girls’ is not misogynistic according to AQ.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2021/08/09/why-calling-women-girls-is-a-bigger-deal-than-you-may-think/
“belittling, demeaning or excluding women through sexist language.”
I rarely get involved in these sorts of discussions, but I think this is important. You were misogynistic, AQ.
You used ‘girl’ as an insult, as if girls are naturally whiny and weak. As if being a female is lesser than being a male. Perhaps that was not your conscious intent, but that is how it came across.
No – it is only a negative for someone who identifies as male to act like a girl.
Perhaps you should go back to minding your own business.
RLH
If your logic is valid then every time you call someone an id?ot you are belittling and demeaning people born with an intellectual disability.
You clearly meant that bullying slur to demean me as a ‘effing girl’. Look up sexual bullying.
https://www.familylives.org.uk/advice/bullying/general-advice/what-is-sexual-bullying
That fits precisely with what you said. Now you try to hide behind the claim that it was not that important. Every one sees that it is you who are in the wrong.
“If someone says things of a sexual nature to you, or about you, that you dont want, this is called sexual harassment. It can happen to anyone of any gender”
“it is only a negative for someone who identifies as male to act like a girl”
Why would you consider that being called a girl is a slur to a male?
Apparently you don’t understand what is meant by “of a sexual nature”.
Why would you consider that being called a girl is a slur to a male?
It it is not, then your only purpose here is point scoring.
Treating people with respect is everyone’s business. You two can argue with each other until the cows come home about who is the bully and demands for real names. Not an issue with me. But this particular comment is different.
“No it is only a negative for someone who identifies as male to act like a girl.”
No. First, is negative to say any adult is acting like a child. So this statement *is* negative even without misogyny; even if you had simply said ‘child’.
Second, by specifying ‘girl’, you are clearly intending an additional insult. That girls specifically are weak and petty.
Don’t take my word for it. Go to a group of women you trust and respect and ask if *they* find you statement to be positive or negative. Appropriate or inappropriate.
It seems you don’t know how to mind your own business.
People CHOOSE to be offended for the purpose of point-scoring. The whole business of feigning offence is a holier-than-thou exercise. Words from a stranger hurt no one. No one mopes around all day because some stranger made a comment online.
And there are no women here to offend in any case, so find a site with women if you want to show off your white-knighting. It’s time for YOU to stop behaving like a girl.
“Words from a stranger hurt no one.”
Thus spoke on online bully with misogynistic content.
“your only purpose here is point scoring”
Not true. But points are clearly to be scored and clear misogamy to be evidenced.
Do you deny you offend people born intellectually disabled?
And … “misogamy” … no education there.
But at least it is accidentally correct – I do indeed hate the idea of marriage.
…misogyny… damn autocorrect.
“Do you deny you offend people born intellectually disabled?”
Do you deny that you are an online, misogynistic bully?
After all, you call people id?ots, thereby insulting all people with an IQ below 30.
Does your “logic” apply there, or do you get special dispensation?
Do you deny you are a disablist?
I am sorry for anyone born an id?ot for being associated with you.
So you’re not sorry for offending them.
DISABLIST.
I am sorry for anyone born an id?ot that I have associated them with you.
Do you deny that you are an online, misogynistic bully?
Do you deny that you are an online, disablist bully?
Yes.
Despite the clear evidence that you are?
(Assuming your own logic regarding such evidence is valid.)
There is no evidence other than your faux offence.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1513235
Simply putting “faux” in front of a word does not make it fake.
Please explain what “STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL” was meant to convey.
Faux
adjective
not genuine; fake or false.
nate …[GR]”surface and immediate air layer are in thermal equilibrium as far as their temperatures are concerned”
[Nate]And so the surface cannot emit?
***
Pay attention, Nate. The expert in the video suggested there would be no radiation at thermal equilibrium. That is something I have tried to investigate with no luck.
The basics of radiation theory a la Bohr tells us electrons radiate EM when they become excited then drop back to a lower orbital energy level. If all electrons are in the ground state, theoretically, radiation should stop. Is it possible to keep matter in the ground state without dropping to 0K?
Then, again, IR detectors can detect lifeforms because their body temperatures are much higher than the background IR from colder objects. An IR scope will see a human moving about against a relatively invisible colder background because the human has a body temperature of 37C compared to a background temperature that is much lower.
An IR detector is not looking for heat, it can only detect IR frequencies. Obviously, bodies at hotter temperatures radiate higher frequencies. What if that human was in an environment that was 37C? Would the scope see it?
repost
The question is this. What are the conditions required for a body to radiate IR? Swenson has correctly informed us that all bodies radiate IR above 0K but I am asking if there are excep.tions to that. Are they radiating because they are absorbing energy from the surroundings and are there conditions where the IR will stop?
Going back to Bohr. If all electrons in atoms are in the ground state, they should stop radiating IR. Electrons will not randomly jump to higher orbital energy levels, they need to be excited by absorbing energy like EM or thermal energy (heat). Therefore bodies radiating EM should require a source of energy to excite their electrons to higher energy levels.
There is a contradiction between the notion that all matter above 0K radiates IR and Bohr theory. We know all surface matter will radiate IR after being exposed to solar energy. But what happens at night, in the dark? If there is no EM input and no heat input, will the surface stop radiating?
We need to know more about this rather than slinging ad homs because we lack the answers. Either Bohr’s theory is wrong or the assump.tion is wrong that every body with a temperatures must emit IR.
Help be investigate this interesting matter rather than continually taking shots.
“The question is this. What are the conditions required for a body to radiate IR? ”
A vacuum.
In a vacuum an ideal thermal conductive spherical blackbody at 1 AU
distance from the sun will uniformly radiate 340 watts per square meter. Or have uniform surface temperature of about 5 C.
So, when sun is at zenith, the surface temperature will be 5 C and on the nightside the surface temperature will be 5 C.
Or it’s really, really, ideally thermally conductive [better than diamonds or any known substance].
Or with our moon when sun is at zenith the surface is about 120 C and the nightside is about 100 K [-173 C] not vaguely close.
Or that’s the theory.
Of course Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Which is one of many reason I call it, global warming cargo cult.
But Earth appears somewhat similar- because Earth has transparent ocean {not blackbody surface in vacuum}.
Also you can mess with this “ideal thermal conductive spherical blackbody” and easily have higher temperature of things {mainly with transparent stuff] that you want call “surface temperatures” which are higher than 5 C.
You could easily make an “average surface temperature” be higher than 5 C {and don’t need the magical greenhouse gases}. Or model is mostly how cold could it be. Or it’s describing an ideal passive refrigerator in a vacuum. And related to stars.
gb…thanks for being the only one with enough courage to reply. When real scientific questions are asked, most of the ‘experts’ dive under the rug.
I am really looking for an answer at the atomic level. If radiation related to thermal sources is dependent on electrons dropping to lower orbital energy levels, what happens when all the electrons are in the ground state?
If you consider on electron in an orbital and it receives a quantum of applicable EM, it jumps to a higher energy orbital. According to what I have read, it almost immediately drops back to a lower level, emitting a quantum of energy. I’d like to see the proof of that or a scientific explanation.
If atoms in a mass are heated, however, does the same apply? As you heat a mass, the electrons in the atoms of the mass will rise to progressively higher orbital energy levels. If you keep heating the mass, eventually, the electrons will jump right out of the orbitals and the mass will be destroyed.
Therefore, there seems to be a difference between electrons in a surface later of a mass absorbing energy and heating and the application of heat directly. Anyone who has used a welding torch will understand what I am saying.
Gordon,
“what happens when all the electrons are in the ground state?”
That can only happen at absolute zero.
“If you consider on electron in an orbital and it receives a quantum of applicable EM, it jumps to a higher energy orbital. According to what I have read, it almost immediately drops back to a lower level, emitting a quantum of energy. Id like to see the proof of that or a scientific explanation.”
Glad to be of some assistance.
https://www.studysmarter.us/textbooks/physics/physics-for-scientists-and-engineers-a-strategic-approach-with-modern-physics-4th/atomic-physics/q-46-a-what-is-the-decay-rate-for-the-state-of-hydrogen-b-du/
“If you keep heating the mass, eventually, the electrons will jump right out of the orbitals and the mass will be destroyed.”
Well, no, the mass would not be destroyed, it will become ionized, usually though it will melt or vaporize first.
Most of the heat will go to increasing the kinetic energy of the atoms, and only a small part to the energy levels of the electrons in the atoms.
Bob d…Gordon,
what happens when all the electrons are in the ground state?
That can only happen at absolute zero”.
***
Ground state has nothing to do with absolute zero, it is a reference to the lowest energy level of electrons in an atom. When Bohr developed his theory it was not done for a temperature of 0K. Furthermore, the spectral series for hydrogen upon which the theory is based were not done at 0K.
There are at least 7 different energy levels for the sole electron orbital in hydrogen. The electron will only move to one of these excited states by absorbing the proper frequency of EM or to a rise in temperature of the environment in which they exist.
The question here is the degree of temperature change. It’s possible that the effect of temperature is not significant between 0K and room temperature but very significant between room temperature and 6000C.
We have to realize that temperature is a human invention and not a natural phenomenon like heat. Temperatures is a relative measurement of heat energy levels. What heat energy is poses another problem since we have no idea what it is. Somehow, heat, whatever it is, affects electrons in atoms.
Your link offers no explanation of this phenomenon.
—-
” [GR]If you keep heating the mass, eventually, the electrons will jump right out of the orbitals and the mass will be destroyed.
[bob d]Well, no, the mass would not be destroyed, it will become ionized, usually though it will melt or vaporize first.
Most of the heat will go to increasing the kinetic energy of the atoms, and only a small part to the energy levels of the electrons in the atoms.
***
Don’t be silly Bob. Ionization is a reference to the loss of one or more electrons from an atom’s valence shell. You are claiming that electrons being boiled off a mass would level ionized atoms.
You make some dumb statements at time but this is a doozer. If there are no electrons left because they have all been boiled off you have nothing left to bond the atomic nucleii together. You’d have nothing more than atomic nucleii dust everywhere.
Gordon,
“If there are no electrons left because they have all been boiled off you have nothing left to bond the atomic nucleii together. Youd have nothing more than atomic nucleii dust everywhere.”
No, you would have a plasma, sometimes called the fourth state of matter.
“We have to realize that temperature is a human invention and not a natural phenomenon like heat. Temperatures is a relative measurement of heat energy levels.”
No, temperature is a natural phenomenon, just like heat, and is an absolute measurement, absolute zero anyone?
“What heat energy is poses another problem since we have no idea what it is.”
Heat energy is the sum of kinetic and internal energy of atoms or molecules, sorry, but some people do know what it is.
“Somehow, heat, whatever it is, affects electrons in atoms.”
Yes it does, there is an equation to determine the population of excited states in a sample of matter.
It’s above your level of education, but you might google it.
I should mention that considering amount energy of stars, stars could also have active {rather than just passive] mechanisms to refrigerate. But I would wildly guess the active refrigeration mechanisms are perhaps, insignificant.
Quote of the day
Neil Oliver: “Fear mongering” over high temperatures is an incessant attempt to keep us frightened
https://youtu.be/8vkpcBMmvP0
As a fellow Scot, I used to find Neil Oliver’s programs to be irritating. That changed when he came out speaking against covid hysteria, along with the likes of Eric Clapton and Van Morrison.
It’s cool that he is now taking on climate alarmist ijits.
Speaking of fellow Scots, I just read a comment by comedian Billy Connolly. Eric Idle of Monty Python fame is a good friend of Connolly, and when Connolly was knighted, Idle wrote him a note of congratulations. Connolly replied to the effect that since he became a knight he no longer wished to associate with the likes of Idle and told him to eff off.
Dealing with climate wackos
https://youtu.be/FTCbE8Jr5WU
GISS data for Jun 2023
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/giss-for-jun-2023/
Looks like GISS and H.a.d.c.r.u.t.5 both agree that 2016 was larger than this year to present.
That makes UAH, RSS, NOAA/STAR and the above all in accord.
You are comparing the 2023/24 El Nino to the 2015/16 El Nino.
So 2023 should be compared to 2015, not 2016.
Even then, 2015 started in El Nino, while this year started in La Nina.
And as you like the TropicalTidBits site, the global ocean: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
during this currently weak El Nino is warmer than at any time during the 2015/16 very strong El Nino, when it only reached the 0.35s.
Unfortunately that site doesn’t provide archived data to show that, so it relies on your very selective memory, but the NOAA Ocean-Only data confirms it:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/ocean/all/6/2010-2023
So you are in effect saying that 2023 will be as high as 2015. Only a few months to go to see if that is true.
Are you comparing 2023 with 2015 or 2016?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1512673
Please explain what STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL was meant to convey.
“You are comparing the 2023/24 El Nino to the 2015/16 El Nino.”
I wasn’t but feel free. So far this years El Nino is nowhere near the 2015/2016 year one according to the data sets I showed.
GISS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/giss-recent.jpeg
Had5
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/had5-recent.jpeg
RSS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/rss-global.jpeg
UAH
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Yes – exactly what I said. The El Nino is currently weak, yet GLOBAL OCEAN temperatures are higher than at any time during the last VERY STRONG El Nino.
So you are in effect saying that 2023 will be as high as 2015. Only a few months to go to see if that is true.
You continue to post the same comment in multiple places. What do you believe that achieves?
That I actually get an answer from you.
No – it guarantees that you will have the last say in the ones I choose not to respond to – THAT is the purpose.
So says the misogynistic online bully.
So says the disablist online bully.
So you are a misogynistic online bully.
I am sorry for anyone born an id?ot for being associated with you.
Yest you won’t apologise for being a disablist.
I am sorry for anyone born an id!ot for being associated with you.
Yet you wont apologise for being a disablist.
Why do you hate disabled people so much?
I am not a disablist.
Then why do you offend people with intellectual disabilities by using the term “id?ot”?
Your “logic” … don’t blame me for it.
I don’t. You just claim that calling you an id!ot offends people with low IQ. It doesn’t. It is clearly aimed at you and your faux offence of their behalf is probably more of an insult to them then mine is to you.
It offends their family. You are clearly trying to rely on the fact that disability won’t allow them to understand.
Please explain what “STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL” was meant to convey.
As no one has claimed it is, or even that it should be, that is a straw man.
So you in effect saying that 2023 will be as high as 2015. Only a few months to go to see if that is true.
I said or implied no such thing. But you have guessed correctly for the first time in a long time.
Talking UAH, given that none of the last three La Nina years fell below 2015, and that we are already significantly above the 2015 average for 2023, and that we only need to average +0.08 in the last six months of the year, I’d say its pretty much a certainty.
“I’d say its pretty much a certainty.”
We shall see won’t we.
You certainly will.
Everybody will see how the rest of the year plays out.
Unbiased people know already that 2023 will be warmer than 2015.
You are the only people who require 6 months to find out.
Care to bet on it?
“Unbiased people know already that 2023 will be warmer than 2015”
Is it 2015 or 201. You seem to want to keep changing your mind.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
…Is it 2015 or 2016?…
At NO stage did I claim 2023 will be warmer than 2016, liar.
You said 2015/2016. I should note that ENSO peaks earlier (in 2015) than global temperatures (in 2016), so were you discussing one or the other?
I CLEARLY said that 2023/24 is being compared to 2015/2016, so that 2023 should be compared to 2015. Why do you consistently LIE?
No lie. I just had shorten things to 2015 when I really meant 2015/2016.
As I said previously, 2015 is when ENSO peaked. 2016 is when global temperatures peaked.
You now appear to agree that the 2015/2016 event will not be exceeded by the current one.
Again you put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.
I said I DIDN’T CLAIM it would be warmer. I DON’T KNOW whether 2023/24 will be warmer than 2015/16. And neither do you. Nor do single years matter in terms of climate.
What I will state with certainty is that, barring another Pinatubo, the 2020s will be warmer than the 2010s.
So now you claim
“I DONT KNOW whether 2023/24 will be warmer than 2015/16.”
So much for your expertise and forecasting.
Yet nowhere have I claimed an ability to forecast with that degree of accuracy. Nowhere have I claimed to know what the strength of this El Nino will be. It could be anywhere from low end moderate up to very strong. I also have not claimed expertise – NO ONE on this site has expertise, let alone you.
You really like your straw men don’t you.
So much for your expertise and forecasting.
The moment you go into repeat moment is the moment I win.
mode
Says you.
Says anyone who can see you’ve run out of arguments.
You have said yourself that you have no expertise or forecasting ability.
That’s correct. So what exactly are you arguing about?
I am not arguing, just observing.
“Just observing” requires silence on your part … something your over-inflated ego won’t permit.
Observers can post as well.
norman…”It is not a Shula gauge, it is a Pirani gauge and it is designed using a very low emissivity wire to try and eliminate radiant energy loss to maximize another heat loss. The Earth emissivity for IR is in the 0.95 range.
Shula chose a very poor device to generate an argument in favor of his opinion”.
***
I did not call it a Shula gauge, I referred to it as Shula’s gauge, meaning the Pirani gauge he referenced.
You still have not grasped the importance of the gauge. The significance of the gauge is that it allows a direct comparison of heat dissipation from a surface between radiation and conduction/convection.
The Pirani gauge allows the heat dissipation from a surface, the element, in a vacuum, which means the dissipation is pure radiation plus insignificant loses via the filament supports. Then the tube with the filament can be filled with gas to measure the rate of heat dissipation.
Shula measured the difference at 99.6 to 0.4 where the 0.4 is heat dissipation via radiation alone plus via the filament supports. Obviously the dissipation via the supports is a fraction of 0.4.
One would expect that ratio to remain the same if you took a much larger surface in a vacuum chamber that could be heated. When the vacuum was replaced by a gas, we could measure the ratio of heat dissipation between pure radiation and conduction/convection.
The point is, Norman, the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget diagram has the two reversed. Rather than conduction/convection being responsible for 99.6% of the radiation, the energy budget diagram has conduction/convection as an insignificant and minor player.
Shula revealed another important aspect of the Pirani tube. When it is evacuated, the heated filament takes a long time to cool in a vacuum whereas the same heated filament cools very quickly in a gas. It’s obvious that bazzillions of gas molecules bombarding a surface are far more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation alone.
An ordinary coffee thermos proves the same thing. Scalding hot coffee in a cup will cool quickly in a cup exposed to air but can be kept very hot in a thermos when the main heat dissipator is radiation.
Herb Duncan or RHL
From topic in above posts concerning conduction in air.
Here is a calculator you can use to assess energy flow.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html#google_vignette
In the calculator I used the thermal conductivity of air which would be 0.035 or so (W/mK). I used 1 m^2 for area. Used a ground temperature of 40 C and an air temperature 1 meter above at 30 C. I used 1 meter for the thickness of air. The calculator had the heat flow of 0.25 Watts (air is an insulator, conduction is not significant heat transfer mechanism in atmosphere).
Likewise they also have a radiant energy calculator.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The emissivity of sand is around 0.95 I used the ground temp of 40 and air temp of 30 and 1 square meter. The result was 63 watts. 250 times the heat flow of radiant loss compared to conduction.
Whoops I used 0.025 (not 0.035) for the thermal conductivity of air.
norman…it’s not about the conductivity of air, we know it is very low. Conduction is a reference to heat transferred from the surface to molecules of air touching the surface.
If you have any warm surface that is hotter than the ambient air temperature, any air molecules contacting that surface will have heat conducted to them by the hotter surface. It’s no different than touching your finger to a hot light bulb, heat is transferred to your finger by conduction. The same applies to air molecules touching that surface.
There is a trick here. The air needs to be cooler to receive heat by conduction. That happens when air heated by the surface rises and is replaced by cooler air from above. That air too is heated by conduction and rises. The cycle repeats.
With air molecules, a molecule touching the surface will initially have a lower KE. When it touches the surface and absorbs heat, it instantly has a higher KE.
Thank you, Gordon. Saved me the bother. Even though I already explained it to him once he still responded again with the straw man about the thermal conductivity of air.
Herb Duncan
You keep posting that air molecules have a 100,000 collision rate to emission rate and believe it means radiant energy is not effective. I posted the calculators to show you how much more radiant energy transfers heat vs conduction in air.
I had already stated that 100,000 collisions to one do not matter if they are not transferring much energy per collision.
Herb Duncan
The air in conduction is colliding with the Earth surface much more than radiant energy but it is transferring far less heat from one place to another.
You are simply not listening, Norman. Conduction through the air is irrelevant, as this is not what we are talking about. I tried to explain it to you, Gordon tried to explain it to you. That’s OK, I’m learning that there are some people it’s just not worth wasting your time on.
“The air in conduction is colliding with the Earth surface much more than radiant energy but it is transferring far less heat from one place to another.”
So thermals above the ground do not exist.
The emissivity of bright chrome is around 0.05 but overall its energy transfer is still some 70% of one painted black. This leads to the conclusion that, at most, the radiative component of them is only 30%.
“Convective heat transfer is the transfer of heat between two bodies by currents of moving gas or fluid. In free convection, air or water moves away from the heated body as the warm air or water rises and is replaced by a cooler parcel of air or water. In forced convection, air or water is forcibly moved across the body surface (such as in wind or wind-generated water currents) and efficiently removes heat from the body. Convection is a very efficient way of heat transfer because it maintains a steep temperature gradient between the body and surrounding air or water.”
With wind taken into account, convective transfer on Earth can be considered forced convection.
“The emissivity of bright chrome is around 0.05 but overall its energy transfer is still some 70% of one painted black. This leads to the conclusion that, at most, the radiative component of them is only 30%.”
This is not relevant in at least two ways.
-Emissivity of chrome is much much lower than the Earth.
-The Earth does not have fins like a radiator.
There is something off with you, RLH. Why do you keep bringing up this red herring?
Furthermore, I have already shown you data for floor heating. A geometry more like the Earth’s.
Such a heating system is called radiant floor heating, because in fact, radiation turns out to be larger, 2:1, than convection for that system.
Maybe, but not at the interface between the floor and the air immediately above it. That will be thoroughly dominated by conduction/convection.
“Emissivity of chrome is much much lower than the Earth.”
So what. In the extreme, radiation is but a small player in energy transfer as the chrome radiator shows.
Electric Radiant Floor Heating is a very wasteful use of electric energy. Ask most students.
Nate
It can end. RLH point actually is very close to atmosphere so it is a non issue. Since you correctly stated latent heat is moist convection. If you add the two convections (dry and moist), using a global energy budget you get a total of 104.8 W/m^2. Radiant loss is 398.2 minus 340.3. You get Net radiant loss of 57.9. The contribution is 64.4% convection and 35.6% radiant energy. Fairly close to a radiator contribution in room warming. Convection is considered and is dominant. I think that should end this line of debate.
Norman you’re just playing with numbers. None of that means anything. You can’t arbitrarily treat flux as energy. You’re unable to learn.
“Radiant loss is 398.2 minus 340.3. You get Net radiant loss of 57.9.”
Altering global emissivity just slightly alters those figures quite dramatically.
Those proportions may well be correct at some level of the atmosphere, Norman, but certainly not at the surface, where conduction/convection utterly swamps any contribution from radiation.
The energy budget diagrams are not restricted to the first few mm of the surface, where conduction is useful. It considers what removes the heat from the near surface to high in the atmosphere and beyond.
So dry convection is included, moist convection which creates the clouds, and radiation are included, but not conduction.
And as mentioned, dry convection is smaller than radiation, as demonstrated for floor heating in a house.
So Nate, what is the lapse rate for the first 2m above the ground?
Do you know? Relevance to the discussion?
The lapse rate for the lower troposphere is ~ -5.5 K/km. Over 2 m that is negligible.
“The energy budget diagrams are not restricted to the first few mm of the surface, where conduction is useful. It considers what removes the heat from the near surface to high in the atmosphere and beyond”
Exactly, that’s the problem. You’ve got it in one. There needs to be a separate energy budget for what happens at the surface. The figures there will be completely different to anywhere else in the atmosphere.
“Over 2 m that is negligible”
But if it is negligible then convection cannot happen. At all.
“Do you know?”
Look at the difference between skin surface temperature and 2m air temperature. That might give you a clue.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044004/pdf
Land surface skin temperature climatology:
benefitting from the strengths of satellite observations
“But if it is negligible then convection cannot happen. At all.”
When positive, and large, during a sunny day, there is convection.
On average, it is small, because as you can see, it can be negative.
BTW, the fact that it becomes negative, typically at night, tells us that radiation is cooling the surface below the air temperature.
Herb,
“There needs to be a separate energy budget for what happens at the surface. The figures there will be completely different to anywhere else in the atmosphere.”
Then you are asking for something different from what the typical energy budget is all about. So I guess there is no longer a controversy about it.
If you observe closely that study distinguishes between bare soil and vegetation.
The “controversy” is exactly as originally explained. It’s just you’re maybe starting to finally understand what it’s about.
“There needs to be a separate energy budget for what happens at the surface. ”
Why? And what defines ‘at the surface’ for you?
Herb,
I think that diagram clearly indicates what the surface energy flows mean.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/media/images/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
They are from the surface to the cloud level, or from the surface to space in the case of the IR window.
So what alternative do you have in mind?
Just read again what has already been said.
OK then.
Sand thermal characteristics are interesting.
“A low specific heat means sand doesn’t need much energy from the sun to warm. That’s why when the sun comes out in the middle of the day, sand goes from comfortable to hot quickly. At night, when the sun goes down, the sand cools also very quickly.”
Trouble poting, I think the blog is allergic to the name Clint. Don’t blame it.
clint…”Entropy, as Clausius first introduced it, refers to the organization of energy”.
***
Recently you questioned my academic background, siding with Binny. I call him an ijit and since you are his new buddy, you are an ijit as well.
The more you talk about entropy the more you come across as uneducated. I presented the entropy equation offered by Clausius and it contains nothing about generic energy. It is clearly an equation that sums infinitesimal heat quantities as …
S = integral dq/T
Clausius referred to q as heat, not generic energy. In fact, the papers from which this info comes from Clausius is about the equivalence of heat and work.
Poor Gordon doesn’t even know what units entropy has:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1511455
And, he can’t learn.
Really hilarious, Clint’s has another new buddy, Tim Folkerts.
I had pointed out that entropy is measured in calories or joules per degree K but Tim disagreed claiming it is energy/degree. Duh!!!
Birds of a feather.
Sorry Gordon, buy Folkert’s quoted you correctly:
“Since Gibbs free energy is about heat it means each element of the equation must be expressed as heat, therefore G is measured in calories or the heat mechanical equivalent, joules. That means entropy, S, must be measured in calories or joules.”
You never have been able to follow a discussion — likely due to your ADHD.
Robertson
Both the sparse seemingly scientific stuff and the denial of accepted science you endlessly post here is proof that you cannot have an academic background in any scientific field.
You are, and will remain, since posting on this blog, at the same low level as that of the ‘third Viscount’ of Brenchley (who has a degree in Classics and Journalism and nothing else, and whose ‘brilliant math’ posted at WUWT manifestly stems from what we call in my native tongue ‘les petites mains à l'arrière-plan’).
No one with an academic background in a scientific field would deny the existence of time dilation or the rotation of the moon about its polar axis.
All the science you show here is obviously from very old books that you probably inherited from a parent who was a technical teacher about 70 years ago.
What is the uncertainty (standard deviation) that corresponds to the daily and monthly averages? 5-deg C? 10-deg C?, 1-deg C?
Firstly it depends on the location.
In general, the further poleward the greater the variability.
Secondly, it depends on the time period.
Monthly variability is about 15-20% of daily variability.
Annual variability is about 25-30% of monthly variability, or about 5% of daily variability.
The UAH monthly global dataset has almost exactly the same standard deviation as the NOAA global dataset, at least over the period since Jan 2020 for which I calculated it … 0.192 vs 0.194.
Thirdly it depends on the size of the region being considered.
The US has about 60% of the variability of Kansas (chosen for its central location).
The globe has about 10% of the variability of the US, so about 6% of the variability of Kansas.
Fourthly, for regions that experience snow, it depends on the season.
In those regions, winter is more variable than summer.
Perhaps there are other reasons which I am unaware of why summer might be more variable than winter in other regions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnSyDr0F9_M
Hottest Day EVER? Not So Fast!
Haha – Heartland … not worth watching.
Interesting that you follow a group that claims smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
“not worth watching”
But apparently worth non-commenting about.
“But apparently worth non-commenting about.”
Nice self-referential illustration of a non-comment.
Comments by AQ (whoever that is) are useless.
Says the person who stalks people with the sole intention of attacking them, as here.
Said the misogynistic bully.
Says the disablist stalking bully.
AQ is a misogynistic online bully.
RLH despises disabled people, and continues to try to bully me, while trying to claim to be bullied himself because I dare to respond to his bullying.
RLH does not despise disabled people. Only AQ.
Then why do you offend people born with mental disabilities by using the term “id?ot”?
Only you associate people born with mental disabilities with the word id!ot.
Id!ot: “technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less” … “was used to refer to people having an IQ below 30”
I rather suspect that your faux offence of being called an id!ot is more offensive to them than my calling you an id!ot (which you clearly are).
Your use of ‘STOP BEING AN EFFNING GIRL” is clearly misogynistic and sexually bullying also.
Which female did I bully?
None. But please explain what “STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL” was meant to convey.
Bad luck about the Ashes – LOL.
Of course you will have no interest in manly activities.
Still you bring up my supposed (to your mind) sexuality.
Please explain what “STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL” was meant to convey.
About time the Poms gave up on their Bazball lottery and dumped their Kiwi captain and coach.
Please explain what STOP BEING AN EFFING GIRL was meant to convey.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1512622
Europe’s “48C Horror That Never Was”ESA, Media Sharply Criticized For Manipulative Reporting
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-wasesa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting/
from the link…”https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-wasesa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting…”
***
Where does anyone stick a thermometer in the ground to measure solid surface temperatures?
—
“Land surface temperature is how hot the surface of Earth feels to the touch. Air temperature, given in our daily weather forecasts, is a measure of how hot the air is above the ground.
***
Sorry, land surface temperature as presented by NOAA, GISS, etc,. is air temperature measured at various heights above the ground.
—
“The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 missions radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50C.
***
Good grief, now they are using radiometers to guess at actual solid surface temperatures from a satellite. I say guess because a radiometer does not measure a temperature, it measures electromagnetic energy as a frequency and that frequency is guestimated to represent a temperature based on conversion factors built into the machine and based on measurements in a lab.
In order to gain any amount of accuracy the radiometer must be focused on an object at a certain distance, usually a few feet. There is no way, given the conditions in a satellite orbit and the means of scanning that a flying radiometer could assess the surface accurately over which it is flying.
UAH can do it because the scanner is looking specifically for emissions in a tight range of frequencies for the oxygen molecule. Furthermore, as Roy has pointed out, they don’t cover right to the surface due to spurious microwave issues generated at the surface.
RLH says:
”Europes 48C Horror That Never WasESA, Media Sharply Criticized For Manipulative Reporting”
Nothing new here all they have been doing for the last 45 years is making stuff up to scare people. Polar bears going extinct, arctic ice disappearing by 2013, increases in hurricanes and other natural disasters. It has no end as to how much stuff these people will make up.
troubleshooting…
binny…”No one with an academic background in a scientific field would deny the existence of time dilation or the rotation of the moon about its polar axis”.
Au contraire. Hope you are enjoying your new buddy, Clint.
Anyone with an academic background coupled with intelligence would immediately question time dilation. The reason is elementary, there is no such thing as time.
An atomic clock is based on the same second, that is fixed. Therefore, no argument can be raised that an atomic clock is affected by flight in an aircraft, to show time dilation.
With regard to the Moon, a very intelligent man, Isaac Newton, declared in Principia…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)Earth’s gravity bends that linear motion into curvilinear motion.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
Add those up and you have curvilinear translation with no local rotation.
From Andrew Motte’s 1729 English translation of Principia:
“But because the lunar day, ARISING FROM ITS UNIFORM REVOLUTION ABOUT ITS AXIS, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb …”
“curvilinear translation” is your word salad that means little to any one else.
Troubleshooting report…apparently the system is tired of hearing about Einstein and time.
Reading through a modern physics textbook and I am suddenly understanding why Clint and Norman are so confused about physics. In a chapter on the 2nd law, they have completely ignore the teaching of Clausius, who invented entropy and the 2nd law, and substituted a load of sheer nonsense.
The 2nd law is simple, heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. Entropy is just as simple, it was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat over a process. Clausius stipulated that entropy is zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process. The textbook presents entropy and the 2nd law in such a convoluted manner I don’t see how any student could understand it.
In another chapter, the talk about electrons being trapped and potential wells. I realize we humans are at a disadvantage because we cannot see electrons but creating fictitious environments for them to dwell in only obfuscates the theory more.
I am trying to say above that Clausius invented entropy and the 2nd law and he explained it all subjectively so it could be easily understood. It’s all based on the heat engine theory offered by Carnot and it can be graphed using pressure, temperature and volume in such a manner that it is easy to visualize what is taking place.
In the textbook, entropy is presented as a driver of the 2nd law whereas Clausius developed the 2nd law first then introduced entropy. In fact, Clausius stated the 2nd law simply then introduced entropy simply. After a bit, he introduced a mathematical representation of entropy.
Why do modern physicists feel the need to steal entropy and the 2nd law from Clausius then rewrite both so much that neither is clearly understood? Not only that, people today get lured into thinking entropy is a measure of disorder when there is no reference to disorder in the mathematical equation presented by Clausius?
“need to steal entropy”
Yeah, why can’t science just stick with what they understood in 1860, dammit!
He is a true conservative – nothing can be improved because everything was at its best back in the day.
This site was better before AQ posted,
Stalking me again I see.
Said the misogynistic bully.
Says the disablist stalking bully.
What needs to be improved in the Clausius definition of entropy that it is the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at temperature T over a process? Modernists are happy to use the Clausius equation for entropy…S = integral dq/T….but they have changed the meaning Clausius gave to entropy.
It’s not conservatism to support the Clausius definition, it’s sanity. Why would any egotist want to redefine something that needs no redefinition?
AQ is a misogynistic online bully.
Clausius actually only speculated on the meaning of entropy in terms of atomic properties.
The meaning of it was left to others.
nate…if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Nothing wrong with the definition of entropy set down by Clausius and plenty wrong with the current definition.
Do we meddle with Newton’s f = ma or Ohm’s E = IR?
Gordon,
Yes his relation can often be used without knowing the molecular origins of it.
Clausius cared about the molecular origins of measurable quantities. He was the first to explain the mean free path of molecules.
He believed that entropy had a microscopic explanation in terms of the properties of atoms and molecules. But he didnt know what that was. He speculated. Others figured it out.
Knowing how entropy relates to molecule properties allows us to understand and predict how materials will behave. It is quite useful.
A good example is mixing two materials. Clearly thoroughly mixed substances are more disordered than when unmixed, and the entropy increase of the mixture must account for that.
Take salt and water. Determining the maximum salt amount that can be mixed into water to form a solution, which has to do with the entropy and internal energy, which relates to their molecular interactions.
This can be used for mixing new materials never measured. That is useful.
Gordon, you’ve clogging the blog, again.
Yawn!!!
It seems to me, Entropy is heat you can’t use.
But it’s certainly heat.
Entropy is heat can’t use, until you can invent a better engine.
15 C cold air temperature is entropy [or warmer air]. As someone said the atmosphere is entropy.
My pipelauncher uses entropy, but uses liquid air- which require energy to make it.
It seems averaged 3.5 C ocean is a lot entropy.
Maybe that why some can’t understand how warms Earth??
But you wouldn’t want use 3.5 C ocean water and 30 C ocean water doesn’t work very well either. But 50 C water will float on 25 C ocean water, and tons of 50 C water doesn’t cost much.
“Evapotranspiration uses three fifths of the net radiation at the surface, strongly affecting the Earth’s land surface temperatures.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082248
I suspect slightly higher over the oceans and in the presence of wind.
Note how the paper clearly distinguished between surface temperatures and air temperatures two metres above the surface.
As what we typically refer to as “surface temperatures” are actually 2m air temperatures, I’m not sure what your point is.
It is not uncommon for people (and newspapers) to fail to distinguish between skin surface and 2m temperatures.
Doesn’t answer my question … what was your point?
See elsewhere on here.
Yet you’re not prepared to link to it as usual. I wonder why.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1512622
I don’t see you making a point in relation to this thread.
It is not uncommon for people (and newspapers) to fail to distinguish between skin surface and 2m temperatures.
And how exactly does supplying this paper illustrate what “some people” do?
The article clearly distinguishes between skin and 2m air temperatures.
“It is not uncommon for people (and newspapers) to fail to distinguish between skin surface ”
Temperature reported in weather reports has always been 2 m air temp, hasn’t it?
Why is this a controversy?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1512622
As the article noted
” not the standard temperatures recorded at 2 meters above ground level that we always here in daily weather reports”
Faux controversy.
That is the whole point. Now newspapers are using the skin surface temperatures rather than the 2m temperatures.
“Now newspapers”
The ESA clearly stated the difference between skin T and air Temp.
One newspaper made an error in reporting science. Shocking!
As I said, faux controversy designed to rile up the masses.
“The hysteria was started when climate sensationalist media outlets in Germany and elsewhere, like the Relotius Spiegel, uncritically cited a sloppily and manipulatively formulated July 13 report from the European Space Agency (ESA), that first referred to ‘air’ temperature”
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-3/Europe_braces_for_sweltering_July
The story distinguishes between skin surface and 2m temperatures. The newspapers reporting it were not so careful.
So we have a single instance, with, so far one newspaper. And that tells us:
“it is not uncommon for people (and newspapers)” ?
C’mon..
Nate lives under a rock. You will have to itemize a list for him.
test456
clint…”That means entropy, S, must be measured in calories or joules.
***
That’s correct. The unit for entropy is the calorie or joule. The fact that it is measured in joules/degree K or calorie/degree K is irrelevant. The point is entropy is a measure of heat which is measured in calories or joules.
Furthermore, degrees K is a measure of heat.
But feel free to carry on making an ijit of yourself by nitpicking and insisting that entropy is a measure of disorder. You and Tim make a good team.
Sorry Gordon, but Folkerts quoted you correctly:
“Since Gibbs free energy is about heat it means each element of the equation must be expressed as heat, therefore G is measured in calories or the heat mechanical equivalent, joules. That means entropy, S, must be measured in calories or joules.“
You never have been able to follow a discussion — likely due to your ADHD.
aquerty…”Says the person who stalks people with the sole intention of attacking them, as here”.
***
Do you mean the way you have stalked ren since you arrived on the blog? Ren makes harmless but factual posts and you have been all over him.
I challenge ren’s claims about climate.
They are not factual and hence not harmless.
RLH makes personal attacks about things unrelated to science, and unrelated to my comment.
AQ is a misogynistic online bully.
As disablist RLH continues his online attempts to bully me.
AQ is his futile attempts to appear less misogynistic on here persists in the statement that I am against disabled people.
He is wrong (but still an id!ot).
RLH is her futile attempts to appear less disablist on here persists in the statement that I am against woman.
As she continues to offend people born with mental disabilities by using the term ‘id?ot’.
I just observe you made a misogynistic comment against me on here.
AQ can’t read. I said id!ot rather than id?ot.
Wow – you actually believe you have a sense of humour.
And … “a misogynistic comment AGAINST ME”.
Either you are admitting to identifying as female or you don’t understand what misogyny is.
As others have commented, ask a group of women you know (if any) if your comment falls within my description
Ask the parents of an intellectually impaired child whether they would be offended by YOUR comments.
Shall I ask them if they are offended by being associated with you?
I notice you don’t answer my suggestion. You are a misogynistic online bully.
The bully is the one who seeks out all my comments solely for the purpose of attack.
You define bully in such a way as to not include you.
At no stage have I defined bully, merely given a description of the only bully here.
“given a description of the only bully here”
Your description excludes you, a clear bully.
ren seldom offers a personal opinion, he tends to post links to articles, much of it to do with weather.
NUP. If he was all about weather he would post an equal share of warm and cold weather. He is trying to do what adapt2020 does – to paint a false picture of a cooling earth by cherry picking only cold spots.
And why haven’t you responded to my post about Principia?
Going to leave the lying to him?
Antonin Qwerty
I’m sad of this server error, and post a link to the comment I wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/26dhsxha
I forgot to include a list of the usual ‘antipseudoskeptic’ material :–)
Duh, keyboard!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Bindi just throws a bunch of crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
He has no valid model of “orbital motion without spin”.
“He has no valid model of ‘orbital motion without spin'”
Nor do you.
thats because orbital motion without spin is impossible without a secondary force deployed. Thus if no secondary force is applied there is no single motion that is orbital motion without spin. Orbital motion without spin is simply two motions with different causations.
“orbital motion without spin is impossible”
Impossible is rarely provable, and certainly not in this case.
Why do people here think they can make up their own arbitrary rules for how the universe works?
Which ‘secondary force’ is applied to Earth that makes it spin?
*
How is it possible that people manage to deny the spin of a celestial body just because they have neither the tools let alone the technical skill needed to observe it?
Nate says:
” ”orbital motion without spin is impossible”
Impossible is rarely provable, and certainly not in this case.
Why do people here think they can make up their own arbitrary rules for how the universe works?”
Really? Thats only the case if you have no understanding of physics. Gravity is a force that causes the moon to rotate around the earth. You need a force to resist gravity to prevent it from doing that. You could mount some rocket engines on the surface of the moon to put a counterspin on the moon and make it look like the MOTR.
The valid model of “orbital motion without spin” is the simple ball-on-a-string.
But, it’s obviously not simple enough for some….
And how would you extend that model to the earth’s rotation about the sun?
The earth has an added rotation. This rotation is not the above mentioned rotation that would be required to cause the moon to not change its orientation to a distant star as would be the case for virtually every possible additional rotation explaining why you see no moons such as the MOTR.
And it should be noted that the earth’s additional rotation on its internal axis is slowing.
A “simple ball-on-a-string” is only a model for a ball-on-a-string. It is certainly not one that relates to gravity.
A ball on a string is what the moon looks like. . . .and it is held in that position by the force of gravity extending from the earth looking like a ball on a string. Obviously its not a string. Nobody said it was.
Clint did! … “orbital motion without spin”
Oh, and there are plenty of moons “such as the MOTR” right here in our own solar system where an observer would see all sides from the associated planet. Just like the lunar view from the sun.
All motion is relative.
Which object in our solar system is like the MOTR fixed so that from a distant star you can only see one side?
And none have ever been discovered anywhere.
“none have ever been discovered anywhere”
All telescopes used to visualize the stars have no spin attached to them.
No?
12:04 am A: Hubble staring at a galaxy is an object in our solar system like the MOTR fixed so that from a distant star you can only see one side.
Yes the Hubble telescope orbiting the earth has additional external power sources to hold the telescope from transitioning to a full orbital rotation. We know that.
But using an independent power source capable of creating a counter rotation on the telescopes local axis to the orbital rotation of the telescope doesn’t create any sort of problem with the non-spinner point of view.
I have maintained that rotations must be classified in relationship to any active axes. Considering a rotation as existing on an imaginary axis is always something someone can do but while imaginary may mathematically equal real but that doesn’t make it real.
The orbiting Hubble scope is non-spinning on its own axis staring at the galaxy just like the MOTR is non-spinning on its own axis. All of the telescope’s and MOTR sides can be seen from Earth so as Bill writes it doesnt create any sort of problem with the non-spinner point of view for the MOTR.
Why would that pose a problem Ball4?
Hubble has powered gyroscopes to resist the pull of earth to stop it from rotating relative to the main force upon it. . .which is a rotation on an external axis. As Einstein pointed out velocity is relative you are just a stuck in the mud brain that can’t accept that. without the gyroscopes earth enforces its will on Hubble.
No kidding, as I already wrote 12:53 pm, Bill, all motion is relative. MOTL doesn’t spin on its own axis relative to Earth, MOTL does spin on its own axis relative to the sun.
ENSO regions for week ending July 22.
1.2 … +3.5 (up 0.1)
3 … +1.7 (up 0.1)
3.4 … +1.1 (no change)
4 … +0.8 (up 0.1)
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
No point looking again at your BS which conveys no new information and looked exactly the same as we descended into La Nina.
Except the last 7 days differ in your figures and tropicaltidbits.
They’re not my figures. They are the NCEP figures that are used for the official determination of ENSO events and their strengths. If you want to use your figures, then you will need to provide a full historical data set for comparison.
So CDAS and NCEP disagree then.
Well duh … CDAS clearly disagrees with the official figures which have been used to determine ALL ENSO events via the ONI.
I’ll wait for your unified historical index based on the CDAS data.
So are you saying that CDAS is unreliable?
I believe I said they are DIFFERENT, and that you need to compare like with like.
So CDAS and NCEP are 2 sides of the same coin?
I believe I said they are different AND THAT YOU NEED TO COMPARE LIKE WITH LIKE.
So you should have no objection to CDAS and graphs of their data.
Do you have HISTORICAL data that goes back decades, not just the three months of tropicaltidbits?
And what is your reason for wanting to display non-official data, other than the fact it gives the appearance of lower temperatures?
“And what is your reason for wanting to display non-official data”
Do you have an ‘official’ CDAS site that display the data that tropicaltidbits shows? If so I’ll post that instead.
I assume that you are not saying that tropicaltidbits is mis-reporting CDAS data.
Do you have a url for HISTORICAL data that goes back decades? If not, your request is asinine.
Apparently you don’t understand that that was THE WHOLE POINT.
As there is no way to compare to historical data, there is no way to determine how CDAS data correlates with ENSO events, at least not in regard to weak/moderate/strong cutoffs.
Do you have a url for HISTORICAL CDAS data that goes back decades?
There is one, but it is in a file format I don’t know how to use.
.nc if I recall correctly.
Do you have a url? That does not require knowledge of the file format and how to convert it.
Antonin Qwerty
Most amazing here is the fact (!) that during La Nina, people like Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ had no problem at all to repeatedly post links to NCEP graphs – simply because at that time, the graphs have shown exactly what they wanted to see:
1+2
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
3
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino3Mon.gif
3+4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino4Mon.gif
*
But now, these graphs are banned: they don’t fit their Coolista narrative anymore.
*
I wouldn’t wonder if 3+4 first would move down for a couple of years, before raising to it maximum, just like it did after the 2010-12 La Nina.
I just report the data. If it happens to show warm or cold that’s what it does.
You do a lot more than “just report”. You select the “best” representation for your agenda, and use it to downplay warmer weather and talk up colder weather. If you had been consistent you would have shown the weekly differences in the descent into La Nina, not only now. If you had been consistent you would have noted every time ENSO SSTs warmed during a particular week during that descent (as they did often), just as you now try to find weeks where those anomalies fall and claim this speaks to the ultimate strength of this El Nino.
I refer you to my blog which shows the data, warm or cold.
P.S. This El Nino is claimed to be ‘weak’ though it is expected to strengthen.
I have no interest in your blog. What is preventing you from reporting consistently HERE?
Based on the last 5 weeks of NCEP data it is now bottom-of-the-range-moderate.
“I have no interest in your blog”
Nor me in you.
I post on here the results quite regularly of UAH, RSS, GISS and Had5 (amongst others).
Blindsley H00d
” I refer you to my blog which shows the data, warm or cold. ”
You are a 100 % liar.
What Antonin Qwerty talks about is not your ridiculous blog.
It is the way how you comment here since you are posting on this blog.
And that definitely shows that you’re the type of guy who intentionally presents cooling trends as something new, even when you’re shown that they were often present in the data.
Even the way how you show data in your charts is typical for people like you: your charts are all
– intentionally representing sources by anonymous dots instead of lines (lines by the way shown by everybody, beginning with Roy Spencer), what lets the readers unduly concentrate on what you show;
– full of alleged ‘5 year (!!!) low pass’ filter outputs, which flatten all extremes and hence manipulate the reader because the main result of your flattening is to let everything appear lower, as you hide more highs than lows because there are more highs than lows.
You are so opinionated and stubborn that you really think everyone would believe you.
You are a 100 % liar, Blindsley H00d.
For someone who has no interest in me you sure follow me around like true butt-sniffer.
“You are a 100 % liar”
You are 100% wrong, As always. You were wrong about CTRMs and their turnover frequency (yes c(12,10,8) is a 12 month, near Gaussian, LP filter). Ask VP.
As to ‘dots’ (actually circles) they represent the actual data. Not some made up lines that you use instead that have no data along their length.
“For someone who has no interest in me”
I always confront misogynistic, online, bullies.
P.S. c(60,50,39) is a 5 year, near Gaussian, LP filter also. Despite your ludicrous claim otherwise.
…(actually hollow circles or hollow squares)…
No, you always butt-sniff EVERYONE you choose to disagree with.
And no idea what the other comments are about.
Do you not know how to put all your ideas into one comment?
I always confront misogynistic, online, bullies. That fits you precisely.
“you always butt-sniff”
You must be a faggot.
First you falsely complain about misogyny, now you show yourself to be a true homophobe. A homophobic bully.
You could have made the same BS claim by using ‘gay’, a word that that community accepts, and I would have no issue with the comment other than its fiction. But no, you chose to use a word of hate.
“now you show yourself to be a true homophobe”
I knew that you would use that phrase to come to that conclusion. You are wrong.
Why did you use the phrase ‘butt-sniffer’?
Do you not understand “word of hate”?
NOBODY uses that word except out of a sense of contempt for gays.
You probably also use the N word.
And I apologise to all butts for the association.
You are the one who considers ‘EFFING GIRL’ and ‘butt-sniffer’ to be insults, not me.
Faggot was deliberately chosen (as opposed to gay which I do not consider an insult) to convey my contempt for you.
So “effing girl” is offensive to women yet “fa….” (which you still have no shame in saying) is not offensive to gays … is that right?
You seem to want to question my sexuality. ‘EFFING GIRL’, ‘butt-sniffer’, ‘manly pursuit’ all seem to point in that direction.
Faggot was deliberately chosen to convey my contempt for you.
P.S. Faggot is just a word in English. https://www.thespruceeats.com/classic-british-faggots-recipe-435283
Hahaha – “just a word”.
I dare you to walk around the gay part of your town yelling your “just a word” at the top of your voice. You’ll be getting home via the hospital.
On the other hand if I walked around town yelling “effing girl” all I would get is odd looks, and possibly a visit from the police to check on the commotion.
The only thing your comment conveyed to me was how much of a hypocrite you are. Not that that was new information.
You seem to want to question my sexuality. EFFING GIRL, butt-sniffer, manly pursuit all seem to point in that direction.
Blindsley H00d
First reply
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and above all
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
” As to ‘dots’ (actually circles) they represent the actual data. Not some made up lines that you use instead that have no data along their length. ”
You are an insincere person because everyone connects the data points with lines to make their temporal connection in the time series more visible: exactly what you ideologically want to avoid, which in turn you however would never admit!
Do you have balls enough to write such utter nonsense e.g. to Roy Spencer personally, on this blog?
“everyone connects the data points with lines”
My stats prof would complain if people used lines to represent data that did not exist. I follow his example.
Blindsley H00d
” My stats prof would complain if people used lines to represent data that did not exist. I follow his example. ”
Yes, but…
” Not some made up lines that you use instead that have no data along their length. ”
You are not only a sissyish arguing person, Blindsley H00d.
You are also a coward, attacking only those you can attack without getting banned off a blog whose owner you in fact clearly discredit because he doesn’t follow the example given by your ‘stats prof’ who seems to be, exactly like you, as contrarian as is your friend-in-denial Robertson.
So show me the data that ‘your’ lines represent. You can’t can you.
It just adds unnecessary visual weight that is not supported by the actual data.
Like SRMs with all their distortions and leakage are used in climate by a range of people without considering if they are the best choice.
Roy knows this all too well, but he continues because ‘everybody else’ does it. Not a very scientific position.
I will continue to used what is supported by the data along with accurate LP filters. Hardly a reason to get het up about.
I’ve only previously received this type of non-stop harassment from women. Not many – most are sane – but congratulate yourself on being the first male who has acted in this way towards me. Normal men say their piece and move on. This thread was about ENSO temperatures and once again you’ve hijacked it in order to carry out your non-stop petty harassment, and illustrated your homophobic tendencies and hypocrisy along the way. And don’t pretend others here haven’t commented on your issue.
“don’t pretend others here haven’t commented on your issue.”
That goes for you as well.
This thread is also about CDAS and their views on things in the ENSO regions.
Unlike you, almost exclusively from one side of the climate debate.
If you feel the need to challenge that, please note “almost” – you tend to be selectively blind to significant words.
I’m glad you agree this thread was not about your hypocritical non-scientific obsessive-compulsive self-satisfying judgmentalism, which ALWAYS comes back to bite you in the ass because you ALWAYS open yourself up to a like response.
Now go away and find a friend.
“Now go away and find a friend”
Same to you.
Not very creative are you.
More creative than you.
Only with your “facts”.
Are you disputing facts are facts now?
Only your “facts”. For example that the earth is now cooling.
“the earth is now cooling”
I never said that. Please point me to where you think I said it.
I have said (and it is fact) that the anomaly temperature now is less than it was in 2016.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-global.jpeg
The above is UAH
GISS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/giss-recent.jpeg
Had5
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/had5-recent.jpeg
Just like ren, you only ever look for evidence of cooling while blinding yourself to evidence of warming. 2016 is not climate.
I say (and anyone can confirm it by using an SQL query) that in the yearly UAH time series, the following years show an average anomaly temperature higher than the 6 years following them:
1987
1988
1998
2002
2005
2016
Thus, the fact that 2016 was warmer than all the 6 years following it is nothing unusual.
1998 was even warmer than all 17 following years.
No one imagined at that time that there would ever be a year surpassing 1998.
But… even unimaginable things happen.
It’s a bit late at UTC+2, and I see that the SQL query contained a little mistake: 2005 does not belong to the list.
This is now correct:
1987
1988
1998
2002
2016
Yeah Bindidon but does it mean anything?
There have been multiple excursions of the anomaly by one degree over the short UAH record. Additionally the largest excursion looking at events you listed was between 1987 and 2016 and the difference is only .21C over that 29 year period of time.
Since the UN thinks the ozone recovery will reduce warming by .3 to .5 degrees over the next 40 some years that means there was a minimum of .3 to .5 degrees warming arising from the harm done to the ozone layer by either mankind or volcanoes that hit an ozone nadir in 2000.
Thus statistically one can’t even argue there has been any warming from that perspective.
So Blinny predicts that each period of 6 years going forwards will be warmer than the previous 6 years (on average).
CAGW writ large. No natural variation allowed.
So, Blinny, do you see your step wise rise in the Southern Polar region?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
AQ: So you admit that 2016 was the warmest it has been recently. Fact.
” So Blinny predicts that each period of 6 years going forwards will be warmer than the previous 6 years (on average).
CAGW writ large. No natural variation allowed. ”
Typical sissyish nonsense from Blindsley H00d, insinuating things I never claimed.
No wonder that Antonin Qwerty names you an ‘effing girl’.
No mysoginism from his side! Just a meaningful description of your behavior.
” So, Blinny, do you see your step wise rise in the Southern Polar region?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg ”
Where did I mention any step wise rise?
What does the South Pole have to do with the fact that 1998 was followed by 17 years with lower temperatures?
*
Once more, a typical sissyish nonsense from Blindsley H00d, insinuating things I never claimed.
When will you stop with this ridiculous kind of communication?
So Blinny, is ‘effing girl’ supposed to be offensive?
Hunter boy
” Thus statistically one cant even argue there has been any warming from that perspective. ”
Where did I mention any warming?
I did nothing else than to reply to
” I have said (and it is fact) that the anomaly temperature now is less than it was in 2016. ”
with
” Thus, the fact that 2016 was warmer than all the 6 years following it is nothing unusual.
1998 was even warmer than all 17 following years. ”
*
Again and again: your replies mostly have nothing to do with what I wrote.
“What does the South Pole have to do with the fact that 1998 was followed by 17 years with lower temperatures?”
So it appears that the UAH South Pole does not follow your observation.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
1997 is the highest point in the record (for one month only). Neither the 12 month nor the 60 month LP shows that 1997 or 1998 is the largest, in fact the opposite is true.
In fact the LP filters show that mostly the South Pole has been fairly linear since 1979 with no expected rise at all. The variance has been fairly consistent too (if anything it has diminished over the period of record).
Blindsley H00d
” So it appears that the UAH South Pole does not follow your observation. ”
Here you show once more how unscientific, incompetent, manipulative and ideological you are.
1. Despite your continuous stalking concerning my alleged overrepresentation of the Poles when I post links like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ELhjRDeK9OPgh1Vwk0yWuCFW9JxQoCn/view
you suddenly elevate the relevance of the South Pole up to that of the Globe – just because it fits your dumb Coolista narrative.
*
2. But… let’s talk the numbers again.
In UAH 6.0 LT Globe, the yearly averages including 2016 are as follows
2016 0.388
2017 0.264
2018 0.087
2019 0.303
2020 0.357
2021 0.134
2022 0.173
what makes sense to compare 2016 to its followers, even if the same kind of descending sequence appeared several times in the series since 1979.
But in UAH 6.0 LT SoPol, the yearly averages including 2016 are as follows
2016 0.187
2017 -0.004
2018 -0.005
2019 0.415
2020 0.188
2021 -0.243
2022 0.028
with 2019 (and, by a tiny bit, even 2020) having a value higher than that for 2016.
Thus, your 2016 statement is, with regard to the South Pole, not much more than a non-sequitur because if we had been in 2020, you never would have shown SoPol as example!
*
There are much more intelligent ways to talk about the current cooling at some places in the world.
Search for them, instead of persistently boring us with your primitive butterworthy charts in which you manipulate climate time series as if they were a source for digital signal processing.
Not true. I am just observing that the Southern Polar as prepared by UAH does not follow your ‘continuously warming’ agenda. As to why I have offered no opinion to date.
“a source for digital signal processing”
Any digital time series source is a source for DSP. To say otherwise just shows how incompetent and prejudiced you are.
“when I post links like”
which contains unweighted rectangular grids which over emphasize the polar regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#/media/File:Mercator_with_Tissot's_Indicatrices_of_Distortion.svg
“The Mercator projection exaggerates areas far from the equator”
Here is RSS for the same Southern Polar region
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/rss-southern-polar.jpeg
Blindsely H00d
It’s always amazing to see people like you urging to post their trashy school boy graphs.
You aren’t even able to provide your readers with accurate information about the reference period used in the data source. Not only your RSS info is wrong, but even your UAH info is wrong in your charts.
Let alone would you be able to present for the South Pole both time series in one chart, with the same reference period, thus allowing for best comparison.
All you are able to do is this, far below worst school boy level:
https://tinyurl.com/mrye7jjs
You never be able to do the job correctly, like here:
https://tinyurl.com/SoPol-UAH-vs-RSH
The data I use is on the bottom of each chart.
If you want to compare RSS with UAH then the one done by NOAA/STAR is the best I can offer.
https://i.imgur.com/aNfcGmw.png
No doubt you consider that wrong too.
P.S. Simple Running Means (even at 60 months) are well acknowledged to have inbuilt distortions.
For the all time opinionated ignoramus, I repeat:
” You arent even able to provide your readers with accurate information about the reference period used in the data source. ”
Don’t see how wrong your thick black straight lines are?
*
” P.S. Simple Running Means (even at 60 months) are well acknowledged to have inbuilt distortions. ”
You arrogantly, brazenly claimed some time ago:
” My math is better than yours, and so are my graphs. ”
I guess the contrary, namely that unlike me, you wouldn’t be able to show me how to accurately compare the essence of an SRMx with that of a CRMx.
Prove us that you very well know how to do the math job necessary for such comparisons!
Reference periods? We are using anomality charts. Offsets will show a significant change.
SRMs and CTRMs have been well covered by VP and the differences between them. But you only just misquote him whenever you post.
“thick black straight lines”
What thick black straight lines? You man the refernece periods? They just show what the relevant periods are.
…You mean the reference periods…
It is interesting that you want to agree with RSS, GISS, Had5, etc. and thus disagree violently with UAH and NOAA/STAR about global (and probably regional) data to trust.
Even though after all NOAA /STAR basically says that UAH was right all along in the choice of satellites to trust.
” It is interesting that you want to agree with RSS, GISS, Had5, etc. and thus disagree violently with UAH and NOAA/STAR about global (and probably regional) data to trust. ”
As usual, insinuation and lie from Blindsley H00d who is unable to technically contradict and hence discredits.
I never ‘want’ to agree with anything: I just compare them. Whether or not UAH and NOAA STAR are right and the others are wrong I don’t know.
*
The contrary is the case, Blindsley H00d: YOU want to disagree with RSS, GISS, Had5, etc. and thus agree gullibly with UAH and NOAA/STAR about global (and probably regional) data to trust.
Because they all show a warming you do not agree with but never would be able to scientifically dispute.
Well you have to also acknowledge that the surface records are comprised on a non-random network of station which is the biggest of all violations of sampling programs (as in Dewey Wins)
And you need to recognize that Carl Mears through his hands up and set he had lost confidence in satellite monitoring. Having his business address in Santa Rosa area of California that can be just a matter of going along with the crowd. But it could be the results and his beliefs regarding the science behind the GHE that inspires the lack of confidence. Why that occurs is complex and very difficult to weight the various factors.
But clearly there is both a superior method and confidence of its managers superiority.
And of course there is also the fact different zones of the atmosphere are being measured. . . .but there also is some raw USCRN data that strongly suggests that the warming is mostly derived through processing of the data rather than from thermometer readings and UAH is pretty darned close to that measure.
Anybody who has experience in large modeling exercises can testify how sensitive such models are to judgements regarding areas of uncertainty. And it also provides a major highway for bias that could potentially elevate to the level of algorithms to maximize matching the results of theory.
Fact is by current mainstream theory satellites should be warmer than the surface with a mid-troposphere hotspot where the anomalies reverse directions because of greater surface convection near the surface. As we know convection has height limits and the mean amount of heat delivered by convection depends upon how deep up into the atmosphere it reaches minute by minute.
So it can be definitely said that there is a lot of uncertainty in the monitoring system and having the lead CAGW advocates of that saying so outloud and him having leadership over vast amounts of funding is like a license to feature it.
If a private corporation was doing this you would probably bust a vein.
Blinny: Did you read the NOAA/STAR paper and what conclusions they drew as to why they agree with UAH?
“The large trend differences between STAR V5.0 and STAR V4.1 (and also RSS V4.0) as analyzed in Section 7 were mainly caused by recalibration removal of the spurious warming trends in NOAA-11 through NOAA-14”
Endless babble from the anti-science phony statisticians, but not one prediction for July UAH Global.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Why should I predict what I can’t, and especially that will be released in a few days anyway?
Only ignoramuses try to predict what they’re nowhere near capable of.
Yep climate models sure as heck aren’t going to tell you.
Bill – Heads up – climate models are not designed to predict monthly anomalies. But understanding that would require an understanding of what climate is.
Of course not Antonin. If they were they would be exposed as frauds every7 month. Instead they limit their predictions to 100 years hence after everybody ransacking the public funds has passed away and they can laugh at all of us from their graves.
Thanks for again illustrating your misunderstanding of climate.
Antonin agrees that human psychology is involved in how climate is measured but disagrees that corruption arises from a lack of independence.
Perhaps next time you would care to write something which makes sense.
It doesn’t compute for Antonin. Should we be surprised?
You join the list of deniers who talk to people in the 3rd person because talking to someone directly requires balls.
On that last comment I wasn’t talking to you Antonin. Your previous response showed one is wasting their time talking to you.
Bindiclown can’t predict zshitt
” … zshitt ”
Oh look… the dachshund writes once more like German neofascists.
Bindi, an understanding of the science allows for reasonable predictions. For example, I can predict a ball will roll down a slanted ramp.
For July UAH Global, how about something really high, like +0.50C?
Polar Vortex has stabilized after HTE, but it was too little, too late. Watch if the smoke from Canadian wildfires affects USA48 or NHEM. That’s some possible cooling that I can’t estimate.
A 5 year old can successfully predict that a ball will roll down a slanted ramp (because of course all ramps aren’t slanted by definition of a ramp). You must feel proud of your science prowess.
I see you still haven’t been able to provide a mechanism for your “HTE”. Instead you can only wave your hands and claim we wouldn’t understand.
The surface air T are breaking the record for July, by a lot.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
The sea surface T are breaking the record for July, by a lot.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
I’d be surprised if UAH for July isn’t significantly up.
But it is measuring the troposphere, not at the surface, so….
“But it is measuring the troposphere, not at the surface, so”
As do RSS, NOAA/STAR and UAH so are they all wrong?
RLH …. given that the aim is to measure surface temperatures … YES.
All satellite systems use a method that determines surface (actually 2m near surface) temperatures because surface reflections causes problems with measuring 2m temperatures directly.
So are you saying that all satellite systems are wrong in their methods?
“All satellite systems use a method that determines surface (actually 2m near surface) temperatures because surface reflections causes problems with measuring 2m temperatures directly.”
UAH measures the troposphere and up not the near surface 2m.
RLH – You KNOW that the UAH temperature is NOT a surface measurement.
Are you saying that UAH (and all satellite systems) are unable to estimate correctly the 2m temperature (i.e. what they call the Lower Troposphere) from the measurements they have?
That includes RSS.
So we shouldn’t bother with satellites at all.
Instead we should rely on inadequately sampling the Land surface at 2m and assume that it correctly produces an accurate figure.
That depends on how accurate an estimate you are looking for.
The median of the UAH distribution is approximately one-third of the way to the stratosphere.
“Coincidentally”, the UAH trend is a reduction of the land-based trend by about one-third.
Funny that.
.
.
.
Carl Mears of RSS states that the land-based record is much more robust than any satellite record, including their own. He also states that the satellite record can be more easily calibrated to the whims of the owner, as it doesn’t directly measure temperature.
“the 2m temperature (i.e. what they call the Lower Troposphere)”
False. The lower troposphere is thousands of meters above the ground.
They do NOT report the 2m temperature!
“So we shouldnt bother with satellites at all.”
Again we get tiresome non-sequiturs that don’t follow from what anybody is saying.
“They do NOT report the 2m temperature!”
They report the TLT that should not differ that much from the 2m temperature, in trend at least.
Sooner or later we will have to change either the 2m temperature trend or the satellite one. NOAA/STAR seems to think that it and UAH are on the same footing.
So you are saying that the land based 2m thermometer is more accurate than the global coverage that the satellites bring?
“Again we get tiresome non-sequiturs that dont follow from what anybody is saying”
So you challenge UAH but not RSS or NOAA/STAR?
“They report the TLT that should not differ that much from the 2m temperature, in trend at least.”
(1) Who is “they”?
(2) Where do “they” report this?
(3) What is “their” basis for this report?
They report the TLT that should not differ that much from the 2m temperature, in trend at least.
(1) Who is “they”?
(2) Where do “they” report this?
(3) What is their justification for this report?
The troposphere can behave differently than the surface.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2000/offset:-0.5/mean:3/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2000/mean:3
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/to:2018/offset:-0.75/mean:3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2018/mean:3
“So you challenge UAH but not RSS or NOAA/STAR?”
So we get more pointless non-sequiturs that dont follow from what anybody is saying.
So you don’t like that NOAA/STAR differs very little from UAH and that RSS is now the outlier in the satellite series.
The difference in trends
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2000/offset:-0.5/mean:3/trend/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2000/mean:3/trend
cannot continue on forever. Which do you think will be adjusted and why?
UAH has a much higher trend in your plot…
” For example, I can predict a ball will roll down a slanted ramp. ”
Some seem to do their very best to appear as dumb as possible.
You should know.
I see that rather you are the one who ‘should know’:
” Are you saying that UAH (and all satellite systems) are unable to estimate correctly the 2m temperature (i.e. what they call the Lower Troposphere) from the measurements they have?
That includes RSS.
So we shouldnt bother with satellites at all.
Instead we should rely on inadequately sampling the Land surface at 2m and assume that it correctly produces an accurate figure. ”
*
You must be dumb enough to try to kid us, aren’t you?
How can you try to dissimulate the well-known fact that
– in theory, satellites having 60 GHz microwave sounding on board OF COURSE can detect O2 emissions till 2m above ground
but that
– in practice, this is all useless because of biases which occur when sounding emissions above the oceans – what is no less than… 70% of the surface (reported more than once by Roy Spencer).
*
The only satellite-borne surface sounding is AIRS, which sounds infrared direct at the surface.
A measurement which you yourself mentioned earlier, but recently contributed to discredit on this blog, by posting a link to a completely incompetent, woeful TricksZone post against AIRS, reblogged at WUWT.
So NOAA/STAR doesn’t exist?
RLH – when you can’t deal with a response you ask a pointless question with no logical connection to what was just said.
Why do you think a difference in trend exists between 2m air temperature and TLT measurements?
Which do you think will be adjusted?
I’ve already strongly implied the reason. Greenhouse warming of the surface causes the stratosphere to cool. This is not a binary change – the closer you get to the stratosphere the less warming there is. The median height of the satellite reading is one-third of the way to the stratosphere, and “coincidentally” gives a trend one-third less than that of the surface record.
The surface record is already adjusted downward for things such as the urban heat island effect. The satellite data SHOULD BE adjusted upwards to account for their altitude, but this is not done.
Carl Mears has no confidence in his work so he probably thinks RSS will get adjusted.
AQ: We are talking about trends, not absolute data.
“The median height of the satellite reading is one-third of the way to the stratosphere”
The LTL ‘readings’ are much closer to the ground than that. In any case, the trends should not be that different.
Hey RLH – I understand why you’ve stayed silent so far regarding July’s anomaly.