Home/BlogSee, I told you so.
One of the most fundamental requirements of any physics-based model of climate change is that it must conserve mass and energy. This is partly why I (along with Danny Braswell and John Christy) have been using simple 1-dimensional climate models that have simplified calculations and where conservation is not a problem.
Changes in the global energy budget associated with increasing atmospheric CO2 are small, roughly 1% of the average radiative energy fluxes in and out of the climate system. So, you would think that climate models are sufficiently carefully constructed so that, without any global radiative energy imbalance imposed on them (no “external forcing”), that they would not produce any temperature change.
It turns out, this isn’t true.
Back in 2014 our 1D model paper showed evidence that CMIP3 models don’t conserve energy, as evidenced by the wide range of deep-ocean warming (and even cooling) that occurred in those models despite the imposed positive energy imbalance the models were forced with to mimic the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Now, I just stumbled upon a paper from 2021 (Irving et al., A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble) which describes significant problems in the latest (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models regarding not only energy conservation in the ocean but also at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA, thus affecting global warming rates) and even the water vapor budget of the atmosphere (which represents the largest component of the global greenhouse effect).
These represent potentially serious problems when it comes to our reliance on climate models to guide energy policy. It boggles my mind that conservation of mass and energy were not requirements of all models before their results were released decades ago.
One possible source of problems are the model “numerics”… the mathematical formulas (often “finite-difference” formulas) used to compute changes in all quantities between gridpoints in the horizontal, levels in the vertical, and from one time step to the next. Miniscule errors in these calculations can accumulate over time, especially if physically impossible negative mass values are set to zero, causing “leakage” of mass. We don’t worry about such things in weather forecast models that are run for only days or weeks. But climate models are run for decades or hundreds of years of model time, and tiny errors (if they don’t average out to zero) can accumulate over time.
The 2021 paper describes one of the CMIP6 models where one of the surface energy flux calculations was found to have missing terms (essentially, a programming error). When that was found and corrected, the spurious ocean temperature drift was removed. The authors suggest that, given the number of models (over 30 now) and number of model processes being involved, it would take a huge effort to track down and correct these model deficiencies.
I will close with some quotes from the 2021 J. of Climate paper in question.
“Our analysis suggests that when it comes to globally integrated OHC (ocean heat content), there has been little improvement from CMIP5 to CMIP6 (fewer outliers, but a similar ensemble median magnitude). This indicates that model drift still represents a nonnegligible fraction of historical forced trends in global, depth-integrated quantities…”
“We find that drift in OHC is typically much smaller than in time-integrated netTOA, indicating a leakage of energy in the simulated climate system. Most of this energy leakage occurs somewhere between the TOA and ocean surface and has improved (i.e., it has a reduced ensemble median magnitude) from CMIP5 to CMIP6 due to reduced drift in time-integrated netTOA. To put these drifts and leaks into perspective, the time-integrated netTOA and systemwide energy leakage approaches or exceeds the estimated current planetary imbalance for a number of models.“
“While drift in the global mass of atmospheric water vapor is negligible relative to estimated current trends, the drift in time-integrated moisture flux into the atmosphere (i.e., evaporation minus precipitation) and the consequent nonclosure of the atmospheric moisture budget is relatively large (and worse for CMIP6), approaching/exceeding the magnitude of current trends for many models.”
The simple model I discovered and have further developed seems to do a very good job of predicting global temperature from sunspot data. As the results seem too good to be true, I’ve made the code available on github. Everything is in the open.
You can check out the predictions here.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
If you’d prefer the Excel version, that can be found here:
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
Good work, Robert. More scholars are stepping forward with evidence that the anthropogenic model is wrong.
Thanks, Gordon. While it’s important to understand the shortcomings of IPCC models, I haven’t observed that doing so is having an effect on the climate-change debate. All models are wrong to some degree.
What’s needed are models that are so demonstrably correct with near-term predictions that they cannot be ignored. I hope this simple empirical model, which almost anyone can understand, is a step in that direction.
If my model is correct, global temperatures will remain stable, and might even fall a bit over the next decade. If global temperatures start rising, then my model is wrong.
Robert, I love empirical models as much (or more than) the next guy. I have fit all sorts of data over the years. There does seem to be a strong correlation in the data over the time frame in question.
I do have a few concerns.
1) Correlation is not causation. You have a 100 year smoothing on data that show increases in the last 100 years. It is not surprising that there is a reasonable correlation between the two. (Although the match between your fits and the ‘pause’ from ~ 1940 – 1980 is interesting and suggestive.)
2) Correlation is not causation — part 2. There is some expectation that sun spots are related to solar activity, and some expectation that solar activity is related to climate, but this is a pretty weak connection without some sort of specific theoretical connection between the amount of solar activity and the amount of warming.
3) Your model fails badly from 1880-1900. You don’t show earlier results, but model continues to predict fairly high temperatures back to 1850, while the actual temperatures remain cool. Any time a model fails when you extend it further, that is a cause for concern!
4) Your choice of weighting seems odd. Your simple fit says that the solar activity 99 years ago is just as important to the climate as the solar activity 1 year ago (but solar activity from 100 years ago doesn’t matter at all!). Your other two models say that the most recent decade is actually LESS important for current climate than any of the previous 9 decades! Surely the recent solar activity should have the strongest impact on the recent climate.
Some sort of exponentially weighted average or linear drop off seems more logical.
So while it is quite possible that solar activity is related to climate, I don’t think your model is robust enough to say anything definitive. An interesting rough draft, but not a finished product.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m working on a paper that will answer all your points, but as I’m several weeks away from making that public, let me try to address a few of your concerns now.
Correlation is not causation. True enough, and that that applies to anthropogenic GHGs well. For my model to be valid, the sunspot signal has to be at least partially coherent with the temperature signal. It turns out the coherence is reasonably good in a number of frequency bands. In fact, some of the bands where coherence is high suggest that solar magnetic fields play an important role in climate. If the match between the temperature and the prediction were simply the overall trend over the last 100 years, as we see with CO2 models, the result might not be so convincing, but with amount of detail in the prediction, it’s a bit harder to dismiss the results as spurious correlations.
The lack of accuracy before 1900 is most likely caused by poor sunspot records prior to 1800. There’s a link on the main github page to a paper on sunspot accuracy. However it’s also possible that temperature records are inaccurate, and that the model is not fully compatible with the state of the sun prior to the Dalton minimum.
It took me a long time to figure out why the core model needed to be ~99 years long, and the answer is a bit too complicated to explain here, but the length has significantly more to do more with the sun than it does with the earth.
The core model produces a prediction that leads the earth’s response by ~13 years so the prediction is shifted forward by 13 years in the plot to align with the temperature data. The notch filter is 27 years long which requires 13.5 years of settling on either side of the moving average, so that result is not shifted forward. The placement of the moving average core relative to a particular prediction date, such as for today, is the same in all three models.
It sounds like you have put quite a bit of thought and effort into this project. Just beware of the comment attributed to the mathematician von Neumann: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
You empirically use a 99 year average and empirically add a 13 year lag with an empirically chosen shape, empirically including a slope and offset. That is a lot of arbitrary fitting for a model that fails badly for the first 15-20 years out of 140 years.
Gain (not slope), offset and delay are three standard fit terms for minimizing the mean-square error (MSE) between two real signals. I can provide you with a reference if you’d like to learn more.
My point is that these parameters are all free parameters that you can adjust to make the fit as good as possible. They are not based on physical properties of the system (at least not as far as I can tell from your posts so far). It is SO easy to over-fit a model with a set of test data, only to have it fail when extended to new data.
If there was a physical reason, that would be different. For example, peak sunshine is in June (in the northern hemisphere), but temperatures don’t peak until July because of ‘thermal inertia’. Adding an adjustable lag of about 1 month to a model there makes sense. Or a current can lead or lag the voltage because of inductance or capacitance in a circuit, so including an offset of up to +/- 90 degrees makes sense. I can’t picture a reason for a 10-15 year lag between extra solar energy and the earth finally warming up. But maybe you have a solid explanation.
If I were trying to pass off a 20-term sum-of-cosines harmonic model, then I could understand your over-fitting comment. The core model has a single parameter that affects the shape of the prediction — length. The complexity of the prediction comes from the sunspot data, not the model. That’s why the results are so compelling.
The 13-year time-offset is causal and seems reasonable given both the mass of the sun, and the decadal lengths of climate oscillations that will interact with solar forcing. Also, the sunspots are a proxy for solar activity, so it’s not impossible that the sunspots actually lead solar activity. I’m not saying they do, I just wanted to point out that an earth-centric view is not always helpful.
First let me say I am playing devil’s advocate a bit and I would not be at all surprised if there was some connection between sunspots and climate.
“The core model has a single parameter …”
There are at least three parameters that you choose to make the fit work.
* the 99 year time period.
* the 13 year lag.
* the shape of the lag (notch vs linear vs … ).
You have two sets of data that both generally increase over 100 years. You apply heavy smoothing and a shift to match up the remaining wiggles.
Your speculations about lags in the sun and in the climate system are interesting. As you say, these are plausible. But at some point you should have sometime more concrete.
PS. With the simple long-term moving average, a 36 month delay seems to give a smaller error. It’s better at the beginning, a little worse at the end, and a little better overall
If the 11 year moving average is added (to smooth out the 11 year cycle) then no delay is best!
PPS your 3 year centered average for temperature is problematic because it uses data 1.5 years in the future! I used a simple average of the PAST 3 years in my analysis, so that will change the delay by 18 months.
Hi Robert,
Have you considered factoring in geothermal heating of the ocean, in addition to sunspots? I believe your model will be more precise.
Hi Joe,
Part of the model does account for the earth’s long-term geothermal response. That said, this simple model does over-attenuate the higher-frequency solar forcing (e.g. forcing faster than ~6 years). I’m not going to worry about that because on those time scales I think the earth has a complex time-variant response to solar forcing.
I might improve accuracy by selecting one of the other sunspot datasets which has much lower sunspot (or group) numbers prior to 1800. This wouldn’t be entirely unjustified. In 1997 Hoyt and Schatten came up with a new reconstruction of solar activity. In their paper they wrote:
“Our major conclusion is that solar activity for 1700 to 1882 is lower than that given by Wolf by 25 to 50%. Activity is poorly determined before 1653, accurately found for 1654 to 1727, is uncertain by up to 15 to 20% or is unknown for many years from 1728 to 1800, is determined to about a 5% accuracy for 1800 to 1850,
and is known to a 1 to 2% accuracy for 1851 to the present.”
The caption of Figure 5 says “The MIROC models have a total leakage of approximately −3.5 W m−2, with offsetting ocean and nonocean leakages of approximately −41.5 and 38.0 W m−2, respectively.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/8/JCLI-D-20-0281.1.xml
WOW!!
Thanks for shining a light on this. It is insane.
I knew that TOA energy balance was off by something crazy like 5W/m^2 which just gets arbitrarily zeroed out because it is know to physically unreal.
I did not know there was similar issues with OHC and, worse, mass balance ! If models are losing mass they should be dumped until they work.
This is madness.
What good are these models if they violate basic physical laws such as the conservation of energy? The models are not only wrong, they are absurd!
Energy and Material Balance 101 starts with the following equation:
Input – Output + Generation = Accumulation.
What could go wrong?
Tim,
Your brain is obviously having a holiday.
What are you babbling about?
The models.
Roy,
I just wonder if these errors matter when it comes to finding the Global T rise?
Are the T rises being calculated directly from this energy imbalance?
Also, we know that the TOA measurements by satellite (CERES) are also have a systematic error of similar size.
In that instance, given the difficulty of the measurements over the entire globe, it is not alarming.
When CERES is used to calculate the EEI, they use TSI as starting value, however TSI is only valid for a planet without atmosphere.
The atmosphere is acting like a lens bending radiation towards the center of Earth, raising the intensity with 4-5W/m2.
So instead of ca 1361-1362 W/m2, they should use 1365-1367 W/m2.
There is another error when calculating how much radiation that reaches the Earth.
Scientists like Trenberth, Loeb and others, use the mean radius of Earth, but it would only be valid if Earth tilted from 90 degree South to 90 degree North, but its tilting between 23,44 South to 23,44 North and the radius is actually smaller than the mean Earth radius
So would you think that the ‘mean’ and the ‘median’ would be the same or consistently high or low (which would mean that skewed data was present)?
I think you are fixated on stuff that is off-topic and of no interest to anyone else.
So even if the data is constantly skewed you consider that unimportant.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/measures-central-tendency
I thought the accurate use of statistics was of interest to all in climate. Apart from you apparently.
Your fixation on off-topic irrelevancies of little interest to anyone else is a common symptom of ASD. Have you been diagnosed? If so, then we can be more understanding..
Insults are the last resort of the desperate. The simple facts are that the median is the preferred number if that data is skewed. Alternatively if the data is skewed then the mean will always be different to the median.
Not meant as an insult, rather as a question as to why you so often behave this anomalous way.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1525271
Nate: Either you believe (as I do) in what statistics has determined is a good way of determining central tendency or you don’t. I go with the statisticians.
False dichotomy.
So do you believe (as I do) in what statistics has determined is a good way of determining central tendency if the data is skewed?
Yet another new record for the absolute Global Sea Surface Temperature.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Is it your view that these latest values are outliers that should not be counted?
I was not talking about outliers, but about skewed data.
Your source says:
“Advantage of the median
The median is less affected by outliers and skewed data than the mean and is usually the preferred measure of central tendency when the distribution is not symmetrical.”
The median is less affected by outliers and skewed data than the mean and is usually the preferred measure of central tendency when the distribution is not symmetrical.
I know. That is why I am suggesting it.
That’s why I asked you:
“Is it your view that these latest values are outliers that should not be counted?”
I was not talking about outliers, which is subject to revision, but about skewed data which is not.
Nate persists in taking about outliers when the statistics source clearly says skewing of data, i.e. asymmetry, (which can be easily proved) is one of the main reasons for choosing median over mean.
“is usually the preferred measure of central tendency when the distribution is not symmetrical“
Your source says:
Advantage of the median
The median is less affected by OUTLIERS and skewed data than the mean and is usually the preferred measure of central tendency when the distribution is not symmetrical.”
Why deny it?
Skewed how?
As previously discussed with you ad-nauseaum, MEDIAN is useful when data is widely spread on a log scale, like income, with the richest individuals with 100,000 times the income of the working class income. Then the MEAN is a very poor measure of middle incomes, and MEDIAN is much better.
Temperature data is not at all like that. In fact because of the Central Limit Theorem, Global average variables tend toward a Gaussian. Then MEAN and MEDIAN are little different.
The advantage of the MEAN is it can be easily be used to determine the total energy or heat content in the system, which is of interest in climate research.
If the median is continuously different to the mean then the data must also be skewed, high or low.
https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Statistics/Introductory_Business_Statistics_(OpenStax)/02%3A_Descriptive_Statistics/2.06%3A_Skewness_and_the_Mean_Median_and_Mode
“MEDIAN is useful when data is widely spread on a log scale”
ONE of the reasons for choosing a median is when outliers are present. It is not the only reason. There is also the skewness that need to be taken into account (see ref). True statisticians know this.
“The advantage of the MEAN is it can be easily be used to determine the total energy or heat content in the system, which is of interest in climate research.”
We have computers now, the mean and the median are just as easy to determine as each other.
“Global average variables tend toward a Gaussian”
Are you saying that the UAH global data is not skewed? Tends is not the same as is.
“outliers AND skewed data”
And is in either/or.
“Global average variables tend toward a Gaussian
Are you saying that the UAH global data is not skewed? ”
Im saying what I said. Global variables tend toward a Gaussian, due to the Central Limit Theorem.
If you think UAH global is skewed, show us!
“I’m saying what I said. Global variables tend toward a Gaussian, due to the Central Limit Theorem”
CLT is very precise in that it only applies to purely random data, not data that is strongly auto-correlated.
“If you think UAH global is skewed, show us!”
And if I do (which I can) will you accept that the median is a better choice than the mean?
https://www.datasciencecentral.com/central-limit-theorem-for-non-independent-random-variables/
Only weak auto-correlations are supported by the CLT. Strongly auto-correlations like annual and daily cycles are NOT supported.
Yes weather produces anomalies that are correlated over some spatial scale, probably of the order of 100 km or so.
But global anomalies are averaged over lengths scales much much larger than this correlation length.
So CLT does apply.
“The advantage of the MEAN is it can be easily be used to determine the total energy or heat content in the system, which is of interest in climate research.
Wevation for using have computers now, the mean and the median are just as easy to determine as each other.”
Sure. But my point is that the use of MEAN is physically motivated, even if the distribution is skewed.
While I do not see a physical motivation to use MEDIAN.
For example, suppose the distribution is skewed to high temperatures. IMO these high temperatures are real and should be weighted equally to lower T.
But the MEDIAN will not do that.
Only weak auto-correlations are supported by the CLT. So sayeth the literature.
The literature clearly says that using all of the data, as in the mean, leads to wrong conclusions if the data is skewed (as it is) and that the median is strongly preferred.
https://openstax.org/books/introductory-business-statistics/pages/2-6-skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode
P.S. Wen we are talking about auto-correlation over distance we are mainly talking about things above the chaotic surface or boundary layer, where things are a lot more complicated, and for large scale things, not local things like clouds.
“The literature clearly says that using all of the data, as in the mean, leads to wrong conclusions if the data is skewed (as it is) and that the median is strongly preferred.”
Leads to wrong conclusions such as? How?
Still not explaining why T in the high T tail of the distribution should be weighted less than others.
Are they somehow invalid?
“Wen we are talking about auto-correlation over distance we are mainly talking about things above the chaotic surface or boundary layer, where things are a lot more complicated, and for large scale things, not local things like clouds.”
Who says that? Sounds like you made that up.
Another reason to use MEAN over MEDIUM:
“The standard error of the median for large samples and normal distributions is: Thus, the standard error of the median is about 25% larger than that for the mean. It is thus less efficient and more subject to sampling fluctuations.”
Arrggh MEAN over MEDIAN.
“Still not explaining why T in the high T tail of the distribution should be weighted less than others”
Because all the statistical literature says that in this case the median is preferred over the mean, as you have acknowledged.
Standard deviation is also accepted to be less reliable in skewed distributions. The difference between 25% and 75% (IQR) is considered more accurate.
https://www.scribbr.co.uk/faqs/use-the-interquartile-range
“The interquartile range is the best measure of variability for skewed distributions or data sets with outliers”
“Who says that?”
The IPCC has long acknowledged that things like clouds are poorly represented.
P.S. Did you miss the normal distributions in your cite?
“The IPCC has long acknowledged that things like clouds are poorly represented.”
We are not talking about clouds or how they are ‘represented’ in simulations here.
Completely off topic and irrelevant.
You stated:
“The literature clearly says that using all of the data, as in the mean, leads to wrong conclusions if the data is skewed (as it is) and that the median is strongly preferred.”
Leads to wrong conclusions such as what? How?
And again, I will ask, why should high T values, in the tail of the distribution, be weighted less than other values?
Where is the science rationale for this?
Saying it is ‘preferred’ is not a science rationale.
“Leads to wrong conclusions such as what?”
What is the OLS trend on the median since 1979? Is it lower or higher than the OLS trend on the mean over the same time period?
Is there anything else that strikes you about how the running median since 1979 shows happens? Why would you think that was important?
“And again, I will ask, why should high T values, in the tail of the distribution, be weighted less than other values?”
Why would you assume that the mean is greater then the median?
The statisticians say that the mean is a poor choice over the median if the data is skewed. You can ignore them if you wish.
…greater than…
“We are not talking about clouds or how they are ‘represented’ in simulations here”
So simulations are not the way you show your assumptions are correct?
https://creativemaths.net/blog/median/
“The median outclasses the mean”
“Leads to wrong conclusions such as what? How?”
You:
“What is the OLS trend on the median since 1979? Is it lower or higher than the OLS trend on the mean over the same time period?”
So you ask another question, but this does not answer mine.
“And again, I will ask, why should high T values, in the tail of the distribution, be weighted less than other values?
Where is the science rationale for this?”
I don’t see you answering this either.
You clearly were desperate to discuss this topic with me, and yet you have no answers.
I find it interesting that you are prepared to denigrate the median without any idea of what it shows.
Of course all the statistics textbooks MUST be wrong even though you have no clue as to what they describe and why.
Prejudice comes in many forms it appears.
You still can’t answer my questions, just defer to the authority of statisticians.
But statisticians acknowledge that the use of MEDIAN or MEAN depends on the science goals.
Oh well.
You still haven’t shown that Global variables are significantly skewed, making the discussion moot.
Oh well!
“defer to the authority of statisticians”
Whereas you ignore them. Oh well indeed.
Got any data on medians yet?
“Global variables are significantly skewed”
If the median is consistently high or low compared to the mean then the data is skewed.
“Got any data on medians yet?”
Obviously you don’t. Strange, given your certainty that this issue is important.
I have but you don’t. Clearly. The UAH global data is freely available. Are you not able to do a running median on it? Yet you pontificate as though you know what you are talking about!
“defer to the authority of statisticians.
They don’t think, as you seem to, that MEDIAN is right for all applications.
They agree that it is useful in certain cases, as with incomes, if the goal is to find a representative income for MOST people.
Whereas in many other applications MEAN is most useful.
For example, in a chart of per capita income by country. Of interest is measuring the wealth of countries, on a per person basis, and thus MEAN is used.
” Are you not able to do a running median on it?”
I obviously have no interest.
You do, so why are you asking me to do it for you?
“that MEDIAN is right for all applications”
but not those which have skewed data.
“I obviously have no interest”
True scientists and scholars examine things before they talk about them. You don’t. Obviously.
“why are you asking me to do it for you?”
Because without you knowing what the outcomes are you are obviously talking about something which you know nothing about.
“True scientists and scholars examine things before they talk about them. You dont. Obviously.”
Very true. When a scientist has a notion that some issue might be important, the next step is to substantiate that with an examination of data, to find out if it indeed matters.
As opposed to what you are doing here, which is simply asserting that your issue IS important and demanding that others examine the data to prove it isn’t.
“When a scientist has a notion that some issue might be important, the next step is to substantiate that with an examination of data, to find out if it indeed matters.”
As I have done but you haven’t.
Just think about this whole concept. A 100ppm increase in CO2 was able to warm the entire globe by 1 Degree C. That means that if we insulated our homes with CO2 bubble wrap, we should be able to warm our homes 1 degree for every 100ppm increase in CO2 in the bubbles. The fact that no engineer has proposed of patented that concept pretty much proves this is all nonsense. The Global economy shut down in 2008 and 2020 and the trend in atmospheric CO2 was unaltered. The Canadian Forest Fires also did nothing to alter the trend in atmospheric CO2. Believing that man can alter the trend in atmpsperic CO2 simply isn’t supported by any data set available. The oceans control atmpsheric CO2. Warm the oceans, increase atmospheric CO2, it is that easy. The oceans have ben warming since the end of the little ice age, and are tied to incoming visible radiation, not outgoing LWIR.
CO2 emission is easy to calculate from the sales of carbon based fuels assuming it is all burned for energy. The current estimate is that only 43% remains in the atmosphere. The remainder goes INTO the ocean and greening of the planet. The oceans are currently storing CO2, not releasing it. Most of the rest of your comment is humorous, and not to be taken seriously. Are you a comedian? Just asking for a friend.
Tim S,
What does CO2 have to do with anything?
You seem obsessed by a gas which has been in the atmosphere for billions of years. The Earth’s surface cooled regardless.
Do you believe CO2 or H2O (or any other atmospheric component) has recently developed magical inducing properties? None of them even manage to stop the surface from cooling each night – as Fourier pointed out over a century ago!
Maybe you could apply yourself to the reasons for the observed surface cooling, paying particular attention to the role of CO2? Only joking, you can’t, can you?
Carry on.
OK, then why did shutting down the economy and burning a large part of Canada not impact atmospheric CO2? The CO2 has to come from somewhere, and the only sink I know of big enough to make man and land immaterial is the ocean.
You simply trust highly flawed models way way way too much. Models can’t explain the observations, so why do you trust them?
When did they shut down the economy?
Did they stop burning fossil fuels to provide electricity and transport?
Just asking for a friend.
Any two year old with a computer could compare the volatility of the atmospheric CO2 with GHG Emissions. There are plenty of times when CO2 production takes a step back and there is no measurable impact of atmosphere. The problem the alarmists make is that 100% of additional atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial age is due to fossil fuels consumption. If that is the case you would/shout get an R-srq of 100 when you correlate the two data sets. Trust me, you won’t get even close. Fossil fuels consumption decreases, CO2 increases, Fossil fuels consumption increases CO2 increases. There is no causative correlation. Sure they may both be increasing over time, but fossil fuels consumption is so small on the grand scheme of things that it is negligible. Warm the oceans, you increase atmospheric CO2. Explain why the oceans are warming and you explain whey the atmosphere is warming.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Yeah, the CO2 is causing the oceans to warm.
Ocean warming is not causing the increase in CO2 that we are seeing.
CO2 correlates better with combustion of fossil fuels than the observed increase in ocean temperature.
By the way, nice evasion of my question.
@BobRoege, I didn’t dodge your question “When did they shut down the economy?”
You clearly don’t understand how correlations and regressions work. These are differential equations where the change in one is related to the change in another. If the rate of change in fossil fuels consumptions slows, the rate of change in atmpsheric CO2 should slow. Your team is the one claiming 100% of CO2 is man made. Facts are, there is no evidence to support that. Once again, compare the correlation of burning fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 and you won’t find a tight fit. Reason? Man made CO2 is a drop in the bucket to the entire amount of CO2 being produced and absorbed.
“You clearly dont understand how correlations and regressions work. These are differential equations where the change in one is related to the change in another.”
No they are not differential equations.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pearson+correlation+coefficient&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=pearson+co&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i433i512j0i131i433i512l3j0i512l5.6457j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
And you did not tell me when the economy was shut down.
“Facts are, there is no evidence to support that. Once again, compare the correlation of burning fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 and you wont find a tight fit.”
What would you call a tight fit?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans#:~:text=The%20most%20basic%20reason%20is,quickly%20as%20they%20have%20risen.
@BobRoege, “And you did not tell me when the economy was shut down.”
What are we playing here? Childish world games? In the context of this issue, 2008 and 2020 were significant decreases in economic activity, which in this context represents a “shut down.” Facts are the man made production of CO2 decreased by an amount significant enough that if man was responsible for 100% of the increase in atmpsheric CO2 it would have had an impact of Atmoshieric CO2. It didn’t. The real question is “if COVID and 2008 didn’t impact CO2, how big of an economic collapse are the climate alarmists willing to accept to be proven wrong?” How many lives will they destroy just to discover their theory is wrong? That is the relevant question.
But there were not significant decreases in the rate of fossil fuel burning.
Do you want to look at reality:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-oil-supply-and-demand-1971-2020
The reduction in 2008 was insignificant and in 2020 it was about 5%. That means the emission rate in 2020 was the equivalent of a 4.75 ppmv increase instead of 5.0 ppmv and the accumulation was 1.9 ppmv instead of 2.0 ppmv.
Key point, those catastrophic economic events had no impact on atmospheric CO2. A global depression would have had no impact on atmpspheric CO2. Just how much human suffering are you willing to tolerate to accept that you are wrong? How many lives must be destroyed before you accept that you are wrong? My bet, your blindness to the truth would have you accepting catastrohic consequences just as long as it wasn’t your job that was lost.
How much suffering are you willing to tolerate as lives are lost due to the impact of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
@BobDroege: “How much suffering are you willing to tolerate as lives are lost due to the impact of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere?”
1) Standards of living are directly tied to CO2 Levels, Fossil Fuels power standards of living higher, and CO2 boosts crop yields
2) Far more people die from cold than heat
3) Weather-related deaths have been decreasing
4) Rare Earth mining kills thousands of people each year, robbing people of cheap fossil fuels kills millions of people each year
5) People migrate to the warmth for a reason
1-So standards of living are the same everywhere, you are smoking crack
2-No, more people die in winter due to reduced activity, and most people don’t die from cold or heat, it’s a tiny fraction of deaths.
3-Weather related deaths decreasing is due to better building construction codes.
4-Nobody is “robbing” people of fossil fuels, and they are no longer the cheapest form of energy.
5-Not every body likes 95 degree days in the summer.
Tim S,
Those estimates are wrong. You need to look at Berry’s calculations in his third paper. Human CO2 doesn’t remain in the atmosphere. It flows through the atmosphere.
After a very basic search I found these. What are they doing wrong, and why do so many sources agree?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/doesnt-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-come-natural-sources
From one of your “authorities” –
“By burning fossil fuels, we have essentially taken millions of years of carbon uptake by plants and returned it to the atmosphere in less than 300 years.”
Just returning CO2 to the atmosphere.
Good thing, too. CO2 levels had dropped to the point where plant life (and hence humanity) was faced with extinction.
Luckily, burning fossil fuels also creates H2O, that other essential for plant growth.
Hopefully, your many sources agree. If they don’t, they are as misguided as you.
Tim S,
Look at Berry’s math in his third paper. He uses the conservation of mass to falsify. Please tell me where he is wrong. He has falsified the IPCC Carbon Cycle Model with math.
Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/22/hot-or-not-steven-koonin-questions-conventional-climate-science-and-methodology-uncommon-knowledge/
“…his 2021 book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesnt, and Why It Matters, Koonin gives a more refined look at the science behind the climate issue than the media typically offers, guiding us through the evidence and its implications. As Koonin explains in this interview, he was shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed and that the overwhelming evidence of catastrophic implications of anthropogenic global warming wasnt so overwhelming after all.”
I haven’t read his book.
Has anyone read it, what do you got to say about it?
Koonin is just another false Skeptic trying to make money off gullible Skeptics. He accepts ALL of the GHE nonsense. From his book, just two quick examples:
Page 48: Determining the earth’s equilibrium temperature by calculating that balance is a basic problem assigned at the start of every serious climate course. It gives an average surface temperature of…-18°C (0°F).
That is NOT “serious” science. That calculation is for an imaginary blackbody sphere.
Page 49″. Some of that heat finds its way back down to the surface, where it causes additional warming (the greenhouse effect), as shown in Figure 2.2.
As in all the GHE nonsense, there is NEVER an explanation of how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of the 288K surface, that’s because it doesn’t happen. (The Figure 2.2 is nothing more that a bogus sketch showing arrows from the atmosphere to the surface. You get to use your imagination!)
He spends a lot of time with the data, showing it does not support the bogus science. But this hoax will NEVER end if folks keep believing in the false science.
There is NEVER an explanation of why 15μ photons cannot raise the temperature of the surface.
All we get from you is made-up rules that can’t be supported, followed by certainty that we wouldn’t understand the rationale.
Nate, I have explained it several times. And my explanations are always clear and easy to understand, with simple examples.
The fact that you can’t understand should tell you something….
“As in all the GHE nonsense, there is NEVER an explanation of how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of the 288K surface, thats because it doesnt happen.”
Yes there is an explanation, though it may be to obvious to those who have studied thermodynamics to spell it out every time.
15 u photons are absorbed because there are available molecular energy levels to absorb them.
You haven’t shown any of the science to be false, and calling it bogus does not make it so.
Yes bob, you believe ice cubes can boil water.
No believe about it, it has been demonstrated over and over.
Do you believe all CO2 in the atmosphere is at the same temperature?
Yes bob we know, you believe ice cubes can boil water.
Clint R,
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact that I can boil water with ice cubes.
Is it also your belief that you can pervert reality with your magic tricks?
Clint R,
Yes, it’s a trick, but not magic.
Now what does boiling water with ice cubes have to do with the fact that IR from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface and adds that energy to the energy from the Sun resulting in an increase in temperature?
I’ll answer for you because you don’t have a clue.
Nothing.
Should I put that in all caps for you?
Exactly bob, they’re all tricks.
Ice boiling water and sky adding to solar — all tricks.
Clint R,
What happens to IR from the Sun when it hits the Earth?
What happens to IR from the atmosphere when it hits the Earth?
Why would one be different from the other?
IR photon absorp.tion has to do with compatibility of the photon (frequency/wavelength) and the impacted molecule. The source does not matter, if the photons are equal.
A 15μ photon from Sun would be treated the same as a 15μ photon from CO2.
Then they would both be absorbed based on the emissivity of the surface.
You are finally on the right track.
So we are finally off of the boil water with ice cubes schtick.
But you won’t admit you had it wrong all along.
Unless you can find some difference between a 15u photon from the Sun and a 15u photon from the atmosphere.
Wrong again, bob.
You missed the word “compatibility”. That’s where temperature comes into play.
This is WAY over your head.
Clint R,
Actually no, your compatibility is a made up property.
The absorpxxtion is dependent on the available energy transition levels in the absorbing matter, which is not temperature dependent.
The 15u photon from the Sun and the 15u photon from the atmosphere are exactly the same, and carry no information about the temperature of the source they came from.
The temperature of the source does not come into play.
I never mentioned “emission”, bob. “Compatibility” has to do with absorp.tion. Here are my exact words:
“IR photon absorp.tion has to do with compatibility of the photon (frequency/wavelength) and the impacted molecule. The source does not matter, if the photons are equal.”
You are trying to confuse my words. You’re either incompetent or immature, or both.
I will no longer respond to such nonsense.
Clint R,
It would be nice if you stopped responding to me with your made up science.
“I never mentioned emission, bob. Compatibility has to do with absorp.tion. Here are my exact words:”
I didn’t mention emission either.
IR photon absorp.tion has to do with compatibility of the photon (frequency/wavelength) and the impacted molecule. The source does not matter, if the photons are equal.
You can’t tell a 15u photon from the Sun from a 15u photon from the CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter how hard you try. Your compatibility of the photon is made up bullshit.
“You are trying to confuse my words. Youre either incompetent or immature, or both.”
I am competent enough to determine when you spout bullshit and when you tell the truth. The latter is rather rare.
You are busted for making up your own science.
I will no longer respond to such nonsense.
–Page 48: Determining the earths equilibrium temperature by calculating that balance is a basic problem assigned at the start of every serious climate course. It gives an average surface temperature of-18C (0F).
That is NOT serious science. That calculation is for an imaginary blackbody sphere. —
Where Earth radiate into space it is colder than -18 C.
I can’t say whether Koonin understands this.
“That is NOT serious science. That calculation is for an imaginary blackbody sphere.”
A magical ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere in a vacuum- and where earth radiates into space is not very close to a vacuum.
“Page 49″. Some of that heat finds its way back down to the surface, where it causes additional warming (the greenhouse effect), as shown in Figure 2.2.”
Some does, in winter and night.
“As in all the GHE nonsense, there is NEVER an explanation of how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of the 288K surface, thats because it doesnt happen. (The Figure 2.2 is nothing more that a bogus sketch showing arrows from the atmosphere to the surface. You get to use your imagination!)”
It hasn’t been measured and in short term {less than a century] it’s not enough to be measured- or one could call it insignificant.
It is simple.
Cloudy night, water vapor, CO2 & actual water droplets in the air hold the heat in…….WARM NIGHT.
Clear night, water vapor & CO2 only do stuff all to hold the heat in. …..COLD NIGHT.
I have always been sceptical of the climate models due to the over simplification of the world. Using CFDs for any fluid flow can be reasonable accurate, but time consuming to get right. Climate models use less computational cells than a 3D model of a plane wing, or formula one racing car.
Only after many iterations do the overall imbalances start to drop. Even then the details could still be wrong.
Seems as of the climate modellers know best.
I’m glad to see the “global energy budget” criticized in any way. It is one of the biggest scams in the whole GHE atrocity. Radiative flux does not have to “balance”. Flux is not a conserved quantity,
But energy is conserved and the surface area of the Earth is constant.
So it does have to balance even though it is not a conserved quantity.
Energy balances, but flux doesn’t
Constant area so yes flux balances.
Are you capable of doing the math?
Well show us your “math”, bob.
What is Earth’s emitting surface area?
Clint R,
It’s the same as it’s absorbing area.
Right, you don’t know Earth’s actual emitting surface area. That’s one of the reasons the bogus “energy balance” is so bogus
Clint R,
You assume I don’t know the surface area of the Earth, when it doesn’t matter.
The emitting area equals the absorbing area.
W/m^2 * Absorbing area = W/m^2 * emitting area
Right, no one knows Earth’s actual emitting surface area. That’s one of the reasons the bogus “energy balance” is so bogus
Clint R,
You know nothing.
“Surface: Total Surface Area: about 509 600 000 square km (197 000 000 square miles). Area of land: 148 326 000 km2 (57 268 900 square miles), this are 29% of the total surface of Planet Earth. Area of water: 361 740 000 km2 (139 668 500 square miles), this are 71% of the total surface of the Earth.”
Sorry bob, you’re wrong again.
You found the calculation for a perfect sphere with an estimated radius. Earth is NOT a perfect sphere. And the surface is NOT perfectly flat. That calculation neglects mountains, hills, trees, structures, etc. Even a valley has more surface that if it were perfectly flat!
Making it even worse, that is NOT the “emitting” surface. For example, a tree trunk may only take up 1 sq. ft. of surface but have an emitting area a hundred times larger.
Once again, you have NOTHING.
What will you try next?
(I’m getting bored with your nonsense, as usual. So unless you have something of value, I may not respond.)
Clint R,
No the calculation is not for a perfect sphere, the oblateness is taken into account in the calculation, see here.
https://www.universetoday.com/25756/surface-area-of-the-earth/
But like I said already, the emitting area equals the absorbing area.
You got nothing, as usual.
Yes you can switch sources, bob. Anything to cover your ignorance, huh?
You STILL missed the point that Earth is NOT perfectly smooth.
This is WAY over your head, so we’re through here. I can only take so much of your immaturity.
Clint R,
Of course it doesn’t matter if the Earth is perfectly smooth.
Is a billiard ball perfectly smooth?
The Earth is smoother than that anyway.
Wrong again, bobby.
Earth is not a billiard ball or a perfect sphere, and ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Got any more tricks?
No Clint R,
You are wrong, it doesn’t have to be a perfect sphere, perfectly smooth, or anything else.
The absoxbing area equals the emitting area, and that means flux on equal areas is indeed conserved, because it’s the same energy.
Clint always has trouble understanding why dividing a conserved quantity by a constant is STILL a conserved quantity!
If only he could stop with his ideological thinking for just a moment and THINK.
“But energy is conserved and the surface area of the Earth is constant.
So it does have to balance even though it is not a conserved quantity.”
Off with fairies again, bobby?
How does a body “conserve energy”? While it’s cooling like the Earth, for example?
Maybe you need to learn what the conservation laws are all about.
Swenson,
Maybe you should study the conservation of energy law, does it apply to a body?
Bumbling bobby,
What a silly gotcha! Do you really not understand the conservation laws, or are you trying to be funny?
Swenson,
The question is do you understand the conservation of energy laws.
Energy in equals energy out or there must be a temperature or a phase change.
Burbling bobby,
What do you mean “The question is . . . “?
Are you posing another gotcha? Trying to change the subject? After all, you did try a bzaree gotcha “Maybe you should study the conservation of energy law, does it apply to a body?”
Tut, tut, bobby.
Banging on by admitting that the cooling of the Earth over four and a half billion years does not equate to “energy in equals energy out” is just confirming what any average 12 year old knows.
Just repeating that you know the Earth has cooled despite the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere makes your statement “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” look like the rambling of a person with a mental defect.
Keep trying.
Swenson,
It’s hard to argue with liars who make up their own facts.
bob, please stop trolling.
In a parallel bizarro universe biased against anthropogenic global warming this would be all over the media. Here with the bias in support of AGW, no attention and probably few citations in academic journals. In a balanced universe models would be recalibrated when errors were found and openly discussed as working hypotheses not dogma. NASA would have colonized the moon and not went woke.
From bumbling bobdroege-
“Clint R,
Its not a belief, its a fact that I can boil water with ice cubes.”
Presumably, he is also more powerful than a speeding locomotive, and can leap tall buildings in a single bound!
I’m surprised that the US Navy allowed bobby to leave. Who needs nuclear powered submarines, if bobdroege can power steam turbines with ice?
Of course, bobby’s ice powered water boilers are top secret – the plans are hidden with his description of the GHE, safe from prying eyes.
It takes all types.
Swenson,
Did I say I could power a steam turbine with ice?
Did I say I could boil enough water to make enough steam to power anything.
Seriously you lack some reading comprehension.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Did I say I could power a steam turbine with ice?
Did I say I could boil enough water to make enough steam to power anything.”
Yes, you did. Are you now trying to say you didn’t write “Its not a belief, its a fact that I can boil water with ice cubes.”?
Putting your foot in your mouth, and then shooting yourself in the foot is not the sign of a superior intellect, bobby.
Swenson,
“Yes, you did.”
I said you can boil water with ice, there are several ways to do it, you can find some on Youtube.
I did not say you can power a steam turbine, maybe you could but it would be an awful small one.
But you have shown yourself to be a liar.
Nice work if you can get it.
Bumbling bobby,
Oh well, if you want to play silly semantic games, and insinuate that you can use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of water to above 100 C at standard temperature and pressure, be my guest. You can’t.
Go on, carry on and say you didn’t mention temperature, pressure, or suchlike.
You wrote “I did not say you can power a steam turbine, maybe you could but it would be an awful small one.”. Another maybe, and another denial that you said anything specific, just insinuating and implying.
All rather irrelevant – here’s your “description” of the GHE – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Except for the last few billion years or so, as the Earth cooled, it would seem. You did write “CO2 has been around in the atmosphere for billions of years”, or are you denying that, now?
Try again.
Swenson,
Maybe you understand the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure.
Maybe you did not know that.
And the Earth hasn’t continuously cooled for the last 4 1/2 billion years or so.
That a bullshit story you made up.
Bobdroege,
You wrote –
“And the Earth hasnt continuously cooled for the last 4 1/2 billion years or so.
That a bullshit story you made up.”
If you say so, bobby, if you say so.
Presumably, you have a magical planet warming spell hidden up your sleeve next to your magic wand!
Nothing else is likely to warm a cooling planet, is it? You certainly can’t describe anything that could.
Keep on saying silly things. How’s your non-existent description of the mythical GHE going? Not well, I wager.
Swenson,
Sorry to tell you, but the surface of planet Earth is heating up.
You can’t deny everything.
bob, please stop trolling.
You can see particulates in the smoke that’s covering much of BC using EarthNullSchool.
https://earth.nullschool.net/
Its like a morning fog here on central Vancouver Island.
The temperature in Antarctica is no more rising than in previous eras, despite the high spike in CO2.
https://niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/media_gallery_large/public/sites/default/files/images/co2-temp-ice-cores.jpg?itok=pBHatpZO
Tireless seekers of deadly CO2.
He knew that such a disaster had happened before. In 2016, Schaefer and his close colleague Jason Briner, a geology professor at the University at Buffalo, were part of a team that analyzed the single bedrock sample that had been previously collected from beneath the thickest part of the ice sheet. The rock contained chemical signatures showing it had been exposed to the sky in the past 1.1 million years. In a paper they published in the journal Nature, the scientists concluded that almost all of Greenland including regions now covered by ice more than a mile deep must have melted at least once within that time frame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/greenland-ice-sheet-drilling-bedrock-sea-rise/
Clint R,
Actually no, your compatibility is a made up property.
The absorp.tion is dependent on the available energy transition levels in the matter, which is not temperature dependent.
Reduction in the outgoing solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere is observed and measured by professionals and amateurs. Also it is demonstrated theoretically. No question about the reduction. What climatologist overlook is what happens to the incoming solar radiation. We know that the upper atmosphere is cooling and its diameter is decreasing. That is, the incoming and absorbed solar radiation is decreasing as well. The decrease in the outgoing and that of incoming solar radiations is equal. No radiation imbalance for the earth. The same analysis is valid for the radiative forcing methodology. What happens to the incoming solar radiation has never been addressed. In short, the radiative models can never reveal changes in the climate, its causes, and what to do with it. The only way is by thermodynamics. Please see
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
Nabil,
Baron Fourier summed it up for me, by saying “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
As you say, “no radiation balance for the earth”.
This explains the cooling of the Earth since its creation.
bobdroege appears to be a little simple.
Dead guys seem to be speaking to Swenson.
A Mathematician from 200 years ago may have got some things wrong.
Here are two quotes from Fourier.
“The primitive heat of the globe has no longer any sensible effect upon the surface”
“Thus the solar heat has accumulated in the interior of the globe and is there continually renewed. It penetrates the parts of the surface near the equator, and is dissipated through the polar regions.”
Are they both correct?
Maybe Fourier is not the best source for climate.
bobdroege,
Why are you asking me? Read what Baron Fourier wrote, and work it out for yourself.
Of course, you won’t say anything about “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”, will you?
Go on, bumbling bobby, stick your neck out. You don’t need to be coy, or beat around the bush. Just man up, and tell everyone whether you agree or disagree – and your reasons, based on fact.
You won’t will you? Just another gutless true believer, trying to appear intelligent.
You really need to try harder.
Swenson,
Yeah, this I don’t think is true.
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.
For one, because it gives up some of its heat to the atmosphere, you the big notch seen in the emission spectrum of Earth as seen from space.
Let go of Fourier, he did not know the source of Earth’s internal heat.
He lived a little too early to have heard of that discovery.
Should read
“You know the big notch”
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Yeah, this I dont think is true.
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
For one, because it gives up some of its heat to the atmosphere, you the big notch seen in the emission spectrum of Earth as seen from space.”
It seems that neither the universe nor I care what you think. You haven’t even disagreed with what Fourier wrote, and simply blathering irrelevancies about the atmosphere and some “notch”, won’t change the facts.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years and continues to do so. Each night, the surface cools. There is no “energy balance”. As Fourier said, all the energy from the Sun has been radiated away. None has been “trapped” at all.
Surely you don’t believe the Earth is heating up, do you? You cant even explain why it has cooled down!
Swenson,
Just deny all the facts and call people names.
Roy should ban you again.
“The medium of heat transfer, moist air, removes surface heat QH by evaporating water. This transformation is represented by isothermal air expansion between points 1 and 2 at surface temperature TS. The air along with water vapor then adiabatically expands in the lower atmosphere from point 2 at the surface to point 3 in the upper troposphere, and the work, WA, is produced. This work raises the air mass against gravity and maintains air circulation. Under pressure of the upper atmosphere, water vapor condenses in the upper troposphere. This transformation is represented by isothermal compression from point 3 to point 4, and the heat, QC, is rejected to the colder atmosphere. The dry and cold air and condensed water then return to the surface by gravity from point 4 located in the upper troposphere to point 1 at the surface, and the thermodynamic cycle repeats. ”
https://i.ibb.co/g6RcBP7/zt-nh.gif
https://i.ibb.co/Yk8p7HQ/zt-sh.gif
What is important is that the heat released during condensation of water vapor at the top of the troposphere is radiated to the tropopause and has a cooling effect at the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://i.ibb.co/zSq5mX4/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-26-090728.png
Earlier, bobdroege demonstrated his ignorance of physics when he wrote x
“What happens to IR from the Sun when it hits the Earth?
What happens to IR from the atmosphere when it hits the Earth?
Why would one be different from the other?”
bobdroege would be well advised to learn some physics, and then he would not have to pose such silly gotchas.
Unfortunately, having stated clearly that he can boil water with ice cubes – he actually wrote “Its not a belief, its a fact that I can boil water with ice cubes.? – bobdroege shows his inability to accept reality.
He cannot even describe the GHE, but believes it exists, even though he can’t even say wha5 it is supposed to do. Not terribly bright, is bobdroege.
What happens to IR from the Sun when it hits the Earth?”
1/2 of sunlight is shortwave IR {very little Longwave IR from Sun].
To answer question, the ocean absorbs it.
gbaikie,
You are correct, it gets absorbed by the ocean.
However, most of the light from the Sun is below the visible band.
about 45% red or brighter
about 55% infrared and cooler
–gbaikie,
You are correct, it gets absorbed by the ocean.–
Yes, but how much? 80% of all sunlight reaching Earth’s surface?
90%? 70%?
They say most of the shortwave IR is absorbed with the first 1 meter of ocean surface and in terms visible and Near infrared most absorbed
in top 2 meter of the ocean.
[But it seems to me all the infrared emitted by anything cooler than say, 50 C, doesn’t pass thru 1 mm of water.]
But most sunlight reaching Earth surface passes thru the top 1 mm of ocean, but how much, more than 80%?
It seems if one knew anything about global climate, this would be known.
Of course all the heavens, blue sky, and the starlight is passing thru 1 mm. What about the moonlight?
The moonlight is reflected scattered sunlight, so it seems the fishes can see the moonlight.
gb,
It depends on the incident angle, and the wavelength of the light.
Brewster angles, surface roughness, the fact that the refractive index of water varies with wavelength (demonstrated by prism with visible light), and so on, would make a useful answer to bobdroeges’s silly gotcha impossible.
It doesn’t matter, really. Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must. Warmer water floats, gives its heat to space, and sinks being promptly replaced by more warmer water.
And so it goes. Bobdroege doesnt seem to want to accept reality. His choice.
Swenson,
Here let me help you out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
or this
“Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must”
is correct.
You know I am going with Newton.
There is an equation in that wikipedia page, I don’t think you understand it.
“It doesnt matter, really. Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must.”
It can’t. A day of sunlight barely warms the ocean. One would have to say past days of sunlight is mostly emitted.
And Earth is in an Ice Age. Or in Ice Age, Earth is dry. Ocean is warming the the rest of the cold dry Earth.
As I have said if mixed the ocean so surface was the average temperature of the ocean, 3.5 C. What is average temperature of global average surface temperature?
Or average ocean surface temperature of Earth’s ocean is currently around 17 C, what happens if it was 3.5 C.
Well land surface average temperature drops, from it’s current average of about 10 C.
Earth’s sky, falls.
It quite cold.
gb,
It can, and it does.
The surface water gets quite hot under still conditions, and you may have experienced this yourself in tidal pools, where the top couple of centimeters is uncomfortably warm. All this heat vanishes during the night.
As I said, any heat from the sun which is absorbed by the water, results in the water warming. Any water which is warmed, expands, and rises to the surface, displacing denser water as it goes. Once on the surface, it obeys natural laws, and radiates away its excess energy if it is hotter than its environment. The environment of outer space contains little impediment to radiation, and can be considered as -269 C or so for this purpose.
There is no “mixing” of warmer surface waters into the depths, a la Trenberth and his fellow true believers.
All else being equal, warmer water floats on cooler water. The process results in the ocean depths being occupied by the densest water, which due to the odd properties of H2O, is above its freezing point. At 10 km, the water is at around 2 C, whereas the surrounding rock might be 250 C. Of course, this causes convection currents, by warming the bottom water, expanding it, and causing it to rise, being replaced by denser water.
This mechanism seems to escape climate scientists, and various people at NASA and NOAA, who seem convinced that deep ocean currents running at 180 deg to each other are the result of surface winds, or something equally silly.
Nothing to do with the mythical GHE or “climate change”. Just Nature at work.
— Swenson says:
August 26, 2023 at 7:22 PM
gb,
It can, and it does.
The surface water gets quite hot under still conditions, and you may have experienced this yourself in tidal pools, where the top couple of centimeters is uncomfortably warm. All this heat vanishes during the night.–
I am talking mostly about the tropical ocean.
Most of Earth’s ocean has very transparent water. Coastal waters and beaches, in contrast, can have much less transparency.
The tropical ocean is quite big and is quite deep and has very transparent waters- and tidal pools aren’t.
Swimming pools retain their heat over the night time, and swimming pools are small and shallow, and lack the waves of the open ocean.
Bullshit Swenson,
I said it warms the Earth, you know make thermometers read moar hotter moar better.
Which is what the evidence shows.
The Earth is warming, not cooling.
Though it is doing both but more warming than cooling.
Maybe that will blow your mind, maybe not.
Bumbling bobby,
Whatever makes thermometers hotter is certainly not CO2, is it? Otherwise, the Earth would have heated up over the last few billion years due to CO2 in the atmosphere – no doubt in far greater amounts, given the amount removed from prehistoric atmospheres to create fossil fuel deposits.
It doesn’t matter how many times you say “bullshit” (or worse), nor how infantile you try to be (moar hotter moar better), you can’t magic a GHE into existence.
Thermometers react to heat. If thermometers get hotter, some researchers might look for sources of additional heat – ones that haven’t been around for billions of years while the Earth cooled.
Can you name one? It’s not that hard, you know.
Maybe researcher have found the sources of heat, but maybe they have been around for billions of years.
CO2 has been around in the atmosphere for billions of years.
Don’t you know, or have you been blissfully ignorant of that fact?
bobdroege,
Maybe, maybe, maybe . . . .
Don’t you know? Aren’t you sure?
What are you babbling about? Are you claiming that four and a half billions years of cooling has suddenly stopped and reversed itself for no particular reason? Maybe a miracle? Maybe a GHE which nobody can describe?
Go on – take a stab. As you say, CO2 has been around in the atmosphere for billions of years – resulting in cooling, so CO2 doesn’t cause warming, according to Nature.
Come on bobby, pay yourself “50 bucks”, and give yourself a physics lesson – or aren’t you that silly?
Swenson,
It’s no longer cooling, see the monthly graph published by Dr. Roy.
Bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Its no longer cooling, see the monthly graph published by Dr. Roy.”
No, bobby, that’s not the Earth heating – that would be impossible – too big, too far from the Sun, hotter than its environment.
You might not have noticed that people like Dr Spencer are looking for heat sources to account for higher observed temperatures here and there.
Maybe you could assist by suggesting some? I doubt it, but feel free to astonish me.
Swenson,
If the Sun doesn’t heat the Earth, but isn’t that what Baron Fourier said, what does?
The flapping of fairy wings?
bumbling bobby,
What, more gotchas??
You wrote –
“Swenson,
If the Sun doesnt heat the Earth, but isnt that what Baron Fourier said, what does?”
Your gotchas are becoming incomprehensible. If you don’t accept that the mostly glowing hot Earth is still cooling, good for you. It won’t make any difference, you know.
Off you go now, try and think of some better gotchas.
Swenson,
You won’t admit you said something stooopid.
Here I’ll repost what you said.
“No, bobby, thats not the Earth heating that would be impossible too big, too far from the Sun, hotter than its environment.”
“the amount removed from prehistoric atmospheres to create fossil fuel deposits”
and chalk and limestone and other rocks. All contain CO2 in far greater measure than fuel.
RLH,
Makes you wonder how all that CO2 got sequestered, doesn’t it?
Nevertheless, even if it all came from the primeval atmosphere, that incredibly CO2-rich atmosphere couldn’t stop the surface from cooling.
True believers might have to think of another reason for thermometers showing temperature increases. I’d go for additional heat – maybe since the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Probably worth checking if the same sort of temperature rises were recorded in Japan, after its Industrial Revolution – well after the British.
Who knows what might turn up?
“Makes you wonder how all that CO2 got sequestered”
Natural processes, that’s how.
RLH,
I agree. Just as the cooling of the Earth is a natural process – another name for “God did it”, I guess.
How much H2O is sequestered in the form of carbohydrates (or just hydrocarbons, which when burnt, produce H2O)? God knows – I certainly don’t.
Walker Circulation study is a damp squib for climate worriers, contradicts models
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/08/25/walker-circulation-study-is-a-damp-squib-for-climate-worriers-contradicts-models/#more-63794
“Switching between El Nio and La Nia conditions has slowed over the industrial era. That means in the future we could see more of these multi-year La Nia or El Nio type events. So we need to prepare for greater risks of floods, drought and fire. [Talkshop comment alarmist psychobabble].”
aaron s…You seem to think the media has the intelligence to know the difference. Most people writing for the media are simple hackers of average intelligence who were hired to promote the belief system of the owners.
I wrote to the Canadian Broad.casting Cor.poration on several occasions complaining about their climate propaganda based on the propaganda of David Suzuki, an eco-l00ney and uber-alarmist. On one occasion, when CBC printed something with which Suzuki did not agree, he went down to CBC headquarters and lambasted them into submission.
One of my emails was forwarded to a poobah at CBC who replied to me. I tried to convince him that unbiased coverage would require him interviewing scientists like Roy and John of UAH and asked if he would do that.
He declined, claiming that CBC only publishes the views of established institutions like the IPCC. I might as well have been talking to a wall. What he did not reveal is that CBC is funded by the Canadian government and feel obliged to reflect the views of the government. However, when the Tories were in power recently, the CBC continued with their climate alarmist views.
I learned later that the alarmist Liberal government has been funding the privately-owned media, which to me is a conflict of interest of major proportions.
“He declined, claiming that CBC only publishes the views of established institutions like the IPCC.”
Gordon, I would go back to CBC and tell them that the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific institution. They cherry pick publications to suite their political agenda. IPCC is an intergovernmental panel after all.
CBC is not open to dialogue.
Yellow Press Personified.
nabil…I covered that in my communication but the CBC poobah did not want to hear it. You don’t get to be a CBC poobah unless you have excellent abilities to conform.
The Peter Principle claims that employees rise to the level of their incompetence. CBC is a perfect example of that.
I revealed a paper recently in which it was claimed that radiation, being a very poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures, cannot rid the Earth of heat as quickly as it is input from the Sun. Therefore heat builds up, a much better explanation of the so-called greenhouse effect than the anthropogenic theory. The paper claimed that all planets, including the Moon, are running hotter than they should be accordig to the S-B equation calculations.
John Christy of UAH claimed a while back that the atmosphere is far too complex to be covered adequately by current science. Recent revelations in papers are beginning to confirm John’s claim. We simply don’t understand the science and what we have projected regarding it is at least partly wrong.
A recent paper posted by Shula pointed out that surface radiation is 260 times less effective at dissipating heat than conduction/convection. Yet, the Trenberth-Keihle energy budget diagram claims the opposite.
Shula based his claim on the Pirani gauge, an instrument he has used in his work. The gauge has a tube that can be evacuated to produce a vacuum and contains a filament that can be electrically heated. With the tube evacuated and the filament heated, the only means of heat dissipation is radiation and through the filament mounts in the tube which is negligible. Therefore, in the evacuated tube, it is possible to measure radiation only from the filament.
When the tube is filled with a gas, the heat dissipation from the filament is 260 times more than with radiation alone. Models and the anthropognic theory are completely ignorant of this basic fact.
Gordon,
I haven’t looked at the interior of a Pirani gauge tube, but if it polished metal or similar, the mode of operation will be similar to placing the sensor wire within the near vacuum between the walls of a vacuum flask, and then noting that the insulating effect drops as the vacuum is “poisoned” by gas being introduced. This is noted as an increase in conduction, of course.
Although it might be tempting to assume that placing gas between a heat source and a heat sink will increase the rate of heat loss, this is not so in general. An example is how quickly temperatures can fall in an arid desert with clear skies – little so called “greenhouse gases” to impede radiation to outer space.
Rather like NASA leaping to the conclusion that a greenhouse somehow “traps” energy, and stays warm in winter, ignoring the fact that the greenhouse depends on a 5500 K heat source keeping it warm. Without this heat source, a greenhouse buried in snow will be below freezing inside and out, regardless of the fact that it is supposedly “trapping” up to 300 W/m2 of IR emitted by the snow.
Still no GHE. Its disciples can’t even describe it!
Gordon, that the atmospheric air only provides the structure for carbon dioxide to change climates is a a wrong conclusion by climatologists. Yes, the climate science is a lot more complex than that. There is a lot going on in the atmosphere thatvthe current science has not addressed.
Hi Nabil….that’s what I have been trying to point out. For example, the current energy budget theory as present by Trenberth and Keile is wrong. It shows radiation having many times the heat dissipation as conduction/convection and it is the other way around.
Wood pointed out back in 1909 that the planet surface cools mainly by conduction/convection. By that, I mean that the surface transfers heat directly to air molecules in contact with the surface and the warmed air rises, being replaced by cooler air from above.
I have tried to point out as well, that heat as measured by air temperature, has a direct relationship with air pressure, since the atmosphere can be considered a constant volume. Therefore, as pressure decreases with altitude, heat is dissipated naturally.
Alarmists have cried foul, that the conservation of energy theory claims energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that is, energy must be conserved. Seems to me that theory was derived with mechanical energy in mind, especially work. I say that because conservation of energy is normally related to the 1st law of thermodynamics which is only about heat and work.
Where heat and work transformation is concerned there should be energy conservation as suggested by the first law of thermodyamics. However, if heat is dependent on pressure and volume alone, I don’t see why conservation should apply. Heat on its own should be able to disappear if the atoms on which it depends thins out and disappear. That’s what happens in our atmosphere.
There is nothing magical about heat, it is the energy related to atomic motion. Heat will be greater when atoms are more plentiful and will head toward zero as the atoms become fewer and fewer. I think whoever created the law of conservation of energy was a mite narrow minded, a danger when it comes to making broad, sweeping statements in science into laws.
Swenson,
“Any absoxbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must.”
Why must it, you know that the emission of radiation by an object is not dependent on the timing of the absorxtion of radiation by that object, but by another quality of that object, namely its temperature.
Maybe some of it is emitted before sunset, maybe some of it makes it through to the next night. It’s all probability you know.
But maybe you are ignorant of that fact.
bob…temperature was invented by humans to measure relative heat levels. It does not exist other than as a measurement. When the Sun stops shining, at night, a natural cooling should take place. I have never lived in an environment where it does not.
On summer nights, following a hot summer’s day. it can take a while to cool, but if it’s 30C during the day I have never seen that temperature maintained after the western horizon rises to block out the Sun.
Gordon,
Temperature was not invented it’s a property of matter that existed long before there were humans, the units may be invented by humans, but that’s it.
bob…”Temperature was not invented its a property of matter that existed long before there were humans…”
***
Now you are getting into some serious fiction. Even Planck knew that temperature is an invention back around the turn of the 20th century. He also listed time and density as human inventions since they are based on natural phenomena of the Earth. Time is based on the Earth’s rotational period while density is based on the weight per unit volume of water.
Maybe Einstein should have read Planck on that, then he might have gotten it that time cannot dilate unless the Earth’s rotational period changes. Then again, maybe E. thought time would dilate if the Earth’s rotational velocity approached the speed of light.
In a similar manner, temperature is based on the freezing and boiling points of water. Temperature is a measure of heat, which is a natural phenomenon.
Ball4 keeps braying that heat is a measure of kinetic energy. Maybe you two should get together and have a mutual lip-tribbling session. Neither of you seem to understand heat and what really measures it…temperature.
Lip-tribbling? Dang, I hadn’t heard that one (tribbling) before.
I look it up – here’s one definition – “When two females rub each other’s vagina’s together, resulting in one or both of them to reach orgasm.”
Good one, I must remember it.
A less erotic version is someone using their fingers to vibrate the lips to produce a demented sound. It’s often associated with demented people who are not suffering dementia but who, in a state of anxiety, take to tribbling their lips.
You’ll see children tribbling their lips, sometimes using their fingers to create a vibration while they exhale air. If you make a ‘b’ sound while vibrating the lips rapidly with a finger, the lips will vibrate.
Singers use it as an exercise sans finger vibrations. If you use the same ‘b’ sound you can get the lips to vibrate naturally. Sounds like a motor boat. That helps relax the vocal cords. At the same time you can vary the tone of the sound coming from the lips which is more difficult to do with tense vocal cords.
Anyway, lip tribbling is used in cartoons, etc., to indicate that a person has gone off the deep end.
Gordon,
So, you are saying the Earth didn’t have a temperature before humans came around?
Then how does Swenson know the Earth’s temperature when it was formed?
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“So, you are saying the Earth didnt have a temperature before humans came around?”
Presumably you can quote where Gordon said that. Of course you can’t – you’re just demonstrating your intellectual level, as usual.
How are you getting along trying to describe the GHE, or are you now claiming there is no such thing as a GHE, so no description is necessary?
Back to gotcha school for you!
Swenson,
Gordon stated that temperature was a human invention.
Perhaps you could ask him to clarify, I already challenged his statement.
bobdroege,
“Gordon stated that temperature was a human invention.”
OK, then, if you believe the concept was invented by Martians or other aliens, I won’t argue with you. If you are just playing silly semantic games, you will just have to keep playing with yourself.
As usual.
Swenson,
Like I said, Gordon said it, take it up with him.
Some places are warm:
“Between 12am and 1am on 17 July, a weather station in Death Valley, California measured temperatures of 48.9C (120F). If confirmed it would be the hottest recorded temperature at that time.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2382959-death-valley-may-have-just-had-the-hottest-recorded-midnight-ever/
But that wasn’t the night time low. Let’s see:
“In the midst of an already record-breaking heat wave, Phoenix, Ariz., set a particularly eye-popping record: the temperature only dropped to 97 degrees Fahrenheit overnight between Tuesday and Wednesday, setting an all-time record high for a nighttime low.”
{97 F = 36 C}
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-hot-overnight-temperatures-are-so-dangerous/
And the UHI effect would been a large part of it.
“The day of June 26 was a scorcher in the town of Quriyat, Oman. Temperatures in the town, which is weathering a miserable heat wave, peaked at 121.6 degrees Fahrenheit (49.8 degrees Celsius) during the day, according to Weather Underground. That’s just shy of the Omani record-high temperature of 123.4 degrees F (50.8 degrees C), set on May 30, 2017. But anyone in Quriyat hoping for an evening respite from the extreme heat would have been disappointed: Temperatures fell to a low of just 108.7 degrees F (42.6 degrees C). That’s a world record: the highest “low” temperature ever recorded in history.
Oman, a hot and dry country located on the southeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula (south of Saudi Arabia and east of Yemen) is a frequent site for ultrahot weather, including the last record-high low; Weather Underground reports that record, 107.4 degrees F (41.9 degrees C), was set at Khasab Airport on June 27, 2011.
The new record, Weather Underground reported, is the result of a “ridge” of high-pressure air in the upper atmosphere over the Arabian Peninsula, which trapped humid air from the Indian Ocean in the region, preventing heat from escaping at night.”
https://www.livescience.com/62950-hot-low-night-record-oman.html
We can’t trust these claims of heat records since they tend to be fudged. One way of fudging them is to raise the baselines by which records were set. Some today use 1960, which excludes records set in the 1930s.
Another means of fudging was exposed recently. The fudgers are using scans from satellites to claim temperatures based on infrared energy. the method was exposed as seriously wrong when it claimed 49C temps for southern Italy when the actual temperature was about 31C.
Gordon,
“Some today use 1960, which excludes records set in the 1930s.”
Yeah, the 1930s wouldn’t be part of the baseline, but you can still compare the baseline to the records of the 1930s.
Bumbling bobby,
If the surface of the ocean is above the temperature of the atmosphere above, it cools. Even if an inversion forms, temporarily creating an atmosphere hotter than the surface at night, the surface still cools, just as land does.
You can burble on all you like – none of your “maybes” have any relevance at all.
If you choose to believe that an object hotter than its environment may or may not cool, or might store heat for later release (a la Trenberth and his fellow true believers), good for you.
Newton’s Law of Cooling remains intact, as far as I know.
You need to think of better gotchas. Your present ones don’t seem to be working too well.
Maybe you could go back to saying “bullshit” and using baby talk.
Swenson,
Maybe you should tell the truth, if you don’t like my gotchas.
Bumbling bobby,
If the surface of the ocean is above the temperature of the atmosphere above, it cools. Even if an inversion forms, temporarily creating an atmosphere hotter than the surface at night, the surface still cools, just as land does.
You can burble on all you like none of your “maybes” have any relevance at all.
If you choose to believe that an object hotter than its environment may or may not cool, or might store heat for later release (a la Trenberth and his fellow true believers), good for you.
Newton’s Law of Cooling remains intact, as far as I know.
You need to think of better gotchas. Your present ones dont seem to be working too well.
Maybe you could go back to saying “bullshit” and using baby talk.
Swenson,
“Newtons Law of Cooling remains intact, as far as I know.”
But you made an argument that runs afoul of Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Do I need to quote you about that?
You are still a liar.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Do I need to quote you about that?”
Oooooh! A meaningless threat!
Go your hardest. Quote away. At least you seem to accept that Newtn’s Law of Cooling exists. Hopefully you might sometime accept that it applies to the mostly glowing hot Earth, but maybe not.
Over to you.
Swenson,
You said this
“Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must.”
Which is contradicted by Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Try and figure it out.
So far you are not doing so well.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Which is contradicted by Newtons Law of Cooling.”
No, it’s not. That’s why it cools at night, as does the solid surface.
Newton’s Law of Cooling remains unbroken, unless you can show otherwise.
Swenson,
That’s what I am trying to say, if you would read.
Newton’s law of cooling is correct, your statement
Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must.
Is not.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Any absorbed radiation is promptly emitted after sunset from the ocean, as it must.”
And precisely why are you silly enough to claim that a body warmer than its environment does not cool? Or are you just going to try some silly semantic game?
The surface has cooled since it was molten
The sea has cooled since it was first formed at a boiling temperature.
You don’t want to accept it, tough.
Apology. My bad.
You claimed I was wrong about something or other, but you can’t say why. That’s about as bright as claiming I was lying about something – but you can’t say about what, or provide factual reasons.
At least you don’t claim to know anything about the GHE, so you don’t have to justify not being able to describe it.
Oh well, if you think that sort of bizarre behavior makes you look like an intellectual giant, think away. It won’t change any facts.
Swenson,
I did say what you were wrong about go back and reread my posts.
bob, please stop trolling.
Gordon, I do not see how your explanation of heat transfer by convection would violate conservation of energy. As the air parcel cools on its way up, it gains potential energy.
Gordon, I do not see how your explanation of heat transfer by convection would violate conservation of energy. As the air parcel cools on its way up, it gains potential energy. The total energy remains the same.
nabil…an air parcel cannot gain potential energy if it progressively loses mass as it ascends. As it rises, its PE -> 0.
Gravity does not act on an air parcel as a body, it acts on individual air molecules which obviously don’t behave like a typical mass as in Newton’s f = mg.
That’s my point. Since heat is totally dependent on mass, as the mass thins with altitude it is reduced, as is the heat content.
Nabil,
No offense intended, but you wrote –
“As the air parcel cools on its way up, it gains potential energy. The total energy remains the same.”
As the air parcel cools, is it not radiating energy away – to outer space, eventually?
There is no “energy balance” that I can see. If you are saying that potential energy has increased, that energy came from somewhere, as work has been performed moving the cooling air parcel against the force of gravity.
The Sun, of course provides most of this energy – without it the atmosphere would solidify, and sit motionless on a globe with a surface temperature of about 40 K or so.
I believe I am correct, and that the Earth has cooled significantly over the past four and a half billion years – a fairly massive energy imbalance considering the amount of matter converted to energy by radiogenic heat production, continuous sunlight, meteoric impacts, tidal friction heat production and all the rest.
No energy balance at all. Would you agree, or have I missed something.
swenson…no offense intended either, from me, I am just commenting and stand to be corrected.
The problem as I see it about a parcel of air gaining PE as it rises is that an air parcel is not a mass as a mass is normally defined. Certainly, if you raise a solid mass against gravity it gains PE as mgh. However, an air parcel is not being lifted by an external force, it is lifting itself in opposition to gravity.
I read a while back that as air heated at the surface rises, cooler air from above that is more dense, forces itself underneath and helps propel the heated air parcel upward. That could be claimed as a force, however, a normal mass that is lifted wants to fall toward the surface. Don’t see how that applies to an air parcel.
It’s dodgy, especially considering that the air parcel moves into thinner air as it rises and thins out itself. If the air parcel reaches the peak of Everest at nearly 30,000 feet, it’s density has reduced to 1/3 of the air density at sea level.
That raises a question, how high does an air parcel rise? Roy???
My point is, as an air parcel rises into a lower and lower pressure, it’s pressure must reduce and with a reduction in pressure comes a natural reduction in temperature, which is a measure of heat. I call that a natural means of heat dissipation.
Gordon,
I agree pretty much. A “parcel of air” will not rise unless it is less dense than the air around it, and vice versa (somebody is no doubt going to take me to task, and mention orographic uplift, I suppose).
Air, like all other matter, radiates energy, the wavelength of which is proportional to its “temperature”, although you can also say that the “temperature” of the radiating object is determined by the wavelength of the radiated energy. As the density decreases, “temperature” becomes less relevant. A simple example is a low level atmospheric inversion – the air may be hotter than the ground, but the ground still cools.
All constituents of a parcel are at the same temperature – all emitting exactly the same wavelengths, much to the surprise and chagrin of some. If a parcel is compressed quickly, to a temperature of say 500 C, all the component gases have a temperature of 500 C, and radiate accordingly.
And of course, if allowed to cool to absolute zero, in theory all the gases would radiate no photons at all! For matter to radiate IR, it must be above absolute zero.
Temperature, heat, energy, can all be misleading without sufficient context.
Swenson,
Again, you fall foul of established science.
“Air, like all other matter, radiates energy, the wavelength of which is proportional to its temperature”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The peak wavelength is inversely proportional to temperature.
Gotcha!
Oh, and again, not everything emits like a blackbody.
Gases for one.
Gotcha!
Gordon Robertson
Consider a high altitude balloon.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/224968943858142333/
This contains a parcel of gas of constant mass. At launch the volume of the gas is perhaps 5% of its final volume.
As it gains altitude the gas increases in volume and decreases in pressure and temperature according to PV=nRT.
Since n and R remain constant the amount of heat contained in the gas in the balloon remains constant throughout the ascent. There is no “dissipation”.
EM,
Everything above absolute zero emits IR.
Everything emitting more energy than it receives cools.
You will soon discover that a hot air balloon ceases to rise unless you keep supplying enough heat to keep the balloon air less dense than the air around it. Air cools – all by itself.
Let it cool enough (by cunning use of physical laws) and it becomes a liquid!
By the way, the helium in your high altitude balloon is at the same temperature as the surrounding atmosphere.
Dissipated, gone, vanished – the energy radiated to outer space is no longer available on Earth.
That’s reality.
Swenson, shut up you’re talking bullshit.
I’m trying to have a sensible conversation with Gordon.
Reading recent posts, there is a difference in approach. Most of those posting regard a parcel of air as a constant mass of gas, highlighted by the constant mass of gas in my stratosphere example.
The mass of the gas and its total heat content stay constant at all altitudes, while PV and T vary as PV/T=k and k remains constant.
Trying to measure heat content from P, V or T doesn’t work as these all vary with altitude.
You were right about one thing. By your definition the mass of your parcel of air decreases per unit volume as it expands as heat content is proportional to mass. Unfortunately this gives the illusion that heat is disappearing instead of just getting more spread out.
In summary, a parcel is a constant mass of gas, not a constant volume.
Part of the problem is that a parcel, a mass of rising air, is hard to see.
The mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion is a vortex ring on a stalk.
A thermal rising off a field has the same vortex and stalk structure but is not visible at first.
On a good day you see a fluffy cumulus cloud forming as the water vapour in the parcel condenses. This increases the density of the parcel and it stops rising.
When all the air in the parcel reaches the cloudbase the bottom of the cloud starts to turn grey. Look at that cloud and it contains all the molecules, all the mass, that were in the parcel of convecting air.
And all the heat content.
EM,
Oh well, if you have magical climatological air that doesnt get colder without an external heat source, I suppose you would have difficulty. If you heated it by compression, it would never cool down, is that it? Gee, that seems strange.
I suppose a parcel of your magic air would just keep emitting IR to infinity and beyond, never getting colder. Another free source of power, just like bobdroege’s ice powered steam generator.
Did you borrow the bullshit from bobdroege, or did you make it up yourself?
I suggest you might consult with a meteorologist or an aviator, about atmospheric instability, creating cumulus or cumulonimbus clouds that occasionally push through the tropopause.
It’s nice to see the fantasies of people who passionately believe in a GHE they cannot describe.
[chortling at bizarre pseudoscience]
I was an,aviator and glider pilot. I’ve been inside clouds and thermals and experienced these processes first-hand. Have you?
I was describing the normal adiabatic behaviour. When the thermal reaches the condensation level the water vapour condenses into droplets. This decreases the volume of the gas and makes it denser. The latent heat released warms the gas and expands it enough to cancel the condensation induced reduction in volume. The cloud just sits there at the same density as the surrounding air.
You are describing super-adiabatic convection, when the humidity is high enough that the large amount of latent heat released is enough to reduce the density of the cloud below that of the surrounding air. The cloud keeps convecting and forms a cumulonimbus with enough energy to punch into the stratosphere.
How does this feel?
If you stay in the core of the vortex or in the stalk you encounter rising air, lifting you at several knots.The
Get too far out towards the edge of the vortex and you get anything from reduced lift to sink, depending on the rotation rate.
When you reach the cloudbase of an adiabatic cloud the lift slows and stops after you enter the cloud.
When you enter the cloudbase of a super-adiabatic cloud the lift continues and you gain height inside the cloud. For many years the UK gain-of-height record was held by an ancient and very inefficient two-seater called the T21 Sedbergh, which was unwise enough to enter the base of a cu-nim and rose about 10,000ft before they could get out the side of the cloud. Fortunately(?) they had wound up the barograph and the flight was recorded.
ent….”I was describing the normal adiabatic behaviour”.
***
I have a problem with adiabatic processes in the atmosphere. An adiabatic process is one in which heat is not exchanged with the environment. Ideally, it describes a process in an insulated container which prevents heat escaping or entering. That is hardly ever the case in the atmosphere.
Heat is continually being absorbed at the surface and transported through the atmosphere by convection. Furthermore, it is transported laterally by convection. Where is heat ever blocked in the atmosphere?
You mentioned thermals re gliding. How do you think the thermals get their name? It’s by heat being transported from the surface to higher altitudes. The heat dos not simply rise in a vertical column, it has to be expanding laterally as well, hence no adiabatic processes.
ent…”On a good day you see a fluffy cumulus cloud forming as the water vapour in the parcel condenses. This increases the density of the parcel and it stops rising”.
***
Poses an interesting question, what causes clouds to form in one situation and not in another? As you claim, cold air causes condensation. So, why does that not happen at all times on Mt. Everest as warm, moist air from the Indian Ocean rises to 30,000 feet?
Here in Vancouver this summer, we have experienced more cloud-free days than normal, yet we are right on the ocean.
ent…”The mass of the gas and its total heat content stay constant at all altitudes, while PV and T vary as PV/T=k and k remains constant”.
***
Sometimes you have to put away the equations and consider the physical aspects. What is heat? No one knows so we have to define it using what is apparent. According to Clausius, who is credited with internal energy, U, in the 1st law, heat is an independent form of energy associated with atomic motion. In a solid, if you add this energy, the atoms making up the solid begin vibrating harder and the temperature rises. Since temperature is a relative measure of heat based on the freezing and boiling points of water, we can measure changes in heat with a thermometer.
A gas is a bit different. In a gas, the atomic or molecular motions become the measure of heat, that is, the kinetic energy of the gas which describes energy in motion. The heat in a gas will depend on the number of molecules per unit volume hence the size of the container, which is the volume. Both determine the pressure, hence the temperature.
I am considering the problem from the perspective of air in a higher pressure, higher temperature surface area rising into an ever-decreasing gas pressure. The point to note is that the negative pressure gradient has been predetermined by gravity.
Lapse rate theory does not recognize that simple fact. The authors of the theory have created a fictitious environment with adiabatic properties and adiabatic properties cannot apply when the air parcels have no walls to prevent heat entering and leaving.
Therefore, as an air parcel rises, it is expanding into an ever-thinning layer of air pressure. That mean the number of molecules per unit volume is decreasing with altitude, meaning the temperature must drop since the pressure has dropped due to gravity.
Writing the IGL as P = prt, where small p = density = n/V, it’s obvious that as n/V decreases, both P and T must decrease to make the equation balance. We already know that P has decrease due to altitude therefore T must decrease in step.
My theory is based on an air parcel rising indefinitely so maybe I need to modify it to represent lower altitudes. Still, heat is lost automatically with altitude via convection.
P.S. “If you think UAH global is skewed, show us”
UAH data is freely available. Please show us that I am wrong. i.e. That UAH global data is normally distributed.
Look at Figure 6C
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Frequency-distributions-of-all-30-year-TLT-and-TMT-trends-in-500-year-integrations-for_fig6_225724174
The trend data follows a normal distribution, so the raw data probably does too.
As I said, the UAH global data is freely available. Can you show that it is ‘normally distributed’ or a ‘skewed distribution’?
P.S. RSS does NOT agree with both NOAA/STAR and UAH.
No. I don’t have the IT skills for that sort of information processing.
You do, so why aren’t you doing it yourself?
I have done it to my satisfaction. I am asking others to publish their results that are different. None have done it to date. I wonder why?
Swenson, All of the heat is solar in origin. The air, however, gains the heat from the surface as sensible and latent heat. Thereafter in the lower atmosphere, the heat exchaneged is negligible. The air parcel cools adiabatically. That’s how the Adiabatic Lapse Rate Equation is derived. By the way, it is a good and representative equation.
Nabil,
You didn’t indicate whether you agreed that a cooling air parcel is losing energy by radiation.
No problem if you don’t wish to commit yourself.
Swenson, there is no radiation within the mass of air. There can only be convection as Gordon mentioned. The physics of atmospheric air slabs radiating among one another to explain the GHE is just a creation of the mind.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Stop lying.”
Well, that’s forceful, isn’t it? Another bizarre product of your diseased fantasy?
Which particular “lie” do you have in mind? Or can’t you actually find any?
You really are a trick, as one of my colleagues would say.
[laughing at desperate GHE true believer]
Swenson,
One particular lie you make over and over again is that no one has described the greenhouse effect.
Sorry Nabil. I accidentally posted a response to bobdroege. My laughter got the better of me. My bad
As to you saying “Swenson, there is no radiation within the mass of air”, I respectfully disagree.
Air, like all matter, radiates infrared if above absolute zero, which air most certainly is.
A parcel of air surrounded by a colder environment (generally colder air), cools. By radiating energy.
Maybe I have misunderstood you, so I would appreciate you giving an example of an air parcel which doesn’t radiate to its surroundings. How could you measure its temperature, for example? How would it cool as it ascended?
I think you are wrong, but I would appreciate your advice if I am in error.
Swenson,
I learned at school that radiation occurs between bodies separated from one another. In a homogeneous body, like the atmospheric air mass, there is only conduction and convection. Because the air is not solid, there can only be convention in the mass of air. The validity of the Adiabatic Lapse Rate Equation is an example of no radiation within the mass of air of the lower atmosphere. It is a simple application of the first law of thermodynamics. Work, heat, and enthalpy, and No radiation.
Textbooks of the physics of the atmosphere are not the same around the world. Even in the west they are different. They do not all teach the radiative forcing, where the air is divided into slabs and the slabs radiate with one another. This is a pure fiction, not taught all over the world. It is just taught in several western schools that happen to have loud microphones. They will ultimately lose with time.
Clint R,
I decline your protestations, they have no merit.
You have to tell me what this has to do with the greenhouse effect.
“and ice cubes can NOT boil water.”
No one is trying to explain the GHE by your boiling water with ice analogy.
It just doesn’t work.
So tell me, how do you tell a downwelling photon from the Sun from a downwelling photon from the atmosphere?
Wien’s displacement law says different.
Please stop with the boiling water with ice bunk, it make you look rather immature and unable to admit when you are wrong.
Glad to see you move away from your “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense, bob.
Keep going in the right direction. You don’t want to be an ignorant, immature, tr0ll, do you?
Clint R,
It always was your strawman argument against the greenhouse effect, and is all made up, and has nothing to do with the physics of the greenhouse effect.
The “ice boiling water” nonsense destroyed your cult’s belief that photons from a colder sky can warm Earth’s 288K surface.
Again, I’m glad to see you rejecting your cult’s nonsense. (Ball4 loses again.)
bob, are you ready to reject all the cult nonsense, like Norman’s “square orbit”?
You’ve got a lot of nonsense to reject, so best get started.
Clint R,
That’s all wrong, and you should know that.
IR photons from the atmosphere can warm the surface, whether or not they are absorbed has nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere from which they are admitted.
Kirchhoff’s law applies, Wien’s law does not.
Nate’s square orbit demolishes your immature ball on a string nonsense.
bobdroege,
Maybe you could furiously pose a gotcha, and demand to know what happens when a photon does not interact with an electron!
It’s pretty simple (just like you).
If a photon doesn’t interact with an electron, it doesn’t interact with it!
If you don’t want to believe me, look it up on the internet.
bob…”IR photons from the atmosphere can warm the surface…”
***
2nd law…heat can NEVER be transferred by it own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Clausius made it clear in his writing that the 2nd law applies to radiation as well.
Gordon,
The heat transfer is from the warm surface to the cold atmosphere, anyway energy can be transferred from cold to hot.
So it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
If I’ve told you once, but you don’t listen.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
” . . . anyway energy can be transferred from cold to hot.”
Only in your fantasy, measured with an imaginary energy transfer instrument!
Or maybe you transferred it with a bucket?
Swenson,
No bucket needed, nor an instrument to transfer energy, matter does that all by itself, you even claim everything above absolute zero emits infrared.
Which is not entirely true, I could provide counterexamples, and have, but you just swallow everything you read on the internet. You are not much of a skeptic.
Stand two metal plated about a foot apart, and heat one with a blowtorch.
Now one plate is colder than the one heated by the blowtorch, and it is radiating energy towards the plate heated by the blowtorch, transferring energy from cold to hot.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
.No bucket needed, nor an instrument to transfer energy, matter does that all by itself, you even claim everything above absolute zero emits infrared.
Which is not entirely true, I could provide counterexamples, . . . ”
No you can’t. Try, fail.
Ice emits IR. Put some in your hot soup.
Try it. Fail.
bobby,
What greenhouse effect are you talking about?
What is it supposed to do? When did it start, and where?
Maybe you could complain that you never described the greenhouse effect, so you don’t have to answer questions about it.
That would be a clever way of avoiding having to commit yourself to anything, wouldn’t it?
Give it some thought – deny all knowledge of any greenhouse effect.
Off you go now. Start denying that you said anything at all.
Swenson,
The Greenhouse Effect which when an atmosphere has radiatively active gases like CO2 and water vapor make the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without those gases.
You know, the increase in CO2 concentration documented in the Keeling curve which causes the increase in temperature as measured by Dr. Roy and his team.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“The Greenhouse Effect which when an atmosphere has radiatively active gases like CO2 and water vapor make the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without those gases.”
Quite apart from being slightly incomprehensible, that “description” says nothing, and is not supported by reality. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and you can’t say how much “warmer” the mythical greenhouse effect made the surface, at any time. The Earth cooled, so there is obviously no heating effect involved. You may have also noted that the surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day. Are you quite mad?
You may not be aware that the Moon, having no “radiatively active” gases (bearing in mind that all gases are “radiatively active”, both absorbing and radiating IR like all matter) actually gets hotter than the Earth. Not only that, but the hottest places on Earth (arid deserts) actually have the least amounts of your “radiatively active gases”.
I could proceed further, but any onlookers will see that you are just repeating meaningless rubbish, hoping to sound intelligent.
Swenson,
“The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and you cant say how much warmer the mythical greenhouse effect made the surface, at any time.”
No, the Earth has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years, you are just making that up.
The Earth has warmed and cooled over various periods, since it started forming from ice cold interstellar dust.
Currently the GHE effect makes the surface of the Earth about 33 or 34 degrees C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.
So you are wrong on both counts.
Blundering Bobby,
“No, the Earth has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years, you are just making that up.”
Oh well, if you choose to believe that the Earth was created cold, and has heated up gradually since then, and got hotter and colder from time to time for no reason that you can explain, and that it has heated up until it is hotter than it should be, good for you.
You didn’t say it did, and you didn’t say it didn’t, I know. You didn’t say anything at all. I suppose you think makes you clever.
Maybe you can find someone to agree with you.
[derisive laughter]
bob…”So tell me, how do you tell a downwelling photon from the Sun from a downwelling photon from the atmosphere?”
***
Elementary my dear Droege. EM from the Sun comes from a source of at least 5000C. EM from the atmosphere comes from a source much colder than the surface. The frequencies and intensities would be much different.
2nd law!!!
I have read the claim that 50% of the solar output is in the IR range. Upon reflection, I think that is nonsense. Look at the solar spectrum as depicted at this site and it is obvious that the largest proportion of solar energy is in the visible spectrum. It ranges from the visible colour red to the visible colour violet and that range covers an apparent 99% of the solar spectrum. The IR band is a blip at the red end.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/solar-spectral-irradiance
Check the scale that chart uses, 100, 1000, 10000.
Anyway I was referring to 15u photons from the atmosphere and from the Sun.
Tell me how you tell them apart.
The frequencies would be the same, they have the same wavelength and the same energy.
bobdroege,
Have you lost any pretense of physical knowledge?
Do you not realise that the Sun emits photons of all infrared wavelengths? Next thing, you’ll be claiming that you can heat water with the 15u photons emitted by frozen CO2 (dry ice)!
You may have noticed that, even though the sun is nominally around 5500 K or so, an object exposed to the Sun on the Earth’s surface will not even get to 100 C.
It doesn’t look as though you understand the physics involved.
Have you tried finding out why you cant heat water with the radiation from frozen CO2?
Swenson,
Well with the Sun, you have to consider the view angle, the Sun takes up only a small fraction of the sky.
“You may have noticed that, even though the sun is nominally around 5500 K or so, an object exposed to the Sun on the Earths surface will not even get to 100 C”
Now is that the surface temperature or the temperature of the whole Sun?
“Have you tried finding out why you cant heat water with the radiation from frozen CO2?”
I never said you could heat water with radiation from frozen CO2.
You like to put words in peoples mouth’s and then argue against what they didn’t say.
Blundering bobby,
You wrote –
“I never said you could heat water with radiation from frozen CO2.”
Who said you did? Read what I said. You agree that you cannot heat water with 15u photons from CO2, do you?
That’s what frozen CO2 emits. Go on, try some semantic tricks, it won’t do you any good. You can’t heat anything warmer with the radiation from something colder.
I’m glad you agree with that, although you are too gutless to say so!
You’re a strange one.
Gordon,
Here is a chart with a linear axis for wavelength.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/683
bob…that’s a seriously misleading graph and so is the article. They are proposing to integrate over a curve that is not anywhere near accurate. I posted the real solar irradiance curve for you and it looks nothing like the one they posted.
They have exaggerated the IR portion of the graph. I defy them to integrate over the proper solar irradiance graph and find the same results.
Besides, this graphic is intended to represent solar radiance at the Earth. Even at that, it should be the same as at the Sun. The graphic is obviously falsely represented.
Gordon,
Your graph is a logarithmic in the x axis, so it squeezes the spectrum together.
You didn’t notice that?
The graphs are the same, just presented differently.
bob, please stop trolling.
bobdroege,
You wrote “No one is trying to explain the GHE by your boiling water with ice analogy”
I agree. Nobody at all would be silly enough to try and “explain” something that cannot even be described, would they?
I really don’t know why you said earlier “Its not a belief, its a fact that I can boil water with ice cubes.”.
Is your statement something to do with the GHE which you can’t describe, or just some irrelevant diversion?
Either way, if you believe such comments make you look intelligent, you may be kidding yourself. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Stop lying.
bobdroege,
You wrote
Swenson,
Stop lying.
Well, thats forceful, isnt it? Another bizarre product of your diseased fantasy?
Which particular lie do you have in mind? Or cant you actually find any?
You really are a trick, as one of my colleagues would say.
[laughing at desperate GHE true believer]
Swenson,
You really are a tool.
Something doesn’t have to exist to be described, you know, you can describe the shape and pointyness of a Unicorn’s horn.
But then the GHE is real, Unicorns are not.
The GHE has been described for you many times, that’s what makes you a liar.
bumbling bobby,
Neither you, nor anybody else has described the GHE.
You keep trying to “explain” how the mythical GHE operates. Here’s your latest bizarre attempt –
“The Greenhouse Effect which when an atmosphere has radiatively active gases like CO2 and water vapor make the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without those gases.”
No, bobby. Even as an explanation, your attempt is worthless, relating to some supposed non-measurable quantity (warmer than it would be.), and ignores the fact that all gases both absorb and emit IR, the wavelengths being strictly proportional to temperature.
Just a word salad, saying nothing at all, and being contrary to the observed fact that the highest surface temperatures are found where water vapour is least – Death Valley, or the Lut Desert for example.
You tried again, failed again.
You might as well keep trying – you like displaying your ignorance, I guess.
Bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Something doesnt have to exist to be described,”
Exactly. The GHE, for example.
Except that you can’t actually describe it.
bob, please stop trolling.
In August, the amount of heat under the equatorial Pacific decreased compared to July.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202308.gif
Yes, you’d expect that.
Under La Nina conditions the amount of heat under the equatorial Pacific increases. Under El Nino conditions the amount of heat decreases.
As we move from La Nina this Spring to El Nino this Autumn we see a decrease.
Nice to see the system behaving normally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsaaXcQeyhk
Manabe, His Climate Modeling,
Links get your post blocked. Google:
August 25, 2023
Button up Your Overcoat
By Tom Anderson
Observation in the stratosphere and an Antarctic winter, and recent experiment have shown that CO2 interacts with solar radiation overwhelmingly at 80 Celsius degrees below waters freezing point, i.e., 193K ( ‑80C and ‑112F).
I’m finally being vindicated for my claims that so many on this board have attacked me for. Facts are awful stubborn things, but the truth is eventually getting out.
Here’s the link:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/button_up_your_overcoat_.html
And, don’t worry about being attacked. You’re dealing with people that hate reality. I use their ineffective flak as verification that I’m hitting the target.
Without enough coffee, I am thinking that only serious global climate change involves major changes to the tropics. And it seems only time that has happenned is when Earth has had large space rocks hitting it.
So latest one that counts was the rock the killed the dinosaurs- 65 million years ago, and Earth has hit by such rocks on average every 200 million years.
But such effect upon Earth has limited to centuries, and in that sense it’s not long lasting effect- but it would effect the tropics a lot.
I was thinking about this last night:
Fast Company: Climate Optimists are Worse than Climate Doomers
Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Brian Kateman, climate alarmists like Musk who think colonising other planets will solve our problems are worse than people who think its all hopeless. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/26/fast-company-climate-optimists-are-worse-than-climate-doomers/
So, Climate Optimists are those who think we can stop big rocks from hitting Earth and Climate Doomers don’t want to do this.
And we would have not known about dinosaur extinction event, if we had not gone to the Moon.
So being a spacefaring civilization would give us unlimited resources and we could human populations in the hundreds of billions, but it would mostly be about preventing “serious” climate change on Earth- something effects the tropics- where most people are living.
I have gotten significantly more coffee.
Exploring the Moon and Mars is about exploring Moon and Mars- which we really haven’t done yet- particularly if you willing say we have not really explored our oceans, yet.
We have explored lunar poles, the least. And we don’t know if there is mineable water in either of the lunar pole. People tend to think the south polar region is more likely.
The India lunar lander is 20 degree away from south pole, I tend to think polar region is around 15 degrees away from poles. Or would say within 15 degrees has greatest chance of having mineable lunar water.
But as news is saying, it’s hard to land in lunar polar region, and at 20 degree it is also hard. So India’s first landing and at 20 degree is great and will help with question of whether there in mineable lunar water. But some water at 20 degrees probably means lots of mineable water closer to the poles.
Mineable lunar or Martian water, depends on many factors- no governmental agency can say their is mineable water- mineable is commercial issue. And commercial involves a lot factors- and commercial issues can depend global markets and what global governments do or don’t do.
So, I would say, a factor related to whether lunar water is mineable is dependent on how fast NASA explores Mars. Mineable water on Mars depends on what happening on the Moon, and Lunar mineable water, depends on what is happening on Mars.
Or what someone says in an Ivory tower, matters little in terms whether something is mineable.
And also mineable water depend other volatiles other the water and geology {rocks in general} and lots of other things.
You should look up Hiawatha crater
–Both methods suggest that the impact occurred about 57.99 million years ago.
That makes the crater far too old to be the smoking gun long sought by proponents of the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (SN: 6/26/18). The timing also isnt quite right to link it to a warm period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which began around 56 million years ago (SN: 9/28/16). For now, the researchers say, what impact this space punch may have had on Earths global climate remains a mystery.–
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hiawatha-crater-greenland-age-younger-dryas
Kind of silly as 55 million years ago, both Antarctica and Greenland has no ice sheet- and Younger Dryas was a cooling event {what a warm period, have to do with it?]
Anyhow, Hiawatha crater seems was small impactor, we have had many, many small impactors in last 10 million years, dinosaur size are of order 100 to 200 million years. And they have some effect on Tropics – really effect global climate, rather than mere glaciational periods, which have live cold Europe or China to get very cold climate.
But a small space rock that caused Hiawatha crater would have effect like volcanic eruption in 1257 AD. Or would kill many millions of people. Or would be as bad as a nuclear war.
What else about Hiawatha crater?
“A red cylinder shows the best-fit rim of the impact crater and a measuring stick shows the diameter as more than 31 kilometers across”.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4572
Impactor diameter 1.5 kilometers (0.9 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_Glacier
1.5 km diameter is quite serious but they happen a lot.
gb,
There are more than 40,000 reasonably sized (visible) impact craters on Mars, and probably well over 100,000 on the Moon (some estimates go up to 500,000,000 – really!). Of course, more recent impacts can obscure previous impacts, so the actual number can never be known.
I suppose the Earth is subject to comparable numbers. I hope Im not anywhere near the next one that impacts.
It’s interesting to me that the impact craters always appear to be “head on” impacts, although this occurrence is statistically unlikely. One hypothesis seems counterintuitive, but has been expert confirmed. That’ll do me.
Mars is guessed to have more impactors than Earth or our Moon and a billions of year surface- though Mars has some wind erosion which adds up over the millions to billions of years.
Earth has in comparison a massive amount of erosion and the tectonic plates ripping up and smashing together land areas- and has very young oceanic floor.
The man on Moon [or “darker areas, “seas of Moon”] was caused by large but quite thin volcanic lava flows 2 to 3 billion years ago, and the otherwise ancient surface, has long past saturation in terms impact craters. Or later impactor, particularly the larger ones, erased the more numerous more ancient smaller impact craters.
And the moon has micro meteorites impacting it’s surface, whereas tiny space rock/pebbles burn up in the Mars atmosphere.
“Its interesting to me that the impact craters always appear to be head on impacts, although this occurrence is statistically unlikely. One hypothesis seems counterintuitive, but has been expert confirmed. Thatll do me.”
Well one way to look at this is the impact velocity. The least impact velocity is around the escape velocity of say Mars, Moon, or Earth.
Earth is about 11 km/sec. But if comets hit Earth, the velocity of impact can be 30 or more km/sec. So if space rock orbit out beyond Main Asteroid belt or beyond Jupiter. The average impact velocity for
Earth is around 20 km/sec and same goes for the Moon. But the Moon has lower escape velocity and can space rock hitting it as low as about 2 km/sec. It’s guessed about 1% of lunar impactors are at around 2 to 3 km per impact velocity and such low velocity impact can more or less remain “intact” and there could economic value to finding these low impact space rocks. Anyhow the 20 km/sec average is
that most space rock hitting Earth or Moon are which call near earth space rocks which crossing Earth orbit on yearly time scale rather decade to centuries time scale.
There various classifications but generally they are called Near Earth objects or asteroids {object include comets}.
NEO:
“A near-Earth object (NEO) is any small Solar System body whose orbit brings it into proximity with Earth. By convention, a Solar System body is a NEO if its closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) is less than 1.3 astronomical units (AU). If a NEO’s orbit crosses the Earth’s orbit, and the object is larger than 140 meters (460 ft) across, it is considered a potentially hazardous object (PHO). Most known PHOs and NEOs are asteroids, but a small fraction are comets.
There are over 30,503 known near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and over a hundred known short-period near-Earth comets (NECs). ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
So Earth and Moon could seen as moving targets going around the Sun at about 30 km/sec and space are very high velocity bullets shooting at us, and most has nothing much to do with escape velocity, but some rocks could “dock” with Earth, rather than than bullets hitting a moving target and this small number would be related to the Earth, Moon, or Mars escape velocity in terms of impact velocity.
Or space rock could do some kind hohmann transfer trajectory to Earth, Moon, Mars, but most would impact Earth, Moon, Mars with a non hohmann transfer.
Anyhow, it seems that space rocks which hitting a lower velocity could more likely hit a lower angle.
ent…re high altitude balloon…
“Since n and R remain constant the amount of heat contained in the gas in the balloon remains constant throughout the ascent. There is no dissipation.
***
That is not the same as uncontained air rising. The walls of the balloons keep the gas contained and the volume and number of atoms the same. If an accident happened and the balloon casing was ruptured, the contained air would waste little time losing pressure into the much lighter air.
I read the account by Richard Branson of he and his partner flying a high altitude balloon. They got up to the stratosphere and got caught in the jet stream, experiencing a wild ride that drove them completely off course.
https://www.wickersworld.co.uk/the-ballooning-exploits-of-richard-branson/
Without the container, there is nothing to stop rising air from expanding into a much less dense atmosphere and becoming less dense itself. As it loses density, it loses heat.
Since density is mass per unit volume it can replace n/V in the Ideal Gas Equation which becomes P = prT where small p is density. As p reduces, both P and T must reduce to accommodate.
Schizophrenic Canadian weather, hot on one side of the country and cool on the other.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/where-s-the-heat-many-canadian-cities-failed-to-hit-30-degrees-in-august/ar-AA1fR2ie?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=a7e979863a6c4445ac6594922726fc7d&ei=36
They are blaming it rightly on the jet stream. Confused alarmists cannot explain it and have resorted to meteorology.
Swenson,
“Is your statement something to do with the GHE which you cant describe, or just some irrelevant diversion?”
This is a lie, as I have already described the GHE to you.
You look like a demented lad in an insane asylum talking and laughing to himself in the corner.
bobdroege,
No, you said “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
That’s not a description, you donkey. That’s a ridiculous attempt to “explain” something which you can’t describe. Just making stuff up as you go wont help you. Others can make up their own minds.
Swenson,
Yes, but it actually agrees with the evidence, and that description was only to make fun of you.
Here moar nicer moar better.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 and other radiatively active gases in the atmosphere causes the average global surface temperature to increase.
bobdroege,
All gases are radiatively active. The Moon has no atmosphere and is hotter than the Earth. You cannot even say where this GHE may be observed, or what the global average temperature currently is, let alone “should be”.
Try again.
Fail again.
[laughter continues.]
Clint R,
“All gases are radiatively active.”
Some don’t do much with the IR emitted from the Earth, Oxygen and Nitrogen don’t do much with IR, like a millionth of what CO2 does.
The Moon is hotter than the Earth for two reasons, on has to do with albedo and the other its rate of rotation.
bobdroege,
All gases are radiatively active. The Moon surface heats up faster than the Earth. It receives more radiation.
The atmosphere prevents 30% of the Suns radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, making temperatures lower, not higher.
You can’t even say where your mythical GHE may be observed!
The atmosphere quite obviously makes the surface cooler than it otherwise would be. You just have it all back to front.
swenson…”All gases are radiatively active”.
***
They have to be. All constituents of the atmosphere, whether pure atoms like Argon, or molecules like N2. O2. and CO2, have electrons and electrons radiate EM as they transition between energy states.
The question I am trying to research, when time permits, is why N2 and O2 don’t emit readily in the IR band. I cannot accept that they don’t but I don’t understand the theory well enough to work it out.
Even hydrogen, with on electron, radiates in the IR band. With one electron, the electron can be excited to exist in several orbital energy bands. If it resides, even momentarily, in the 7th level, and drops to the 6th or 5th level, it emits IR. If it drops from the 7th level to levels below level 5 and goes straight to level 4, 3, 2, or the ground state, it emits higher frequency EM.
Look up Balmer and Paschen series for hydrogen.
Why is that not the case for N2 and O2? We know that O2 emits in the microwave region and oxygen has a similar atomic layout to oxygen. So, why should nitrogen and/or oxygen not radiate an appreciable amount of IR?
Could this be another one of those fables produced by climate alarmists? They have filled peoples’ minds with the nonsense that the surface is cooled only by radiation with conduction/convection playing a minor role. The truth is exactly the opposite, that radiation is a very poor means of heat dissipation while conduction/convection is 260 times better.
“Even hydrogen, with on[e] electron, radiates in the IR band.”
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Hydrogen that has been hit with high energy electrons or UV light can emit IR. This is NOT “thermal IR” due to the temperature of the H2 gas. Turn on the high voltage to the H2 gas discharge tube, and The various Hydrogen lines (including IR lines) will appear. Turn of the high voltage, and the IR lines disappear. Thermal collisions are NOT capable of exiting the hydrogen gas to the higher shells.
Gordon,
What Tim said.
And its ionized hydrogen, normally at temperatures in the atmosphere, hydrogen exists as diatomic molecules that do not emit in the infrared.
Tim,
All matter above absolute zero radiates IR.
Gases at the the same temperature cannot be distinguished by the IR frequencies they emit.
Maybe you are trying to avoid acknowledging reality for some reason, or maybe you just don’t know what you are talking about.
Your fantasies do not supersede fact.
Try accepting reality. There is no GHE (you can’t even describe it, can you). The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Off you go now, accept a little reality, and ask me for more if you like.
Bumblin* bobby,
You wrote –
“And its ionized hydrogen, normally at temperatures in the atmosphere, hydrogen exists as diatomic molecules that do not emit in the infrared.”
All matter above absolute zero emits IR. You must be referring to the imaginary contents of your fantasy.
Try again, fail again.
Reality is not your strong point, is it?
Swenson,
“All matter above absolute zero emits IR.”
Someone posts something on the internet and you believe it.
Around here we call you a sucker.
Find a spectrum for diatomic hydrogen that shows that it emits in the IR.
Please, you could probably get a PhD if you could show that.
AS is well known, the hydrogen molecule (H2) has no ordinary dipole infra-red spectrum. Its quadrupole rotation-vibration spectrum is exceedingly weak, and has only recently been found.
https://www.nature.com/articles/166563a0#:~:text=AS%20is%20well%20known%2C%20the,only%20recently%20been%20found1.
Snap, you guys don’t like Nature.
bob, please stop trolling.
A tropical storm in the Caribbean Sea is intensifying. Cloud tops reach the lower stratosphere and radiate infrared temperatures of -80 C.
https://i.ibb.co/NNtkSRc/goes16-ir-10-L-202308280442.gif
John Kerry just got linked to the Buresma Corruption.
Google: Damning Email Ties John Kerry to Burisma Bribery Amidst Biden Turmoil
‘Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3:00pm – need someone to meet/greet him at C Street…’
Funny how these Climate Alarmists don’t mind supporting fossil Fuels production over seas…just as long they are getting paid for it.
Simply follow the money. US Energy production, like the Tobacco industry, donated/donates to Republicans, so Democrats destroy them. Democrats support legalizing Pot and other drugs…yet they attack Tobacco and Oil Funny how that works. Pay off the Democrats and you can do anything you want.
Hopefully, it won’t be long before they link the entire corrupt Biden mob to the war in the Ukraine. The Obama admin was directly involved in the coup that ousted a democratically-elected Ukrainian president in 2014. Victoria Nuland, an under-secretary of state, was in the Ukraine prior to the 2014 coup, orchestrating a replacement for the President before he was ousted. The late John McCain, a Republican, was in there helping to cheer lead protestors hence fomenting the coup.
The protest began peacefully enough till armed Ukrainian nationalist took advantage and eventually ran the president off. This is shameful activity from a so-called democratic country, yet the EU and the US condoned it, and fought over it, as to who should determine leadership in the Ukraine after the coup.
No one is going to convince me that Biden, who had a serious conflict of interest in the Ukraine, was not involved.
There is a photo of Nuland here shaking hands with the ousted president Yanokovych while she was quietly stabbing him in the back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
What the BBC shamefully omits in the article is that Nuland is negotiating to replace a sitting president who was democratically elected. The EU was implicit in the plot and they argued with Nuland over who should be the next president.
The president had been supported by much of eastern Ukraine, and when he was run off, they revolted. That started the war and it was between Ukrainians. Russia did not get involved till 8 years later when NATO and the EU tried to get the Ukraine into NATO.
The story that Russia invaded as an act of hostility to take over the Ukraine is nonsense.
Check out this climate model, Global warming hurricane is about to sink Florida into the ocean
https://youtu.be/cPim49zb6oA
I would love to know how adding energy consistent with -80C can warm those oceans. That is fascinating physics. If CO2 can cause hurricanes if certainly can warm homes. Funny how no one has figured that out yet,
“I would love to know how adding energy consistent with -80C ”
CO2, It has been explained to you half a dozen times why this is a FALSE PREMISE, and each time you simply ignored the science facts.
Clearly, you love to hear things that confirm your beliefs, but not facts that contradict them.
Nate, bob is trying to back away from your cult’s belief that ice can boil water. Do you still believe ice can boil water?
If you believe 15μ photons can warm the ocean, then you must believe ice can boil water.
Clint R,
That’s not our cult’s belief, that’s your strawman that our cult believes that.
We do not believe that’s analogous to the Greenhouse Effect.
What happens to 15u photons when they hit the ocean?
Penetrate, absorbed, reflected, or scattered?
And what empirical evidence do you have to support your answer?
If you believe 15μ photons can warm the ocean, then you must believe ice can boil water.
bobdroege wrote – “What happens to 15u photons when they hit the ocean?”
Doesnt believe that they have no effect.
Demonstrates his ignorance by not being able to find a different answer on the internet.
Good for a laugh, anyway.
Clint R,
My belief system has nothing to do with the question asked, you get a D and an RTFQ.
Swenson,
It was a multiple choice question, no effect is not a possible answer in accordance with modern physics, so you also get a D, and a bonus dunce cap and a stool. Go sit in the corner.
bobdroege,
Your “multiple choice” question demonstrates your ignorance, that’s all.
You have no answer, and you can’t even find an answer on the internet.
If you refuse to accept reality, you can’t really blame people for laughing at you.
Try again, Fail again. Tell me, what happens to 15u photons when they hit the ocean?
Hoist with your own gotcha, perhaps?
Swenson,
Couldn’t you find the answer on the internet?
The majority is absorbed.
bobdroege,
“The majority is absorbed”.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Why do you claim only a “majority” is absorbed?
Tell us what happens to the rest, and why?
You’re just digging yourself a bigger hole. You have precisely no experimental results, no theory even, to support your bizarre assertions.
Your last effort at explaining the mythical GHE was completely meaningless. You still haven’t managed to describe the GHE! Where may it be observed? What is it supposed to do? Has anybody measured this supposed effect?
Keep trying to convince people that you know what you are talking about.
Swenson,
Have you ever taken a physics class?
Swenson,
How about if all matter emits IR, then it directly follows that all matter absorbs IR.
bob, two things:
1. If you believe 15μ photons can warm the ocean, then you must believe ice can boil water.
2. Both emission and absorp.tion are temperature dependent.
You won’t be able to understand either.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R,
Consider yourself proven wrong
https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/radiowave-effects-humans
That’s for number 1
As for number 2
Only the intensity is temperature dependent not the wavelengths emitted, which form a spectrum of a range of wavelengths. You putting a whole lot of nothing into the peak of the Wien’s displacement law, which you have misinterpreted.
You would know that had you cracked your physics textbook.
The surface of the Earth emits 15u photons therefore the surface of the Earth can absorb 15u photons.
And can you stop rotating?
Wrong again bob, as usual.
1. Your link doesn’t even fit the situation.
2. Your nonsense would mean that an incandescent light bulb filament would not emit visible light when energized! You clearly don’t have a clue.
You’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. Then, you add your immaturity to your ignorance. That’s why I will no longer respond to your childish comments.
Clint R,
Let me explain my source to you, you seem to not understand.
If radar waves can heat skin, then the higher energy 15u photons from CO2 can also heat water.
What’s the temperature of the filament in a lightbulb?
And what I said does not mean that it would not emit visible light.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527706
Clint R,
You can heat something with IR radiation.
15u photons are IR radiation.
You can heat something with 15u radiation.
Crack open that physics textbook.
Oh Snap, you sold it for crack.
This should help, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527706
Clint R,
Do you think saying over and over again will make me believe your false science?
Repetition, like memorization, is a great learning tool, bob.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527706
That’s what religious fanatics do Clint R.
Are you a religious fanatic?
In your case bob, it’s useful for deprogramming you out of your false religion.
“CO2, It has been explained to you half a dozen times why this is a FALSE PREMISE”
That is GasLighting. No one has ever properly explained it because it can’t be explained. You can’t warm coffee by adding ice to it. If 15 Micron LWIR could warm water, every College Lab on earth would be demonstrating that. You can’t find a single published article demonstrating that 15 Micron LWIR can warm water and the experiment details so that it can be replicated. That is a very simply experiment that can be run in any lab. Show me the evidence, and stop your GasLighting, it’s childish.
CO2IsLife (but not only)
Nate is 100 % right.
No one having a sane, well working brain did ever claim that 15 mu photons absorbed at high altitudes and re-emitted back to the surface would warm there anything.
Only pseudoskeptikal ignoramuses intentionally talk such nonsense.
*
Rudolf Clausius has explained in 1887:
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
*
This means that in your laboratory (most likely for the first time in your life) you should start an experiment modeled on Clausius’ explanation.
*
Obtain a cylindrical container (e.g. 2 meters in diameter, 10 meters in height).
In it, pump water with the physical properties of tropical oceans, and above it a gas mixture of 78% N2, 21% O2 and 1% Ar.
Install a lamp e.g. 5 meters high that will keep the water at exactly the same temperature as the tropical oceans are kept warm by the sun, and above that a layer of rock salt that will let IR through but nothing else.
Place electronic IR sensors, responsive to IR between 10 and 20 mu, at e.g. 9 meters and measure the IR average produced by the water on the surface.
Then pump 0.04% CO2 into the container above the layer of rock salt, cool the container there as desired and again measure the IR average over days.
If absolutely nothing measurable changes, then you are right in your assumption; otherwise… Rudolf Clausius was right.
Dang Bindi, all that blah-blah just to admit your cult nonsense is nonsense.
Once again, Binny misunderstands the comment by Clausius, who believed as did all scientists of his time, that heat can be transported through air as heat rays. What he called radiation was not the electromagnetic radiation we know today, but a mysterious heat ray that transported heat through some kind of ether. Clausius was smart enough to understand that air molecules could not transport heat efficiently, so he and other scientists presumed some kind of medium, other than air, through which heat could be moved.
Obviously, they thought heat could move both ways between bodies of different temperature via heat rays hence his statement to that effect. Had Binny read Clausius completely, rather than cherry picking his words, he would have noted that Clausius claimed radiation must obey the 2nd law. Couple that with Bohr’s theory and it becomes apparent that only radiation from a hotter body can affect a colder body, and not vice-versa. Radiation from a colder body has no effect on a hotter body.
We can forgive Clausius and others for formulating that theory but not modern scientists who still cling to the theory. Even some textbooks offer that anachronism. A quick study of Bohr’s theory would straighten out such obtuse mind, provided they were not ingrained in the theory like modern climate alarmists who believe a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming of the planet.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr discovered the real relationship between heat and EM that involved electrons, discovered only in the later 1890s. Clausius was long gone before then and even Planck, who was alive, knew nothing about electrons till after he produced his famous equation. He lamented, that had he known about electrons it would have made his task much earlier.
Although Bohr’s theory does not mention heat specifically, we know that a surface can cool by emitting such radiation. Therefore, Bohr’s theory states as much, that electrons emitting EM result in heat dissipation.
Binny,
Just like the rest of the GHE fantasists, you wrote –
.This means that in your laboratory (most likely for the first time in your life) you should start an experiment . . . ”
Really? No GHE supporter has been able to perform such an experiment. Maybe you could do the experiment yourself, document it, and slay doubters such as myself.
Claiming that your fantasies are superior to fact is not terribly convincing.
The fact is that the Earth has cooled from the molten state. You are free to believe that this did not happen, due to some GHE.
Do you believe that the GHE now heats the planet, after allowing it to cool for four and a half billion years?
As usual, no valuable reply, only stoopid polemic – of course, especially from the 4.5 billion year ignoramus :–)
Binny,
You forgot to say whether you believe that the GHE now heats the planet, after allowing it to cool for four and a half billion years.
Maybe you could just avoid answering, hoping nobody will notice.
Might not be the cleverest thing to do, but you must do what you must.
Robertson
” Once again, Binny misunderstands the comment by Clausius, who believed as did all scientists of his time, that heat can be transported through air as heat rays. What he called radiation was not the electromagnetic radiation we know today, but a mysterious heat ray that transported heat through some kind of ether. ”
Now you become really dumb, and dishonest as well.
Never did Clausius ‘believe’ what you dare put in his mouth.
UNLIKE YOU, he was perfectly aware of what is radiation.
YOU are the one who does not understand anything of what he understood.
INITIAL: “I would love to know how adding energy consistent with -80C can warm those oceans.”
Yes, this is a false premise. 15 um thermal IR is ‘consistent with’ any temperature. The sun emits 15 um IR. You emit 15 um IR. Liquid nitrogen emits 15 um IR. The *intensity* is what is ‘consistent’ with a given temperature, not the *wavelength*.
FOLLOW UP: “That is a very simply experiment that can be run in any lab.”
No, it really isn’t.
What you would need is a situation where water was held at a fixed temperature by a fixed energy input in the absence of 15 um thermal IR (or greatly reduced 15 um IR). Then you would need to add 15 um thermal IR (and only 15 um thermal IR to match your expectations.
)and see if the water got warmer. All while keeping other inputs relatively constant.
So maybe a cryogenic vacuum chamber with an electrically heated container of water, then introduce warmer CO2 (but not in contact with the container of water to avoid heating by conductions). (But you can’t keep the CO2 back with a wall or that would blick the radiation from the CO2).
It’s not a false premise, Folkerts. 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface. Just as ice can NOT boil water.
But thanks for nuking Bindi’s bogus experiment.
“Yes, this is a false premise. 15 um thermal IR is consistent with any temperature.”
You clearly don’t understand the basics. The only bands of IR relevant to CO2 and the GHG Effect are 13 to 18, 15 Peak Micron. CO2 doesn’t absorb and emit the entire spectrum, they absorb and emit a very descrent spectrum on 2.7, 4.3, and 15 Microns, 15 Microns being the only ones relevant to the GHG effect.
“FOLLOW UP: That is a very simply experiment that can be run in any lab.
No, it really isnt.”
Very simple. 1) Control Bucket of H2O and 2) Another bucket with addition light being shined on it through a 15 micron long pass filter. 3) Measrue the temperature differentials.
It is that simple.
No, Tim, the proposed illusion is deceptive.
You wrote “What you would need is a situation where water was held at a fixed temperature by a fixed energy input in the absence of 15 um thermal IR (or greatly reduced 15 um IR). Then you would need to add 15 um thermal IR (and only 15 um thermal IR to match your expectations.
)and see if the water got warmer. All while keeping other inputs relatively constant.”
I note that you are not prepared to volunteer one second of your time, or one penny, yourself.
As usual, you have a variable infinite heat source, disguised as a fixed one. About as deceptive as claiming that insulation raises the temperature of an unheated object.
Go off and try your experiment. After I and others have pointed out why you failed, you can try again.
No GHE – reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer does not make it hotter. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of solar radiation from reaching the surface. You may twist, turn, and wriggle all you like, but reality doesn’t take any notice of either your physical or mental gyrations.
Just like bobdroege, try again, fail again.
“CO2 doesnt absorb and emit the entire spectrum … 15 Microns being the only ones relevant …”
Yep! And CO2 at any temperature emits 15 um IR. Not just CO2 at -80 C. The hotter the CO2, the more 15 um IR it emits, so CO2 at -80 C is not even the best emitter of 15 um IR.
You are clearly confused by Wein’s Law, which states that a blackbody at -80 C emits most strongly near 15 um. You cannot apply this in reverse to non-blackbodies and conclude that anything emitting most strongly near 15 um is -80 C. Nor that it is ‘consistent with -80 C”, whatever that is suppose to mean.
Folkerts, as usual the confusion is on your side.
The “-80C” is in reference to the weak energy in a 15μ photon. That relates to how ineffective such a photon would be compared to sea surface temperatures, or Earth’s 288K (15C).
This is probably over your head, but -80C can NOT raise the temperature of 15C.
“This is probably over your head”
Translation: I can’t support this with any physics or logic, because I made it up.
Its always the same tune from Clint.
It comes from 2LoT, tr0ll Nate.
And, that’s DEFINITELY over your head.
No it doesn’t. But pls do elaborate, with real physics this time.
Here is something to consider
https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/radiowave-effects-humans
Ask Bindiclown to demonstrate his ice powered light bulb
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471866
Some fantasist wrote “While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, . . .”. Unfortunately, he cant actually do it.
Imaginary lamps lit with imaginary ice to support an imaginary Earth heated by an imaginary GHE with imaginary properties!
Very good. Not supported by reality, however. Just fertile imaginations.
As we can see, there is only one clown here, who intentionally misrepresents what others wrote because he himself never has any valuable argument.
Your way to discuss is the exact pendant to Clint R’s re. lunar spin, dachshund.
Try to understand and reply something intelligent instead.
Binny,
Maybe you could explain what you are disputing. Others could make up their own minds.
Do you think that might be reasonable?
Binny,
So you are claiming that you can power a small lamp with an ice cube?
How did you manage that?
“If 15 Micron LWIR could warm water, every College Lab on earth would be demonstrating that. ”
It is an easy experiment, that anyone can do at home, even you CO2.
Purchase a ceramic IR heat lamp, which heats up and emits in LWIR, in the vicinity of 15 microns.
Point it downward at a bowl of water for a minute or so.
You will find that the water warmed.
Even without doing such an experiment, we all know that microwaves in microwave ovens can heat a cup of water.
Yet the microwaves in there have wavelengths of millimeters, with energies ‘consistent with’ -250 C or less, by your accounting.
These are basic observable facts, CO2.
Though the ceramic heater experiment is not specific to 15 microns and includes a broad range to lower wavelengths, so perhaps not helful.
But the microwave oven only uses long wavelengths of millimeters, so perfectly well demonstrates that assigning a temperature to EM radiation based on wavelength is erroneous.
Yes Nate, you must have done some basic research to learn your “ceramic IR heat lamp” puts out WAY more that a 15μ photon. You should have stopped there, but in your determination to be stoopid, you continued on using a microwave oven, although I have explained that to your before. But, too often you just can’t learn.
“Even without doing such an experiment, we all know that microwaves in microwave ovens can heat a cup of water.”
You clearly don’t even know the basics, and a 15-micron LWIR Longpass filter will cost you over $1,000. LWIR won’t penetrate water, Microwaves do. Microwave ovens use thousands of watts, whereas CO2 backradiation is 1.6 or so W/M^2. Once again, show me where this simple experiment has been run where 15 Microns will warm water.
“Microwave ovens use thousands of watts.”
Yes indeed that matters, because more power heats faster.
The energy in a microwave photon is much lower than that of a 15 micron photon, yet it could warm water.
Your claim that a 15 micron photon’s energy is too low to warm water is falsified.
Will you acknowledge that?
“LWIR wont penetrate water”
The ceramic heater emits LWIR, though at various wavelengths. The EM waves don’t penetrate water very far, but the heat it produces does penetrate water, as the experiment plainly shows. Mainly by conduction.
Poor Nate struggles with his confusion about microwave ovens. Maybe a simple analogy will help.
A round pebble on the ground will not hurt you. But the pebble fired from a specially engineered barrel, at a speed of 1000 ft/sec, can kill you instantly.
I wonder if poor Nate will get it….
“Maybe a simple analogy will help”
Nah, it doesn’t. Just illustrates that you cant explain using real physics the actual problem being discussed.
And FYI, photons, unlike pebbles, are always traveling at high velocity.
Oh, by the way, would you rather get hit by an X-ray or a beam from a flashlight?
“Mainly by conduction.”
Only by conduction, I would say, water doesn’t conduct heat well, about the same as air.
Fiberglass works because in has pockets of air, and double pane window work because air’s poor conduction of heat. Air/our atmosphere is mostly warmed by evaporative convectional heat transfer.
How about another analogy?
Someone has walked too close to a radar antenna.
Try this
https://water.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html
bob, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Welcome back,
I couldn’t have missed you more.
Thought I’d take some time off from here to enjoy the summer, and celebrate my last argument win against you, Entropic Man and Little Willy, as confirmed by Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504263
Plus it meant Little Willy would also stop commenting for at least 60 days. Let’s hope forever.
rlh…re Manabe, His Climate Modeling…
Interesting. Manabe is regarded as a guru in climate alarm circles yet Zhong exposes his methodology as being incorrect. Not sur.prisingly, so did G&T in their paper disqualifying the GHE.
Manabe et al have fallen for the pseudo-science that radiation is an efficient means of heat dissipation at a surface. Shula proved them wrong using a Pirani gauge, which can measure the radiation from a surface and its hat dissipation effect on a heated filament and compare it to the same filament in a gas.
The Pirani gauge indicates that the gas, via conduction/convection, is 260 times more efficient at heat dissipation than radiation alone. Yet Manabe has that figure reversed, as does the IPCC.
Ironically, the Ideal Gas Law arrives at a similar figure for the claimed warming of the atmosphere by a trace gas like CO2. That raises the question, are climate alarmist scientists stoopid, lacking in the understanding of science, or just patently dishonest?
Robertson
As usual, you and your friends-in-denial only look at contrarians like Zhong, Schula and all the others who let you think for example that Einstein was wrong, that time does not exist, that GPS needs no corrections to work properly, that the Moon does not spin, that COVID19 was a little, harmless disease, etc etc.
Why, do you think, do such people never present their work to those who understand what they exactly do, and hence are – UNLIKE ignorants like you – able detect flaws in their thinking model?
Gordon Robertson
I have responded to you on the Pirani gauge. Shula is a crackpot that deceives the ignorant. You do not have enough science knowledge to see through his false statements and conclusions. I think he knows them but he knows many, like yourself, are undereducated and think they knowledgeable. These wolves prey on this half minded people like you. They build little cults on those who know a little science but really do not understand what it is.
Again I ask do you know what emissivity is and how it works? I linked you to calculators to work it out. It seems my post was ignored by you. You do not appear informed when you continue to endlessly post false and misleading information. I can’t blame you as you do not have enough science to understand your ignorance. Sometimes it seems like you could achieve some correct information but sometimes is seems you don’t want to.
I think the three of your, you, Clint R, and Swenson are probably the most ignorant skeptics on this blog. None of you know any real science, you bluster and pretend to but all your posts are junk and devoid of any real knowledge. I do not think the trio on this blog will ever overturn anything. You have to be really intelligent and understand the material correctly before you can be an effective skepic. You three just seem ignorant to the max.
Norman, thanks for mentioning me in your meltdown rant. If you remember, your meltdown was predicted. So, you continue to prove me right.
Your frustration comes from the fact that your cult’s “science” is so easily debunked. All of your efforts to support the cult nonsense have failed. For example, where is your model of “orbital motion without spin”? Where is your “REAL 255K surface”?
See Norman, you’ve got NOTHING. Frustrating, isn’t it?
Clint R
You blah blah blah and repeat. Another mindless post.
Thanks for another example of your ongoing meltdown, Norman.
And when you answer the two questions, you can also provide a source for your “square orbit”.
norman…”I have responded to you on the Pirani gauge. Shula is a crackpot that deceives the ignorant”.
***
I think we know who the real crackpot is here. I have explained the Pirani gauge to you in detail and you not only fail to grasp the theory, you refer to Shula, the messenger and an expert with the gauge, as a crackpot.
He’s in good company. You have referred to Claes Johnson, an eminent mathematician, as a crackpot. You covered Gerlich and Tscheuschner in the same manner, even though they both have expertise in thermodynamics. You called Peter Duesberg a crackpot, even though the National Academy of science saw fit to induct him into NAS for his work on cancer genes.
The governing theme here is that you don’t agree with any of them.
Many people would look at Duesberg’s resume, especially his expertise in retroviral theory, and conclude that he may have a point about HIV. They may offer him benefit of the doubt, but not Norman, who refers to him as a crackpot.
Then there is Stefan Lanka, a scientist who discovered the first virus in the ocean and who has expertise with retroviruses as well. Lanka has offered a 100,000 Euro award to anyone who can prove, using recorded lab notes, that the measles virus exists. One guy tried it and was awarded the money but, on appeal, a higher German court reversed the decision because the lower court had not followed the directives laid out by Lanka for proof.
Lanka is confident that no one will claim the money because he has spent a lot of time researching the research done on measles and is confident a virus was not isolated. He does not claim that measles does not exist, just that a virus claimed to cause it has never been adequately proved to exist.
Norman calls Lanka not only a crackpot, but a liar to boot.
Despite 341 comments I dont remember seeing a serious takedown of DrSpencers article or referenced study. This finding is interesting and possibly very significant. And yet it has been ignored, until now.
Here is another paper covering a different area which found only 3.8% of mid oceans depths was accurately modeled.
How many other models in the various areas under study have similar appallingly low levels of accuracy?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37841-x
Denny,
The public has no access to the super duper computers that house the climate science. Only elite climatologists can. The rest of us has to listen to what they say and shut up. The public simply is not in a position to discuss the digital science and what’s wrong with it. The public can only scrutinize the the underlying and common concepts such as radiative forcing an greenhouse gas effect, and that is what most of the comments are about.
nabil…”The public simply is not in a position to discuss the digital science and whats wrong with it”.
***
Sure we can. We are aware of the science upon which model theory is based and we can critique that. For example, part of the reason model show so much warming is positive feedbacks programmed into them that don’t apply. Gavin Schmidt, a modeler who run NASA GISS was schooled by engineer Jeffrey Glassman on his incorrect application of PFs. Schmidt, with a degree in math, offered the wrong equation for a positive feedback. He could not even explain who PF worked to produce warming.
I took an interest in that because I have worked with PFs in electronics where we use them to produce oscillators. We apply negative feedbacks to broaden the frequency response of amplifiers. The point is, Nabil, positive feedback of the type that produce runaway conditions require an amplifier. PF of the runaway type simply cannot exist in the atmosphere.
Another factor programmed into models is a figure for how much heat can be produced by CO2. It is fictitious since no one has that actual value in the atmosphere.
In other words, models are programmed using generous amounts of sci-fi and anti-science.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry, I was busy.
Your volume based parcels don’t obey the Ideal Gas Law. When the mass of the packet varies PV/T=k no longer applies. Heat transfers from the convecting parcel to other parcels and it becomes impossible to calculate heat content or heat budgets.
This is why atmospheric physicists use mass based parcels.
Nor is the heat lost, it just transfers to another part of the atmosphere.
Ultimately the whole atmosphere is a single parcel bounced by the surface below and space above.Convection is a movement within the atmosphere.
The really interesting heat flows are between the surface, the atmosphere and space. Those are where global warming is happening.
Ent, is that where your passenger jets fly backward?
How many times do we have to explain it to you Clint R,
Passenger jets fly forward, but move backwards because they can’t keep up with the rotation of the Earth.
bob, please stop trolling.
binny the whine…”UNLIKE YOU, he [Clausius] was perfectly aware of what is radiation.
***
That is an amazing revelation. Clausius did his work between about 1850 and 1875. Faraday had a alluded to an electromaagntic energy related to electricity and in collaboration with Maxwell, who put the math to it, Maxwell inferred an electric field working with a magnetic field. Nothing about heat in Maxwell’s equations.
Nothing about heat or electrons since the electron was yet to be discovered in 1898. It took another 15 years before Bohr worked out the relationship between electrons and electromagnetic energy. In the interim, scientists worked out that EM radiation was emitted by atoms but no one knew why. Maxwell did not know why and neither did Clausius, therefore he certainly could not have related EM radiation to a heat transfer.
Still nothing explicitly about heat since the anachronism that heat moves through air as heat rays persisted well into the 20th century. In fact, some scientists are still peddling that pseudo-science and some are using it as a basis for the GHE and catastrophic global warming. It is pushed in text books to this day just a conventional current flow is pushed, both being lies.
Clausius did NOT equate electromagnetic radiation with heat for the simply reason that no one of his era had the slightest idea that heat at a surface was dissipated as EM was created by electrons in the atoms of the surface.
The EM offered by Faraday/Maxwell was not created in the same manner. EM can also be created by an electric current running through a conductor. Here as well, EM is produced by electrons moving in the conductor but electrons referenced by Bohr were producing EM as they transitioned down the way between orbital energy levels. What Maxwell referenced was the type of EM produced by current running down a conductor. He had no idea about the EM related to electron transitions.
The difference between the two forms of EM is frequency and the ability of the electric field and magnetic field to be maintained over longer distances. EM produced by normal current in a circuit is of low frequency and the E and M fields don’t join as a unit to generate far. However, at higher frequencies, they will and that is the basis of EM in communications systems.
Then there is a different form of EM that is produced by electron transitions. The frequencies there are extremely high, so high that they can produce light in human retinas, since the frequency is translated to colour in the retina.
It’s all the same EM, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field but produced by different means by electrons. There is no way Clausius knew about electrons or their relationship to EM. He obviously saw radiation as the heat rays he and every other scientist of the day equated to hat transfer by radiation.
Robertson
” Clausius did his work between about 1850 and 1875. ”
You are such a dumb ass.
Stop babbling about the great Rudolf Clausius you only know from old textbooks you probably found in some attic.
Clausius published his greatest work in 1887, a year before his death.
You, on the other hand, Robertson, publish nothing but stinking thin shit.
*
Try to finally learn who he was, what he did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius
drats…more posting issues…
ent…I tried to cover this theoretically in other posts. There is a problem applying the IGL to the entire atmosphere due to the mass varying with altitude. I offered the notion of concentric volumes that could be summed, where each volume contains the same mass. Then the IGL could be applied to each concentric volume.
Reading through a post by Richard (RLH) the other day where Zhong discusses Manabe, it was interesting to note that Manabe used the same concentric volumes in his model. Unfortunately, he had the effect of radiation and convection reversed and reach the wrong conclusion.
I based my concentric volumes on what I had learned in math classes in engineering. Triple integrals will yield the required concentric volumes and allow additions of the same, although such a calculation would be difficult.
part 2…
I don’t think my theory is so far fetched. The air density at the top of Everest remains relatively constant at 1/3rd the density at sea level, despite high winds. If it didn’t, climbers at the peak, or even beyond 8000 metres, who were not using oxygen, would collapse and die. Some do, but that is more related to the change in pressure affecting their brains and lungs than through oxygen starvation.
The heat transfer to which you refer is called diffusion. G&T worked it out for a doubling of CO2, using the mass per unit volume of CO2 and found it to be trivial. I suspect that as air density reduces toward the level of CO2, the same applies.
part 3…
Any heat flows between the surface and the atmosphere must be by convection. Radiation cannot transfer heat since it has no heat properties. As I have tried to explain several times, radiation produced at the surface is accompanied by heat dissipation and any heat produced by the radiation at higher altitudes is new heat. It has nothing to do with surface heat even though it could be argued there is a relationship.
part 4…I know the problem is in this section, but where?…
I am sure this is regarded as semantics but unless we account for heat in the atmosphere, and its sources, we end up with inane theories about a trace gas in the atmosphere increasing surface temperature and heating local molecule of N2 and O2.
It is far too simple to use a model of heat transfer to space, such as inferred in the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget diagram. Heat dissipation from the planet simply does not work that way. The model features radiation as the primary heat dissipation mechanism and we now know it is wrong. Conduction/convection is far more efficient at moving heat away from the surface.
I think it somewhat ridiculous to think that any heat moved to higher altitudes by convection must be transferred back to a trace gas to be radiated to space. The surface is quite able to radiate directly to space without the trace gas. However, that method is slow therefore heat is retained. That retention explains the GHE theory better than the CO2-based theory.
Gordon Robertson
I do not grasp why you are so ignorant of real science and why you think your made up fantasy version is better.
Radiant energy is the only way for heat to be added to the Earth system or removed from it. Conduction and Convection do not remove any energy at all from the Earth system. They move it around but do not remove it. Do you understand this??
None of the heat budget models claim radiant energy is the primary mechanism for surface heat loss. You make a false claim with that one. Why do you need to do this? You can look at the diagrams yourself and do the math. You do not need to make false statements.
norman…I understand clearly that heat is produced in the Earth system via solar radiation and ultimately removed from the system to space via radiation. However, heat as energy is not transferred from the Sun to the Earth simply because that would require heat being transferred through the vacuum of space and that cannot happen.
I am simply trying to emphasize that the propensity of people to confuse heat with EM has lead to silly theories like the GHE and AGW. You have expressed an opinion that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. Proponents of that theory have justified it not contradicting the 2nd law by moving the goalposts. They have conveniently lumped heat in with IR and justified a contradiction of the 2nd law based on the inference that a balance of IR fluxes satisfies the 2nd law.
That is plain silly. The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and is not remotely about infrared or radiation. However, alarmists have claimed that, provided the outgoing radiation, which they deem positive, is greater than back-radiation from GHGs, which they call negative, sums to a positive balance of energy, then the 2nd law is not contradicted.
That is clearly a contradiction of the 2nd law, which says nothing about sums of radiation. The 2nd law is concerned only with heat. That’s why I keep trying to distinguish between heat and radiation, they are not the same energy, not even remotely the same energy. Therefore, radiation cannot be referenced by the 2nd law.
Heat cannot be transferred from the surface to GHG for the simple reason that heat associated with the radiation is dissipated entirely as the radiation is produced. Do you understand that? Once the radiation is created, it can produce no heat unless it contacts a mass with a colder temperature than the emitting surface. Therefore, it will happily flow through the universe doing nothing till it contacts an appropriate mass.
EM/IR is not heat!!!
There is an image of the Trenberth-Kiehl energy budget here. Note that it refers to convection as thermals and tags it as 24 watts/m^2. Right beside it is the out-going radiation at 390 w/m^2. How can you continue to lie about this?
https://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
Not only that, they show far more surface radiation than solar input at 168 watts/m^2 and back-radiation is even greater than solar input at 324 w/m^2. How the heck can back-radiation exceed solar input?
Come on Norman, think for a change.
The reality is that the so-called thermals (I guess Trenberth did not know it is convection) are 260 times more effective at dissipating heat than radiation.
Gordon Robertson
Another false statement from you: ” You have expressed an opinion that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.”
NO I have not done so. I have stated energy is transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. Energy is a two way exchange as even Clausius himself has pointed out.
When I use the word “heat” I am using the current accepted definition of the word. Heat is the energy that is transferred from a hot object to a colder one. It can be EMR in this definition.
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat/Heat-transfer
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “There is an image of the Trenberth-Kiehl energy budget here. Note that it refers to convection as thermals and tags it as 24 watts/m^2. Right beside it is the out-going radiation at 390 w/m^2. How can you continue to lie about this?”
I am not lying. You can’t understand the image so falsely accuse me .
First you have the evaporation. This is also convection but wet convection. If the air did not move up (and form clouds with the moisture which is very prevalent in the tropics) you would not have much evaporation as it would quickly saturate.
You add both and get more than the IR. You don’t understand two-way process. Just as you can’t understand your feet must rotate each step for you to walk around the table.
The IR emitted is 390 but that is NOT the IR energy lost by the surface. The radiant energy loss of an object is how much energy it emits MINUS the energy it absorbs. Two-way process that you can’t understand and so accuse me of lying. You take 390 minus 324 and you get a net loss of radiant surface energy of 66 W/m^2 (other images have different amounts then this since it is a global average and their are different ways to calculate it).
Your 250 times better dissipating radiation is a false claim based solely on your complete ignorance of what emissivity means. Shula himself may not know the difference. You follow every crackpot out there. Then you say I don’t think.
” The surface is quite able to radiate directly to space without the trace gas. ”
What a ridiculous sentence when placed behind
” I think it somewhat ridiculous to think that any heat moved to higher altitudes by convection must be transferred back to a trace gas to be radiated to space. ”
*
Here we see that ignoramuses like Robertson do not understand at all that
– (1) heat moved to higher altitudes by convection is not ‘transferred back to a trace gas to be radiated to space’; it simply warms these higher altitudes;
– (2) the surface indeed radiates directly to space, namely through the atmospheric window (otherwise Earth would be so hot that we wouldn’t exist);
– (3) trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide do not contribute to radiating IR into space: on the contrary, they slightly weaken this radiation by absorbing it and reemitting it in all directions; would the two not be present in the atmosphere, so would the entire IR radiation pass thru.
It is amusing to me that people who champion the 2nd law ignore entirely the 1st law. let me count the ways energy can exist: potential, kinetic, pressure, friction, work, current flow, radiation, etc. That is not a comprehensive list.
tim…the 1st law covers heat and work only and I don’t understand why it is referred to as a law dealing with conservation of energy. It refers only to the conservation of heat and work which is a reference to thermal and mechanical energy only.
I am not arguing there is no relationship between heat and work and that the total energy should be conserved when applicable. I am suggesting that no work is being done by heat as air rises to certain altitudes therefore the 1st law does not apply at those altitudes.
The first law developed based on the work of Carnot, which was about heat and energy. In between, Joule discovered the exact relationship between heat and work in calories versus joules, and Clausius credits him with that find in his papers. Therefore the 1st law is about heat and work and the second law and entropy about heat only and its direction of transfer. The zeroth law is just plain silly.
Internal energy was defined by Clausius and became the U in the 1st law. He defined it far more explicitly, however, as internal work and heat. That makes sense since internal energy by itself means nothing other than something is going on internally. Thompson talked him out of including that definition but it turns out Thompson was a bit of an ijit. He held a personal animosity toward Clausius.
ps. that’s the nature of heat. It is all about atomic motion, the energy behind it. Therefore the amount of thermal energy is related to atoms/molecules and the environment in which they reside.
The atmosphere is not a container with solid walls and its pressure varies with altitude. If you take so many molecules per unit volume at sea level and move that parcel to an altitude of 8000 metres, the density reduces naturally by 2/3ds. That’s because the number of molecules per unit volume have reduced by 2/3ds due to a weakening gravitational field.
If you reduce the number of molecules per unit volume, the pressure drops, but the temperature has to drop too since it is a measure of heat. Therefore the air parcel from the surface will lose heat naturally a it rises higher.
How else do you think air gets colder with altitude? If energy is being conserved, what form of energy is it converted to?
If air goes up, it just can’t have air constantly going up- or when air goes up, other air goes down.
Energy and/or matter is conserved.
Or: what goes up, goes down.
” the air parcel from the surface will lose heat naturally a it rises higher.
How else do you think air gets colder with altitude? If energy is being conserved, what form of energy is it converted to?”
The heat content of your constant volume parcel at ground level is the average kinetic energy of each molecule multiplied by the number of molecules.
As your parcel rises molecules move out of your constant volume parcel to the surrounding air and take their kinetic energy with them. They still exist, as does their heat content. Because molecules have left, the mass and total heat content inside your parcel has decreased.
It hasn’t gone away,you know. The mass and the heat still exist, but because you are only thinking inside your volume based parcel you are no longer counting them.
At first, nuclear energy seems to present a problem for the first law. A guy named Albert Einstein solved that problem with his famous equation.
Hurricane Idalia is moving north.
https://i.ibb.co/KD5c9pw/goes16-ir-10-L-202308300347.gif
Meanwhile, Idalia has hit Cat 3. Lives will be lost and many others will be severely disrupted. Some guy named Micheal Mann says it is the result of fossil burning causing climate change.
TEAL71 is in the eye of the storm.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/TEAL71
Not just Michael Mann.
You know the physics.
Warm water above 27C off West Africa causes convection which pulls in surrounding air. The Coriolis effect bends this including air to The right and you get an anticlockwise circulation.
If wind shear at different altitudes is low enough the system moves West over more warm water and grows into a tropical storm and then a hurricane. If wind shear is too big the storm topples over and breaks up before it can grow.
A warmer climate has warned sea surface e temperatures and more wind shear. A storm is more likely to form because of increased sea temperature and more likely to break up because of wine shear. The two effects tend to cancel out, so the number of hurricanes each year stays the same.
Once formed the warmer waters make the hurricanes more powerful. Average intensity, energy and damage increase.
In summary, global warming does not affect the frequency of hurricanes, while making them more powerful.
Did global warming cause Idalia? Probably not.
Is global warming making Idalia stronger than it would have been before? Probably.
We had a warmer climate in the 1930’s. What was that all about? Why did we have a slight cooling period between 1960 and 1990 during a period of very rapid increase in CO2? I think the very simple correlation between CO2 and temperature needs more study. In particular, as this post demonstrates, calibration of the climate models seems to be a problem. Since I understand the difference between accuracy and precision as that relates to calibration, I think it is a very important question. What is the true baseline reading of the standard of measure?
“We had a warmer climate in the 1930s. ”
????
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that CO2 concentration is the only variable affecting the system.
Pollution, weather, ocean cycles, solar cycles and such all change temperature or decadal scales. Natural orbital changes are creating a long term cooling tendency. For example El Nino raises temperature by 0.3C and La Nina cools the system by 0.2C. That is 0.5C of variation due one ocean cycle alone.
Underneath the short term variation is a long term warming trend of 0.2C/decade due to CO2.
All the variation you describe, from the rapid warming in the 1930s to the 1960 and 2000 pauses can be explained by short time variation from various causes superimposed on the long term CO2 trend.
Baselines are the average of thirty years of global temperatures. The period is a matter of choice. UAH currently uses 1991-2000, a true average around 14.4C. Anomaly temperatures are the difference above or below the chosen baseline.
GISS uses 1951-1980, a true average of 14.0C.
“Preindustrial” is the 1850-1880 baseline of 13.8C. Hence with temperatures now around 15C the anomaly is 1.2C above preindustrial.
Since there is no “they” dictating what baseline to use, everyone does what they think best. Moyhu’s website has a graph of different temperature datasets reset to a common baseline for comparison.
We know from First Principles that CO2 can only result in slight cooling. It can NOT cause warming.
To believe CO2 causes warming, one must throw away the textbooks and also believe ice can boil water.
Guess what — the cult believes such nonsense.
Clint R
More blah blah blah bad science made up bullshit. With you the bad science never ends. Seems you have unlimited shot to serve posters on this blog. You usually serve cold old smelly shit. You are not smart enough to come up with fresh daily shit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527658
Clint R
Some more blah blah resort to an old blah blah link. You truly are devoid of any creativity. Go on with more mindless blah blah.
Yeah Norman, you are the one with all the creativity — making up things to fit your false beliefs. Recently, you even created a new way of walking and a new “square orbit”.
I just stick with the dull old established science and boring reality.
Clint R
1. ” We know from First Principles that CO2 can only result in slight cooling. ”
Show us them!
2. ” To believe CO2 causes warming, one must throw away the textbooks… ”
Which textbooks do you mean?
This one, for example?
Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to Their Physics and Chemistry
Joseph W. Chamberlain (Texas Rice University, Houston) and Donald M. Hunten (University of Arizona, Tucson) – 1987
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nnlfhQZfLEsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
Certainly not! This is namely exactly the kind of textbook you discredit and denigrate without having understood 0.0001 % of it.
The cult, Clint R, is made of people like you.
Bindi, you forget that you don’t know anything about science. You rely on your insults and false accusations. That’s all your cult has. But, since I have a few minutes:
1. 2LoT and radiative physics.
2. Please provide the quote and page number from your link that proves CO2 can raise the temperature of Earth’s surface.
Clint R
More worthless blah blah from a clown who can’t understand how to move around a table without rotating their feet. Also you can’t read. I made a square path around a table but did not call it an orbit, that is your word choice you dunce.
Yes Norman, you’ve invented a new way to walk and you’ve invented a new way to orbit.
You make things up to fit your cult nonsense.
And, you can’t help Bindi either. You’re not even a good tr0ll.
I’m with Noel.
What warmer period in the 1930s? It was 1C cooler than today.
Tim S
” We had a warmer climate in the 1930s. ”
Where do you live?
If it’s CONUS, then your statement is valid for absolute temperature maxima only. The daily mean temperatures built out of minima and maxima tell you something different.
Here is the top 10 of a descending sort of the yearly averages generated out of the raw ‘GHCN daily’ station set for CONUS (about 18000 stations over the period since 1895):
1953 15.98 (C)
2016 15.85
2012 15.83
1954 15.78
2015 15.78
2017 15.77
2020 15.75
1998 15.70
1946 15.65
2021 15.63
Oh, I hit a nerve! The need to preserve the “narrative” runs deep. The 1930s was a “warmer” period than some of the decades before and some of the decades after, so that makes it “warmer”. Period. It was a warm period.
Tim S,
Did you ever read “The Grapes of Wrath?” Did you hear of the Dust Bowl? There was a great drought in the West and Midwest in the 1930’s. Have you seen old news reel footage covering the drought where dust storms reached New York City? Do you think it wasn’t associated with warmer weather?
Tim S
” The need to preserve the ‘narrative’ runs deep. ”
*
Facts are facts: The 1930s were in the US indeed a warm period, no doubt.
But when you write ‘warmer’, then you must have had something in mind.
Which ‘narrative’ do you then mean?
On this blog, I know only one narrative with regard to the 1930s: namely that they allegedly have been warmer than today, what is simply wrong.
Many people not only confound the Dust Bowl – a geographically local event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl#/media/File:Map_of_states_and_counties_affected_by_the_Dust_Bowl,_sourced_from_US_federal_government_dept._(NRCS_SSRA-RAD).svg
with the entire US country around it.
They also guess that the temperatures in the affected regions were warmer than elsewhere in the US: this is wrong as well.
The Dust Bowl area rather was affected by a terrible mix of drought, wind and temperatures.
And last not least: many people would be surprised to hear how cold the 1930s have been during some winters compared to later years.
“There was a great drought in the West and Midwest in the 1930s.”
And is that the globe?
The CONUS is 1.5% of the global area.
So you are talking about < 1% of the globe having a drought at the time.
nate…who was monitoring the rest of the planet in the 1930s?
binny…”with regard to the 1930s: namely that they allegedly have been warmer than today, what is simply wrong”.
***
That was covered will at climateaudit. Hansen and the boys at GISS tried to slyly replace 1934 with 1998 as the warmest year. McIntyre called them on it, forcing them to change it back. So, even GISS acknowledged at the time that 1934 was warmer. More recently, they have continued with their perversion of the temperature record by completely ignoring the 1930s. They base their records today from 1960 onward.
This source shows the US continental temperatures since 1900.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
Looks like in several years since 1998vthe temperatures have been warmer than the 1930s.
The EPA??? You’d get more truth at a liars’ convention.
The figures they present at from NOAA/GISS fudging contests. When NOAA claimed 2014 was the hottest years ever, they did so with a 48% possibility they were right. Not to be outdone, GISS offered it with a 38% probability.
Talk about liars’ clubs.
“natewho was monitoring the rest of the planet in the 1930s?”
Non Americans who had thermometers.
Funny thing is Gordon,
The graph in the source I posted agrees quite will with UAH and RSS, so who ya gonna call, Ghostbusters?
ent…”The Coriolis effect bends this including air to The right and you get an anticlockwise circulation”.
***
Kind of a neat trick, considering Coriolis is a fictitious force. That is, there is no force acting, it just appears that way. A lot like Mann’s trick by which he hid cooling, making it appear as if the 1990s were the warmest decade in a 1000 years.
As NOAA points out, if the Earth did not rotate, the flows of air would be between the hotter Equator and the cooler Poles. However, the Earth is turning and the air at the Equator, being attached to the surface by gravity is moving close to 1000 MPH while the air above the Poles proper is not even turning.
That creates a good vortex right there. Throw in the N-S movement and you have some interesting weather. Of course, Mann being a geologist, is not up on weather.
Hurricane will strike south of Tallahassee.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/us/tallahassee/32301/weather-radar/328170
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
Hey Christos, how’s things in Athens?
No Tricks Zone has an article about bleaching coral. 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water. There is no way physically possible for CO2 and 15 micron LWIR to bleach the coral. Short Wave VIsible Radiation penetrates water and bleaches the coral. That is easily proven in any lab. Will that story be run? Nope.
“No Tricks Zone has an article about bleaching coral. 15 Micron LWIR doesnt penetrate water. ”
The ocean is record warm. That’s a fact.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Bleaching is related to temperature.
Dr. Spencer, have someone in your lab go grab some coral. Put it in an aquarium and shine the biggest IR Lamp you can find on the water above the coral. I’m 100% certain that after weeks of additional IR, there is 0.00% chance that coral will be bleached. That is an incredibly easy experiment to run.
I am 100% confident that the IR lamp will heat the water enough to cause the coral to expel their algae.
Causing them to bleach.
At best IR will cause surface evaporation what will actually COOL the water below it. Anyway, that is an exceedingly easy experiment to run. Dr. Spencer, please run that experiment to prove either me right or wrong.
BobDroege seems to think quantum mechanics is a myth, and that a consensus will trump experimentation.
CO2isLife
“BobDroege seems to think quantum mechanics is a myth,”
Why do you think that?
Have you been tortured by an 80 year old professor emeritus with poor handwriting in a building normally devoted to the studies of English?
Did you ever rub Lincoln’s nose for good luck on Physical Chemistry exams?
Quantum Mechanics says IR is absorbed by water.
And no, I don’t prefer consensus over empiricism.
“Quantum Mechanics says IR is absorbed by water.”
No duh, it absorbs 100% on the very surface and likely causes evaporation, ie cooling of the surface. There is 0.00% chance that LWIR of 15 Microns penetrates the water to the depth of the coral, 0.00%. That is basic common sense and science. If the LWIR can’t reach the Coral it is highly unlikely that the LWIR is causing the bleaching. That is so very easy to demonstrate in a lab. Why are we discussing it? Simply run the experiment. This is a science, not a debate club. Run the experiment. Any Lab can expose that lie.
CO2IsLife(?)
” There is 0.00% chance that LWIR of 15 Microns penetrates the water to the depth of the coral… ”
Are you really so stubborn? Or are you simply kidding the blog?
Nobody told that anywhere.
What everybody having a working brain will tell you however is that 15 mu radiation penetrates sea surface deep enough to reduce its IR emission in the same wavelength range.
The result being that the radiative energy balance becomes disturbed, tiny bit by tiny bit.
Will you get that one day?
CO2…here’s a good, detailed description of the water absorp-tion spectrum. Interestingly, it does not absorb all light frequencies. Also, water vapour and other molecules like N2/O2 in the atmosphere absorb a significant amount of sunlight therefore the atmosphere is being warmed directly by solar energy.
https://water.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html
The mistake being made in the article is talking about bonds without acknowledging that bonds are electrons. Every article I read stops at the molecular level, refusing to recognize the atoms with their electrons that do the actual work. Every form of vibration is caused by electron bonds and there is no way getting around that. Increases and decreases in vibration are due to electrons. The properties of molecular rotation are about electron bonds as well.
The water molecule is not linear like CO2, although apparently it can be linear, yet it absorbs EM well. There is an angle of 104.5 degrees between the bonds connecting the oxygen atom to 2 hydrogen atoms. Each bond can vibrate along the bond axis or about it. The entire molecule can rotate as well.
Remember, those bonds consist of shared electrons in orbitals and the electrons can absorb and emit EM. Furthermore, the bond is going to be more positive toward the O end and relatively positive toward the H end. That polarizes the bond and leads to the weak hydrogen bonds that bind the water molecules into a liquid form.
CO2isLife
15 micrometre back radiation does warm the ocean, though the effect is more subtle than you might think.
The normal heat flow pattern of the ocean is that visible light warms the water. The heat diffuser down the temperature gradient to the surface where the heat transfers to the even cooler atmosphere by conduction, evaporation and IR radiation.
As you say, water is opaque to IR so all the back radiation energy is absorbed by the surface film. This warms the water immediately below it and the air immediately above it, creating a narrow zone warmer than both the ocean beneath and the atmosphere above.
As GR is fond of saying, heat cannot move on its own from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object, 2LOT.
The warmer surface film acts a barrier to hear flow, slowing the rate of heat loss from the water to the air.
A simple example.
On a fortnight with minimum back radiation radiation the ocean is at 9C, the surface film is at 8.5C and the atmosphere at 8.0C. The temperature gradient between water and surface film is 0.5C.
In daylight back radiation warms the surface film to 8.6C. The temperature gradient reduces by 20% to 0.4C and the rate of heat flow also dropped.
For a constant heat input reducing the rate of heat loss raises the equilibrium temperature.
The biggest problem with Minnett’s theory of ocean warming from increased CO2 is that it has back-radiation warming the surface film. Back-radiation can’t warm/insulate a thing.
Back-radiation cant warm/insulate a thing.
Water is opaque to IR, including back radiation, but can absorb it at the water surface which is why back radiation delivers enough energy to warms the surface film.
The next question is where does that heat go. It can diffuse downwards to warm the water below; or transfer upwards by conduction, evaporation or as IR. It does not vanish. Something somewhere must be warmed.
The final question is why does it warm the ocean. Heat flow is proportional to the temperature gradient. Back radiation reduces the temperature gradient across the ocean surface which reduces the rate of heat flow out of the ocean. Reduce the outward heat flow from an object with a heat source ( in this case a sunlit ocean) and the equilibrium temperature increases.
I don’t see any flaws in this argument. Every step is conventional physics.
Back-radiation can’t warm/insulate a thing. That’s 2LoT for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Notice how Ent tries to pervert the issue. DREMT refers to “CO2”, and Ent changes it to “IR”. His goal is to use the fact that some very high energy IR could warm water. But, NOT CO2’s 15μ photons.
Ent is also the one that has claimed passenger jets fly backward.
Science of doom did an excellent four part post on this very subject.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/
“Back-radiation cant warm/insulate a thing. Thats 2LoT for you:”
No. That is not what 2LoT says.
2LoT says that 315 W/m^2 of thermal IR from a 273 K blackbody cannot (by itself) warm anything above 273 K.
But 315 W/m^2 of sunlight can also warm that object to 273 K. And 315 W/m^2 of thermal IR COMBINED with 315 W/m^2 of sunlight can warm an object above 273 K.
Without IR: 273 K
With IR: over 300 K
You can argue semantics all you want, but adding thermal IR from a cool source did indeed cause the temperature to become higher.
Sorry Tim, the arguments made in the thread here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Have never and can never be refuted by anyone. No GHE.
“Back-radiation cant warm/insulate a thing.”
Simple experiment that anyone can replicate, proves this wrong, as I discussed at length with Bill.
Get a cheap IR thermometer (eg from Harbor Freight tools).
It has a thermopile sensor inside, whose front surface cools/warms when exposed to cooler/warmer target surfaces. The amount of cooling/warming of the front surface relative to the back surface (at ambient T) is used to calculate the IR flux into the device, and thereby the T of target using the SB law.
The experiment: Open your freezer and refrigerator doors.
1. Point the sensor at the inside of your freezer. The sensor surface cools, and it accurately reports the freezer temperature.
2. Now point it into the refrigerator, the sensor surface warms, and it again accurately reads the warmer but still cold temperature of the refrigerator.
In both cases the sources of radiation are colder than the sensor. In both cases the sources are emitting according to the SB law.
In switching from freezer to the refrigerator, the back radiation received by the sensor has INCREASED. And as a result, the sensor WARMED.
QED
…Tim, the arguments made in the thread here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Have never and can never be refuted by anyone. No GHE.
“Have never and can never be refuted by anyone”
Experiment refutes it. Sorry.
Repeat your claims as often as you want, it will not change the reality.
…the arguments made in the thread here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Have never and can never be refuted by anyone. No GHE.
Argument by assertion is not honest debate.
Repeating falsified claims over and over is not honest debate.
DREMT had a nice vacay, but still didn’t learn how to properly and honestly debate.
What Nate said plus
It is theoretically wrong, there is no heat transfer from green to blue, the heat transfer is from blue to green.
So no 2nd law violation.
Eli, with a PhD in physics and a chair in Chemistry did the calculations correctly.
Ten thousand experiments that don’t find an effect can be overturned by one experiment that does.
Get a Ouiji board and channel my dad, he was part of many experiments trying to find the Higgs Boson that failed, but eventually experimental evidence for the Higgs was found.
"What Nate said…"
…you should all know by now that I don’t read what Nate says, or respond to him. If I see he’s written a comment to me, I simply repeat whatever I said previously, in order to prevent him from using that fact against me. He’s not worth any more time than that.
"…there is no heat transfer from green to blue, the heat transfer is from blue to green…so no 2nd law violation"
That’s right, in the real (correct) 244 K…244 K version, there is no heat transfer from green to blue, so the blue plate does not increase in temperature at the expense of the green to result in the erroneous temperatures of 262 K…220 K.
Sorry
But as Nate said experimental evidence trumps you.
I have done the experiment myself and verified the second plate increases the temperature of the first plate.
It just takes one experiment to demonstrate an effect.
Your 244 244 solution violates a number of thermodynamics laws.
It is not possible.
Seim & Olsen, along with Hughes, trump your empty claims, bob.
The cult can’t understand the difference between manmade objects and nature. They get confused by microwave ovens, lasers, and now IR thermometers.
Since airplanes can fly, they must believe they can also fly. Maybe if they jump off a 40 story building they will learn something….
Nate? bob? Folkerts?
DREMT,
Evidence finding an effect always wins over evidence finding no effect.
Especially those dedicated to finding no effect, especially those clowns at principia scientific.
You need better sources.
Your zero of spades is not a valid trump card.
Clint R,
I fly all the time.
I once did a swan dive off of the cliffs at Johnson’s Shutins, I flew for about 2 seconds. Then I hit the water.
I do believe you are the one confuse about simple physics.
Maybe not so simple for you.
Sorry for your loss, bob.
Have you gone outside and seen the super blue Moon and smelled the roses?
And by roses, I mean the smoke from the burning wildfires in Canada.
Made me put a mask back on.
Any one in the Big Bend area?
OK, bob.
“OK, bob.”
I win again!
“OK, bob” just means I’m acknowledging receipt of your comment.
“The cult cant understand the difference between manmade objects and nature.”
Anybody claiming manmade objects don’t obey the same laws of physics is stooopid.
“you should all know by now that I dont read what Nate says, or respond to him. ”
The charade continues.
But clearly he ignores any experimental evidence that doesnt support his narrative.
The stature of Seim and Olsen as great experimenters keeps increasing among the Ignorati.
But lets clearly state what they found.
They found that either:
1. There is something wrong with 1LOT.
or
2. They lost some heat and could not account for it.
When I asked Seim, he indicated that he did NOT believe he discovered a problem with any law of physics.
So it is #2, and thus we have the great experimenters.
OTOH, their commercial IR detector they used doesn’t lose heat, and it detected the back radiation increase when CO2 was introduced (17 W/m 2). The detector uses a thermopile.
The authors state:
“When the thermopile in the IR detector is heated by absorbed IR radiation its voltage response increases. The detector heats up and increases its voltage when
irradiated by IR from CO2.”
So this experiment that they did showed that the back radiation from CO2 DID warm something after all.
DREMT,
“OK, bob just means Im acknowledging receipt of your comment.”
The way I see it, you have no rebuttal to my comment.
That means you lose!
All this evidence we are seeing on the tele, means there is something to the GHE and we need to do something about it.
There was nothing to rebut in your comment, bob. It was just a strange, meandering mess.
A followup high quality experiment to Seim and Olsen, by a noted skeptic, finds strong evidence back radiation warms, and a GHE in the lab.
https://climatetverite.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m-2021.pdf
Oh well.
Naturally this clear experimental evidence will be ignored by DREMT and friends.
Let me fix that …
The arguments made in the thread there have never and can never be refuted by anyone IN A MANNER THAT DREMT IS WILLING/ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
If you say so, Tim.
This song describes DREMT perfectly.
Have some CAKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxthhkub89c
As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Yes but then he goes on to explain the GHE.
Pratt does not debunk the greenhouse effect.
He explains it better than the back-radiation account.
What part of his explanation of the GHE do you not understand?
I never said he doesn’t believe in the GHE, bob. What I said was correct. Which is that he agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
You don’t agree with that, you see. You and a few of the dinosaurs on this blog are still clinging to the old-fashioned back-radiation account of the GHE. Hence you still defend Eli’s Green Plate Effect.
DREMT,
You have it all wrong.
The green plate effect as explained by Eli, was to show that back radiation does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, I suggest you go back and reread his posts.
It was not, I repeat not, a model or an explanation of the greenhouse effect.
As Vaughn would agree, it’s not a good explanation of the greenhouse effect.
“You dont agree with that, you see. You and a few of the dinosaurs on this blog are still clinging to the old-fashioned back-radiation account of the GHE.”
Whoa there mate.
You are putting words in my mouth and building strawmen.
I with the CO2 blocks IR radiation from reaching space, therefore the emitting is done from a higher elevation where it is cooler, requiring the surface temperature to be higher to balance the incoming solar radiation.
Very funny, bob. Vaughan Pratt has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. You disagree. You and Vaughan Pratt are in direct, absolute, perfect, glorious, and eternal disagreement.
By the way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345304
DREMT,
Can you actually quote Vaugh saying the back radiation version of the greenhouse effect is debunked?
ent…”15 micrometre back radiation does warm the ocean, though the effect is more subtle than you might think”.
***
It cannot warm anything if it is not absorbed. The 2nd law tells us that heat can never be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer ocean.
Sure, bob:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
DREMT,
Can is not does.
Here are some more quotes from Vaugan
“what Im claiming is not that there is no back radiation”
“Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”
In this quote, clearly he is not debunking the back radiation, he is saying it is not the most important part of the process where increased CO2 heats the planet’s surface.
He is also saying, if you read further at Judy’s blog, that it’s not the back radiation, but the change in back radiation with time that matters.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
DREMT,
Furthermore,
Vaughan doesn’t help you with this
“The biggest problem with Minnetts theory of ocean warming from increased CO2 is that it has back-radiation warming the surface film. Back-radiation cant warm/insulate a thing.”
It’s wrong.
bob, for the twentieth time, nobody is denying that back-radiation exists. What Vaughan Pratt agrees on, is that back-radiation (which exists) does not lead to warming. Hence, he said:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
DREMT,
Then he clearly contradicts himself in the quote I provided from Judy’s.
Here it is again
Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.
DREMT,
Vaughan also clearly states that it is the change in back radiation caused by the increase in CO2 is what leads to warming.
Because back radiation has been around for like forever.
DREMT,
Anyway, this is where you jumped in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
And yes, those arguments have been refuted once if not a thousand times.
By theoretical and empirical evidence.
bob, it’s not so much that he’s contradicting himself, as it’s maybe the case that experimental evidence has changed his mind. After all, those quotes from Climate Etc. are over ten years old, now. What he said at this blog is more recent, and follows the publication of the Seim & Olsen experiment, about which he said:
"Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally".
In that experiment, the amount of back-radiation from CO2 was changed, and yet no warming resulted (to counter your other point):
"Vaughan also clearly states that it is the change in back radiation caused by the increase in CO2 is what leads to warming."
The change in back-radiation did not lead to more warming. So if Vaughan Pratt is saying that "Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally", then he’s being quite clear that he must have changed his mind on that point.
It’s the many, many contradictions and imprecisions in the descriptions of the GHE that plays a big part in convincing me that it’s bunk, bob. Get a number of GHE defenders in a room together, and you’ll find that they can’t actually agree on what the theory even is. They can’t actually outline a coherent summary of the theory. Why do you think Swenson so consistently asks people for a description of the GHE? It’s because you lot can’t make your minds up. And that’s because it’s all, ultimately, just made up.
And when one version of the theory gets debunked, another version rises up to take its place. Like the many heads of the Hydra. That’s not normal science, bob. People notice that kind of thing.
DREMT,
There have been experiments since Seim & Olsen that find what Seim & Olsen failed to find.
So don’t put your eggs in that basket.
Here you go
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://climatetverite.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m-2021.pdf
“some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection”
Convection has been part of the real GHE theory for decades. Climate science has no neglected it.
So he is debunking a strawman here.
DREMT,
Your manifesto is wrong on so many counts.
Seim and Olsens failure to confirm the greenhouse effect does not debunk the greenhouse effect.
Later Harde and Schnell do confirm the greenhouse effect.
“The change in back-radiation did not lead to more warming.”
Yes it has, that’s what we are seeing now in the analog model, you know the actual real Earth.
Yeah, if you get a bunch of different people with different levels of science training and experience, you will get different descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
But that doesn’t debunk the theory.
Christ, you don’t have the science training nor experience to even understand it, you think it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You also think the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis.
That disqualifies you from debunking the greenhouse effect theory.
As usual, bob’s all over the place.
We’re talking about Vaughan Pratt. He’s said that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. That can only mean he thinks the concept of "back-radiation leading to warming" is debunked. I mentioned the Seim & Olsen experiment only because that’s what led him to make that statement, and it further confirms the idea that he thinks the concept of "back-radiation leading to warming" is debunked. I’m not going to get into discussing the merits of the various experiments for and against, once again. The Harde & Schnell experiment has already been discussed. It’s all already been discussed, a dozen times, but there you go.
"Yeah, if you get a bunch of different people with different levels of science training and experience, you will get different descriptions of the greenhouse effect"
bob, even amongst the self-professed experts at this blog, who all claim to be at the highest levels of science training and experience, you get different descriptions of the GHE. Recently we had you defending one version of the GHE, only for you to be corrected by Tim. Both of you claim to be educated to a high level. You still couldn’t agree.
"But that doesn’t debunk the theory."
It doesn’t debunk the theory in and of itself, but it does call into question whether there is even one coherent theory in the first place.
"Christ, you don’t have the science training nor experience to even understand it, you think it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You also think the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis.
That disqualifies you from debunking the greenhouse effect theory."
I have a science degree, bob. I do indeed think the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis, nevertheless I fully understand the reasons why people think that it does. But, we’re getting even further off topic.
DREMT,
” Hes said that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.”
No he didn’t.
What he said was the Seim and Olsen paper debunks the back radiation theory.
Since the Seim and Olsen paper is not true, then it doesn’t debunk the back radiation parts of the greenhouse effect theory.
If we are getting off topic, the topic of this sub-thread was whether or not IR is absorbed when it hits the surface of the Earth.
Care to address that?
Anyway, care to divulge what your science degree is in?
So bob doesn’t agree with Vaughan Pratt. Proving my point that they can’t agree amongst themselves on what the GHE theory even is.
"If we are getting off topic, the topic of this sub-thread was whether or not IR is absorbed when it hits the surface of the Earth"
Exactly. Which is why I said right away that back-radiation can’t warm the surface film. Back-radiation can’t warm/insulate a thing. So whether the back-radiation IR is absorbed or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s absorbed, or whether it’s reflected, it doesn’t raise the temperature of the surface film. For the reasons I linked to. You didn’t want to listen to those reasons (or quote them, or dispute them in any way other than just arguing by assertion that they’re wrong), so I thought I’d bring up VP. If only because the fact that one of your own disagrees with you ought to open that mind of yours a little.
"What he said was the Seim and Olsen paper debunks the back radiation theory."
Not quite true, bob, anyway. What he actually said was that Seim & Olsen debunks the back radiation account of the GHE, as theory predicts it should. So in other words he’s saying that’s not a surprise result. The theory was already leaning towards there not being any back-radiation warming.
Yes DREMT,
Except the Seim and Olsen paper has been debunked, so that debunks the debunking by Pratt.
Do you get that or not?
Your science degree is in what now?
Your opinion that the Moon doesn’t rotate affects your credibility, you know.
As in, you are not credible.
Why should I believe your bull!
DREMT,
Here is anther quote from Pratt, that you linked to.
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
So there we have it.
"Except the Seim and Olsen paper has been debunked, so that debunks the debunking by Pratt."
1) The Seim & Olsen paper has not been debunked. Whereas the Harde & Schnell paper has been.
2) As I just said, according to Pratt the debunking of the back-radiation account of the GHE should have been predicted by theory anyway. So his opinion is not at all dependent on S & O anyway.
“The Harde & Schnell experiment has already been discussed. Its all already been discussed, a dozen times, but there you go.”
There DREMT goes. He forgot that HE selectively brought up experiments that supposedly support his narrative (Seim). And selectively quoted lines from supreme authority Pratt that supposedly support his narrative.
Then criticizes or ignores anyone bringing up contradictory experiments, quotes, context or facts.
He seems to think actual honest debate, where his views get challenged, is extremely unfair to him.
DREMT,
So what happens to a 15u IR photon from a CO2 molecule arrives at the surface of the Earth?
What happens when a 15u IR photon from the Sun arrives at the surface of the Earth.
You are just claiming Harde Schnell has been debunked, that doesn’t work for me.
Again, what science degree do you have?
Did it require a course in thermodynamics like the one I have?
Most don’t.
You just said the Seim & Olsen paper was debunked. That doesn’t work for me either.
Nevertheless, here’s a link for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498111
DREMT,
What exactly are you failing to demonstrate with that link?
Now again, what happens to 15u IR from CO2 when it hits the surface of the Earth?
What happens to 15u IR from the Sun when it hits the Earth?
And what does all of that have to do with the Greenhouse Effect?
bob has no rebuttal to the linked comment.
The answer to your questions about the photons is: it’s irrelevant. Thinking about the fate of individual photons is a waste of time. As I already said:
“…back-radiation can’t warm the surface film. Back-radiation can’t warm/insulate a thing. So whether the back-radiation IR is absorbed or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s absorbed, or whether it’s reflected, it doesn’t raise the temperature of the surface film. For the reasons I linked to. You didn’t want to listen to those reasons (or quote them, or dispute them in any way other than just arguing by assertion that they’re wrong), so I thought I’d bring up VP.”
DREMT,
If I can show that this statement of yours is wrong.
“Back-radiation cant warm/insulate a thing.”
Will you stop with the PSTs forever?
Ignoring science that shows your position wrong is not a good look.
If you could show me wrong you would have done so already. Here you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
DREMT,
That’s the thing, I have repeatedly objected to the nonsense that Eli’s solution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
“Inferences: Since the only energy flow not in config. A that is in config. B is the “back-radiation” transfer, this must be responsible for the transition from 244 K244 K to 262 K220 K. This would then have to be a heat transfer from cold to hot.”
Because in Eli’s solution, the heat transfer is from hot to cold, the heat transfer is from the 262 plate to the 220 plate, not from the 220 plate to the 262 plate.
Where did you take a course in Thermodynamics to get this so horribly wrong?
Secondly, it’s the atmosphere absorbing the upward IR that is doing the insulation. The atmosphere is doing the insulating because CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR.
Also, anything that emits IR, like the surface of the Earth, also absorbs IR, that’s Kirchhoff’s Law.
Three strikes, you’re out.
"Because in Eli’s solution, the heat transfer is from hot to cold, the heat transfer is from the 262 plate to the 220 plate, not from the 220 plate to the 262 plate."
When separated, the plates are initially still at 244 K…244 K, as both sides of the debate agree. According to Eli’s solution, the plates would then progress to a situation where the BP is at 262 K and the GP is at 220 K. The only transfer that’s now occurring that wasn’t when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP. So, that transfer must be responsible for the BP gaining in temperature, and the GP dropping in temperature. It’s therefore a transfer of heat, from cold to hot.
DREMT,
No it is not.
Please review the radiative heat transfer equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
No need, I’m familiar with it already.
DREMT,
Right,
This statement shows how familiar you are with the radiative heat transfer equation.
“The only transfer thats now occurring that wasnt when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP.”
When the plates separate, now there are two transfers of energy.
One from hot to cold, and one from cold to hot.
Your statement shows you lack an understanding of the equation.
Unless when you say only, you mean two.
bob, the transfer from the BP to the GP was present when the plates were pressed together. It was just occurring via conduction, rather than radiation.
Once again, "the only transfer that’s now occurring that wasn’t when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP".
DREMPT,
“bob, the transfer from the BP to the GP was present when the plates were pressed together. It was just occurring via conduction, rather than radiation.”
Yes, and when you change the method of heat transfer, you need to use a different equation. Keep digging, you continue to display and ignorance of thermodynamics.
“:Once again, “the only transfer thats now occurring that wasnt when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP”.
No, again, with the plates together you have one heat transfer by conduction, when separated you have heat transfer by radiation in one direction, from hot to cold, composed of the difference in the energy transfer from hot to cold and the energy transfer from cold to hot.
You do not have a heat transfer from cold to hot.
Once again, you are displaying the fact that you do not understand thermodynamics.
Maybe you need to take a class.
Because you are losing this argument.
bob, the only transfer that’s occurring after the plates separate that wasn’t there when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP. That’s because when the plates were pushed together, there was a transfer of energy from the BP to the GP, via conduction. When the plates separate, there is now a transfer of energy in both directions, via radiation. So the only new transfer is the one from the GP to the BP, since the one from the BP to the GP was already there before separation (just via conduction instead of radiation). Work on understanding that, first.
DREMT,
“Work on understanding that, first.”
That’s what I said, are you having difficulties in reading comprehension as well?
This is what I said.
“No, again, with the plates together you have one heat transfer by conduction, when separated you have heat transfer by radiation in one direction, from hot to cold, composed of the difference in the energy transfer from hot to cold and the energy transfer from cold to hot.”
The energy transfer from the blue to the green replaces the heat transfer from blue to green by conduction, so the radiative transfer of energy from blue to green is new, since it is no longer by conduction.
Here you go again:
“bob, the only transfer thats occurring after the plates separate that wasnt there when the plates were pushed together is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP.”
That is not true, the energy transfer from blue to green by radiation was not there with the plates together.
Keep on searching for your violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Take a deep breath, calm down, and then read this comment again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1530814
Let me know when you understand it. You will then have reached Baby Step 1.
DREMT,
I understand your comment.
It is wrong. Do you need me to explain again why it is wrong?
You want to link to it again?
You want to can your condescending attitude?
You want to admit you are wrong and are losing the debate?
You want to admit Eli knows more about thermodynamics than you?
It’s not wrong, bob. You’re saying the transfer from BP to GP via radiation is “new” after separation, but that’s just sophistry. There was already a transfer from BP to GP when the plates were pressed together (only via conduction instead of radiation), so the transfer of energy from BP to GP after separation is not new. It was there with the plates pressed together.
DREMT,
If it’s just sophistry, why do you use a different equation when dealing with heat transfer by conduction as compared to heat transfer by radiation.
For conduction one must use q = – K delta T
You are claiming heat transfer by conduction and radiation is the same.
You are claiming separating the plates does not change the method of heat transfer from blue to green.
Try again.
“You are claiming heat transfer by conduction and radiation is the same.
You are claiming separating the plates does not change the method of heat transfer from blue to green.
Try again.”
No, I’m not claiming anything of the sort. You’re just putting words in my mouth. What I’m saying is correct, and that is that the only new energy transfer on separation is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP. Since this is ultimately then responsible for (according to Eli’s solution) the plates progressing from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K, then it’s effectively being treated as a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
DREMT,
Try this
The heat transfer from blue to green with the plates together is by conduction.
The heat transfer from blue to green with the plates separated is by radiation.
They are different one is new one is old.
Keep trying, bob, I know you can make it to Baby Step 1, I just know you can.
DREMT,
Please support your 244 244 solution with heat transfer calculations.
Want to make a bet?
You can’t do it, can you?
Another simple debunking of the Green Plate Effect:
According to Eli’s logic, an object can never warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, even with identical heat capacities and in an idealised scenario with no losses between the objects (i.e. view factors equal to 1), if the heat transfer is via radiation!
Simply because the receiving object gets all its energy on only one side, but it emits from both sides…
So, somehow, we are supposed to believe that via conduction, another object can of course be brought to the same temperature as the original object…but via radiation it’s simply impossible!
DREMPT,
No equations no laundry
No equations no donuts
No equations no dinner
DREMT,
“According to Elis logic, an object can never warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, even with identical heat capacities and in an idealised scenario with no losses between the objects (i.e. view factors equal to 1), if the heat transfer is via radiation!”
Several things
One: it’s not a logical argument.
Two: Eli has a PhD in physics, which include thermodynamics, and you don’t.
Three: He has a chair in Physical Chemistry and that’s where thermodynamics lies.
Four: With one side exposed to space, the CMB if you will, of course you can’t heat something to the same temperature if only one side is exposed to the heat source.
That’s why you flip burgers.
That’s your job, right?
Burgers are heated by conduction, bob. With one side of the GP “exposed to space”, you are still happy for the GP to come to the same temperature as the BP if heat transfer is via conduction. It’s just not possible, according to Eli’s logic, if the heat transfer is via radiation…and that’s laughable.
“Its just not possible, according to Elis logic, if the heat transfer is via radiationand thats laughable.”
Conduction through thin metal is much MUCH better at transferring heat than radiation across a vacuum.
Just an undeniable fact of nature. Not sure why some people find that amusing, and have such a hard time getting that.
And of course, in reality, there will be a small T gradient across a metal plate with heat conducting through it.
“It’s just not possible, according to Eli’s logic, if the heat transfer is via radiation…and that’s laughable…”
…and the reason it’s not possible, according to Eli’s logic, is because the radiation is received on only one side of the object, whilst it emits from both sides. That is the reason that the warmed object can never come to the same temperature as the object warming it. Hilarious!
Even with a long vacation, some people STILL havent learned that their incredulity of how ordinary heat transfer works is not an argument against it.
“Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.”
And finding humor in how ordinary heat transfer works is both strange and also not an argument against it.
Oh, I see Nate commented again. I wonder what he said?
Where is bob, anyway? Guess he got bored. It does get boring when the discussions go on for the best part of a week.
I see the Troooooll is begging for a snack.
Sorry my doc decided I needed to take a shitton of oxy amongst a bunch of other drugs.
So if you want to continue to lose arguments to a guy high on oxy, lets go.
“Burgers are heated by conduction, bob.”
Well then you are doing it wrong, is that how they cook burgers in Great Britain?
For the sake of the argument you are losing, it doesn’t matter, anyway.
I use a near blackbody to cook by burgers, so it’s radiation doing the cooking.
bob, please stop trolling.
I win again,
though beating DREMT who isn’t qualified to flip burgers, in a science debate is not worth the postage.
You lost, bob. You haven’t even made a coherent point for some time.
DREMT,
“You lost, bob. You havent even made a coherent point for some time.”
That just shows your level of science training DREMPT.
You find science incoherent.
Sorry bob, insults are another indicator that you’ve lost.
“At best IR will cause surface evaporation what will actually COOL the water below it. ”
Sorry, its falsified by experiment.
Oh well, your ingenious ‘heating causes cooling’ theory must be wrong.
Makes sense, it is UV that does the bleaching.
Nope, it is temperature that causes coral bleaching.
That’s what climate loonies want you to believe. Dentists use UV to whiten teeth and the Sun uses it to bleach coral. Never heard of bones bleaching in sunlight? It’s the UV.
The ecoloonies agree that sunlight causes coral bleaching but the main cause is temperature.
“The leading cause of coral bleaching is climate change. A warming planet means a warming ocean, and a change in water temperatureas little as 2 degrees Fahrenheitcan cause coral to drive out algae. Coral may bleach for other reasons, like extremely low tides, pollution, or too much sunlight.”
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/everything-you-need-to-know-about-coral-bleaching-and-how-we-can-stop-it#:~:text=The%20leading%20cause%20of%20coral,pollution%2C%20or%20too%20much%20sunlight.
Gordon,
Bleaching of coral and bleaching bones or your teeth are different things.
Coral bleaching is due to algae leaving the coral due to high temperatures, not UV light.
bob, please stop trolling.
Roy, who can rid me of this meddlesome moderator?
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
I can try, Bob.
…and you can fail.
The hurricane is already in Georgia.
https://i.ibb.co/cttYXnY/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-30-190627.png
During the night, the storm will be over South Carolina.
Duplicate…
tim…”Even hydrogen, with on[e] electron, radiates in the IR band.
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Hydrogen that has been hit with high energy electrons or UV light can emit IR. This is NOT thermal IR due to the temperature of the H2 gas”.
***
Tim, you certainly have fanciful theories. This is well-researched and documented theory dating back to the turn of the 20th century. Scientists like Balmer, Lyman, Paschen, etc. investigated the spectra of hydrogen radiation even before Bohr discovered the relationship between electrons and EM emission/absor.p-tion. These scientists simply observed the emissions and noted the frequency of light produced. Don’t know how Paschen did it with IR.
It has nothing to do in general with high energy UV frequencies exciting the hydrogen atom electron, although that could be one scenario. It has everything to do with any energy exciting the electron and causing it to jump between up to 6 different orbital energy levels.
If the electron is in the ground state, only a high energy absor.p.tion will raise the electron to the 6th energy level and vice-versa. However, if the electron is in the 6th orbital and drops to the 5th, 4th, or 3rd orbital, it will emit IR. Similarly, if it is already in the 3rd orbital, IR can cause it to jump to lower energy orbitals like the 4th, 5th, or 6th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
You can see that all jumps from ground state outward represent the Lyman series whereas from the 2nd orbital out it is the Balmer series. From the 3rd orbital outward, it’s the Paschen series, and those all represent IR transitions.
The question is, why would an electron be residing in the 3rd orbital? I am guessing that has something to do with temperature related to heat or a continuous EM absor.p.tion.
“Tim, you certainly have fanciful theories. ”
Sorry, but you are the one misunderstanding these old theories.
Theory says that CO2 can absorb and emit 15 um IR photons. A molecule in the ground state can absorb this much energy and later emit it again.
Theory says that H can emit 7.5 um IR photons but not absorb 7.5 um IR photons!. A hydrogen atom in the ground state can NOT absorb this much energy (~0.17 eV). A hydrogen atom in the ground state (n=1) has to FIRST absorb about 13.3 eV (for example from an electron in a high-voltage tube) to get into the n=6 level. Only then can it fall back to the n=5 level to emit that 7.5 um IR photon.
“The question is, why would an electron be residing in the 3rd orbital? I am guessing that has something to do with temperature related to heat or a continuous EM absor.p.tion.”
Yes! That is indeed the question! It does NOT have to do with the temperature. Thermal temperatures do NOT have the ~ 13.3 eV available. You need high-voltage electrons or UV to excite the hydrogen to theses higher levels.
Tim…molecules don’t absorb, EM, electrons related to atoms absorb it. Part of the reason CO2 can absorb IR is likely because the electrons that bond the carbon atom to two oxygen atoms are outer shell valence electrons.
Part of the reason you fail to grasp the theory is that you are stuck at the molecular macro-level. You need to descend a level to the atoms and electrons to grasp it.
Robertson
” … molecules dont absorb, EM, electrons related to atoms absorb it. ”
100 % of the reason why you fail to grasp the theory is that you are stuck at what you read in 75 year old textbooks or on pseudo-scientific blogs.
What about finally trying to learn something?
Electromagnetic Absorp-tion and Emission by
Atoms and Molecules
http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/grainger/research/book/protected/Chapter4.pdf
https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/grainger/publications
This, Robertson, is today’s reality.
But… it’s hopeless because you never will learn anything, Robertson.
You better listen Binderdong, he is an expert on Electromagnetic Absorp-tion , he can power a light bulb by radiation from ice, although he refuses to demonstrate how he does it,
He claims he learned that from 200 years old book written in time when scientists still thought the Sun was a giant lump of burning coal
Ahaaa… the stalking dachshund is here again with his brazen lies.
Keep stoopid, dachshund, that’s how you look best.
Gordon,
When you have 2 valence electrons forming a covalent bond, those electrons are associated with two atoms.
There are molecular orbitals associated with those covalent bonds and they absorb and emit photons accordingly.
These covalent bonds have energy levels usually lower than those associated with single atoms.
Do you still have your organic chemistry textbook?
Or did you sell it for Maddog?
bob…”When you have 2 valence electrons forming a covalent bond, those electrons are associated with two atoms.
There are molecular orbitals associated with those covalent bonds and they absorb and emit photons accordingly”.
***
Bob…you just said those orbitals are comprised of electrons. The molecular orbital of which you speak is the same orbital. There is nothing in a molecule that differs from the atoms that make up the molecules.
It is true that the valence shells electrons have lower energies in multi-orbital atoms and that likely explains why molecules like CO2 radiate and absorb in the IR band.
Gordon,
Molecular orbitals are different from atomic orbitals.
Molecules have different properties than the atoms that make up the molecules.
Obvious to a high school chemistry student.
Gordon,
Second year chemistry students learn to identify molecular structure by the IR frequencies absorbed by molecules.
If it was only the atoms doing the absorbing, this would not be possible.
In college I compared the IR spectrum of DI water to Discwasher fluid.
And found out I was paying about 2 dollars an ounce for DI water.
This is because the OH bond absorbs differently than either Oxygen or Hydrogen.
No, Gordon. The reason you fail to grasp all this is related to “I am guessing that has something to do with …” and “Part of the reason CO2 can absorb IR is likely …”.
You simply don’t have the background to synthesize the key ideas. A 1st year university physics student would be able to understand that thermal energy is not the answer. A 2nd or 3rd year chemistry student will know about molecular vibrations.
Gordon has been unable to learn the basics. He wants to be a Skeptic, yet he attacks other Skeptics. It seems he just wants to clog the blog. He’s even worse than Bindi.
tim…you are babbling. By the time someone has studied chemistry to a third year level, hopefully they have learned that a molecule is nothing more than two or more atoms bonded together by electron bonds.
Speaking of molecules absorbing this and that is plain silly while ignoring the atoms making up molecules. Molecules are formed from covalent or ionic bonds, both of which are dependent on sharing electrons or the charges on electrons.
You need to study bonding from the ground up as I have had to do both in electronics and chemistry classes. Bonding is not as important in electronics but to study semiconductor theory one has to deal with semiconductor doping, which involves doping pure silicon with impurities such as boron, arsenic, phosphorus, and gallium. The impurities set up a natural excess or dearth of electrons (holes) depending on their valence shell quantities of electrons bonding with natural silicon atoms.
I studied this in EE classes in third year university. We had an entire semester dedicated to semiconductor theory and it dealt with electron behavior at junctions of different semiconductor doping types like N-type and P-type. We went fairly deeply into how doping atoms bonded with silicon atoms.
That’s why I know you are babbling.
Gordon, doping of semiconductors has nothing to do with molecules absorbing IR.
That’s why we know you are babbling.
Sounds like ‘As I took a year in astronomy… ‘.
Gordon, when a molecule is vibrating, is has more energy then a non-vibrating molecule. Some of the energy is in the form of potential energy in the bonds — and some of it is in the form of kinetic energy of the atoms moving in and out. On average it is half and half. It is incorrect to claim the energy is simply in the electrons and/or the bonds.
You might consider ROTATIONS of molecules. This is not simply bonds rotating or atoms rotating, but the whole structure rotating. And the whole structure can absorb or emit photons. Again, the energy is not simply in the electrons and/or the bonds.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Don’t know if anyone else has the same issue. Every so often, when I post, nothing shows up. The screen goes through the motions and reverts to top of page. No matter how many times I post on the same browser nothing shows up.
If I go to another browser, and post the same unaltered post, it gives an error message saying ‘Duplicate comment’. If I now alter the post slightly, it will post.
In my last post, I simply entered ‘Duplicate…’ at the beginning and it posted fine.
One of the mysteries of life.
The Great Barrier Reef is very healthy and nothing threatens it.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_hs_v3.1_seel_current.png?fbclid=IwAR2EGmXnZEy46pdVHZ1aE5quhQpYlArBHbKCjDBiMguoY_2qbsug-UWy-fA
This is akin to what Pat Frank said about propagation of error in climate models. The outputs are physically meaningless because the uncertainties in the energy budget are greater than the whole theoretical forcing of 2xCO2, and hundreds of times greater than the incremental forcing expected from 1 year of added CO2.
The fact the models also make errors in formulas and dont conserve energy is no surprise at all. They parameterize energy consuming/giving processes like clouds which are critical to governing temperature.
Your Pat Frank never has been able to discover any flaw in the uncertainty calculations published in 2013 by the MetOffice group around J. J. Kennedy:
A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013RG000434
Slowly but surely, this Frank-based manipulation become quite boring, Capt’n.
August UAH Global results will be out soon. It should be lower than July. Maybe down to +0.50°C.
Still awaiting your scientific analysis explaining us the so-called ‘HTE’ in the lower stratosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1neBUEWdw_3FZYQzLlUMCt3_5o6JDQwd_/view
Well Bindidon, since your comment was responsible, I will respond in kind.
There are three “theories” for the HTE (Honga-Tonga Effect), that I know of:
1. NASA claims radiative forcing from all the water vapor. (We know that is wrong from First Principles.)
2. Bill Hunter has posited the possibility that enough actual seawater was thrown into the Stratosphere that it affected the ozone layer. It certainly sounds plausible, but I don’t know enough about the details to comment.
3. The theory I like best is that the massive surge caused waves that moved through the upper atmosphere randomly, sometimes blocking the Polar Vortex and sometimes not. I was able to watch the PV, and make predictions of global temps.
Possibly the HTE was both 2 and 3?
As I continue to watch the PV, I now believe the HTE has ended.
I meant ‘scientific analysis’, and not some pseudo-scientific, non-committing blah blah.
And believe me: I’m not at all interested in the opinion of a guy like the Hunter boy, who is
– ignorant enough to claim that temperature data gridding makes the temperatures higher, and
– brazen enough to claim Roy Spencer in person would have written such a sheer nonsense.
Oh Noes…
Bindi, I was careful to identify that NASA’s claim violated First Principles. Since you don’t know what that means I should have stated it’s “pseudo-scientific, non-committing blah blah”.
Glad to clear that up for you.
” I was careful to identify that NASAs claim violated First Principles. ”
You don’t identify anything re ‘First Principles’, Clint R.
You merely guess about such things, like all people who are unable to disagree scientifically and have no choice but to polemically discredit, e.g. re ‘lunar’ spin and the scientists you call ‘astrologers’.
*
” Glad to clear that up for you. ”
You’re right here though, and I agree with you with a kind reply: I’m happy to clear all this up for you.
Bindi, here you go:
“1. NASA claims radiative forcing from all the water vapor. (We know that is wrong from First Principles.)
I’m always glad to help you unfortunate ones that can’t read.
Clint R,
How do you know that from first principles?
Please show your work.
He won’t. Clint has no principles.
bob, please stop trolling.
DREMPT,
Maybe you could take a crack at proving radiative forcing of water vapor wrong from first principles?
That is, if you are not here just to irritate people.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
Yeah, you are just here to irritate people.
#3
bob, please stop trolling.
“Nope, it is temperature that causes coral bleaching.”
That is pure nonsense. Bleached Coral usually happens in the areas where the tide exposes the coral to high levels of solar radiation. I’m 1,000% certain that any bleached coral will be in a temperature range where other coral thrive. Coral developed when CO2 was over 4,000 PPM. Coral thrives in warm climates, and you have no evidence that the temperature range of the areas where the coral that gets bleached is harmful to coral. BTW, most of the bleached coral rapidly comes back to life demonstrating that isn’t CO2 or ocean temperatures, but something more transient.
” BTW, most of the bleached coral rapidly comes back to life demonstrating that isn’t CO2 or ocean temperatures, but something more transient. ”
Rapidly back to life? Are you kidding us?
*
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00474-7
You hardly could show a higher level of technical incompetence.
Cooler water means better water mixing and more nutrients, especially for the algae that coexist with the coral and give it color. Sunlight is also beneficial to algae. This does not necessarily mean high water temperature, which is very dependent on ocean currents and air circulation along the equator.
“Rapidly back to life? Are you kidding us?”
Newsflash, CO2 evenly blankets the earth. If CO2 bleached the coral in one area they would bleach the coral in all areas. Pretty sure coral is doing fine just about everywhere. Alarmists simply find a natural phenomenon and blame it on CO2.
This coral reef resurrected itself and showed scientists how to replicate it
Despite the reported conditions, the reef had somehow restored itself, filled with life and color once more. Sala and his team were elated. This resurrection is something that Sala says can be traced to two key factors.
The first is, thankfully, half of the corals had not died, as was previously thought. Despite the rise in temperatures, there were enough surviving corals left behind to help reproduce and replenish the reefs.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/02/1132950728/coral-reef-resurrected-climate-change-bleaching-protection-nat-geo
ent…”As your parcel rises molecules move out of your constant volume parcel to the surrounding air and take their kinetic energy with them”.
***
This is hard to visualize at times. KE is a reference to the velocity of the particle in this case. The question arises as to what causes that velocity, hence the KE. The name we have given to that motivating energy is heat.
Air molecules don’t simply move on their own. They are affected in a downward direction by gravitational force and something else motivates them to counter that force. Otherwise they’d all collect around the surface. That something is an energy called heat.
If air molecules did not have this energy, they would gradually succumb to gravity and gather around the surface. However, something propels atoms and molecules to be constantly in motion. I call that something heat. We know that as heat is increased, atoms/molecules in solids, liquids and gases begin to move faster.
What happens to a heated parcel of air as it rises into ever-decreasing pressure and temperature? It gradually expands, and as you claim, takes its KE with it. However, it cannot maintain that KE as it expands indefinitely therefore the KE is reduced naturally. A reduction in KE is a reduction in heat.
I don’t pretend to understand what heat is, or any other form of energy. All I can go on is what it is not. It’s not electromagnetic energy, nor is it mechanical energy (work), electrical energy, chemical energy, gravitational energy, or nuclear energy. However, it represents something related to energy.
Kinetic energy is not a form of energy per se. It is a descriptor of any energy that is in motion. Its opposite is potential energy, representing any energy that is not moving, but which has a potential to be useful. With thermal energy, that’s where things get blurred. Kinetic energy with a moving mass is usually associated with work, and energy is loosely defined as the ability to do work. Therefore thermal energy has to be a description of an ability to cause atoms/molecules to move.
Clausius claimed that heat can be transformed into work and vice-versa. He based his entropy theory on that transformation. I think what he meant is that atoms moving with kinetic energy are heat but if they don’t encounter a surface, no work is done, If they contact a surface, then heat as the motion of atoms is transformed into work as the force generated against the surface. The sum of those forces is pressure, and therein lies the relationship of force, temperature and pressure.
One thing I did not realize till last night is that Clausius started the kinetic theory of gases. The theory was eventually taken over by Maxwell and Boltzmann because Clausius was more interested in the relationship between heat and work. Therefore, when Clausius claimed heat to be the kinetic energy of atoms he was speaking from a mind highly informed on the matter.
“This is hard to visualize at times. ”
Indeed.
That is why I suggested a stratostat balloon and a fluffy cumulus cloud. Both allow you to visualise a constant mass of gas expanding and cooling as it gains altitude in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law.
Incidentally, one feature of a stratostat that I should have emphasised is that at launch the gas only fills part of the available volume inside the envelope. The gas can then expand freely and adiabatically (just like a convecting constant mass parcel) as the balloon gains altitude until it fills the envelope. You can see this in the photos.
https://www.space.com/41791-giant-nasa-balloon-big-60-breaks-record.html
It is why stratostats are described as zero pressure ballons.
The gas in a rubber party balloon is at a higher pressure than the surrounding air.
The gas in a stratostat is at the same pressure and temperature as the air outside.
The molecules of the gas, are usually hydrogen or helium. The buoyancy comes because the gas molecules are lighter than air molecules, so an equivalent molar quantity of gas is lighter than an equivalent quantity of air.
“I dont pretend to understand what heat is, or any other form of energy. ”
Nobody else understands either.
Energy in various forms can be measured. It’s observed behaviour can be described and predicted mathematically through the LOTs, Ideal Gas Law, Navier-Stokes equations etc.
Similarly for electrons. Their behaviour can be described mathematically but nothing in your experience allows you to properly visualise an electron.
Ultimately “What is heat” becomes a question for philosophers. For physicists the best approach is to accept them as real phenomena which can described mathematically well enough for practical purposes.
“Ultimately “What is heat” becomes a question for philosophers. ”
I half agree, but this misses an important idea in the current discussion. Words have meanings for a group of people because that group agrees on a meaning. We all know what “cat” and “dog” mean because English speakers have agreed to associate those sets of letters with specific animals.
In regard to the discussion at hand, the 1LoT states:
Delta(U) = Q – W (using a standard sign convention).
English speaking scientists agree that “U” will be called “internal energy” and “Q” will be called “heat” (into the system) and “W” will be called “work” (done by the system). We accept them as real phenomena, but we also use the right words & letters for the right concepts.
The point is, Tim, th 1st law acknowledges that heat is energy. It has to be, otherwise internal energy makes no sense.
Clausius defined internal energy for the 1st law and his initial definition had U as a sum of internal heat and the internal work of vibrating atoms. The ijit Lord Thompson talked him out of that definition claiming that the word energy alone would suffice. He was wrong, scientists today confuse internal energy with some mysterious energy that is actually heat and work.
“The point is, Tim, th 1st law acknowledges that heat is energy. It has to be, otherwise internal energy makes no sense.”
Not quite. The 1st law acknowledges that heat (and work) have the same units as energy — all are in joules in the metric system. No one ever claims that work is energy.
“scientists today confuse internal energy with some mysterious energy that is actually heat and work.”
For the sake of argument, suppose there were two separate quantities – “internal heat” and “internal work”. If we have 1 mole of a monatomic idea gas at 300 K, how much “internal heat” and “internal work” does it have? The total internal energy is (3/2)nRT, but how would you divide it up between “internal heat” and “internal work”?
The simple fact is that there is no macroscopic way nor no microscopic way to look at a gas and distinguish how much work and how much heat was used to bring it to some state.
ent…” Energy in various forms can be measured. Its observed behaviour can be described and predicted mathematically through the LOTs, Ideal Gas Law, Navier-Stokes equations etc.”
***
I beg to differ, to the extent that no energy can be measured, only its effect on matter. It’s affect can be measured and predicted mathematically but energy itself has no measure.
—
“Similarly for electrons. Their behavior can be described mathematically but nothing in your experience allows you to properly visualise an electron”.
***
I agree there but scientist like Rutherford, and Thompson, who discovered the electron, witnessed something physical going on at the atomic level, albeit indirectly. So, it’s not all theory a la Schrodinger wave equation.
I can attest to the action of the little blighters having received several shocks and one tiny hole burned through my thumb when I got it across the 240 volt terminals on a relay. I think they are very real, whatever they are.
In chemistry, much of molecular and atomic theory depends on them not only being there but being there under observable condition. Maybe the entire theory is wrong but electron theory explains the differences between atoms and molecules of different types.
When I use my DVM to measure voltage or current in a circuit, something is affecting the meter. Between chemistry theory and electronics theory, we have it down pretty good. The theory of valence electrons hopping atom to atom convinces me although I would sure like to see it in action.
—
“Ultimately What is heat becomes a question for philosophers”.
***
God forbid that we become dependent on philosophers to understand science. We have enough of them already as theoretical physicists.
As to the drop in temperature as my constant mass parcel convects. Work is done (2LOT) increasing the volume of the parcel and decreasing its pressure. The energy to do this work comes from the kinetic energy of the gas molecules, converting some of the energy to potential energy.
This reduces the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules, and hence the temperature.
NB. As a mere biologist I might be misinterpreting the physics. Perhaps one of the genuine physicists here might critique the above.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
binny once again appeals to an authority he cannot possibly understand, never mind explain. His authority dabbles in the macro world, apparently unable to understand that molecules are made up of atoms bonded by electrons. They claim…
“In the Born-Oppenheimer approximation the electronic energy Ee, the vibrational energy Ev and the rotational energy Er of an isolated molecule are completely independent so that the total energy, E, is found from
E = Ee + Ev + Er ”
They seem to think electron energy is different than vibrational or rotational energy, whereas the electron is the only particle in a molecule that can absorb and emit energy.
All these energies are claimed to be independent yet the orbitals upon which they re based involve electrons shared between atoms. The authority figure fails to grasp that the change in energies of either type can only occur when electrons absorb or emit EM. It’s a common mistake per.petuated by those who attend lectures but fail to grasp the meaning of what they are taught and eventually regurgitate incorrectly.
Being unable to help themselves, they carry on…
“For absor.p.tion to take place the molecule must interact with the incident field of electromagnetic radiation. The gas must possess an electric dipole moment which is permanent due to the configuration of the molecule or is induced by vibration. The majority gases in the atmosphere, N2 and O2, do not possess electric dipole moments, nor are they generated by distortion of the molecule during vibration. Hence there are no absor.p.tion spectra due to these gases in the infrared”.
***
Several mistakes here. For one, they examine the molecule as an entity when the reality is the molecule being a name for different atoms bonded together by electrons. They don’t understand that the electromagnetic field can affect only electrons since there is nothing else there with which it can interact.
They even descend into a deeper form of ignorance by claiming vibration can cause a dipole moment. They clearly have no idea that a dipole is an electron orbital that is more negative at on end than the other due to electronegativity, another property of electron charge. Vibration is a natural property of electrons interacting with protons in the nucleus, or an unbalance between atoms in a molecule caused by an uneven electron charge distribution.
They go on to claim the gas must have an ‘electric dipole moment’ without seemingly understanding that the dipole itself consists of an electron orbital which is more negative at one end than the other. They infer that such a dipole is a prerequisite for electrons to absorb EM but they do not qualify their claim with an explanation as to why. One is left with the impression that the authors have no idea what they are talking about but like to regurgitate nonsense they have learned from textbooks.
Why should electrons suddenly stop absorbing EM because they form a dipole bond? And how can such a bond change its vibrational state if electrons are not absorbing EM and emitting it?
As I said: Robertson is unable to learn anything.
Gordon,
Don’t read this, it will damage your brain!
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/25029/why-do-molecules-have-to-have-a-change-in-dipole-moment-in-order-for-them-to-be
bob…sorry…replied below at 8:19 pm, Sept 1st. Got turned around with a posting error.
Gordon,
Yeah, I saw the bad word in the quote. I always wondered why your posts sometimes drop to the bottom. That has happened to me lately, as Roy’s list of bad words has gotten longer lately.
bob, please stop trolling.
clintella…”Gordon has been unable to learn the basics. He wants to be a Skeptic, yet he attacks other Skeptics. It seems he just wants to clog the blog. Hes even worse than Bindi”.
***
Clint starts attacking skeptics and claims he is the victim. I was minding my own business, something foreign to Clint, when he attacked me for long posts while questioning my understanding of science.
He attacked me specifically on my understanding of heat, which I claim to be energy. However, Clint, who reads textbooks and misunderstands them, is sold on the inane notion that heat is not energy but merely a transfer mechanism for a generic and undefined ‘energy’. I have asked Clint several times to explain what energy is being transferred but he fails to reply because he knows it is heat being transferred and that makes him look silly since heat then becomes a transfer of heat.
Then he got his nose out of joint over entropy, claiming it is a measure of disorder. Clausius, who invented the name and the process it describes, defined entropy as a transfer of heat. He offered the equation S = integral dq/T, where q is heat. There is nothing in the equation to address disorder.
However, Clint reads textbooks that are misinformed as to the history of entropy. Some authors have conveniently skipped Clausius and his definition and go straight to Boltzmann, who was not talking about heat but theorized particles measured by probability theory. Hence, Boltzmann’s definition of entropy was stolen from Clausius and misinterpreted. The thing is, Boltzmann tried to emulate the 2nd law statistically , of which entropy is a mathematical representation, and he failed.
It is ironic that Clausius actually started the kinetic theory of gases, adopted by Boltzmann and completely messed up. There is little doubt that Clausius, by far, was the more intelligent and astute of the two, yet many modern scientists worship Boltzmann for some reason. He was a nobody compared to Clausius.
However, Clint seems to identify with failure, as can be clearly seen in his attempt to pass off pseudo-science as science. Only those adept at failure would have an attitude like his.
That’s right Gordon. Thanks for quoting me correctly.
You have been unable to learn the basics. You seem to want to be a Skeptic, but you attack other Skeptics. It seems you just want to clog the blog, as you are doing now.
What I am doing is exposing you and you are too obtuse to get that. Carry on being exposed.
What you’re exposing Gordon, is your ignorance and immaturity. You get as many things wrong as you get right. And you can’t learn.
Obviously, you’re of no consequence to me. So if glogging this blog is somehow good therapy for you illness, by all means feel free to continue. I’ve learned to mostly ignore you anyway.
There may be a better way to explain thermal radiation. The spectrum is not a limitation on intensity — only the frequency. The black body radiation curve is the limit on intensity, but it move with temperature. As the temperature increases, the peak intensity shifts toward higher frequency, but all parts of the curve increase in intensity. Higher temperature increases the intensity of the radiant energy for every spectrum. It does not change the spectrum.
Tim S, a temperature change affects both the intensity and frequency range of the spectrum
Clint R,
Get your textbook out and read it for once.
The spectrum is a function of temperature and frequency.
That means all frequencies are the input to the equation.
So no, a temperature change does not affect the frequency range of the spectrum, as all frequencies are included.
We are not talking about your brand of physics, we are talking about real physics.
“So no, a temperature change does not affect the frequency range of the spectrum, as all frequencies are included.”
That depends a bit on how theoretical you want to be. My body glows in the infrared part of the spectrum. Theoretically, I emit some visible light or even UV. But practically, we can ignore my visible glow.
About 99.8% of the sun’s energy is emitted between ~ 0.2 um and 8.0 um. So for practical purposes we can say the sun’s spectrum is limited to those wavelengths and frequencies. Similarly, the spectrum of a 288 K blackbody is 99.8% between ~ 3.8 um – 180 um.
The PRACTICAL range of frequencies changes, even if theoretically all frequencies are possible.
bob, I know this is WAY over your head. That’s why I try to keep it simple…
“A temperature change affects both the intensity and frequency range of the spectrum.”
Cling R, your statement is different. Increasing or decreasing the effective range due to a shift in the black body curve does not change the frequencies within the range.
I don’t know how to make it any simpler. If you can’t understand this, you don’t understand the physics:
A temperature change affects both the intensity and frequency range of the spectrum.
And your statement is different than mine. My Statement clarifies the difference between a “range” and the frequencies within the range. If you disagree, then please explain in detail. Using bold text does not help.
Our statements are different because your’s is WRONG.
You stated: “Higher temperature increases the intensity of the radiant energy for every spectrum. It does not change the spectrum.
That’s wrong because an increase in temperature slides the spectrum along the graph to higher frequency/shorter wavelength. It DOES change the spectrum.
Temperature affects the energies of the emitted photons.
You are wrong Clint R
Because the spectrum is a function of all frequencies and temperature.
you will find the equation here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Effective_temperature_of_the_Earth
Planck’s Law
Poor bob. This is so far over his head.
Clint R, your misunderstanding does not make my statement wrong. As the other Tim explained, moving the black body curve simply changes the fraction of each frequency that is available at one end or the other. It does not change anything in the middle. As I stated above, this is the way it works: As the temperature increases, the peak intensity shifts toward higher frequency, but all parts of the curve increase in intensity.
Does Clint R understand what a multivariable function is?
Just asking for a fiend.
Sorry Tim S, but what makes your statement wrong is that it’s wrong.
You stated: “Higher temperature increases the intensity of the radiant energy for every spectrum. It does not change the spectrum.”
That’s wrong because an increase in temperature slides the spectrum along the graph to higher frequency/shorter wavelength. It DOES change the spectrum. If even changes where the peak intensity resides.
Temperature affects the energies of the emitted photons.
tim s…changing the temperature affects the peak amplitudes and skews the spectrum. Wein’s displacement law…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Wiens_law.svg
Forget arguing semantics. Just look at the graphs.
https://www.sun.org/uploads/images/mainimage_BlackbodySpectrum_2.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/yRlIo.jpg
The shape of the spectrum remains the same at all temperatures.
As temperature increases:
* The peak shifts to higher frequency / lower wavelength
* The intensity increases at every frequency / wavelength
If your understanding or statements don’t jibe with the graphs, update your understanding. If you need more details, dig into the math for yourself.
None of those curves have the same shape, or the same peak amplitudes. Maybe you need to study graphs from a perspective of calculus.
“None of those curves have the same shape … ”
Whether you copy one of the curves electronically or with a transparency & marker, if you shift the copy it will perfectly overlay any other curve on the graph. They are the same shape. (on the log-log plots of course)
It’s actually a three dimensional surface.
The amplitude is along the z-axis, and is a function of both the frequency on the x-axis and temperature on the y-axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariable_calculus
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
I don’t think that is the misunderstanding. Beyond word games such “range of the spectrum”, they seem to think that the shape and peak intensities of the spectrum are changing with temperature rather than just the black body curve.
I am not sure what the distinction is. For a blackbody radiator, I would say that the blackbody curve IS the shape of the spectrum. The blackbody curve tells you the intensity at every frequency. The peak intensities (and the intensities at every frequency ARE changing as the temperature changes.
That is what my statement says:
” As the temperature increases, the peak intensity shifts toward higher frequency, but all parts of the curve increase in intensity. Higher temperature increases the intensity of the radiant energy for every spectrum. It does not change the spectrum.”
The intensities increase with temperature, but the frequencies at which those intensities are CAPABLE does not change.
Let’s be clear. The spectrum is a fundamental characteristic of the molecule. The effect of temperature is to increase intensity but it does change the molecular structure over reasonable changes in temperature. Extreme changes may be a different case.
Tim S clarifies: “Higher temperature increases the intensity of the radiant energy for every spectrum.”
Ah! So you are meaning ‘for every LINE IN THE spectrum’. That clarifies a lot. Yes — CO2 can emit at 15 um and (and 4.2 um and 3.7 um I believe) and that is true no matter what temperature the CO2 is. The temperature then determines how strong the radiation is for each allowed wavelength.
Yes, thank you for the response. That quote came from my original post. I agree with your use of the word line. That is what I meant. The black body curve moves, but the lines stay at their fundamental frequencies. I view the spectrum as more of a shape than lines, but your description is correct.
It is always a challenge when the same term is used for different, related idea.
“Spectrum” could mean …
A) all possible wavelengths; as in “the EM spectrum extends from radio waves to gamma rays”
B) The allowed wavelengths for a particular material; as in “the spectrum of CO2 includes 15 um, 4.2 um and 2.7 um IR.
C) The wavelengths AND intensities for a specific situation; as in “The spectrum for a blackbody at 300 K peaks around 10 um.”
Spectrum (B) does not change at different temperatures.
Spectrum (C) does change at different temperatures.
Crisis averted!
Tim S, some of your statements make me believe you’ve never understood WDL. WDL tells us that photon energies increase linearly with temperature. For example, the photon emitted at the peak intensity at a temperature of 400K would be twice the equivalent photon at 200K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy
Infrared spectroscopy exploits the fact that molecules absorb frequencies that are characteristic of their structure.
Tim S, that has NOTHING to do with your issue.
You appear to know. you’ve lost, but now you try to hide behind Internet links you find.
Sorry, that tactic has already been used numerous times.
Just ask Norman.
Two entirely different concepts are necessary to understand what is commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The nature of the spectrum and how it relates to the black body curve is required. It is also necessary to understand how different gases interact. This understanding goes a long way to explain why it is so complex. Poorly educated and/or inexperienced people who do not understand should spend more time paying attention.
Good bye!
It’s always "basic physics", until of course, it becomes so complicated that only the ordained High Priests can understand it.
Clint R, I have a final word. Some might say I should just let it go, but I think stating the correct science is important. In that regard, I am open to suggestion, but that is the point. I am discussing the science, and you are gloating over your perceived victory in some other discussion.
Tim S, sorry but you are NOT discussing the science.
You are throwing slop against the wall, hoping something will stick.
You have stated that you fully accept the GHE nonsense, yet you also claim to be a skeptic?
I would say you may be beyond saving.
The Earth is absorbing and emitting like a blackbody, or reasonably close.
The Sun is emitting like a blackbody or reasonably close.
The radiatively active gases in the atmosphere are emitting and absorbing based on their molecular structure, they are not emitting like blackbodies at -80 C.
There is no -80 CO2 in the atmosphere, except rarely near Vostok in Antarctica.
The -80°C refers to the temperature of a black body, bob. It is NOT the temperature of a CO2 molecule. The extremely low temperature tells you how little energy the CO2 15μ has.
You don’t understand any of this.
“WDL tells us that photon energies increase linearly with temperature. ”
False.
CO2 emits 15 micron photons with equal energy independent of the temperature of the CO2.
A black or grey body can abs.orb a 15 micron photon, and gain its energy, regardless of whether the CO2 is colder or warmer than the body.
Any discussion of 15 micron photons corresponding to some temperature, and thus cannot warm any objects that are already warmer than that temperature, are just made up rules, and not supported by any physics.
Again, microwave photons have much lower energy, but obviously can warm room temperature food.
An no, man-made objects are not exempt from these ordinary laws of physics.
Sorry Nate, but all that is either wrong or irrelevant.
The linear relation is easily observed from basic algebra, a knowledge of physics isn’t even required.
Of course everything obeys the laws of physics. Your cult finds that hard to believe. And that includes “entropy”. So a microwave oven can do things nature cannot.
This is all WAY over your head.
CLint R,
Yeah, the 15 u photon has a wee bit of energy, but there are a lot of them.
They are like zerglings, they can do a lot of damage.
Clint R,
“The -80C refers to the temperature of a black body, bob. It is NOT the temperature of a CO2 molecule. The extremely low temperature tells you how little energy the CO2 15μ has.
You dont understand any of this.”
So Clint R, you admit that the boiling of water with ice cubes is a strawman and false argument?
So we won’t hear anymore boiling water with ice nonsense?
Wrong again, bob.
I used the “ice cubes boiling water” to describe how vapid your GHE nonsense is. Your cult believes all energy is always absorbed. Being the uneducated boob your are, you started out trying to claim that ice cubes could boil water. You were joined by other ignorants like Ball4. Lately, you have realized how stoopid that sounds. So now, you’re trying to back away from your acceptance of “ice cubes boiling water”.
You’re learning, but it’s a slow progress.
Clint R,
“Your cult believes all energy is always absorbed. Being the uneducated boob your are, you started out trying to claim that ice cubes could boil water.”
No, our cult does not believe that, how can you argue your crap against us when you don’t even listen to what we are actually saying.
But if you are talking about blackbodies, yes all photons are absorbed.
In real situations, one takes the albedo into account, did you miss that part of the lecture? Or read what I posted here?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1529463
I have backed away, because we were showing that your claim that you can’t boil water with ice cubes is false, because you can and you can find youtube videos showing exactly how.
Because you couldn’t admit you were incorrectly using Wien’s Law, claiming you can’t heat something because something is at -80 C.
Which has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect.
You are losing, but it takes a while, you may not be well enough trained in the sciences to follow the arguments supporting the Greenhouse Effect.
Recently, Gosselin’s TricksZone manipulated its gullible followers with a Canada fire statistics deliberately misinforming about what happened there this year, by showing them the number of
firestarts per year since 2000.
On WUWT you can read the TricksZone reblogging:
” Trend defies alarmist claims
But the countrys official wildfire statistics do not show this suspected trend. Statista lists them. Strictly speaking, the trend in the number of fires is actually decreasing until 2022. For 2023, the numbers will rise again to August 23, 2023 almost 6,000 fires were counted. But that will still be below the 2006 figures. ”
Here is Statista’s graph:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/553513/number-of-forest-fires-canada/
At a first glance, you think: Oh these bloody alarmists!
*
But… as usual, Gosselin the liar intentionally omitted Statista’s much more relevant graph:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/553520/area-burned-of-forest-fires-canada/
I tell you: at least 100 % of arson origin! For sure!
We had a hot, prolonged summer in Western Canada while the east tended to be wetter and cooler. There is no rhyme or reason for the fires in the East, that’s why I think alarmists were setting them.
Here in BC, where most of the forests reside, we had an unusually hot May. We have not had much rain and the heat in the interior regions comes with regular thunderstorms. We don’t get as many thunderstorms on the coast and when we do they are not nearly as severe as those in the interior of BC and the prairies. Of course, there is not a lot of trees in the Prairies.
I am marking this year down to unusual weather. Nothing to do with climate change.
Grand Solar Fizzle update
https://i.postimg.cc/vmFzxrxC/sunspot.png
Duplication
— gbaikie says:
September 1, 2023 at 3:44 PM
Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/01/geophysical-consequences-of-celestial-mechanics/#more-30418
We first applied the method to the series of sunspot numbers. The series could be satisfactorily reconstructed from simply a (rather flat) trend and two components with periods 11 years (Schwabe cycle) and 90 years (Gleissberg cycle). More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond [ref 1, 2, 3].–
I posted it in a lower thread. Thought it would related to this thread.
In Ref. 3
Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J. L. (2021).
On the prediction of solar cycles.
Solar Physics, 296, 1-23
you find in the conclusion:
” We conclude with a prediction of Solar Cycle 25 that can be compared to a dozen predictions by other authors (Petrovay 2020): the maximum would occur in 2026.2 (± 1 yr) and reach an amplitude of 97.6 (± 10), similar to that of Solar Cycle 24, therefore sketching a new “Modern minimum”, following the Dalton and Gleissberg minima in the previous 200 years. ”
Yeah:
https://tinyurl.com/7ufsxmsv
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR2WPoQZlvdLCXwhpG8ffbJqTgNSdVBU/view
SC25’s 13 month smoothing has already reached their 2026 prediction’s upper bound (~110).
Thus let’s wait a bit…
I am going to wait 3 months.
ent…”Science of doom did an excellent four part post on this very subject.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/ ”
***
part 1…
Since I read an article by S0D in which they completely misinterpreted the 2nd law, I have regarded them as premier Klimate Klowns. This link from Ent justifies their moniker. The article is full of basic errors.
It begins…
“As we can see from the various measurements in Part One, and the measurements here, the amount of radiation from the atmosphere is substantial generally in the order of 300W/m2 both night and day”.
***
According to S0D, the amount of radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is 300 W/m^2 day and night. That’s interesting since the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget attributes 190 W/m^2 to solar energy. Therefore, somehow, the atmosphere emits, night and day, about 1.5 times the amount of energy as the Sun. So why the heck do we need the Sun?
—
The pseudo-science continues…
“When a photon interacts with a gas molecule it will be absorbed only if the amount of energy in the photon is a specific amount…
The major reason that people give for thinking that DLR cant affect the temperature is (a mistaken understanding of) the second law of thermodynamics, and they might say something like:
A colder atmosphere cant heat a warmer surface…”
***
One has to read the SoD explanation of the 2nd law, both for its humour content and to see why they have this distorted understanding of it. That’s why it is claimed that radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. That’s the 2nd law with a quantum theory explanation.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/21/intelligent-materials-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
I am not going into again here, it is simply too ridiculous compared to the Clausius explanation, the guy who created the 2nd law.
Considering their statement above about photons, they claim it is the intensity of the photon based on E = hv that matters, neglecting the fact that intensity is proportional to frequency. Frequency matters big-time because radiation from hotter surfaces have higher frequencies. It is the frequency of a photon that determines whether it will be absorbed by a hotter object.
part 2…
The SoD destruction of the 2nd law continues…
“If we consider the specific terminology of heat we can all agree and say that heat flows from the warmer to the colder. In the case of radiation, this means that more is emitted by the hotter surface (and absorbed by the colder surface) than the reverse.
However, what many people have come to believe is that the colder surface can have no effect at all on the hotter surface. This is clearly wrong. And just to try and avoid upsetting the purists but without making the terminology too obscure I will say that the radiation from the colder surface can have an effect on the warmer surface and can change the temperature of the warmer surface”.
***
The author based his notion that heat can be transferred from a colder surface to a hotter surface based on a quote from a textbook. In any textbook I have read, which makes the same claim, they fail to offer examples of how this can happen. They can’t because it is a direct contravention of Bohr’s theory that is the basis of quantum theory.
part 3…
Authors who claim this theory are basing it on an anachronism dating back to the 1850s when it was believed that heat could flow through air as heat rays. Even then, experts like Clausius knew air is a poor conductor of heat and they were trying to offer an explanation based on an aether, independent of air molecules, that could conduct ‘heat rays’.
part4…
“They all look the same to me The Energy of a Photon
This part is very simple. The energy of a photon, E:
E = hv
Notice that there is no dependence on the temperature of the source”.
***
The author descends deeper into the mire.
Heat can excite electrons as well as EM can produce it. If an object is heated, its atoms, bonded by electrons, heat at the same time. This causes electrons to become excited and jump to higher orbital levels.
E = hv means the energy between orbital levels, E, is proportional to the frequency. That frequency is related to the angular frequency of the electron. If the electron resides at a higher excited state due to temperature, then EM from a colder object lacks the frequency to excite the electron further.
That’s basically why EM is not absorbed in both directions. Electrons in a hotter objct simply ignore EM from a colder object because the frequency is too low to affect the hotter electron.
Ego, temperature has a major say in whether radiation will be accepted.
That should read ‘ergo’ although ego may be appropriate.
“Electrons in a hotter objct simply ignore EM from a colder object because the frequency is too low to affect the hotter electron.”
So if a 15 um photon arrives at a CO2 molecule, the CO2 molecule takes a census of the nearby atoms to find the temperature of the gas, then asked the atom that emitted it what temperature it was?
No. A CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 um photons just as well no matter where it came from — the hot sun or a cold CO2 molecule or even a IR laser.
bob…one answer came close but they all miss the critical point.
“As a molecule vibrates, if there is a fluctuation in its dipole moment, then this induces an electric field that interacts with the electric field associated with the infra red radiation. If there is a match in frequency of the radiation and the natural vibration of the molecule, absor.p.tion occurs”.
***
This answer acknowledges that a vibrating bond produces an electric field but fails to acknowledge the source of the electric field, which is the charge on the electron making up the bond. The only particle in an atom or a molecule that can interact with EM is the electron.
Why do you guys have so much trouble with this? I can understand Binny being confused, he’s as dull as a sack of hammers. But you seem to be a bit brighter.
Noting that the quote above came from a link provided by Bob. I had trouble posting and it ended up down here.
Gordon,
Here we go with the difference between the spectrum of atoms and those of molecules.
“which is the charge on the electron making up the bond.”
Molecular bonds are made of two electrons.
And I was referring to the answer above the quote you pulled out, where I think the guy made a slight error, but that error is corrected in the link he made.
” Transitions in vibrational energy levels can be brought about by xxxxxxxxx of radiation, provided the energy of the radiation exactly matches the difference in energy levels between the vibrational quantum states and provided the vibration causes a change in dipole moment.”
from here
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy
From here, where he is saying if the energy, E=hv in the IR radiation matches the difference in the energy levels, then it will be xxxxxxxx.
It would be better to describe the entity emitting the radiation as the molecular bond, ie, both electrons and the two atoms forming the bond.
Gordon,
And it might surprise you to find out that the spectra of gases with different isotopes are different.
HBr-79 and HBr-81 have different spectra, not extremely different but slight differences actually.
bob…don’t know anything about isotopes. Seems it’s the bromine atom that has the isotopes and as far as I know it means they have a different number of neutrons.
It’s interesting that bromine and hydrogen fit the octet rule since bromine has something like 35 electrons. The octet rule requires that an atom needs 8 electrons in its outer shell to be considered stable. Roughly speaking, the inner shell has 2 electrons to be stable, so helium is an inert gas. Neon has 10 electron so its inner shell is full and its outer shell with 8 electrons is full.
Beyond neon, however, the next inert gas is argon which has 18 electrons. So, it has 2 in the inner shell, 8 in the next shell and 8 in the next shell, for a total of 18. The next inert gas is krypton with 36 electrons. Adding them up, you have 2 + 8 + 8 + 18.
I used to know how to do this stuff and it comes down to breaking the shells down into smaller numbers, like sub-shells. If you look at Krypton, right below it in the periodic table is bromine, with 35 electrons. To form HBr, it needs to share one electron with hydrogen The H electron completes the bromine outer shell and makes it stable.
We can see that the outer shell has 18 electrons however, so the only way that could work is by using sub-shells.
bob…too late for me to respond tonight. However, you can have double and triple bonds as well which means 4 and 6 electrons total.
CO2 has two double bonds between the inner C atom and the two oxygen atoms.
The N2 molecule in the atmosphere as a triple bond. The two N atoms share 6 electrons.
I thought I’d left all this good stuff back there in the past. Shoulda known better. -:-)-
Gordon,
So it’s 4 or 6 electrons that are absorbing and emitting radiation.
Now consider a benzene ring.
Anyway, my point was that the nuclei are involved in the emission and xxxxxxxxx of radiation.
It’s not just the electron.
“The only particle in an atom or a molecule that can interact with EM is the electron.”
No! All charged particles can and do interact with EM. The photon doesn’t say “oh! I will ignore that proton and not apply my electric field there.”
*******ay!
Add neutrons to the list.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=108256&org=NSF#:~:text=Typically%2C%20a%20neutron%20free%20of,an%20electron%20and%20an%20antineutrino.
You are being silly, Tim. We are talking about atoms and molecules not free charges. The positively charged proton is bound to the nucleus and the electron is the only particle free to move. Why do you think quantum theory is based on electrons and ignores the proton, except for basic the attraction between electrons and protons.
I am not arguing that protons and their positive charges cannot emit EM, but I seriously doubt there is much research in such a field. I would be interested in a paper on that. I am claiming only that in an atoms, and the
molecules which are multiple atoms bonded by electron bonds, the electron is the only particle free to absorb and emit EM.
“The positively charged proton is bound to the nucleus and the electron is the only particle free to move.”
Uhhhh…not sure how you think a molecule like CO2 can vibrate, without the atomic nuclei moving?
nate…I have covered that in previous posts. Anywhere there are electrostatic forces involved between particles, there is vibration. Therefore, in any atomic lattice, the material is bonded by electrons and there is a vibration in such bonds. BTW, that vibration is affected by heat.
We are not talking about such vibration in a solid, we are talking about vibration in molecules. Vibration in a molecular bond is not the same as natural vibration due to charge difference it is a reference to changes in bond length and bond angle due to variations in the electron orbital length and the angle it makes.
EM only affects the outermost atoms in a solid and cannot affect inner atoms. Heat can affect all atoms in a solid therefore it can cause higher vibrations throughout a mass. But, with a molecule like CO2 in the atmosphere there are vast relative spaces between the molecules in air and we are concerned only with inter-molecular vibrations between constituent atoms, specifically with the valence electrons that bond the molecule.
You need to understand that the effects of the positive nucleus is a long ways away from the valence electrons and that any reference to molecular vibration is related only to the electrons bonds connecting the atoms of the molecule. So, it’s the vibration along the axis of the bond and in the angle any vibration causes about the axis we are talking about.
If you have a bond made up of one or more electrons, how do you think vibration can increase or decrease? The +ve nucleus is still holding the electrons in a valence band but that is not likely to change, so what can change? There is only one parameter can change, the energy of the electron. It can vary by absorbing EM or being exposed to heat. Possibly by collision. However, the electron is the only particle that can change in this manner.
“Why do you think quantum theory is based on electrons and ignores the proton.. ”
Why do you think quantum theory ignores protons and the nucleus??? Quantum theory extends to all sort of systems and particles.
“The positively charged proton is bound … ”
As Nate pointed out, you have already acknowledged that molecules vibrate, which means the atoms move, which means the nucleus moves, which mean the protons move.
“but I seriously doubt …”
Arguing from ignorance rarely turns out well.
tim…”Quantum theory extends to all sort of systems and particles”.
***
You are good at making statements but not much when it comes to explaining them. What particles other than electrons is covered in quantum theory. The entire basis of the theory is Schrodinger’s wave equation which is all about electron orbitils.
You should know about arguing from ignorance, you excel at it.
Schrodinger’s equation is about SO much more than electron orbitals. Quantum physics is not a secret. If you want to know more …
Read a text book.
Take a university course.
Heck, read Wikipedia.
Maybe start with the wiki pages on Schrodinger’s equation, quantum mechanics, and applications of quantum mechanics.
Learn about quantum tunneling of alpha particles, and neutron diffraction, and superfluids, and Bose-Einstein condensates.
testing… Clint is a big girls, blouse.
btw…where is our good buddy Wilbur…sorry, that’s a talking horse. I mean the rat…what’s his name? Oh, yeah..Willard.
Still posting comments elsewhere.
You jinxed it
binny…”And believe me: Im not at all interested in the opinion of a guy like the Hunter boy, who is
ignorant enough to claim that temperature data gridding makes the temperatures higher…”
***
Bill was likely talking about surface thermometer temperatures and he would be right. Most of the grids, especially over the oceans, have no thermometers to measure temperatures. Therefore, the grid temperature is calculated through interpolation and homogenization, based on temperatures elsewhere.
I don’t know the areas covered by a 5 x 5 degree grid and I am too lazy to calculate it. Lets say for instance that it is about 500 km x 500 km at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada, even though the distance between lines of latitude change as one moves from the Equator toward the Poles.
Within 250 km of Vancouver, north and east. in such a gridded cell. temperatures can vary drastically…up to 20 C at times both in summer and winter. How the heck does anyone arrive at a temperature variation like that in a gridded cell in the Pacific Ocean with no thermometers?
In computer fluid dynamics the density of the cells are critical for an accurate simulation. As the rate of change increases then more cells are needed. It’s not unheard of the number of cells by a boundary layer being a magnitude more dense than the normal fluid flow. As the cells decrease in size the time slicing has to proportionally decrease. Unless you know the fluid flow is laminar then the cell sides would also be similar in length. So a 500km cube would extend out into space, resulting in no vertical mixing of the atmosphere.
So magnitudes more cells, and many magnitudes more hours of runtime just to balance the energy in the simulation. This is without the equations being corrected.
All this seems to have escaped the climate modeling community.
Like you said, around Vancouver the temperature can by considerably different over a wide area. So just your observations of the real world is evidence enough that the climate models have too many issues.
Wasn’t there a USA college teacher that the FBI arrested for arson, this is going back only a couple of years. The teacher was a eco activist that wanted to prove that climate change was causing issues.
If memory serves me, the only reason why the FBI got involved was there was sadly a death of a fire fighter and arson was established as the initial cause of the fire, hence the cause of death.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gary-maynard-college-professor-charged-arson-near-dixie-fire/
@Client, thanks for the link.
Man made Global burning
State officials announced yesterday that the devastating wildfire that ravaged over 33,000 acres in Louisiana the largest in the states history was caused by arson.
Dr. Spencer. Could you provide some further explanation of Figure 4e in their paper? The authors make a big deal about this in the text. However, I would appreciate some context or relevant analogies to better understand the magnitude of this issue. Being from the Western US (California especially), this seems like it could be a big deal. Thank you.