In this video I respond to a statement left by a commentator on YouTube that ‘the average speed of a vehicle explains what is being done in climate physics’. This provides an opportunity to have a little lesson on the meaning and utility of what an “average” is and what it can and cannot be used for. Is there an important difference in performance between a ’76 Firebird and an ’83 Chevette? You decide!
Climate of Sophistry 
The average person on Earth only has one testicle or ovary.
At first, I considered the possibility that JP had gone bonkers, as he claimed that some scientist was advocating eating human flesh to combat climate change, but my rational mind gave him the huge benefit of doubt, and I went a hunt’n for some verification of this claim.
Damn! It’s true. Postma has not gone off the deep end. (^_^) Here’s the story:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html
Unbelievable.
So, in the future, the phrase, “Eat me”, will no longer be an insult, but rather an invitation to a future meal??
That’s just wrong.
I recall my Big School physics teacher enlightening me on averages. In an Irish accent, it went: “So if yer head’s in an oven and yer erse is in a freezer, on average, yer reality is foin, roight”?
Lol…
Ok will set up Twatter asap.
Love this comment from FB:
“This is very good video. The point about averages and their wrong application is excellent. I’m as stunned as you are ( Joseph E. Postma ) how ‘scientists’ and other ‘smart people’ cannot get this thought their heads. These people’s reasoning abilities are completely destroyed, if they were ever developed. How was even technological progress possible with people like this on the rudder?!?!?!
Obviously the scientists of the past centuries were much smarter than the current ones. This is absolute devolution in real time we’re witnessing.
Absolutely crazy and frightening.
The American biologist Jonathan Wells calls it Zombie Science. It means teaching stuff that is not factually right anymore with the advancements of science in our present time in schools and academia. Teaching outdated science. Climate Alarmism is also Zombie Science
Every scientist who isn’t propagating the official scientific/political narrative is termed pseudo-scientist who belongs to pseudo-scientific organization or belief. Every single one. Wikipedia is gate keeping the official scientific/political narrative.”
I was going to share your last two videos on FB after returning from a three week vacation in Hawaii, but my post about my vacation in Hawaii was “a breech Of community standards” and turned by first post since I returned into a seven day FB ban! 😂
So, I’m letting you know my approval via your blog instead!
FN FB!
Glad to see ya!
Good to be back!
The reply of that guy saying that he explained JP’s confusion is arrogantly stupid, to say the least. He explained nothing other than his own confusion about how to apply the concept of averages. He explained his stupidity by displaying his stupidity. He apparently does not understand the meaning of other people’s words in relation to his own use of words.
It is as if his mind is on lock down, unable to process information, other than to demean such information and re-color such information with false attributes.
The sun can deliver great intensity to half a sphere for twelve hours. The performance of the sun and the ability of the sun to do what it does in those twelve hours is determined by the real-time measure of the sun’s power on the area where it shines during the time that it shines on this area.
What does and average sun tell us about the sun’s actual performance? How do you use this average sun to determine anything real and useful? There is nowhere that this average sun has any real physical influence on the processes of Earth. So, what good is such an average in telling us about the real sun’s real INPUT to Earth? ANSWER: No good. The average sun is useless in telling us what the real sun does upon ENTERING the Earth with its light.
The average Sun does not exist. That average is for the EARTH — the Earth’s OUTPUT, because of what the real sun gives the Earth as real INPUT, in real time, over real area, where the real sun actually shines.
To call such people robots might be giving them too much credit.
Wonderful comment Robert!!!!
Excellent video again. You’re becoming more relaxed and that is conveying your message clearer.
One day it would be nice to debunk Venus as their ridiculous “poster planet” for a runaway greenhouse gas.
Joseph,
Have you tried to contact Dr. Nicola Scafetta, have him look over your original paper or some others like him? I’m just curious. Has to be an open mind somewhere on this planet or you’re going to be like the very old Twilight Zone where you’re the only normal scientist left and everyone is a climate monster.
Oh before I forget again they are claiming the Earth is an enclosed system becasue space is a vacuum.
“Although radioactive decay (which keeps our iron core molten) and accounts for about 50% of our planet’s energy budget, this source of heat is a constant (44 × 1012 W (TW)). The Earth has no other source of incoming energy other than solar energy. An external source.
The Earth is also surrounded by vacuum.
Hence, in terms of thermodynamics, the Earth is effectively a closed system.
So if temps are going up there must be either more energy coming in, less energy going out, or some combination of the two.”
@ CD Marshall
Earth is constantly loosing air to Space and that gasses are constantly being emitted from mantle. The mass of the atmosphere at any point in time is the net result of gas supply & loss.
Earth atmosphere particles are detected beyond the path of the moon.
Given the expanse of our atmosphere, 90 tonnes per day amounts to a small leak. Earth’s atmosphere weighs in at around five quadrillion (5 × 1015) tonnes, so we are in no danger of running out any time soon
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
Thanks MP that was very helpful. You just kicked my science lore back in again gravity maintains our atmosphere so it certainly is not an enclosed space,
from Nikolov and Zeller at
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
Effect of pressure on temperature: Atmospheric pressure provides in and of itself only a relative thermal enhancement (RATE) to the surface quantified by Eq. (11). The absolute thermal effect of an atmosphere depends on both pressure and the TOA solar irradiance. For example, at a total air pressure of 98.55 kPa, Earth’s RATE is 1.459, which keeps our planet 90.4 K warmer in its present orbit than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Hence, our model fully explains the new ~90 K estimate of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect derived by Volokin et al. [1] using a different line of reasoning. If one moves Earth to the orbit of Titan (located at ~9.6 AU from the Sun) without changing the overall pressure, our planet’s RATE will remain the same, but the absolute thermal effect of the atmosphere would drop to about 29.2 K due to a vastly reduced solar flux. In other words, the absolute effect of pressure on a system’s temperature depends on the background energy level of the environment. This implies that the absolute temperature of a gas may not follow variations of pressure if the gas energy absorption changes in opposite direction to that of pressure. For instance, the temperature of Earth’s stratosphere increases with altitude above the tropopause despite a falling air pressure, because the absorption of UV radiation by ozone steeply increases with height, thus offsetting the effect of a dropping pressure. If the UV absorption were constant throughout the stratosphere, the air temperature would decrease with altitude.
Atmospheric back radiation and surface temperature: Since (according to Eq. 10b) the equilibrium GMAT of a planet is largely determined by the TOA solar irradiance and surface atmospheric pressure, the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. This explains the broad variation in the size of the observed down-welling LW flux among celestial bodies irrespective of the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Therefore, a change in this thermal flux brought about by a shift in atmospheric LW emissivity cannot be expected to impact the global surface temperature. Any variation in the global infrared back radiation caused by a change in atmospheric composition would be compensated for by a corresponding opposite shift in the intensity of the vertical convective heat transport. Such a balance between changes in atmospheric infrared heating and the upward convective cooling at the surface is required by the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, current climate models do not simulate this compensatory effect of sensible and latent heat fluxes due to an improper decoupling between radiative transfer and turbulent convection in the estimation of total energy exchange.
Anyone want to explain this? I have to admit off hand it sounds like global warming voodoo but I may be wrong?
And linked to their theory of changing atmospheric mass/pressure affecting temperature at the surface, this is interesting…
Earth’s original atmosphere
Geologists believe that most of the carbon on the young, hot Earth, >4000 Mya, was in the form of gaseous carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane. With time, the CO and CH4 reacted with oxide minerals and were transformed into CO2. These reactions did not change the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90 bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it consisted primarily of CO2.
If we are correct, why did Venus’s atmosphere remain at 90 bar while Earth’s decreased to a few bar during the age of dinosaurs and then declined to the 1 bar it is today? What happened to Earth’s CO2 and by what mechanism did it virtually disappear?
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of Venus with Earth. p = atmospheric pressure, r = radius, and ρ = density.
We compare Venus and Earth in Figure 2. The two planets are about the same size; however, Venus has no moon, whereas Earth has one of the largest moons in the solar system. Our moon has the same density as Earth’s crust, which suggests that the moon was formed by stripping Earth of some of its then fluid crust. If not for this loss, Earth’s crust, now only 5–30 km thick, might be 42 km thicker. Therefore, Earth’s crust should be thinner than that of Venus.
Being thinner, Earth’s crust was fragile and broke up under the action of the mantle’s convective forces. In contrast, Venus’s thicker crust remained rigid and did not permit the mechanisms that removed the CO2 from its bound state.
In addition, because Venus is closer to the Sun and hotter than Earth, free liquid water cannot exist on it, whereas Earth has giant oceans that cover two-thirds of the planet. The oceans played an important secondary role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
from…
http://pubsapp.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html?
Pablo
The Moon is believed to have a molten core would that still be possible it it was pulled from the Earth’s earlier forming stages?
Excellent stuff Pablo.
CD, the pertinent except from the above is this:
“the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.”
What this means is that the thermal radiation emitted by the atmosphere is a consequence of the atmosphere having a temperature…NOT the cause of the atmosphere having a temperature. Think of the distinction here, the logic. It is CRUCIAL! What they are saying is of course consistent with physics – something which has a temperature with emit thermal radiation…that’s the Planck’s Law, etc. What the alarmists have done, as with everything else, is REVERSE things, so that they claim that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the *cause* of the atmosphere having a temperature, and thus can cause for itself higher temperature by emitting into itself. You see what they’ve done? Because they start with the first initial premise of reversing output for input as I’ve been discussing….then everything else that follows likewise becomes inverted and made backwards.
The thermal radiation emitted from the air is a consequence of it having a temperature; it is not the cause of the atmosphere having a temperature. The cause of the atmosphere’s temperature came first, and then, the atmosphere can emit since it was given some temperature. So what’s the true cause? Of course the Sun and solar heat, and the lapse rate etc.
According to some NASA scientists scattering (reflecting on ice partricles in clouds) of longwave radiation is heavily understimated. What results in a bias in current day climate models.
Quote “The effect of cloud multiple scattering on longwave radiation has been described in published literature. Differences as largeas 20 W/m2have been attributed forthe spectrally integrated longwave multiple scattering effect versus a no-scatteringapproximatin [e.g., Ritter and Geleyn, 1992; Edwards and Slingo, 1996; Chou et al., 1999; Stephens et al., 2001]. In GCM typecontext, Stephens et al.find the global mean difference to be 8 W/m2. Formodeling simplicity and minimization of computingtime, most GCMs typically utilize a no-scattering type of radiative transfer to deal with thermal radiation. However, a globaloffset as large as 8 W/m2 could substantially bias climate model sensitivity and its predictive results”
Click to access 2-41_Lacis.pdf
Thanks Joseph, that was waaay over my level of science comprehension. Your explanation helped put it into perspective. So I’m guessing that means they are going to be hit with the propaganda machine juggernaut soon enough.
You can delete my previous statement if you want.
Because they start with the first initial premise of reversing output for input as I’ve been discussing….then everything else that follows likewise becomes inverted and made backwards.
Even their manner of addressing criticism of their ideas takes on this same backwards quality, as in when you point out their confusion, they then scuff at your criticism and try to turn it back on you as YOUR confusion.
Exactly!
“scuff” should be “scoff” — “… they scoff at your criticism …”
So I thoroughly explained how climate works to this person using Joseph’s teachings to the best of my ability. This is all I get for my efforts:
“You are a perplexing idiot.
The heat from the core and radioactivity has not changed since 1880.
The heat from the Sun has not changed since 1880.
But global temperatures HAVE risen.
All of your contortions cannot undermine this simple fact.”
Lol. If I may interpret for moment: “CO2 must be the cause! It must!”
As much as JP is put off by the creator of the website where the following information appears (WUWT), I think that this particular contribution there by Pat Frank is a critical step forward, and very relevant to JP’s latest videos:
Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists. They are apparently not trained to evaluate the physical or predictive reliability of their own models. They do not manifest the attention to physical reasoning demanded by good scientific practice. In my prior experience they are actively hostile to any demonstration of that diagnosis.
In their hands, climate modeling has become a kind of subjectivist narrative, in the manner of the critical theory pseudo-scholarship that has so disfigured the academic Humanities and Sociology Departments, and that has actively promoted so much social strife. Call it Critical Global Warming Theory. Subjectivist narratives assume what should be proved (CO₂ emissions equate directly to sensible heat), their assumptions have the weight of evidence (CO₂ and temperature, see?), and every study is confirmatory (it’s worse than we thought).
Subjectivist narratives and academic critical theories are prejudicial constructs. They are in opposition to science and reason. Over the last 31 years, climate modeling has attained that state, with its descent into unquestioned assumptions and circular self-confirmations.
Oh lord. They didn’t change before 1880 either…yet there was climate change then too. As if theyve only been constant since 1880. LIARS!
Oh wow Robert.
@ CD Marshall
The TSI from 1880 is sherry picked, before that the TSI was way lower.
They also read the TSI wrong. Explained here by 1000frolly Phd (at 25 minutes)
Don’t forget…we are in an ice age and coming towards the end of the present interstadial.
So cooling is the thing we should be preparing for.
See this for CO2 lags temperature.
http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/
The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag
Posted on June 14, 2017 by Euan Mearns
A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciation that preceded the Eemian interglacial and the inception of the last great glaciation that succeeded the Eemian. At the termination, CO2 follows dT exactly, but at the inception CO2 does not follow temperature down for 14,218 years. Full glacial conditions came into being without falling CO2 providing any of the climate forcing. This falsifies the traditional narrative that dCO2 amplified weak orbital forcing effects. It is quite clear from the data that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling.
Methane on the other hand lags temperature by about 2,000 years at the termination but follows temperature down exactly at the inception. It therefore follows that methane and CO2 are not coupled. Each responds in their own time to changing climate. The absence of coupling may be explained by the different bio-geochemical pathways these gasses have in the biosphere – ocean – atmosphere system.
Geothermal differences can explain Earth, Moon, Venus differences quite easily.
Venus is the youngest planet in the solar system.
All ice cores show that there was no ice before a million years ago. Why?
Hate to be a b*tch, but N&Z don’t actually explain the thermal enhancement. Hot less dense molecules rise, while cold more dense molecules fall. Where’s the enhancement? If gravity worked in reverse – hotter molecules fell, then there would be room for enhancement.
Sorry, but it looks like N&Z reverse outputs and inputs. It’s the geothermal energy that provides enhancement beyond insolation, not the compressed gaseous atmosphere.
Zoe,
Shut up.
Thanks, Pablo. Now I see why I am wrong. That really helped a lot.
LMAO
@ Zoe Phin
At least N&Z backed their theory with imperical evidence. With an equation derived from the ideal gas law surface temperature can be quite accurate calculated on all terestial bodies with a surface pressure above 10 Kpa (1 bar)
Even tho i think geo-thermal is understimated. ….Your geothermal “did all” hypothesis isn’t backed up by imperical evidence, and simply dismissed by alarmists, by pointing at the many peer reviewed paper claims that the geothermal influence is low.
And you try to explain an answer for temperature that is missing. While the whole point of J. Postma is that there is no missing temperature to explain. The full brunt of the solar flux at day time creates the climate, along with many thermodynamic processes that cause a slowing rate of energy going out (not co2)
MP,
“At least N&Z backed their theory with imperical evidence.”
Their empirical evidence doesn’t have a unique interpretation. Their evidence supports my theory as well.
“Your geothermal “did all” hypothesis isn’t backed up by imperical evidence.”
Strawman. I never said it did all. My claim is that the sun enhances the daylight side by 10°C.
“dismissed by alarmists, by pointing at the many peer reviewed paper claims that the geothermal influence is low.”
If they applied the same technique they apply to geothermal, they would find the heat flux through the atmosphere is 0.16 milliwatts, or 569 times smaller.
“While the whole point of J. Postma is that there is no missing temperature to explain.”
I can’t see it that way anymore. Postma found 15°C for the daylight side. We need 20°C. How do we store daylight side and transfer it to the night side without diluting day side?
Venus has plenty of unexplained temperature.
Exactly MP. The entire premise that something is missing and something needs to be added is false.
@ Zoe
Venus only has unexplained temperature when looking at the greenhouse gas theory. Not the N&Z theory. All you need is surface pressure, surface density, and mean moles weight. Run it in the ideal gas law derived equation and you get the right surface temperature.
…it even works at Antartica. Explained here.
MP,
You’re saying the same thing I was saying for 2 years. Now I don’t see things the same way I used to.
Do you know how a steam engine works?
Does the pressure set the temperature of the coal? or does the combustion set the temperature and then the steam pressure?
@ Zoe Phin
Did pressurised steam engines unlock the full potential of steam engines? (evented by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot)
We see pressure induced warming regurarly when the weather changes from low to a high pressure zone.
And how about fall winds? Realy cold air from a top of a mountain or higher can fall down quick, and that cold air gains massive temperature, just by increasing pressure nearer to the surface.
To answer your last question. The combustion of the sun sets the temperature of the earth, that is the coal in the steam engine you are talking about. High in the atmosphere is a low pressure “steam engine”, and low in the atmosphere is a high pressure “steam engine”
Hot less dense molecules rise, while cold more dense molecules fall. Where’s the enhancement? If gravity worked in reverse – hotter molecules fell, then there would be room for enhancement.
I think you mean hot, less dense AIR rises, while cold, more dense AIR falls. Individual molecules do not have the quality of “density” per se, right?
So, how does the cold, more dense AIR get hot and less dense to rise? — It first falls, under the influence of gravity, and it heats up. Isn’t that an enhancement?
Zoe, the difference between a steam engine and an atmosphere is that gravity sets the pressure not the temperature of a rigid enclosure. Gravity and temperature changes result in free expansion and contraction of the volume our atmosphere (think about how surface pressure remains virtually constant through daytime and nighttime temperature changes). The ideal gas laws are valid, so any change in the physical constraints in which they are applied must also be met with a change in assumptions of what must or must not be true. As change in pressure can only result from a change in weight (force of mass and gravity enhanced or diminished by forces of weather), then any change in pressure must affect temperature to keep the other variables in the ideal gas law equation valid.
In a steam engine, a change in incoming energy results in a change in pressure. In an atmosphere it doesn’t. Apply said difference to the gas law equation and you get the reason why the two systems are not comparable for assumptions of analogy
The ideal gas law describes what happens after TWO energy sources do their thing.
We agree that pressurized steam doesn’t set the temperature of whatever caused it to be steam in the first place OR not?
@ Zoe Phin
What is more efficient, based on energy (coal or sun) input vs performance. An high pressure steam engine or a low pressure steam engine?
Does that tell something about “potential energy” based on pressure differences, when applying the same energy input?
And what is “the temperature” ? Don’t you agree whe can only derive an meaningfull average output temperature, and that the temperature should be found somewhere in the middle of the atmosphere?
@ MP
Can derive a meaninfull temperature at ground level, but only when correcting for the lapse rate, depending on presuure, density, and mean mol weight. Not directly by an energy in vs out equation.
“Realy cold air from a top of a mountain or higher can fall down quick, and that cold air gains massive temperature”
Yes, but this doesn’t raise sea level
temperature.
“and that the temperature should be found somewhere in the middle of the atmosphere?”
I’m not disagreeing with what causes Earth to emit an average of top and bottom. I just don’t think gravity raises temperature anymore. Gravity seems like a distribution mechanism for Solar and Geothermal manifestation.
Robert,
“It first falls, under the influence of gravity, and it heats up. Isn’t that an enhancement?”
Imagine the sun heats the top of Venus’ atmosphere. This heated air is now less dense than the air below it. This air has no mechanism to fall. None. Where is the enhancement?
wickedwenchfan,
Your name means you should be my fan 🙂
If Solar and Geo could only heat a planet’s surface to -80C, then the ideal gas law will work just as well, except the atmo will be thinner. The surface will still be -80C.
“In a steam engine, a change in incoming energy results in a change in pressure. In an atmosphere it doesn’t.”
I think it does. The atmosphere is still bounded horizontally by surface area. The “container” is just bigger.
Even if Venus had no albedo, I don’t see how the Sun’s 2604 W/m^2 can create ~17000 W/m^2 at the bottom, without geothermal. The CO2 can absorb a fraction of the 2604 until optical extinction, but the thermalized less dense gas will not descend. Gravity doesn’t attract hotter molecules in the atmosphere. If it did, then I would agree with N&Z. But then everything would be upside down. Hot air balloons would not fly …
Why do I keep seeing 240 W/m^2 and 480 W/m^2 which one is it. Joseph is saying the effective black body temperature as seen from space is 240 W/m^2 and that is the confirmed, standard and accepted outgoing radiation.
The standard average irradiance on the surface is 240 W/m^2. So where is the 480 W/m^2 coming from?
As far as geothermal is concerned I read that if the outer crust didn’t insulate the surface from geothermal the average temperature on the surface would be around 200 degrees Celsius (maybe more I forget). So I’m glad we have a buffer, if something changes that we are fried and I mean literally.
480 is just when it is averaged over a hemisphere as input…still not really meaningful.
Joseph,
In your paper “A discussion of …”,
How come you don’t apply equation 11 to reproduce data in figure 11?
When I applied eq. 11 to desert rock data, I get a very unsatisfactory result, UNLESS I add 280 geothermal:
I have to admit I am confused again.
If outgoing is 240 watts and that is allocated by dividing by 4 because radiation exits 24 hours, and incoming is divided by 2 that would be 480 watts and a 30C surface not 15C for 240 watts.
The average surface irradiance is 240, if it was divided how climate alarm is doing it then it would be 120 watts.
SO I am not getting the outgoing as 240 if it is divided by 4 wouldn’t that just be 120?
Or are you saying the amount of energy that comes in half a day takes an entire day to exit and you don’t divide outgoing radiation.
I would imagine it’s easy to explain but would require me to know even more laws that I am already struggling with to remember and understand. How do you guys recall laws and equations like normal people do conversations?
Here is a quite good overview of the not correct physics what is applied by IPCC to calculate the human portion of increased co2.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ED4wmx1XYAASu5i.jpg:large
Zoe you may be a Wicked Wench but I’m a fan of my wife’s former band that I used to manage that had that name. The internet handle helped us get a few extra sales back in the day and I’m too lazy to change it (and the music is still on sale on the net long after the band is no more).
Back on the subject matter: I like to distinguish between the observable facts and the various hypotheses to explain these facts. The observable facts are that every planetary body and Star gets hotter the deeper you go into them (with the exception of the very upper atmosphere of most of them). The change in temperature can be accurately predicted when the acceleration of gravity is included as a variable. It is also a fact that in the ideal gas law equations, that temperature, pressure and density affect each other, change one and at least one of the other variables must adjust accordingly. And in an atmosphere changing temperature doesn’t change pressure. But in a vertical column of air both pressure and density change with height due to gravity. Density (but not pressure) also changes with the sun rising and setting.
So, if gravity affects one variable and the ideal gas laws are valid then it affects them all. That is the observation.
Your problem seems to come from the various hypotheses trying to explain WHY it does. Whether N&Z, Holmes, the Connolly’s or King troll Cotton, the hypothesis that will become the new established theory is not yet clear. But the requirement for gravity and the observable dependence of planetary atmospheric temperatures on pressure isn’t negated by your objections.
CD look at this…should help…study the numbers:
Zoe, you said:
Imagine the sun heats the top of Venus’ atmosphere. This heated air is now less dense than the air below it. This air has no mechanism to fall. None. Where is the enhancement?
You force me to take a ride off Earth to another planet. (^_^) I’m not studied on the planet of love, but I’m suspecting that the sun does NOT heat the top of Venus’ atmosphere, as you ask me to imagine. I believe that there is a rising and falling of air on Venus too.
On a different note, I’ve appreciated your bringing in the geothermal angle, but I must now honestly admit that I am not convinced that geothermal has the overriding influence that I think you are suggesting. I do, however, believe that geothermal is underrepresented in the research on climate. I suspect that it plays a greater role than credited, when it comes to Earth’s ice dynamics. I suspect that there is so much that we don’t know about it, because so much time and resources have been wasted on climate-doom research.
I would have questions like: “Are there capillary networks we don’t know about that convey heated water through Earth’s crust? Are there shifts, over eons, in the thickness of Earth’s layers that allow more Earth heat to affect the surface in select areas? How can we possibly know all these dynamic effects over millions of years well enough to say that even the hallowed ice-core records are reliable measures of past atmosphere’s?
It all seems so much more complex than current climate clowns would have us believe.
Very interesting New presentation by Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly. Based on weather balloon data, and in depth analysis of lapse rates.
It basically confirms what J. Postma and N&Z are saying, and it debunks the greenhouse gas heat trapping hypothesis. First 24 minutes is some history, after that hardcore data analysis.
Joseph,
I have no problem with the output it’s the input I’m not getting. For example on that diagram you have 30C=480 w/M^2 (if I have that right) which is not the average surface temperature of 15C (240 w/M^2)
So where is the 480 coming from and why isn’t that the surface average? Wait is that becasue it hasn’t been divided by 2 yet?
Sorry W/m^2 my brain keeps reversing it when I type it out. I think I would be better at spelling things backwards sometimes.
Here is the research paper of the presentation above.
Click to access July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-format.pdf
Thanks, Joe. Your point that the average does not provide information about the actual is self evident but had not occurred to me before. Useful idea.
Thanks Joe you have it in a nutshell.
Averages reduce the amount of information that can be extracted. Sure a global average temperature gives a number but the number can not tell anyone how the temperature is distributed, or how it manifests itself as physical changes around our planet.
As I noted before, since 1850 till today this planet has warmed (on average) by 1°C.
And during this time (well from about 1700) Solar irradiance has been rising steadily.
Such synchronicity may lead some to think that the energetic sun warms the Earth.
Exactly.
JP’s fans don’t seem to notice that JP is 10°K off. I was trying to fill the gap, but people are satisfied with being 10°K wrong. It’s good enough. Let’s ridicule me some more.
@ Zoe Phin
It is hard to prove such an infuence when almost all papers conclude a minimal impact.
Maybe the balloon data helps you with your quest. It is in a link in the paper i posted above. If it is possible to single out geothermal regions and you find significant influence on the lapse rate there, then that might support your claim.
Zoe Phin,
To assist you in your efforts I humbly suggest you look at every aspect of the sun’s effect on the planet. Only from a more complete view can a more informed view be made.
Zoe,
I obviously don’t get [didn’t get] your method, because I feel the need for you to explain your statement:
JP’s fans don’t seem to notice that JP is 10°K off. I was trying to fill the gap, but people are satisfied with being 10°K wrong. It’s good enough. Let’s ridicule me some more.
No ridicule from me. I’m just not getting it enough to say for sure either way.
My understanding is that Earth’s upper layers are so thick that geothermal heat generally cannot get through, over a large enough area, at an intensity great enough to overcome the speed of this amount of heat’s dissipation.
Lets try this again…
Incoming solar flux is 480w (30c) divided by 2 spheres=240w (15c).
Correct?
Outgoing should be 480 divided by 4 spheres=120w.
Correct?
120w= -18C/255 Kelvin?
If the effective black body temperature seen from space is confirmed as -18C so is that 120w?
My second question is how do you write that out as an equation and explain that equation for me if you don’t mind.
The only reason I’m stressing this is it’s not enough for me to repeat it I need to be able to explain it.
My brain learns from patterns which has been my stumbling block. I can learn it without understanding it. My brother showed me the pattern to beat the Rubik’s Cube when I was a little boy.
I could solve it blindfolded but I could never explain to someone else how to do it. My brother, like you guys, can do both he saw the end result of the cube and worked backwards to solve it as easily as working forward to solve it. I can’t do that.
CD
The 480W/m2 is simply another average. This time of the solar energy that is absorbed and not reflected on the day time side of the earth. It again doesn’t deal with actual real time temperatures. It is simply used to illustrate that we do have day and night. The only value of importance to be accepted as real time is the value of the sun itself, which determines the maximum temperature possible to be attained in real time. What any actual temperature in any given place turns out to be is subject to all kinds of different things, most of which are simply ignored by global warming advocates
Joseph,
In your paper “A discussion of …”,
How come you don’t apply equation 11 to reproduce data in figure 11?
So the value of the sun changes as earth moves through its orbit getting closer to or further away from the sun depending on the time of year. The average value is given as about 1360 w/m2. The amount of sunlight the atmosphere or surface absorbs at any location is constantly changing due to clouds forming or dissipating, but an average of 960W/m2 is used. This falls on the day time side of the earth. But because the earth is a sphere only where the sun is directly overhead will the full force of this be felt. At dawn and dusk and at the poles hardly any solar energy is getting through. So again, an average value of half 960 is used to illustrate this: 480W/m2. Half the planet is in darkness so the average sunlight over the whole planet that is not reflected is 240W/m2. Non of these averages represent reality. The first average of the Sun’s strength is the closest to actual reality, but each subsequent one takes you further and further away from it, when discussing input
Robert,
“because I feel the need for you to explain your statement”
I can’t replicate Postma’s paper to give me a sensible average temperature (15°C) by sun alone. Any reasonable number for Tau gives me a value more than 10° below observation (~15°C).
Which makes statements like “The entire premise that something is missing and something needs to be added is false” seem reckless.
Also leaves Venus unexplained.
WW
Yes it is an average. Is it an average split between day and night or is the sunlight correctly averaged by day and the outgoing by the whole sphere?
Daytime average input 240w (480 divided by 2).
Nighttime average output 240w (480 divided by 2).
If its radiation out calculated 24 hrs a day continuously on all spheres it’s 120w (480 divided by 4).
If it is day and night averaged then it’s 480w total but averaged as 240w. 240 in 240 out.
But if real time solar average is daytime, 240w, and the outgoing is counted for the whole sphere (not half) it would be 120w (120×4)
The simple question I’m asking is if the outgoing is divided by 4 for the whole sphere it should be 120w not 240w.
If outgoing is only counting the night side then yes it’s 240w.
I get the basics, incoming 480w divided by 2.
IF the output is divided by 4 then it would be 120w not 240w.
At least to the best of my understanding this seems a practical approach to the math. SO what am I missing if this isn’t right?
CD. The output is 960 divided by 4
Not any other number
960 is the average value of sunlight the earth’s surface and atmosphere absorbs after you subtract for average reflection. 240 is the average of that average spread over the whole earth at once. Double that value and you have the average for a hemisphere instead of the whole globe. On the daylight side the input is 960 at noon over the equator and zero just before sunrise and just after sunset. So the daylight side gets an average of half 960 which is 480. The night side always receives zero sunlight. So 960 peak absorption based on average albedo. 480 average day time absorption on the sunlit side. 240 average absorption for the planet as a whole.
WW
So what you are saying (I hope) is that outgoing radiation has no real higher or lower temperatures it’s just a one lump sum of -18/240W/m^2. Therefore, you cannot use that lump sum to validate atmospheric temperatures that aren’t in a lump sum, they are divided in temperatures according to the atmospheric layers. -18 is the average atmospheric temperature found in the middle. The surface receives the 240W/m^2 but the average of that temperature is the middle of the atmosphere not the 15C surface.
So what climate alarmists are doing is associating the W/m^2 squared with exact temperature from incoming radiation as outgoing radiation and not counting the atmospheric layers, adiabatic lapse rate or air pressure.
So both average temps are indeed -18C but that average is found in the middle of the atmosphere not at the bottom.
Now unlike myself these guys are taught this stuff. How can a meteorologist not know this is correct?
Breaking news…
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-science-deniers-boris-johnson-environment-leak-a9094631.html
“The Independent” Is a UK Climate Emergency propaganda newspaper.
“It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Thank you, Joe: https://principia-scientific.org/how-a-76-firebird-83-chevette-debunks-climate-change/
The gas law seems quite popular these days, so here is my 2 cents worth. According to https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
U.S. Standard Atmosphere Air Properties – SI Units, The lapse rate is 6,5 C/km.from sea level to 10000 m up. So lets keep it that way going down in a mine shaft. Here is what it gives us…
Depth (m), Temp (C)
0 15,0
-5000 47,5
-6000 54,0
-7000 60,5
-8000 67,0
-9000 73,5
-10000 80,0
Pretty hot down there isn’t it ? Not much room left for geothermal is there ? Bye folks ! See you !
Pierre,
Face palm. You just proved geothermal.
You see, Pierre, when you jump into a fire, you don’t prove the atmosphere heats the fire, you prove the fire heats the atmosphere.
It’s like counting stairs in a skyscraper, and determining how long it took them build it from observation deck all the way to the foundation. lol
“In your paper “A discussion of …”,
How come you don’t apply equation 11 to reproduce data in figure 11?”
I believe that was the idea and what was done, but, it was limited to testing only the maximum temperature. That equation is fine for testing the max temperature and seeing if there is any additional climate forcing, and it showed there wasn’t.
You are correct that to get a good function of T for that equation, then other terms need to be added because there may be inputs from above/below simply from residual heat (or geothermal) after the main solar forcing is gone…but, to do that properly, one needs to compute the 2-D thermal partial differential equation as a function of space (depth below and above the surface element) and time. The equation also needs terms for latent heat release from H2O.
What you are doing with adding that term could be considered a sort of first-order approximation to what the 2-D PDE would do in terms of how it would account for heat transfer back out of the subsurface to the surface element as the solar heating goes away…but as a rough approximation to that which it is, it can not therefore be interpreted as single factor such as geothermal. Most of what is required would simply be day-time solar heat which penetrated the subsurface then coming back to the surface element once the surface element cools below the subsurface temperature beneath it. And so in this case it LOOKS LIKE geothermal because it is heat coming out of the subsurface…but it is only coming “back” to the surface and was originally solar heat. And then plus there is latent heat release.
So, there are many factors, and you’ve given it a single value, but that value isn’t a single source and much of that value is residual effects from day-time heating dissipating back around. NOT in terms of “back-heating” or “back-radiation”, but in terms of the surface element cooling to below the subsurface elements which then means that heat will flow from the subsurface to the surface.
Auto-compression
When surface air is forced from surface down into underground workings, it experiences a compression in volume, however, the heat contained remains the same; this results in hotter air. Air auto-compression is the largest source of heat underground, as seen in the pie chart above. This is especially true as mines become deeper, as is the case in South Africa, for example, where the Mponeng Mine extended to depths of up to 3.9 km from surface by 2009[1]. Generally, auto-compression will increase the air temperature at a rate of approximately 10°C/km.
from
https://minewiki.engineering.queensu.ca/mediawiki/index.php/Ventilation#Auto-compression
CD:
Close enough. All I would add is that all averaged calculated temperatures are rough guides not real temperatures. Even the outgoing energy isn’t uniform around the planet. If you measure the outgoing flux on the daylight side it will be higher than the night
time side. Likewise if you measure from a satellite above the North Pole it will be a smaller reading than from one orbiting the equator.
The general take home point is that average flux calculations were never meant to be used for providing actual planetary temperatures. They are simply useful for comparisons of different stars and planets with each other. We can say Venus is hotter than Jupiter at 1 BAR atmospheric pressure and give a theoretical average temperature for both based on a spectrometer reading etc. But too many people put way too much faith in the accuracy of such ball park estimates.
Temperatures are proportional to the 4th root of energy, so non uniform and constantly changing distribution of said energy will cause mean measured temperatures to change even with a constant input. You can get global warming or cooling even with no change in total energy.
Joseph,
Honestly I think there is something wrong with your ode45 and interpl1 functions.
PDEs can be easily calculated in a spreadsheet. When I do this, I get very different answers from you. I will post a spreadsheet tomorrow, and you will see. OK? Maybe I messed up.
“And so in this case it LOOKS LIKE geothermal because it is heat coming out of the subsurface…but it is only coming “back” to the surface and was originally solar heat.”
I obviously considered this. But I think we both agree that there is no solar penetration below 10m (avg). We can presume at -11m, it’s all geothermal. In the absence of sun and atmosphere, we can safely assume 99%+ of this geothermal heat will reach the surface.
Looking at subsoil temperature profiles, we can see the sun creates a reverse gradient (top hotter, bottom colder), which is different from a gravity distribution of geothermal (top colder, bottom hotter). Therefore the sun didn’t heat the earth top bottom (beyond 10 meters). And if it did it would’ve taken millions, not billions of years. And again such a heating would produce a hot-top colder-bottom gradient, which subsoil profiles refute.
We don’t have to talk about 10m…only the first foot or so. That’s where the daily solar heat can come back out of. Although on the scale of a month and especially a season then the temperature is modulated by solar heat to a few meters.
Zoe, the rate of geothermal transfer is known simply from soil conductivity, etc.
You are still approaching this problem as if there is something missing…starting from the same premise as climate alarmism and its fake greenhouse effect. There is nothing missing. The values for geothermal comes from geophysics from before climate alarmism.
If geothermal added as much as you say, then it would be measured from space and Earth would emit more than 240 W/m^2 and then the climate alarmists would have been able to associate all of that with their GHE and the geologists would have rebutted that it was from geothermal and this would be a well-known thing in physics, and it would have been known long ago well before anyone thought to politicize this.
There is no missing energy, missing “force” that creates the climate – the sun does it all in real-time.
geez, she does’nt let go, doe she ?…
The lapse rate is the rate at which an atmospheric variable, normally temperature in Earth’s atmosphere, changes with altitude.
From… Heat flow into subsurface openings Malcolm J. McPherson (a mine expert ! ! !)
15.2.4. Geothermic gradient, geothermal step and thermal conductivity
The crustal plates upon which the continents drift over geological time are relatively thin
compared to the diameter of the earth. Furthermore, it is only in the upper skin of those plates
that mining takes place at the present time. The geothermal flow of heat emanating from the
earth’s core and passing through that skin has an average value of 0.05 to 0.06 W/m2
It can, of course, be much higher in regions of anomalous geothermal activity
The high temperatures below is adiabatic atmospheric compression. GEEZ ! ! !
Thank you WW,
That put s a huge perspective on things.
So this is a really weird reply to me telling him everything Joseph has been teaching. I gave him a link to your video (Joseph) hope he at least looks at it:
“Sorry, but you simply don’t understand how this works. The earth will radiate 390W/m2 when it is 16°C warm. And yes a colder gas can reduce the amount of energy earth loses, because it is always an exchange. This gas at -18 °C is still roughly 250K warmer than outer space. This gas is radiating at 240W/m2 in EVERY direction aka 120W into space and 120W towards earth.
When earth is emitting 390W/m2 you need some kind of insulation to reduce the energy loss to 240W/m2 which are the greenhouse gasses.
And surely can something colder keep something else warmer or even cause it to heat up when you’ve got a constant energy source. When you are cold a jacket will warm you up even when the outside of the jacket has ambient temperature.So the jacket has -10°C on the outside but your body is producing more heat than will transmit concerning the outside temperature, your body temperature and the surface. And if it’s just 10°C outside this jacket will cause you to heat up because your body is producing to much heat and so the temperature inside will rise but the outside is still at 10°C.”
“This gas at -18 °C is still roughly 250K warmer than outer space. This gas is radiating at 240W/m2 in EVERY direction aka 120W into space and 120W towards earth.”
If a gas is at -18C it emits 240W in all directions…NOT split per direction.
In any case…the fellow obviously just ignored everything.
The jacket doesn’t “warm you up”…although that’s how we communicate the effect in every-day language. YOU heat up the jacket, because the jacket stops convective replacement of the air surrounding your body.
Anyway…climate alarm is the license to pontificate on thermodynamics with colloquial language.
It is impossible for the atmosphere to provide 2-times the energy than the sun provides: FACT. Let’s start THERE. Let’s start there, and then we’ll figure out how things actually work. N&Z and people have figured it out, etc.
Any conception and language consistent with the RGHE, such as the language and arguments which this fellow uses, are 100% wrong, full stop. We may not know exactly what the true answers are, but we do know for a fact that it is impossible for the atmosphere to provide twice the energy than the Sun.
@wickedwenchfan
/ 960 is the average value of sunlight the earth’s surface and atmosphere absorbs after you subtract for average reflection /
Sorry to interfere … See…
Search key word … The Average Solar Radiation Flux on Earth For Dummies (not you :))
Also… Addendum (Take 2)
Dam it, they took the image away. See,,,
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/climate-change/content-section-1.2.1
The value is 1368 / 2 * 0,7 = 480
WW meant that it’s the TOA flux.
OK, Sorry
Lord Monckton was fighting the alarmist by claiming that the climate sensitivity and the feedbacks are much lower
After seeing the balloon data Conolly et al paper he changed his mind. And now thinks that the Einstein theory from 1919 is correct, backed by emperical evidence.
“Einstein showed in his 1919 paper that the rate of absorption of radiation by IR active gases is equal to their rate of emission i.e. IR active gases ( so called greenhouse gases) do not trap or store energy for systems in thermodynamic equilibrium “
…that is one lukewarmer less, many more to go.
The geothermal angle is bothering me.
If there were no sun, and Earth existed with its current hot core, then wouldn’t the thickness of Earth’s upper layers prevent the surface from ever warming significantly from geothermal energy?
The heat would conduct upwards very slowly, and be at such a small amount by the time it reached the surface that the cold of space would easily dissipate it and overcome it, keeping the Earth surface very cold, while the Earth center would still be very hot??
In other words, the heat from the core does not travel unaffected by what it has to travel through and what larger surface area it must spread over, as it radiates outward over stacked surface areas of ever increasing radii.
So, Monckton is now saying there IS a greenhouse effect, but it does NOT cause warming.
Well, what is it then?
Water is wet, but it does not cause dampness.
Fire is hot, but it does not cause burning.
The sun shines, but it does not cause light.
I draw in breath, but I am not breathing.
For the love of God, let the greenhouse effect go! If it doesn’t do anything, then what the hell is it? Why have it? Why still talk about it at all? Let it go! Give it up! It’s dead! Bye bye. Game over. Finished. The end.
Exactly…lol. They JUST CAN’T FN DO IT!
Monckton was a real influence on me at the beginning. Then I asked him if sunlight spread over the entire surface at once as an input…and he threatened to sue if I ever talked about that to anyone ever again…lol…as if he could actually sue for that, but of course he meant only to intimidate for some reason.
I took a look at Jo Nova’s “Skeptic Handbook” again over the weekend, and found the same thing: “There is a greenhouse effect”, she writes, “but the signature of the greenhouse effect warming in the upper troposphere was not found, and hence there is no global warming.”
Uh…wait a sec there Jo…you missed something…
(if there is a GHE…then the signature HAD TO BE found!)
Right. According to the balloon data paper that Lord Monckton referenced there is no greenhouse effect. Here is the energy budget they have drawn
Not sure if it is borrowing words to explain things to normies, or still claiming that the 33 degree extra warming by greenhouse gasses is true.
Geology as it is puts geothermal at 40 watts because of the outer crust is a heavy insulator. Remove that insulation and I believe they said the average would be 200C on the surface. They’ve only been able to dig so far before the drills overheat and eventually melt. The core is hot for sure and we are marginally protected from it on the surface.
Note in the picture above that they made a remark with the input (it is just an average a.k.a. realtime input has another impact)
And they made a remark that the incomming types of “light” is different compared to the output infrared “light”
I think that it plays quite good into what J. Postma is saying.
I have to admit that I sort of like Monckton, since I have yet to be threatened with a lawsuit by him, and his energy seems to be in much of the right place, even though it diverges (in my view) along some major wrong paths. He likes his lawsuits, for sure.
It really bugs me that otherwise seemingly very bright people (i.e., Willis, Monckton, Cotton, etc.) just cannot seem to use their brightness to see the light. But I guess that’s why the sun can shine but not cause light, or why there can be a greenhouse effect but not cause warming.
Some ideas are such dear pets that we cannot kill them, so it seems.
Joseph,
“You are still approaching this problem as if there is something missing…starting from the same premise as climate alarmism and its fake greenhouse effect.”
I’m starting from your premise, except I’m not using opaque proprietary MatLab. I’m using a simple spreadsheet, and I’m getting a lot of missing energy/temperature. Would you take a look at it tomorrow, please?
“If geothermal added as much as you say, then it would be measured from space and Earth would emit more than 240 W/m^2 and then the climate alarmists …”
It is measured. It’s called “GHG backradiation”. They flipped geothermal. Remember, they think the earth is flat. How can you have geothermal when the earth is flat?
Robert,
“the surface that the cold of space would easily dissipate it and overcome it, keeping the Earth surface very cold”
You could say the same thing about the sun. Shouldn’t all that cold space have cooled the sun from 5778°K to whatever?
No. The Sun is a UV star, the Earth is an infrared star.
The Earth confortably delivers 19.5°C to -10 meters in Malaysia. Without Sun and atmosphere it would still deliver 19°C to the surface. There is no geothermal dead end at -10 meters. The energizer bunny keeps going and going …
I will speculate a lot here, so please don’t all jump down my throat at perceived errors. My main problem with science since Einstein is the un physical use of language. Gravity is no longer a force but (if you listen to celebrity “scientists” like Brian Cox) “the curvature of spacetime”. Yet it acts in the same manner as a force. It produces results like a force. “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck chances are….,”. If I apply force to an object, I must expend energy to do so. If I push against a wall I must keep expending energy for as long as I apply force. My simple speculation from a layman’s perspective is that as long as gravity is acting on an object a force is being applied and energy is being expended. In a planet the greatest force is applied at the centre and so this is what (in general) CAUSES all planetary temperatures to be hotter at the core. Also that energy doesn’t make it to the surface or beyond because it must overcome gravity (force) to do so. Geothermal hot spots, in such a paradigm, simply an imbalance of distribution of energy and forces. Lava weather, if you will. Now I have had this idea devoid of education and knowledge of what is taught on the subject, so I expect to be told this is all wrong because (insert settled science here), but I still find it strange that we have a paradigm of Earth being 4 Billion years old with a hot core attributed to its temperature at creation that simply hasn’t finished cooling yet! How long does it need? 4 billion more years? Especially I find this problematic because EVERY planet we have observed has the same characteristics.
Finally, we have a paradigm of ever increasing entropy. Of no situation where perpetual motion can exist. I speculate that there is one. The universe itself. I question the Big Bang Theory.
Zoe,
…just trying to come to terms with your thinking here, where you say:
“the surface that the cold of space would easily dissipate it and overcome it, keeping the Earth surface very cold”
You could say the same thing about the sun. Shouldn’t all that cold space have cooled the sun from 5778°K to whatever?
I could not say the same thing about the sun, because the sun is a star, and Earth is a planet, … possibly the still-cooling residue of a star.
Consider the size of the sun — a million times bigger than Earth, containing well over 99% of the mass of the entire solar system. There is no comparison between space’s cooling effect on the Earth vs space’s cooling effect on the sun — they are two vastly different entities, as I see it.
Planets are not stars, as I see it — different physical processes are going on, and sheer enormous mass differences dictate some of these processes.
The Earth comfortably delivers 19.5°C to -10 meters in Malaysia. Without Sun and atmosphere it would still deliver 19°C to the surface. There is no geothermal dead end at -10 meters. The energizer bunny keeps going and going …
Zoe, I’m not seeing it.
What I see is … if there were no sun, then the Earth surface would be extremely, extremely cold, and the layers below the surface would be extremely cold beyond what they are with the sun, and so the heat would have to be dissipating through much, much, much colder layers of the Earth and would not even make it to the surface as you suggest.
The Earth would be much colder, farther down, to begin with.
I’m not sure what that graph you present shows. I see a steady temperature up to -10 meters. How is it determined that what happens above -10 meters is still geothermal and not solar? [maybe a stupid question, but I’m asking] (^_^)
Robert,
The sun has no effect below -10 meters.
Do you see how the top-down solar gradient behaves differently from the bottom-up geothermal gradient?
“The Earth would be much colder, farther down, to begin with.”
The sun has no effect below -10 meters. Why would it be colder?
“Planets are not stars, as I see it.”
That’s just convention. Size matters, it’s true, but fundamentally things scale.
Hot things cool faster, btw.
@wickedwenchfan
/ I will speculate a lot here, so please don’t all jump down my throat at perceived errors. /
Don’t worry, I’m a friend. I won’t bite. The Sun is a full fusion reactor. The heat generated is not only free to come to Earth but it is what keeps it from crumbling down. A time will come when the Sun slowly runs out of energy it will slowly cool and become smaller until it crumbles on itself by gravity.
The Earth’s core heat is only radioactive decay, pressure and friction. The only reason the Earth is hot inside is because the heat can’t flow to the top, not because it creates a lot of heat. There is a BIG difference. When there is an over pressure, it is released through the weak points on the crust, namely volcanoes and plate edges. Lucky us because when the radioactive decay in the core lowers, the temperature of the core will lower and the Earth will also shrink. The Earth with the Sun alone cant survive. Hey Zoe… there IS geothermal but lucky us… it’s not coming out otherwise we’d all be dead by now. The earth would be a pile of rust/dust.
@Pierre
I’m aware of all of the conventional explanations. It’s simply that I’m not convinced in them. Without the sun we still have a small but constant energy from the rest of the universe and we have gravity. My guess is that the core of any large object in space will have a hot core
Even the Moon has a molten core (allegedly) I’m not sure about its gravity as a source.
Pierre,
“the heat can’t flow to the top.”
Joseph,
As promised:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MsCEkDN-hnOffSXUxE39P_iEwA4dT6dYCu8LZdsPA7U/edit?usp=drivesdk
“It is measured. It’s called “GHG backradiation”. They flipped geothermal. ”
No…it would still have to come out and be seen from space. Given this, your premises are fundamentally flawed.
“Without Sun and atmosphere it would still deliver 19°C to the surface.”
No you don’t know that. Without the Sun that plot wouldn’t average ~19.5 at the surface…you see all that seasonal variation, giving that average? That’s being set by the Sun. And that’s what goes down to -10m with little variation given the low conductivity rate of soil with depth. Without the sun providing that anchoring “up there”, the surface would/could precipitously drop.
I still see no evidence that 1) more energy comes out from the Earth than is input – this is a conservation of energy thing, and if the Earth didn’t conserve energy (by emitting more energy than it received from the Sun, because geothermal was so large) it would be well known and from some time ago well before it was all political, 2) that there is anything missing that needs to be explained or invented or additionally input.
“Finally, we have a paradigm of ever increasing entropy. Of no situation where perpetual motion can exist. I speculate that there is one. The universe itself. I question the Big Bang Theory.”
Now you’re getting into cosmology and the philosophical question of existence itself: my personal speciality. Welcome. Start here:
It provides the answers you seek. All of them. Don’t worry…this is all approved by me. Maybe even just try starting with the very last book 32:
“I still find it strange that we have a paradigm of Earth being 4 Billion years old with a hot core attributed to its temperature at creation that simply hasn’t finished cooling yet! How long does it need? 4 billion more years? ”
There is ongoing radionuclide decay…fission.
Joseph,
Why do you believe you can add geo flux to solar flux “to see it from space”? You can’t add them. You can average their temperature equivalents, but you can’t add them. You can’t see the colder object when the hotter one is beaming down on it. You taught me this. You don’t add fluxes.
The heat capacity of the atmosphere is roughly the same as top 10 meters of surface. In my chart, you see the surface heating the atmosphere at night and therefore droping from 19.5 to 10°C. Without the atmosphere, the top of the surface will indeed be 19.
I am very careful in saying “In the absence of sun AND atmosphere” every single time, if you noticed.
The sun doesn’t cause increasing temperatures with depth. It causes decreasing temperatures with depth.
Continuing…
The sun doesn’t cause increasing temperatures with depth. It causes decreasing temperatures with depth. So we know that in my chart, the slightly-leaning vertical line that takes up the bottom 2/3rds of the chart is produced by geothermal. At night, geothermal heats the atmosphere, conductively, and so drops to 10°C from 19°C. Without the sun and atmosphere, there will simply be 19°C equivalent emission to space. OK, we can take that down a notch with emissivity != 1, but still, I think one can understand what I’m getting at.
People are having a hard time with anything other than strictly top-down thinking.
Joseph,
“would be well known and from some time ago well before it was all political, 2) that there is anything missing that needs to be explained or invented or additionally input.”
Climate scientists think the earth is flat and geologists haven’t corrected them.
I can’t find night time emission spectrum, because the “earth is flat”, remember?
I am getting sad from this type of argument from you.
Zoe, all of your effort is to resurrect the GHE theory by other means. You are simply replacing the GHE with geothermal. Based on the same premises of averaging from the standard climate GHE, which are meaningless. With real-time input one can explain the weather; with N&Z (etc.) and the lapse rate one can explain the averages.
There is no missing energy. If there is additional energy input, which geothermal would be since this is an independent source, not a down-stream source, then it would have to be seen. It’s not.
If I anchor -10m at 19C, so that there is a constant temperature supplied of 19C at -10m, then with no solar or atmosphere and given the rate of soil conduction, the surface then falls to 64K after a few weeks when this is run in a 2D thermal PDE.
Joseph,
“There is no missing energy.”
What are you looking at? I’m looking at your data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MsCEkDN-hnOffSXUxE39P_iEwA4dT6dYCu8LZdsPA7U/edit?usp=drivesdk
Joseph,
“with no solar or atmosphere and given the rate of soil conduction, the surface then falls to 64K after a few weeks when this is run in a 2D thermal PDE.”
Did you circularly presume 0 or 2.7K for Tcold in your PDE?
Let’s apply that logic to the sun. The sun’s core delivers 5785K to -10m of emitting surface. I claim 5778K will come out. You claim we beed to run a PDE with Tcold=0 or 2.7K.
I believe in conduction. I think it can deliver 19°C to the surface.
“all of your effort is to resurrect the GHE theory by other means”
Eschenbach – concentric spheres cause radiation to increase in the center.
N&Z – concentric spheres under gravity cause heat to increase in the center.
Both think top-down from cold to hot. I’m not doing that.
The sun is gas, the soil is…soil. Not the same thing…not the same equation or mechanics.
If the 2-D (space & time) model is run with geothermal providing 15C at -10m…it has NO effect on the surface average temperature. The reason is because the conduction rate is so low. Additionally, running that model shows that it is the surface temperature/solar heating which creates the stable temperature at -10m.
We’re done with this topic Zoe.
The law of conservation of energy doesn’t support you. The rate of conduction doesn’t support you.
Do you see how the top-down solar gradient behaves differently from the bottom-up geothermal gradient?
What I see is about 20C up to about -10 meters, at which point, I see an increase from -10 meters to the surface. What I do not see is that this increasing gradient from -10 meters to 0 meters is geothermal. I see this as solar.
The sun warms the surface during the day. The solar warmth conducts down to a certain depth. At night, as the surface cools, some of this warmth conducts back up. It’s not geothermal. Why would I think that it’s geothermal?
“The Earth would be much colder, farther down, to begin with.”
The sun has no effect below -10 meters. Why would it be colder?
First, if the sun has no effect below -10 meters, then why can I not reason that it is the sun causing that gradient from -10 meters upwards in your graph? Second, if there were no sun, the material of Earth would have cooled much more than it is now, because there was no sun to warm it. Geothermal would be held in check much farther down below the surface than now, because cold space would be constantly cooling everything around the molten core, and the Earth’s layers would provide insulation from the absolute cold of space to where geothermal would exist in a tighter radius than now.
“Planets are not stars, as I see it.”
That’s just convention. Size matters, it’s true, but fundamentally things scale.
Hot things cool faster, btw.
Conventions exist for a reason. (^_^)
Fundamentally, a planet is not a star, just as a flea is not a less advanced human, although both are living. (^_^)
An entity a million times larger than Earth still takes quite a bit longer to cool than one millionth of that size. And the fundamental processes by which heat is claimed and dissipated by the body in question determines the nature of the cooling process. A cooling star is not the same as a cooling planet, and to equate the cooling of the two processes seems like a misstep to me. I cannot equate the cooling of the sun to the cooling of the Earth, and even if I could, still there are a million Earth’s worth of stuff in the sun to cool, so even faster cooling would take a huge number of years.
As I said earlier, I think that geothermal is understudied and underrepresented in the study of Earth surface processes. But I still am not convinced that geothermal is the player that you seem convinced it is.
Focusing on geothermal in the context of the greenhouse theory seems to be a distraction from the main point that this theory is bunk. We, at least, seem to agree on that. There are so many other ways to enforce this agreement, besides confusing the issue, as I see it, with yet another exotic idea.
But, if we must go exotic (^_^), then let’s deny the particle basis of the standard model of physics, deny the nuclear basis of solar energy, as we claim that it’s all about intergalactic electrical circuits, diss the Copenhagen interpretation, call the idea of “beauty” a social construct devoid of any inborn geometrical universals, say that there are no differences between the sexes, … make all reality one big unresolved fluid that each individual is inherently entitled to shape exactly for his/her/? being, so that we are all so equal that we have nothing in common at all, thus taking a seemingly good idea to its ultimate opposite by honoring it absolutely. [okay, that philosophical rant was uncalled for]
Wow!
========= Robert Ian Holmes ===========
Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitiv
2.2. Auto-compression Is Known and Used Daily in Mining
Auto-compression is well known in underground mining, and is used by ventilation engineers to calculate how hot the mine air will get, so that they know how much cooling air to provide at each level. The effect of auto-compression can be calculated by the following;
Pe = Ps exp(gH/RT) Where;
Pe = absolute pressure at end of column (kPa)
Ps = absolute pressure at start of column (kPa)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²)
H = vertical depth (m)
As can be seen, this effect primarily relies on pressure and
gravity, which will be different for each planetary body
Can we go on now ?
You can use Mars data with the gas laws as well.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83y0ew6jv0x80dy/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0
So about a terrestrial body’s core internal pressure, I’m assuming that is all gravity based and compact by the sheer weight around it? Which would be gravity too becasue weight is nothing w/o gravity.
I read somewhere that our magnetic field also plays a hand in conserving our atmosphere. Gravity and the Magnetosphere keeps our atmosphere stable and our leaking atmosphere is possibly from our decaying magnetic field.
There is virtually no solar heating of the atmospheres of the outer planets yet all have “core” (whatever that means) temperatures in excess of 4.7 thousand Kelvin and the bigger they are the hotter they are. This can only be explained by pressure or thermonuclear reaction and I’ve never seen that postulated.
@joseph “there is ongoing radionuclide decay”. That is mentioned in the official narrative as ONE of the things going on, but the main paradigm is still that gravitational potential energy was converted to kinetic energy during the accretion stage of solar system formation and has been cooling ever since over four billion years. I simply question why it should cool at all given the premise that the converted energy must work against gravity to escape.
It also brings another thought: the paradigm is also that at the formation of Earth that the surface was also hot. If the earth was formed by accretion of matter then there is no reason to assume this either. Converted gravitational potential energy of a dust cloud over billions of years should have cooled during said formation. It’s not like meteors hold onto their heat for more than a few hours after they crash. But then I know that there are scientists who challenge the accretion model as well.
The point of all this, is not to put forward my speculation as the über explanation to defeat all others. Rather I simply wish to highlight that what we have learned from challenging the greenhouse effect paradigm needs to be applied with every paradigm. The more education we receive the more we trust that the information we have been taught was correct. A very dangerous assumption.
Read those books I linked…the whole series. It’s all about what’s wrong with the prevailing paradigm methods etc.
Will do
2 absolute must read by Robert Ian Holmes, Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity …
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd17/e71f5e2c8ca3de2c4cc110ac49380b118612.pdf?_ga=2.162589502.342725806.1568167028-1869477282.1568167028
Click to access 65d9cf63cd0f53c4c50a0e02440c4d9ee5d0.pdf
Please don’t misunderstand my comments. I have been promoting N&Z, Postma, Holmes, NoTricksZone, Principia, and slayers in general for 2 years on youtube. I only saw my first soil temperature profile like 2 months ago and it made me ask: what if …?
I do suspect geothermal may be playing part in warming the oceans right now (if indeed they are warming in an irregular cycle) and I have no doubt they would stifle this information to promote their agenda. They would rather not warn people of threats under the ocean just to keep a lie alive. Volcanoes have doubled in recent years and those are only the ones I can find out about. The good news is it doubled from a small number, but I’d think that would merit some concern. We get a 100 degree day and the world is going to end. Volcanoes double and nothing but crickets?
Strange times we live in.
I’ve notice this Research Gate is really is coming out with a lot of peer reviewed research against global warming (to some degree). Joseph you might think of investigating that more or not? I know you know a great deal more of these avenues than I do.
I have to admit I’d love a full and exhaustive explanation on Venus. I’ve read through the comments on here and it seems to have a few divergent theories. I’m starting to think no one has a definitive answer on it yet. As long as that remains the alarmists can use that as the “poster planet” for a so called runaway greenhouse effect.
From one of Pierre’s links…
“The Venus atmosphere is so hot that it radiates at the rate of 15,000W/m2 down to the surface, [79] even though less than 20W/m2 of direct solar insolation actually reaches the surface. A conventional ‘GHE’ of the type described by the IPCC is not possible with these numbers. If it is not the GHE, then where does Venus get the vast amount of energy from to keep such a heavy, thick atmosphere in motion and so very hot? The answer proposed here is the same as for Earth; auto- compression, adiabatic convection and the conversion of higher-level atmospheric potential energy to lower-level kinetic energy.”
“Adiabatic convection” presumably meaning turbulent mixing?
and
“…the Venusian atmosphere moves only slowly at the surface (<10km/hr), it rotates very rapidly at 70km in height, the cloud tops level, circling the planet every 4 days at speeds of up to 100m/s (360km/hr) [76]. Why does the Venusian atmosphere rotate westwards at sixty times [73] the rotation speed of the planet, and what is the mechanism driving and maintaining it?"
Is this because the thermal gradient on Venus is from the sunlit side to the dark rather than from the tropics to poles as on Earth?
Is it wind shear on Venus that does the advective turbulent mixing of solar energy from the top of the atmosphere down to the surface rather than from the surface up via convective turbulent mixing as on Earth?
"Venus has a very slow rotation period, which
makes the Venusian ‘night’ ~58 Earth-days long [75]. During this long night, measurements have been taken of the atmospheric and the surface temperatures, and they remain basically the same all through the long night just as they are during the long 58-day Venusian ‘day’. The surface cools only very slightly from ~737K to ~732K during this very long night."
Does this mean that winds on Venus do a much better job of mixing kinetic energy than on Earth or is there a radiative component from CO2 equalising things as well?
I am curious what is the effective black body temperature of Venus?
Everything explained with 3 sarellite measurements only, P, ρ and M here…
T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin
P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa
R = gas constant (m³, kPa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹) = 8.314
ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³
M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass gm/mol⁻¹)
T = PM/Rρ (Perfect gas law)
Using the properties of Venus,,, T = 9200 * 43,34 / (8,314 * 65)
Venus calculated surface temperature = 739.7K which is given by NASA as ~740K.
Everything is baked-in. My only question is… It was published on dec 7, 2017. How come we only hear of it now ?
Worth noting Harry Huffman on the subject of Venus’s atmosphere. If we simply take the mean temperature of Earth’s atmosphere (averages again!) of 288K and simply multiply it with the square root of the distance ratio of Earth and Venus to the sun, it “coincidentally” gives 339K which just so happens to be the mean given temperature of Venus’s atmosphere at the same atmospheric pressure. Also “coincidentally” the same is true of Jupiter and Saturn. Uranus and Neptune have a bigger margin of error, but only in regards to temperature. If we compare the blackbody values of the calculated temperatures versus the given temperatures the error is less than 1W/m2 for all planets.
I find it a huge “coincidence” that I can accurately calculate the atmospheric temperatures of Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune without regard to Albedo or atmospheric composition with grade 5 mathematics.
^Great comment wwf. Exactly.
I’ve read Huffman’s stuff, and he makes a strong point.
I just want to be clear that I am in tune to the auto-compression explanation, and that my dissonance with Zoe’s ideas related specifically to a small depth of Earth’s crust that her diagram seemed to represent.
Now about Venus, see this:
Speaking of Venus here is what a troll had to say (not my conversation but I found it interesting since I have come across him before. I’m sure he’s in the process of trying to debunk my 1200 peer reviewed papers proving the MWP was warmer and global. He’s one of Potholers’s rejects. I’d love to take him down one day. (Potholer not his rejects) Anyway here you go:
“No, because you’re disingenuously attacking a straw man. You might as well ask me to present a scientific study showing that smoking cigarettes will cause your lungs to catch on fire, when the mainstream science is actually about smoking causing cancer, coronary heart disease, etc.. Let me know when you decide to honestly care about what mainstream climate shows, not some fabrication of it that you invented. And, no pretend that a Venus-style runaway is required for anthropogenic climate change to have negative effects.
I’ll conclude with the rebuttal I previously made of Heller’s trash:
http://archive.is/ofPxE#selection-2215.3-2233.248
http://archive.is/044j9#selection-2193.722-2245.2791
1) Positive feedback does not entail a Venus-style runaway warming, consistent with other natural systems in which non-runaway positive feedback occurs [ex: blood clotting].
2) High climate sensitivity with positive feedback does not require a gain of greater than 1.
3) Increased radiation with warming [as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law] is a negative feedback that helps prevent a runaway, even with larger climate sensitivity values.
4) Overall, positive feedbacks on warming have diminishing returns, once the forcing / long-term driver of the warming ceases. This stops a runaway from occurring, especially since long-term drivers eventually stop driving warming.
5) Water vapor fails to cause a runaway on Earth, since water vapor readily condenses at the temperature and pressures in Earth’s atmosphere, causing water vapor to be a feedback on longer-term drivers, not a longer-term driver itself.
6) The ice-albedo feedback fails to cause Venus-style, runaway warming, since eventually most of the ice melts, and that feedback ceases. Similarly so for the ice-albedo feedback on cooling, once Earth’s surface is greatly covered in ice.
7) The feedback from CO2 release from warming oceans, fails to cause a runaway, since eventually the atmospheric CO2 levels increase enough to become in equilibrium with ocean CO2 levels, as per Henry’s law. Equilibrium also occurs in positive feedback in the reverse scenario, with CO2 uptake by cooling oceans.
8) In the short-term to mid-term, negative feedback is not enough to overcome the previously mentioned positive feedbacks. But in the long-term as Earth warms, this negative feedback eventually catches up to positive feedback, resulting in an equilibrium / energy balance where Earth radiates as much energy as Earth takes in, and long-term temperature fluctuations cease.
9) A relatively small perturbation [ex: from orbital forcing] on Earth’s equilibrium state can cause cause an energy imbalance, in which positive feedback initiates again. This small perturbation doesn’t need to overcome huge force, contrary to what Heller claims, because the Earth has already achieved a balanced equilibrium due the previously mentioned negative feedback and diminishing returns from positive feedback.
“The dynamic greenhouse: feedback processes that may influence future concentrations of atmospheric trace gases and climatic change
[…]
Adding this estimate to the gain from geophysical feedbacks based on the review by Dickinson (1986) gives a total gain of 0.80, which would increase the climate sensitivity to an initial doubling of CO2 from 3.5C to 6.3C. Quadratically combining the error estimates gives a range of 0.05-0.29 for the biogeochemical feedbacks and 0.32 to 0.98 for the system as a whole, implying a climate sensitivity of 1.9 to > 10C [page 238].”
“Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation
of future warming
[…]
The feedbacks currently in those GCMs—mainly water vapor, cloud, and ice-albedo processes—amplify the direct effect of doubled-CO2 (1.2C) to a total warming of 1.5 –4.5C [IPCC, 2001]. Using equation (2), the baseline gain implicit in these models (i.e., without CO2 or CH4 feedbacks) is 0.20 – 0.73. At the upper end of sensitivity, the baseline gain is large and adding the GhG feedback gives a new total feedback gain of ~0.78 to 0.8, strongly amplifying any climate perturbation [paragraph 7 on page 3].”
“Feedbacks, timescales, and seeing red
[…]
Note also that the not-uncommon misconception that a positive feedback automatically implies a runaway feedback is not true.”
The warming which the models predicted…hasn’t occurred. In science, empirical results are supposed to trump theory, especially modelling, and so, the model predictions have been refuted by empirical measurement. No warming. QED.
Calls Heller “trash”. Yah ok…these people are operatives…active liars, intentionally obfuscating the truth.
I have pissed this guy off so many times he hates me and tells me to keep my mouth shut. I take that as a compliment by the way.
Here’s what I told him prior to your statement which coincided in what I said:
Clap Clap Clap. The only problem is your “models” are wrong. In over a hundred years global average (which is nonsense) hasn’t risen 1C which means that CO2 is not a driver of climate. I didn’t even have to write a novel to prove it.
Haha perfect! 🙂
CDM,
Show him this:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Climate models are models. They can simulate interactions between climate variables, thus making them useful as educational tools to help in trying to understand such interactions.
They are NOT crystal balls. They are NOT tools for dictating real-world economic policies or investment strategies to better the world. They have proven NOT to be predictive of the future.
They are false gods, used in political games that ignore their lack of reality, serving to justify emotionalized calls to arms based on nothing more than uninformed passion.
Nice writing!
Robert,
That’s an excellent paper.
While that paper is approaching things on their own terms, I notice this sentence from the abstract:
“Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature.”
Of course, that is approaching the problem from the terms which climate science has set things up in. However, the statement is patently false, opposite to reality of course just as climate science is in the first place – error propagates not just numerically, but logically and philosophically as well! The entire field is founded on an inversion of reality…and inversion to reality is then found throughout everything which follows.
Because the truth, the real physics, is the opposite of that sentence: it is the air temperature which is the determinant of tropopsheric thermal energy (implied as radiant) flux.
Why can the troposphere emit thermal radiant energy? Because it has a temperature. Emission is a consequence of having a temperature. The question is what gave the atmosphere the temperature in the first place? Of course they believe that the Sun did not, because the Sun only provides -18C worth of heating. Which is the connection back to the original error of their averaging and reversing output for input.
And so of course it is the Sun, and the follow-on effects from the lapse rate, etc., which gives the atmosphere its ability to thermally radiate any energy at all.
@RK
/ Show him this:/
ROFL. If you want to drown someone and not hear from him for a week !
Connoly et al recently had a revealing new paper with AGW destroying results (posted above).
Here is a quite good summary of their first 3 papers, explained in a way most people can understand.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
Food for thought …
High temperature -> Degassing Planet -> Gives something for gravity to compress -> Pressure
I would think Pressure prevents/limits degassing. If pressure led to higher temps, then we’d have a nonstop runaway feedback … until there is no gas in the planet?
Maybe I’m wrong, but what’s wrong with asking?
That paper I cited also has this sentence in the abstract: “Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature.”
Notice the phrase, “simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux”.
What I like about the paper is how it models the models, and it clarifies the realities of these models’ simulated future data — how these realities are NON-realities or cannot be known to be realities, due to the inherent uncertainties of the particular modeling process and the models’ programmed-in theoretical flaws.
I can see a philosophical argument about the sentence, “Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature.” I’m thinking, though, that it is not necessary to resolve this philosophical argument, in order to trash the models in their own terms. This can be a good first step. Next step is to trash them from the larger perspective.
Temperature is a measure of a system’s internal energy, yes? “What gives the Earth-atmosphere its internal energy to HAVE a temperature (?)”, I guess, is the question JP would prefer to focus on. So, it’s not so much the energy flux as it is the energy state that determines global air temperature (?). The models don’t even approach it this way, I’m supposing.
Roy Spencer tried to reduce this paper to a flawed heap, but the paper’s author schooled him pretty good on his own major flawed understanding of the paper’s principles.
Ah…always nice to hear about Spencer being schooled.
Now if we can learn more about cosmic rays I’d be happy (ish)
I understand next to nothing about cosmic rays and this paper means nothing to me:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
It seems we are in a crossroads of one side saying they do influence climate and the other side denying any and all outside planet influence including, but not limited to, the Sun.
I actually asked a Climateer do you really believe hurdling through our galaxy has absolutely no influence on our planet or our Sun?
They said yes.
Not only are they Flat Earth thinkers I think they are convinced the Earth is the center of the Universe and is controlled by Cosmic CO2.
CDM,
I grappled with the cosmology/climate connection a few years ago, and here is what I wrote back then:
https://hubpages.com/education/The-Cosmology-Climate-Connection-How-Extraterrestrial-Forces-Influence-The-Weather
Robert,
That was excellent. Sadly not even worth it to give to an alarmist, their ability to learn over religious beliefs is impossible. They are on a campaign to discredit Svensmark so he must be on to something.
The Climate Change Religion will throw us back in the dark ages.
Any thoughts on that paper?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
I have another CO2 question. I’ve read mixed results on this. In a gas if CO2 is absorbing in the 15, 18 micron range is it emitting on that range as well or is it taking the energy and scattering it in lesser frequencies in all directions.
IF I am understanding the conservation of energy it can’t emit the same energy of 15/18 microns in all directions, the frequencies would have to be reduced…right? Or is it the same frequency just less energy in one direction?
Political climate science often doesn’t make a distinction between a gas or a liquid or a solid for that matter. Bonding like a blanket is what a solid would do not a gas, right?
IF CO2 is absorbing 15,18, 22 microns and scattering it at different frequencies and water vapor is overlapping most of those bands wouldn’t that explain no seeing that bandwidth by satellites?
CD. Radiation is being absorbed from one direction (the source) it is being scattered in all directions. So the energy flux is diluted in emission to a lower flux. For example, a black wall absorbs visible light and emits IR in all directions. Solid liquid or gas, entropy increases. Higher flux becomes lower flux. Joseph has an excellent video on spectrometry showing CO2 absorbing EM radiation in the IR spectrum from a lighted candle. The “gap” in the specific wavelengths of the measuring device doesn’t increase the brightness or temperature of the candle flame. Instead the energy simply escapes at a lower frequency after being scattered in all directions.
CDM,
Just quickly reading over the abstract of that paper on nucleation, I can see that it echoes a seemingly general trend these days to discount the cosmic-ray argument.
The evidence seems to be presented these days in such a way as to discredit the idea, and I’m not sure whether this is just limitations of the ability to detect the effect or true exhaustive proof that there is no effect from it.
I just don’t know what is known. My article back in the day even reflected this uncertainty in the conclusion. I remain open to the idea, as my brain gets ping-ponged between the proponents and the naysayers.
@MP
Exellent summary. CD and I had a very intriging question. Since N2 and O2 dont absorbe nor emit IR and energy has to leave the Earth for equilibrium, and that earth does not lose energy by mass loss then the only thing left is radiation. Bur N2 and O2 dont radiate ! I thaught water and Ozone would do the job but I had an itch. Oxygen and Nitrogen polymeres are not symetrical,, therefore IR emiters.
Earth losing energy through those polymers seems a good mehanism now, if proven right.
Well that’s one thing we’ve discussed a lot before in regards to O2 and N2. If they don’t emit, then they have low emissivity, and that means that they are “warming” gases because of course they have no radiative mechanism to shed their energy. Substances with low emissivity are warmer than substances with high emissivity. Basic physics. Again…the originating error (reversing output for input) logically propagates and leaves inversions of all other basic theory in its wake.
@ Pierre
Though some experiments with Ramen spectroscopy are challenging the paradigm that O2 and N2 don’t absorb or radiate IR.
I’d have to look into it (my university years ended some 45 years ago) but I seem to remember that Raman is some opposite of IR. What absorbs in IR does not in Raman and the inverse is true. Dont remember the details. Anyway, I looked, and looked, and looked and never found an IR spectra of N2 on internet and only one O2 with a faint absorption band overwelmed by water. At work we used to take IR spectras of paint chips with an FTIR. We had to purge the analysis chamber with dry CO2 free air before taking our spectras. N2 and O2 never interfered in our work. Never found an absoption band that would render our methods unusable. Regards.
Pierre said, Since N2 and O2 dont absorbe nor emit IR and energy has to leave the Earth for equilibrium, and that earth does not lose energy by mass loss then the only thing left is radiation.”
A lot of climate debate centers on the concept that energy out must be near energy in else the planet warms. WHY? An important variable left out is LIFE itself. All life created and growing requires energy. The energy supplied by the sun. Given that the variable of energy that life uses, it is near impossible to quantify. We do see the results in the growth of plant and animal life on this planet. God, in his infinite wisdom, set up our world that maintains a near perfect balance. AGW fails on this salient point. Something the AGW folks (who are basically godless) don’t recognize or take into account.
N2 absorption line?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261416308697
Again, this needs to be understood about LWIR from the surface to the atmosphere. Dr. Happer has said that any LWIR absorption by IR active gases in the atmosphere loses that energy to adjacent molecules by conduction and collision regardless of the adjacent molecules makeup. That exchange happens about a billion times quicker than the possibility of the IR absorbing gases emitting any LWIR back to the surface. This, in itself, invalidates the concept of ‘backradiation’. This was shown in a paper over 50 years ago ( second link)! This needs more publicity as it destroys the AGW myth!
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Click to access Statz67-lifetimes.pdf
There’s a convention in science to put the dependent variable on the left.
The ideal gas law is written with this in mind:
PV=nRT
P is dependant on T. Some history:
“Gay-Lussac is most often recognized for the Pressure Law which established that the pressure of an enclosed gas is directly proportional to its temperature”
Nowhere is there any dependancy of P by T.
Auto-compression only exists because gravity and outward thermal “pressure”.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7550f348cc02fc6f233b09fe4b2a1b9.webp
If there was no internal heat to generate thermal pressure, there would be nothing to compress.
I called this outward thermal pressure: geothermal energy and I got dragged across the coals for it.
If you believe in auto-compression, you must accept bottom-up geothermal “pressure”.
Gravity alone would compact molecules until they stop moving … T=0
Auto-compression is the antidote to internal energy thermal expansion.
@Pablo
The extremely weak 2–0 O(14) electric quadrupole transition of N2 has been detected by very high sensitivity Cavity Ring Down spectroscopy near 4518 cm−1. It is the first N2 absorption line in the first overtone band reported so far from laboratory experiments
Key words… extremely weak, by very high sensitivity, It is the first, Hum… In 2017 at that ? After all those years ?
in the first overtone ?… Where is the tone at some 1107 nm, 9100 cm-1 or 1,1 micron ? It should be stronger ! Sorry. Want to see it. My experience is it’s too week also.
Geez ! Does she ever let go ? T = PM/Rρ.
The Sun can’t change the molar mass M. It can’t change P or ρ either. But it’s it’s radiation can change T. With a new T you get a new P and ρ. Putting those new P and ρ in the formula you calculate the new T. Geez ! Give it up ! Remember what happened to TwoSun ?
Pierre,
“But it’s it’s radiation can change T. With a new T you get a new P and ρ. Putting those new P and ρ in the formula you calculate the new T.”
That is amazing circular reasoning!
Your last “new T” is just your first “new T”.
You demonstrated quite well how T is NOT dependant on P. Solar and Geo source does effect T.
Just sayin. I never challenged the ideal gas law.
@Pablo
This is the best I can do…
Click to access Lec6.pdf
Figure 6.3 s the best I’ve been able to come with.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif With this from Zoe. What ever synthetic means. Quiz… Find N2 !
I don’t know why they make the energy budget so difficult:
So much better:
@ZOE
Exactly… T depends on the Sun. P and ρ are side effects of T. But if you cant measure T but you can measure P and ρ then you have T. What’s the problem. ITSS.
I’ve looked at the equation PV = nRT over and over and over again. I just cant find it that any variable is more important then any other one. You have 3, anyone, I mean anyone, you have the fourth. It’s all about gravity and it’s going to be the same effect on planet Beta in solar system Zeta. Is this going to turn into an other pissing match ?
@Pablo
Looking at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif
Forgot ! There are 3 absorption bands for O2 in the 667nm region. That’s visible in the red. Red is absorbed and the sky is blue ? Hum ? But absorbing in the red does not mean emitting in red. In infrared maybe. Not much is there compared to water ? That’s why Joe talks about low emissivity.
Pierre,
For H2O vapour, seems like “self-broadening” and “foreign broadening” dominate and actual absorption is mostly pressure and temperature dependent. Is that right?
@ Pierre D. Bernier
According to Connolly et al an atmosphere without “greenhouse gasses” isn’t fully transparant. There is still some ir absorption and re-emitting, even tho it is extremely weak.
But it wouldn’t matter much since data suggests that the whole vertical column of the atmosphere has a thermodynamic equilibrium. (at least in the zone where weather balloons can measure, what is 99% of the atmospheric mass)
If one layer of a vertical column gets more temperature/pressure, then there is a very fast effect on other atmospheric layers.
Fast transportation of the extra heat, and balancing of the total vertical column pressure in other layers.. The total pressure of the vertical column stays what the input energy from the sun and the thermodynamic properties of the gasses would dictate.
Thank you very much one and all!
Robert,
I agree cosmic rays has a target on its back.
WW,
You have a way of interpreting genius level explanations so I can understand them. Thank you.
MP,
Joseph did an excellent piece on here about the vertical column balancing of other layers. You reminded of it in your musings.
Pierre,
I guess the real question isn’t can N2 and O2 be manipulated into emitting IR it’s can anything in the atmosphere cause it?
Zoe,
Without insulation on the outer crust geothermal would make the surface 200 degrees Celsius and that’s not including the Sun, effectively ending all life on Earth. I for one think it should remain in the ground where it belongs. 🙂
@MP
/ According to Connolly et al an atmosphere without “greenhouse gasses” isn’t fully transparant. /
That’s exactly what Joe and I say. N2 and O2 are low emmisive gases. Not much IR going on. Therefore with no greenhouse gases it will still be non completely transparent but negligebly.
Had problem understanding your question because to me N2 and O2 are the real greenhouse gases. They are the ones keeping us warm. I long for the day they will stop calling water, CO2 and methane the greenhouse gases.
@Pablo
/ For H2O vapour, seems like “self-broadening” and “foreign broadening” dominate /
There is no self or foreign broadening. It’s all concentration side effect. Light absorption is linear with concentration on Absorption scale, logarithmic on transmition scale.. If you double the concentration repeatedly then Absorption doubles repeatedly. 2,4,8,16 goes 2,4,8,16. With the Transmission scale doubling concentration 2,4,8,16 goes 0.5, 0,75, 0,875, 0.9375. logarithmic. So, the top absorption wave length gets saturated then the side wavelength. That’s where the broadening comes from. Over concentration for the capacity of the detector. Detector is saturated. OUUUUFFFFF.
Joe ? RK ? You guys taking a break ?
@George
/ A lot of climate debate centers on the concept that energy out must be near energy in else the planet warms. WHY? An important variable left out is LIFE itself. All life created and growing requires energy. /
When they die they release that energy. Over all it cancels out.
Joe ? RK ? Still on break ? 🙂
Once energy fill a mechanism – be it life, soil, the atmosphere, etc., – then the dissipation rate balances it. In the case of life it is the release of heat from decay, etc.
Just sleepy.
@Pablo
Got a good analogy for you. Go to Word or what ever word processor you use. Type in a string of capital A’s. AAAAAAA
Make the first one arial 12, the next 16, 20, 24, 28. The letters are all alligned at the bottom. Put a piece of paper on the top point of the smaller A on your screen parallel to the bottom. You will see that you see less and less of the top of the larger A’s. Your paper is the limit of your detector. and the letters are larger and larger.where they touch the paper.
Thanks Pierre…I did that… I think I get it.
UAH and RSS both measure surface temperature by microwave oxygen emission. CO2 can’t touch this. This is good proof that CO2 is irrelevant.
On the gas laws. As mentioned above we have three variables in it. Rather than approaching them from what was discovered in experiments of closed containers we should simply look at which variables affect the other variables in the case of an atmosphere. What quickly becomes clear is that surface pressure is not a variable at all (other than small fluctuations due to movement of air). So PV=nRT becomes the incorrect ordering of the equation. P isnt dependent on T. Only density is affected by T (the atmosphere expands and contracts with changing temperatures). So the correct ordering of the equation would put the density term on the left hand side and the temperature and pressure on the right hand side. Because density is dependent on T and not vice versa.
BUT: if we take a planet in deep space then it’s incoming energy supply is constant (background energy from all the stars in the universe). Night and day cease to be a variable for T. So now both density and pressure cannot be affected by Temperature As energy in is uniform and constant and thus ceases to be a variable. Pressure and density do still vary within the planet’s atmosphere though. Gravity ensures this. So to model this with the ideal gas law, it is appropriate to put T on the left hand side of the equation and everything else on the right hand side. Because different pressure and density must cause different temperatures in a vertical column of gas acted upon by gravity. Gravity changes density and pressure QED changes in pressure and density as one moves up or down in a planet’s atmosphere must cause a change in temperature.
In summery, how the gas law equation should be organised depends upon the situation you are studying. We must look at which variable is the cause of change in the other and which is the effect of that change. Just because 19th century scientists always assumed temperature was the causing changes to pressure and not vice versa, doesn’t mean that it can’t be so. We must always look at context.
Right Zoe
Great remark
If we had no “greenhouse gases” would it make any difference in the temperature gradient of the atmosphere? Basically aren’t clouds actually doing what they claim is the role of ghg?
Taking deserts as a proxy. CO2 is not making any difference there. Nights are freezing/days are hot.
Clouds seem to be the insulator of temperature during the day and the holdover of latent heat during the night. As has been said many times by everyone not pushing the climate alarm agenda.
wwf,
“Because different pressure and density must cause different temperatures”
Nope. Take a bar of gold. It has density. Put another bar of gold on top. Now it gas pressure. Swap gold with gas. See? Temperature will effect density and pressure every time, but not vice versa.
https://s3.studylib.net/store/data/008123725_1-95bab3c7dbbb6e74f5022e1db68ee409.png
“It’s all about gravity”
Nope. Gravity wants to compress everything into the tiniest space so that moves. T~mv^2. Gravity wants T=0.
Gravity doesn’t cause T rise, UNLESS it “pops” molecules and releases their internal energy (like striking an atom bomb).
* so that nothing moves
You guys are so helpful I really want to say thank you for putting up with me. Joseph you do an outstanding job and you have a fantastic support group and I’d imagine a very understanding wife.
I do wish more scientists would openly support you. You are the Donal trump of climate, trying to drain the swamp, not of the climate alarmists but the gatekeepers who prevent rationale discussion on the subject of climate.
Cheers 🙂
Zoe. I’m simply following the rules of the equation and the logical steps of the initial conditions. I believe Hans Jelbring has a paper coming to the same conclusion with more technical jargon.
Let me organise the argument in steps and you can tell me where my error is
1) Gravity dictates a pressure gradient must exist in a planetary atmosphere
2) Gravity dictates a density gradient must exist in a planetary atmosphere
3) the ideal gas law dictates that the equation must balance
4) If density and pressure vary in a system independently of temperature then temperature must be changed by them to keep the equation balanced.
I have no idea what gravity “wants to do”. What it does do is increase compression of the space in between matter with increasing accumulation of matter. Two molecules with equal energy moving about in different volumes will have different affects on measured temperature.
wwf,
How does a molecule move when its compressed with other molecules? It doesn’t, in the extreme case. So v=0, and obviously T=0. Why compacting molecules would cause molecules to move faster seems wrong to me. But faster moving molecules will tend to cause expansion (outward pressure). The process is not reversible.
Aside: this is great!
And this:
Reminds me of The Pixies. Good memories.
Meteor time.
Zoe
“How does a molecule move when its compressed with other molecules? It doesn’t, in the extreme case. So v=0, and obviously T=0. Why compacting molecules would cause molecules to move faster seems wrong to me. But faster moving molecules will tend to cause expansion (outward pressure). The process is not reversible.”
Why wouldn’t a molecule move when compressed? Energy isn’t created or destroyed. And in this context energy can simply be defined as the motion of matter within any given volume. V=0 is not a physical concept. For matter to exist it must have three dimensional space to exist in.
I don’t know why the concept of compacting molecules making them move faster seems wrong to you. It happens every time you pump up a bicycle tyre. The difference is that when done with a tyre it creates a state of temporary energy imbalance which returns to equilibrium over time. But in a gravitational field equilibrium is a gradient of all three variables in the gas law. Because we have established that pressure is a function entirely defined by gravity acting upon mass. We have established that density must also increase with depth inside a planet. So temperature must therefore be changed with them.
I deliberately chose a hypothetical planet in deep space for the example, because if formed by accretion of matter, then all molecules that make up the matter will have the minimum energy (motion) possible. Temperature is simply a measurement of total kinetic energy within a given volume. Put more molecules within any given volume without changing the energy they each contain and you increase the total kinetic energy and temperature within that volume. In a bicycle tyre it is temporary when you pump it up. With gravity, I argue, it is permanent, for the reasons stated above.
I also argue this because a gradient of pressure, density and temperature is what has been observed in every Star, planet and moon humans have examined so far.
@WWF
Having fun ?
@ wickedwenchfan
Pumping the bicycle tire is a great example.
If you make a few holes in the tire and keep pumping so the pressure stays the same at an higher compressed level it is a simulation of auto compression.
The pumping simulates the input energy from the sun, and the holes in the tire simulate the energy out to space.
The air inside the tire is constantly compressed and decompressed, and stays warmer than the input air before compression.
Pierre hahaha
wwf,
v=0 is VELOCITY equals zero.
Temperature is a function of mass and velocity.
How fast can your car move when gravity surrounds you with other cars, like in a parking lot or a traffic jam?
Why do you pretend velocity is conserved when you give an object no room to move?
Conservation of energy is not conservation of kinetic energy.
What do you think absolute zero is?
If kinetic energy was conserved, we’d have no need for temperature – something that measures its variability.
Without Solar or Geo thermal input, gravity would destroy our atmosphere.
It’s because of input energy, that we can overcome gravity and have an atmosphere. Sure, gravity works upon the atmosphere, but without energy input, gravity would complete its work – crush everything to immobility, leaving itself with no work to do.
Kinetic energy (temperature) causes expansion.
Gravity causes contraction.
To claim gravity creates thermal energy which leads to its own undoing (i.e. anti-gravity) seems strange to me.
Zoe you ever thought of going for an undergrad in physics or astronomy? You’d like it!
So I’m been pounding you guys about CO2 so I can create a short, iron clad rebuttal. Down below is what I came up with and it worked like a charm. The troll I gave it to (as a test unknown to him) tried to manipulate the answer and I just kept referring back to the source data in all of my replies, he gave up.
1. CO2 does not trap heat, it is constantly being warmed by new radiation leaving the surface or created by molecular collision/kinetic energy. IR radiation leaves the surface to outer space in less than a millisecond. CO2 may intercept and scatter that, even if scattered a few times, it is happening at the speed of light and always ends on the way out to space.
2. CO2 does not increase temperature. So let’s cover, “scattered back to the surface”, the 15/18/22 microns effective temperature is around 255 Kelvin (-18 Celsius) what do you think a 1 in 2500 chance of a reflection is going to do to the surface of the planet? Nothing, If it absorbs at the 15/18/22 micron range its not emitting at that range, it has lowered its frequency to scatter in all directions. That energy absorbed and re-radiated does not increase surface temperature.
3. CO2’s specific heat capacity: CO2 absorbs energy like all gas in the atmosphere, but because of it’s molar mass, or the Specific Heat Capacity of CO2, requires more energy to raise/maintain its temperature than the average air around it. 2500-1 ratio and all major gases will warm up faster than CO2 as well as most other trace gases.
Now obviously I need a few source references below each part to drive it home. I want to et al the al out of it. Any suggestions or minor corrections needed?
Joseph,
For some reason I picture Zoe in quantum mechanics.
Joseph,
No. I hate school.
I had to unlearn all the junk I was taught in economics, so I could work in the real world – where I prefer.
Once you master something, you have the confidence to learn on your own.
Changing lane… Don’t know if they did some reverse engeneering but it even works on Triton…
Body P (kPa) M (gm/mol) ρ (kg/m^3) T = PM/Rρ NASA T(K)
Triton 0,004 28,00 0,000345 39,0 39
/ without energy input, gravity would complete its work – crush everything to immobility, leaving itself with no work to do. /
Looking up on the page I remember having said something like that of the Sun and Earth. So, I’m in the clear now !
@CDM
Number 1) https://nov79.com/gbwm/emit.html
The guy does not know that air does not radiate, but don’t tell, your not at confession. All other sites
are greenhouse gas orriented so no counter points there.
Number 2 Not sure your bands are oK. 12, 15 and 18 micron seem odd. Tell me more.
Number 3 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/heatcap.html
Zoe, your thought here seems so wrong:
How does a molecule move when its compressed with other molecules? It doesn’t, in the extreme case. So v=0, and obviously T=0. Why compacting molecules would cause molecules to move faster seems wrong to me. But faster moving molecules will tend to cause expansion (outward pressure). The process is not reversible.
Realize how much space is between molecules — lots and lots. So, compressing a bunch of molecules reduces the space between them, which means they travel faster with the given energy, because they have less room to move.
The pressure that compresses the molecules is sufficient to contain the molecules at that pressure. That’s what compression means. The resulting faster moving molecules cannot expand, because the pressure that compresses them in the first place is what holds them in the compressed position to move faster.
Robert,
Decreasing space between objects does not increase objects’ velocity. See Traffic Jam.
“travel faster with the given energy”
Impossible. E ~ v^2.
“travel faster … because they have less room to move.”
Society puts criminals in jail so they move slower, as they have a tendency to flee fast. I haven’t found evidence that suggests they move faster in a confined space.
Zoe for God’s sake…
What Robert said.
Also Zoe you say that input energy stops gravity crushing everything to immobility. The thing is, there is ALWAYS input energy. I put our hypothetical planet in deep space to eradicate day/night, equator/poles and to keep energy constant at an absolute minimum. That way we can ensure the molecules are in equilibrium and can’t heat or cool one another. But energy isn’t absent. It’s not zero. There is a constant, uniform supply from the stars. So gravity can never “complete its work”. The energy contained in the motion of the molecules can’t go anywhere other than bounce around within the volume it is constrained in.
@ Pierre. I’m having lots of fun. I’m currently banned from Fartbook, so this is my last refuge for arguing the toss with people! 😁
Molecules are like criminals in prison, brings back memories of “the atmosphere is like a blanket/greenhouse”.
Pierre,
I have no idea why I put 15/18/22 down wasn’t even thinking about it. It’s 15/4.3/2.7 I have no idea what the 15-18-22 is stuck in my brain. Sounds like an old locker number from my high school days…actually it is an old locker number from my high school days, how weird is that?
@CDM
From https://i.stack.imgur.com/9lmT8.jpg
The absorption bands have the same frequency as the natural chemical bond vibrations. They absorb and emit at the same frequency. A signer signing at the same frequency as the natural vibration frequency of a glass will have the glass vibrating and if loud enough will have it break.
A wind blowing at the right frequency will have a bridge vibrate and if hard enough will have the bridge break.
Where does it say that, once started, if the signer or the wind stops before the break that the break will happen anyway ? Where does it say that the glass or the bridge has to keep on vibrating for 7 days before stopping. The glass and the bridge will stop vibrating and lose the energy fast depending on inertia.
The same is true for CO2. Gain fast, lose fast (in all directions)
@WWF
/ So gravity can never “complete its work”. /
Right. Even if the Sun died and the Earth’s core cooled down to 4K (not fun for us), the Earth would crumble under it’s own weight until an equilibrium would be reached where compaction is equilibrated by the atoms not willing to be compacted anymore. If massive enough we’d have a black hole. The Earth is not massive enough for that.
Robert,
Decreasing space between objects does not increase objects’ velocity. See Traffic Jam.
Zoe, drive your car into a 200-meter-by-200-meter room at 60 kilometers per hour, crash into the wall, bounce off that wall, crash into other walls — you’ve got 4000 square meters to crash around in your 60-km/hour car. Your car, after the first crash, has space to slow down — it has space to loose energy after each collision.
Now drive your 60-km/hour car into a 50-meter-by-50-meter room. All that energy now has less room to dissipate, and so the speed between each wall collision is going to be FASTER than the speed in the 200 x 200 room. This is what I meant by FASTER.
A traffic jam actually slows down the cars. A compressed gas is not a traffic jam. Rather, it is YOU driving like a wild ass in a small room. (^_^)
JP,
Care to comment on this gem from Roy Spencer?
A lid reduces the warming water’s ability to cool, so the water temperature goes up (for the same rate of energy input) compared to if no lid was present. As a result, a lower flame is necessary to maintain the same water temperature as the pot without a lid. The lid is analogous to Earth’s greenhouse effect, which reduces the ability of the Earth’s surface to cool to outer space.
Convection confusion fallacy, right? — confusing the convection mechanism with the radiation mechanism?
False analogy, of course. Indeed as you say. That’s their tack of exchanging the real effect in a real greenhouse with their alternative fake effect which works differently…but then pretending it’s the same thing “by analogy”. I hate these people.
Correcting my English in my comment to Zoe, speed would be greater, not “faster”. The rebounding car would be rebounding at a faster rate, but the speed of the rebounds would be greater.
In other words, it is not grammatically/compostionally correct to say that a speed is faster. A speed is greater. You move faster because of a greater speed, however.
“A lid reduces the warming water’s ability to cool, so the water temperature goes up (for the same rate of energy input) compared to if no lid was present. As a result, a lower flame is necessary to maintain the same water temperature as the pot without a lid. The lid is analogous to Earth’s greenhouse effect, which reduces the ability of the Earth’s surface to cool to outer space.”
The basic premise “”A lid reduces the warming water’s ability to cool” is correct. A pressure cooker or a power station boiler demonstrate even more power of the input energy.
But it isn’t radiation causing this effect as Spencer always likes to assert – it is simply not wasting a significant portion of the energy input by allowing convection and evaporation to just waste it.
Anyone who believes radiative cooling dominates in our atmosphere should prove this hypothesis by draining all of the coolant from their vehicles cooling systems. The misnamed automotive radiator is really a convector with the hat of the ngine transferred to the air by water to the fins of the “radiator” where the heat is removed by heating the air – radiation has bugger all to do with as any air fin cooled motorbike mechanic will tell you.
Put a radiative heater in your back yard and its useless, bring it inside and it works better, put it in a cardboard box and check your fire insurance.
Roy Spencer is retarded, not full retarded like the alarmists, but still retarded
Haha
Never go full Spencer!
This is a laugh…incase you missed it:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/13/british-army-to-abandon-fossil-fuels-commit-green-suicide/
Excellent video end analogy. Thanks.
In addition you can use your own figure 11 in your document ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect,’ as a parallel to the car performance.
Click to access Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
What is the matter with guys like Spencer and his likes. After Nikolov & Zeller, Connolly, and Holmes dont they get it that it’s game, Match, Set ? Are they so dissonent ?.
I have pondered long on that question Pierre. I’ve been doing this for 8 years with them…asking them why they think the results from flat earth theory are valid?
We are in a war, not a discussion.
As long as employers pay people who promote the greenhouse-effect myth, the myth will persist indefinitely. Not until a connection is made between the integrity and employment will the myth die.
When people can no longer make a living with this idea as part of their outlook, then it’ll go bye bye.
I don’t see this happening in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Time for some real science. I’ve been looking at the Connolly setup with their green water tank. They are trying to prove the existence of a mechanism for energy transmission they call pervection. I’m having an existential crisis here. If I blow a balloon and let it go, doesn’t it take time for that balloon to deflate going all over the place ? Isn’t the cause restriction in the small exhaust opening. Isn’t their experiment just the same ? A 100m long tube needs time to relieve the excess pressure in one of the cylinders. Isn’t it just restriction ?
Joseph so true we are in another cold war. In the words of Ottmar Edenhofer (United Nations climate official).
“This will change immediately if emission rights are distributed globally. If that happens per capita, then Africa is the big winner, and a lot of money is flowing there. This has enormous consequences for development policy. And there will also be the question of how these countries can deal with so much money in a meaningful way.”
They are paying Africa to remain third world in industry. The rich will benefit like Nigeria (I think) who live like Kings and the “population” of Africa live in huts struggling for clean water and food.
“Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy apart from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the biggest business conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we still have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we’re only allowed to deposit 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 – there is no way around that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.”
It’s not about the fossil fuels it’s about keeping third world countries from evolving, population control.
“First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.”
A distribution of world resources under the guise of not “raising the Earth’s temperature by 2 more degrees”.
Eve though from the MWP to the mini ice age was a 5 degree change.
It’s Kenya living like Kings not Nigeria. As I said my brother has been to many parts of Africa many times.
@ Pierre. D. Bernier
What the balloon data suggests is that when there is extra temperature/pressure in an atmospheric layer that some other layers react to that by changing the compression. Atmospheric layers constantly go higher or lower to adjust and restore the pressure equilibrium in the whole vertical column.
The counter balancing can skip a few layers, so it is not a direct domino effect.
The result is an effective transportation of energy through the atmosphere without moving the air, or radiating.
…that is my 2 cents of understanding the principle
Not really, Pierre, because they can still claim CO2 modifies P,D,&T in the ideal gas law. When their attention is brought to cloud cover/albedo changes, they claim CO2 did it too. There is nothing that affirming-the-consequent logical fallacy can’t cover.
“We are in a war, not a discussion”
So true.
In a democracy, you only need to convince 51%, and lying is covered by freedom of speech.
From Connelly
/ However, the air was moving far too slowly for the energy to reach the cylinder on the right by the air being physically moved from one cylinder to the other. /
Since when air has to move from one place to an other to create pressure equilibrium in a closed system ?
And… / When we calculated the maximum speed the air could have been moving through the 100m tube, it turned out that it would take more than an hour for the energy to be transmitted by convection. Since the energy transmission took less than 19 seconds, it wasn’t by convection!
That leaves pervection.
No ! Yet again, Pressure equilibrium in a freely unobtructed closed system is instantaneous. If I use a 1 m 1 inches ID instead of a 100m 4mm ID, it will be mush faster.
Am I missing something here or did they just shoot themselves in the foot with this?
@ CD Marshall
The goal is redistributing wealth to carbon credit traders like Al Gore. Al Gore and friends have made deals with by example windfarms or hydro plants to buy carbon credits cheaply.
Next step is lobbying for a carbon tax in countries/states. That will create a demand for carbon credits, so the price goes up. (with carbon credits companies can reduce their co2 output on paper, so no carbon tax has to be payed)
Next step is lobbying for higher carbon taxes, so the maximum price of the credits go up.
Al Gore and friends are expected to make trillions Dollars personal profits with this racketering.
Next step according to the UN plans is water credits, and tree credits, and credits for other eco systems
OOPPPSS
Posts are coming out ok but not in a timely fashion.
I said / Since when air has to move from one place to an other to create pressure equilibrium in a closed system ? /
Head spins too fast and fingers type too fast. Meant…Since when air does not have to move from one place to an other to create pressure equilibrium in a closed system ?
Connolly experiment does not prove pervection, only slow convection.
What about diffusion? Account for that?
Well the simple goal is global socialism everything else falls under that perview: Tax, population control, a re-established class system:Nobility who inherits the wealth and power and everyone else irregardless of higher, middle or lower class are at the whims of the modern political hierarchy. No one will ever have the chance to gain wealth or power without the consent of the ruling class.
The only real struggle like Catholicism in its prime, is who will be the climate Pope over them all.
@Joe
From Wiki… Diffusion is net movement of anything (e.g., atom, ions, molecules) from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration. Diffusion is driven by a gradient in concentration.
To me that is flow. There is a minimum of flow to create equilibrium. The flow might stop at 5 m into the 100 m long tube but it is still flow. So, there is flow or there is something I dont get. If I dont get it then so be it.
Has anyone ever achieved absolute zero? Or is it theoretically impossible to stop molecular motion? Is that basically the opposite position of perpetual motion?
@Joe
From Connelly… / In our experiment we connected two graduated cylinders with a narrow air tube that was roughly 100m long. /
So the 2 cylinders are connected together.
/ We then placed the two cylinders upside down in water (which we had coloured green to make it easier to see). We also put a second air tube into the graduated cylinder on the left, and we used this tube to suck some of the air out of the cylinders. This raised the water levels to the heights shown in Figure 25. /
So the cylinders are really connected together and air can be sucked out from cylinder 2 by way of cylinder 1. Key word… cylinders (plural). So there is free passage between the 2.
/ Then we connected the second tube to a syringe. /
Looks to me that since free flow between the cylinders is possible then they can’t prove pervection. To me it can be convection. I love the rest of their experiment though. The density fits and especially the polymer theory.
I said in a nutshell, CO2 may intercept IR and scatter that, even if scattered a few times, it is happening at the speed of light and always ends on the way out to space.If it absorbs at the 15/4.3/2.7 micron range its not emitting at that range, it has lowered its frequency to scatter in all directions. That energy absorbed and re-radiated does not increase surface temperature. CO2 absorbs energy like all gas in the atmosphere, but because of it’s molar mass, or the Specific Heat Capacity of CO2, requires more energy to raise/maintain its temperature than the average air around it. 2500-1 ratio and all major gases will warm up faster than CO2 as well as most other trace gases.
This is why we get nowhere on the ghe. After thoroughly explaining to this troll how this is impossible by way of CO2 and explaining in detail how CO2 works in the atmosphere he ignores all of that and spouts an automated response:
” CO2 absorbs radiation of specific wavelengths and re-emits this radiation in all directions. As there are more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere these will intercept and scatter the radiation even more so….behold the greenhouse effect. Because CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface can less easily escape this atmosphere…thus increasing the temperature by retaining more radiation in the atmosphere…”
I agree with Joseph, they are not human. The brain is on autopilot. A zombie would have better critical thinking skills than this.
@CDM
Like my 10th or 11th grade chemistry teacher said one day. If you invent the solvent that will dissolve everything and anything, where will you store it ? Same for absolute zero I think. May be for minuscule quantity in minuscule environment in extraordinary conditions. Other then that, theoretical.
Pierre,
Hilarious. However your chemistry teacher had a good point. What use would absolute zero be and imagine the cost of maintaining it.
MP,
Yes, the plan is to monetize every gas in the atmosphere. We “have to” stabilize every gas, so every use and emission can be charged with the proceeds going to schemers. The schemers are of course saving the world from any change, especially beneficial ones. Cool trick. All the earth’s chemicals belong to them for “your” benefit.