Categories
-
Join 545 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Robert Kernodle on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- justgivemeall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- justgivemeall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
Watch “Global Warming – What is the Truth? Interview with Astrophysicist Joseph Postma” on YouTube
This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.
Climate of Sophistry 
Great paper!
Interesting video I see you two had fun.
So reading all of your posts and comments around I thought I had heard every version of political climate change out there, but once in while a new version pops up. This one states that the ideal gas law supports global warming for as CO2 increases, the atmospheric pressure increases the temperature. I’m not that well versed in “atmospheric pressure equilibrium” but I know that it exists. Again sounds like a teacher is mixing a student up on the laws of physics. Not sure if they used Venus as an example again, but I’m sure it will be in there somewhere.
Now I know the total mass of the atmosphere is overwhelming compared to the minuscule contribution of CO2. The amount of CO2 required to make temps go up (or increase atmospheric pressure) would probably kill us first being as 12,000 ppm is the ideal max thought feasible to ever put in the atmosphere if we burned all fossil fuels at the same time and depleted it completely.
Read Nikolov and Zeller:
Click to access New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
CD,
Just intuitively, any pressure increase from CO2 additions to Earth’s atmosphere would seem to be unnoticeable, if existent at all.
The process of creating CO2 uses oxygen, so seemingly O2 would simply be replaced by CO2 and the total number of molecules in the atmosphere would not increase, where pressure is dependent on number of molecules, I think.
In short, total craptology.
I think Robert Homes actually did the calculation for the change in CO2 concentration for Earth via the ideal gas laws. The result was a cooling of the atmosphere by 0.02C because although the pressure rose with the extra mass the molecular density parameter with the change in atmospheric composition ratio counter acted it.
The Connolly’s research into weather balloon data also showed density was the most important variable to correlate with temperature and explains the stratosphere as well as the troposphere.
Joseph, very few people know the primary reason why propellers were put on airplanes. it is actually to keep the pilots cool. You can prove it by watching the pilot if the propeller ever stops turning in flight…he will become very hot and sweaty.
Thank you both now that you mention it I do recall seeing a comment on one the post’s here about that. Does anyone have a link for Connolly’s work? Don’t go out of your way but if its handy I’d appreciate it.
So my Ideal gas law guy is back his latest post:
“1.Let’s use Ideal Gas Law
PV=nRT
Earth 100% CO2
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/44) =437.63 K (result in absolute temperature)
437.63K – 273.15=163.85 °C (conversion to Celsius)
163.85 x 0.04%=0.06°C (now equal content)
0.06°C
More CO2=more warming”
These people are so insane that they have to STILL cling on to a negligible degree of warming of 0.06C lol! Literally retarded.
Good one TEWS.
CD, here’s the Connolly work:
Click to access July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-format.pdf
He’s fixated on the Ideal Gas Law, it’s like the one thing he clings to and forfeits all other reasoning. Again another post:
“Overall: i see the Ideal Gas Law is explaining everything with CO2 partial pressure effect worth 0.06°C. Water vapour has no measurable effect because is is liquid as drops, so with very difficult to model. The only thing that is changed by it is albedo.”
Robert,
Thank you.
So this is yet another version of their greenhouse effect then? lol
CDM
/ More CO2=more warming” /
GREAT ! He’s just proven that the heating would be due to physical characteristics of the atmosphere and not back radiation. How nice of him !
Pressure and density would change in a 100% CO2 atmosphere. He did not change any of the variables. Any idiocies will do for them.
Is his math right though, would it be 0.06C? I can’t imagine our atmospheric layers remain a constant fixed pressure. Seems a bit high of an increase from 0.04.
NOTHING that these people do is ever right…
I like learning so I use these opportunities to broaden my understanding. He has a good angle if they had used this approach in the first place it may have slipped over better. Just no evidence our atmosphere is increasing in pressure or if it were (and it’s not) that CO2 would be the cause.
For now I just replied,
“Have you heard of the ISA? (International Standard Atmosphere) it hasn’t changed much in many decades. The standard sea level pressure/temperature is 29.92 in. (1,013.25 mb) and 59°F (15°C).
The “physics” used to disprove CO2 warming is not new, it’s very old. The laws of thermodynamics to disprove the warming by CO2 is also very old.
CDM
The molar mass of CO2 is 12.01 g/mol + 2 * 16 g/mol = 44.01 g/mol
At S.T.P, one mol of CO2 occupies 22.4 L = 22400 cm3
So, the density of CO2 at S.T.P is = 44.01 g / 22400 cm3 = 0.001965 g/cm3
Or 1.965 kg/m3
So, for Earth 100% CO2
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.965 / 44) = 272.9 K (result in absolute temperature)
272.9 K – 273.2 = -0.3 °C (conversion to Celsius)
More CO2=more cooling
GEEZ LOUISE ! ! ! STILL NO FCKNN GHE ! ! !
Pierre,
He is trying to claim warming without the GHE. That’s why he’s focused on the Ideal gas Law it’s no different than saying geothermal is the cause. Same climate snake, different skin. In this case CO2 is still the cause.
CDM
Look at the calculations above. 0C instead of the 15C. NO WARMING even with 100% CO2. Just push it in his face. CO2 is causing COOLING !
0.06°C is an artifact of a calculation that has no meaning in the physical world, where that sort of temperature measurement for the surface is probably outside the calibration error of temperature-measuring instruments. Now figure in other sorts of errors, and show me somebody who can make a temp measurement of the ENTIRE Earth, where two decimal places to the right of zero has any physical meaning at all — it does NOT, as I see it.
When desired theory overrides the scientific verification process, you get idiots who know some science, not scientists who know you’re the idiot.
So I found my way “in” to one of Joseph’s videos, he mentioned the S-B Law used in his calculations so I sent him to “Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics” for a lesson on how to properly use that. Either way my work here is done.
If the lad has one ounce on sincerity he’ll ask the right questions and if not another log for the fire.
Pierre,
Sorry bad eye sight!!!! I didn’t even see the corrected math you did on his calculations.
So a left field question are black holes a perfect black body or is that a different phenomenon? Is dark matter considered an absolute black body? Would that mean it is theoretically absolute zero?
IF it is absolute zero that would be evidence absolute zero can indeed be achieved in nature. Right?
Technically nothing visible is a perfect black body?
Back to PV=nRT guy he has now shown the head of the climate snake as they always do: Uroboros.
“Proper calculation is from the volume and partial pressure:
PV=nRT
Earth 100% CO2
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/44) =437.63 K (result in absolute temperature) 437.63K – 273.15=163.85 °C (conversion to Celsius)
163.85°C x 0.04%=0.06°C (now equal content)
0.06°C
If we double the CO2: 163.85°C x 0.08% = 0.1 °C
To confirm the results we need more ways:
://youtu.be/jr3NCCEf58A?t=1737
0.06°C (Meteorologist Chuck Wiese)
://youtu.be/poi8YLUIgVs?t=1727
0.06°C (Fred Goldberg)
———————————————
Let’s see we can use Solar irradiance:
Look: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
There are only two wavelengths where CO2 acts as a GHG (around 4 microns and 15 microns) and they are quite narrow, and represent less than 5 percent of the total spectral range of earth’s natural radiative heat to space.
Now equal concentration to define the energy density:
Water vapor concentration: 10 000 ppm (average) or 1%
Carbon dioxide concentration: ~400 ppm (average) or 0.04%
10 000/400 = 25 or 1/25 ~0.05
0.05 x 5% = 0.002
We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.
33°C x 0.002 = 0.06°C
total influence of Carbon Dioxide is 0.06°C.”
Ok. Here’s my full picture ! STP stands for Standard Temperature and Pressure. It is defined as 0C (273.15K) and 101.3 kPa. With that in mind, the volume occupied by 1 mole of gas at STP is…
V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 273.15K / 101.3 = 22.42 L
The molar weight of our atmosphere is 28.97 gm/mol. So, the density of our atmosphere at 0C is…
ρ = 28.97 / 22.42 = 1.292 kg/m3.
Putting that in Holmes gas equation gives…
T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 28.97 / (8.3145 * 1.292) = 273.19 K = 0.04 C
Small wonder !!! I put in 0 C and get back 0 C !!!
OK. Let’s go for the Engineering tool box temperature of 15C at sea level.
V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 288.15K / 101.3 = 23.65 L
ρ = 28.97 / 23.65 = 1.225 kg/m3.
Here it is, Holmes’ density of 1,225 kg/m3.
T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 28.97 / (8.3145 * 1.225) = 288.13 K = 14.98 C
Yet another wonder !!!
OK. Let’s go for Earth 100% CO2 at 15C.
V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 288.15K / 101.3 = 23.65 L
ρ = 44.01 / 23.65 = 1.861 kg/m3.
T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 44.01 / (8.3145 * 1.861) = 288.12 K = 14.97 C
Look at that… 15 = 15 !!!
Earth’s temperature with atmosphere 100% CO2 wont change at constant pressure of 101.3 kPa. No GHGE !
Joe !
Question ! My blind spot here. Where will 101.3 kPa be relative to sea level with composition change ? Higher, lower or same ? A small rock (N2) or a big rock (CO2) fall with the same acceleration !?!?.I’m getting too old !
Why are people speculating about an Earth with 100% CO2? Why not speculate about a unicorn with the color pink as its primary attribute? Why do we defer to mythological thought experiments to try confirming what is right before our eyes? It all seems like another sophistic diversion to me — a mind game to keep the religion in play.
Entertaining sophistic mythological thought experiments is giving too much consideration to people (people?) thinking them up. Steel greenhouses, 100% CO2 Earth atmospheres, electric circuits, or whatever analogy du jour might arise, … don’t entertain them. Deal with the facts.
I was thinking of a good analogy that might appeal to farmers, called the “milk bucket effect”, which involves the concept of “back milking” to describe the phenomenon of how milk from the cow’s utters accumulates at a greater rate than it otherwise would without the effect.
The key to his deceptions is snuck in around his math:
“We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.”
After he had just stated that PV=nRT correlates temperatures in his previous posts. now we are back tot he GHE. Smoke and mirrors.
These people…
Robert, the “MBE”–what an ingenious analogy!
And all the add-ons like “We need to outlaw milk buckets. Otherwise all the cows will explode!”
Funny you should focus on this line:
“We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.”
… because my reaction, upon reading it, was NO, WE DO NOT !
Smoke and mirrors and going in circles.
This is what I said:
“The atmosphere creating it’s own increased temperature, really? What thermodynamics class did you learn that from?
Oh I know they teach it but that +33 degrees is already accounted for in the Sun’s surface irradiation. The atmosphere does not create it’s own temperature.
The average surface temperature certainly is 15C but the average solar irradiance shouldn’t be divided by 4 for incoming solar energy. That is the political version of science for whatever reason.
Pure nonsense:
I know I’ve heard all the excuses as to why. However outgoing radiation is 240 W/m^2 becasue it is a global average divided by 4 in a 24 hour period (still not quite accurate but close enough). The effective blackbody as seen from space is -18C. Incoming solar irradiance is not global, is it? Therefore it should only be divided by 2 and by doing that your missing +33 degrees is present and accounted for.
If you had watched that video you’d know that.
You can read it here:
Click to access lars-asks.pdf
In any case your questions have been answered.
Namaste.
Interesting video Joe. So much to think about.
On your ideas of Illuminati, with at one end chaos and 0 the other, I prefer a Smith Chart for a view of reality (probably due to my training).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Smith_chart_gen.svg/600px-
Smith_chart_gen.svg.png from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_chart).
At the right side there is infinity (emotionalism, madness and chaos) and at the left is zero, in the center is 1 — where our true reality resides. Above and below are the imaginary domains (+j and -j) where through thought we amble as we try to get to reality (1 or the center), or away from it.
Currently with ‘climate science’ it is close to infinity (emotionalism) and dancing wildly from imaginary +j to -j.
Have a good day
TM.
Cheers TM.
Oops, plot of the chart failed, so lets try this one but it’s BIG!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Smith_chart_gen.svg
You all may be interested to read “Scientists: Climate Records ‘Correlate Well’ With Solar Modulation…” at https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/11/scientists-climate-records-correlate-well-with-solar-modulation-a-grand-solar-minimum-expected-by-2030/
Geran,
Thanks to your excellent photon example you shared for us I was able to knock out three of Potholer’s trolls one after the other.
The final frustrated response I received was:
“Go away anyone reading this thread knows who provided the peer reviewed papers and who didn’t. as stated ,the same place as Dentists Doctors Architects Engineers Lawyers Chemists (People in my life , Hydrologist,Teacher. Robotics, R N Nurse.}
ALL learned from.Universities. built off the peer reviewed system !! Take Care !!”
Haha!
[“ALL learned from.Universities. built off the peer reviewed system !!”]
This, of course, assumes that the peer reviewed system has sustained its integrity, which I have been led to believe that it has NOT, and THAT’s the problem — the assumption that the peer reviewed system has integrity is open to challenge. Hence, the products of the peer reviewed system are open to challenge.
Thanks CD. Glad it helped.
But another mistake your adversary makes, in mentioning “Dentists, Doctors, Architects, Engineers, Lawyers, and Chemists”, is that all those professions have to get it right. They don’t get to change established laws of physics and science to match their beliefs. They don’t get to live off computer models. They have to GET IT RIGHT.
Climate clowns only have to work to keep the hoax going so the funding continues to roll in.
And speaking of climate clowns, what infamous “University PhD” stated the following:
“My blog post simply points out that less infrared energy escaping from the Earth to space leads to net energy accumulation, and a temperature increase.”
“As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface…”
“To answer your question, more CO2 does not, strictly speaking, ‘add heat energy to the system’, it instead reduces the rate of energy loss. EITHER ONE INCREASES TEMPERATURE.”
“But while I am in general supportive of questioning even our most cherished and long-held scientific beliefs, I do not yet see a reason for abandoning the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.”
All direct quotes. Charlatan extraordinaire!
This I think was my favorite troll comment after going through geran’s thorough explanation of the insignificant power of an IR photon at 15 microns, how many would equal a joule, how many joules it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 Celsius THIS was his reply:
“Very interesting, but can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 can’t drive temperature?”
These people are deranged, ignorant, stupid and corrupt. They are really like the walking dead. Brain dead zombies. Automatons programmed but without natural thinking capacity or apparently self awareness.
[““Very interesting, but can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 can’t drive temperature?”]
The most appropriate reply to this question would be:
Can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 CAN drive temperature?
Of course, he could not, because most climate “science” … “studies” … do not analyze from this point of view.
Found this…in agreement that 480W/sqm incoming needs to be used for any calculation of real heating.
“A rough estimate of the irradiation incident per unit area (H) of the Earth’s surface can be made if we assume that 30% of the Sun’s energy is lost in the atmosphere and that the a day is an average of 12 hours long at any location.
H=0.7\times 684\times 12 = 5.75~kWh/day
Or if we assume that the Sun is only at an appreciable strength for an average 6 hours in the day (as is likely in more northerly latitudes):
H=0.7\times 684\times 6 = 2.88~kWh/day”
from:
https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/
Pablo, your link is mostly correct, but just so there is no confusion:
Most people agree that 30% is reflected back to space. It is NOT “lost in the atmosphere”. The 30% is not part of Earth’s energy balance.
And although it is clearly stated, “…irradiation incident per unit area…”, the units for area were left off.
“5.75~kWh/day” >>> should be 5.75 kWh/m^2/day
“2.88~kWh/day” >>> should be 2.88 kWh/m^2/day
Almost any attempt to simplify the solar impact on Earth is better than the failed example from pseudoscience. However, I believe the best illustration was done by Postma, years ago.
geran, that got my attention too, but maybe they are onto something regarding the separation between diffuse and direct radiation to the surface. They do mention the /sqmetre in the chart…
“Figure 2.10 shows the yearly profile of mean solar radiation for different locations around the world. The solid grey line show the value of 5.75 kWh/day and the dashed grey line shows 2.88 kWh/day.”
It seems that water vapour changes half the power of direct sun to the surface in the tropics to a more diffuse form which plants actually prefer.
I have noticed even in “actual readings” of specific area solar irradiation they average it to 24hrs which makes no logical sense to me at all (now). Why are they taking real records and spreading over an entire day and claiming that is the average? I saw that both in the Stockholm readings and the Potsdam, Germany readings. Instead of it being around 120 W/m^2 it should be double that during daylight hours only.
How can this tiny math error be so prevalent over the entire world and no one has ever said, “Hey I want the actual reading of real solar irradiance on the surface…???”
I could see doing an average of surface irradiation in 24 hours but that would have to be allocated by the trajectory of the Sun not just the region. For example what is the average solar irradiance in 24hrs around the entire equator. That would be a reasonable average becasue you are following the sunlight to the surface, not regional sunlight average.
IF that comment above made any actual sense to a real scientist?
Joseph, I had time this morning to go back and look at some of your previous posts, many of which I had missed. I found this:
You shared several emails from “Monckton of Brenchly”. He attacked you for not accepting the GHE pseudoscience. His emails are quite revealing, and now preserved for everyone to see.
Thanks for all of your efforts, including all the unjustified abuse you must deal with. It’s nice to have “Climate Heroes” to counter the “Climate Clowns”.
Forgot about all that. Great article, glad I posted it!
Is 1 W/m^2 1 joule per second?
How do you convert that to temperature?
I have a feeling this is going to lead to homework…
Thanks as always.
1 joule per second per square meter. Use the Stefan Boltzmann Law to convert to temperature.
CD, since you have fun debating with Warmists, here’s a fun way to also learn the S/B equation:
A thin, blackbody plate is perfectly insulated on the back side, with the front side facing the sun. It is suspended in space so that it receives the solar constant, minus albedo, or 960 Watts/m^2.
The only way energy can enter or leave the plate is from the front side. So, at equilibrium it is emitting 960 Watts/m^2, to equal the 960 Watts/m^2 incoming. The S/B Law tells us that for the plate to emit 960 Watts/m^2, its temperature must satisfy:
960 = σT^4
or T = 361 K (87.6 ºC, 189.6 ºF)
So now you can rattle Warmists’ cages. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288 K. Tell them Earth’s “Refrigerator Effect” (RE) cools the surface by 361 – 288 = 73K!
They’ll like that….
*Sigh*
I’m talking to another “physicist” right now. We’ll see how this rolls. Our main subject wasn’t climate but I rolled it in to see where he’s coming from. Talking to you guys and how brilliant your unfettered science is I have my doubts about all these YT proclaimed “physicists”.
Then again even if he is a physicist he is still only as clever as his education.
You kinda have to realize that most of them are literally braindead…high IQ braindead…able to repeat what they’ve been shown but braindead…like a computer. They literally can’t understand that you can’t do good science with flat Earth theory- this is beyond them.
Yeah my brother talked to someone like that. He argued with my brother for 45 minutes on how ballistic forensics is fake, that’s its impossible to tell what barrel a bullet was fired from. So my brother (in detail) explained how a gun barrel was made, the temperatures, the lbs of pressure, the machines used, everything, He went in detail about how microfractures occur on the barrel and how 2 barrels could never be the same on a microscopic level.
His reply (and this is from a very intelligent person) “I just don’t believe it’s possible.”
Good grief.
“Yes. Explaining VENUS is easy. There inst a radiation greenhouse effect, firstly because the amount of light which reaches the surface is about 1 to 3%, meaning it doesn’t get there to warm it, so therefore its heat cant be as a result of back radiance from the light warming the ground, being warmed and then re-radiated. Secondly Venus is highly volcanic. Thirdly, Venus has an extremely thin crust which enables a high rate of heat transfer from the mantle below & to top it all off Venus has an air pressure of 90 Bar. On earth just walking into a greenhouse set to 2 bar air pressure will cause a big rise in temperature even just using air. These are the reasons why Venus is so hot.” -Geraint Hughes
Anything to add or is this pretty good as is? Geothermal does contribute to the temperature of that planet. How does the sulfuric acid fit in? Joseph you mentioned you might do a video on this?
“-The Glamorous Joseph of Postma-“
(^_^) … (^_^) … (^_^) … a priceless signature.
Great interview. Keep fighting the sophist.
CD
/ this is from a very intelligent person) “I just don’t believe it’s possible.” /
I worked 32 years as a chemist at the Montreal Provincial Forensics Lab. Tell the guy it’s not only possible, it is so !
Pierre,
I believe you but this fellow has emotional logic. What comes as no surprise is at one point he had hi level clearance in our government. Just more proof the world is ran by idiots.
This comment tells it all:
“My sister is married to a noaa scientist and he’s the biggest POS on the planet. He got a massive payoff about 15 years ago because all of a sudden they had a lot of money and bought a multi million dollar house … that guy would sell his mother for the right price so of course he lies about climate change. he’s also a really hateful backstabing person who no one in our family has ever liked and that was from ‘day one’… my sister was always sort of a bitch but after she went to college for 6 years she’s completly insane and a tryrant if there ever was one. It’s all quite sad really/about her anyway but so far she just keeps getting more insane. as for her husband he is evil to the core and bullies anyone he can. He hates our family because none of us will take an ounce of shit from him /thus meaning he has cut us off for the past 10 years … “oh darn” LOL … ‘good riddince to bad rubbish’ “
“Climatology is such a great profession, you can never be wrong about anything.” -Tony Heller.
CD
Dont worry about your sister. You’re not alone. Everyone has one like that. Even me. She reads Erich Von Daniken if that tells you anything. By curiosity, I read his book on alchemy when I was in university. It’s a real eye opener on how stupid and gulllible people can be. Anyways, I dont talk or see her anymore for at least 20 years now. She’s a waste basket know nothing case environmentalist. The kind of people that makes Albertans want seperation from Canada. Now, I feel better !!!
That wasn’t from me Pierre, it was a comment from someone else verifying the corruption of NOAA. However, I do have a sister I haven’t seen in so long it does fit in that category. Sometimes I forget she exists, it’s been 30 years since I seen her. I know nothing about her and yes that was her choice to separate from the family and have no contact. As long as she’s happy what do I care? For the record, I don’t think she’s ever been happy.
Family is great aren’t they?
… a philosophical diversion now:
What is the purpose of life? ANSWER: To die.
— Sir Kernodle of Earth
What’s the difference between a dead person and live person? Nothing, their molecular structure is exactly the same. -Joke from the Watchmen.
I have a bloated bs scientist here who is long winded or had it prepared before hand:
“CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, not the only one Chris. You saying: if the science is wrong, it is wrong is just as ridiculous as saying if you are wrong about what you are saying, you are wrong. If you want to know more about the radiative forcing effects on the climate, see below.
– Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth’s albedo – the planet’s surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
– Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.
– Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.
– Volcanoes send sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. A strong volcanic eruption can have a radiative forcing effect of up to -3 Wm-2. However, the effect of volcanic activity is transitory – over several years, the aerosols wash out of the atmosphere and any long term forcing is removed.
Aerosols have two effects on climate. They have a direct cooling effect by reflecting sunlight – this is calculated from observations to be -0.5 Wm-2. They also have an indirect effect by affecting the formation of clouds which in turn affect the Earth’s albedo. The trend in cloud cover is one of increasing albedo which means a cooling effect of -0.7 Wm-2.
– Stratospheric Water Vapour has increased due to oxidation of methane and had a slight warming effect of +0.07 Wm-2.
– Linear Contrails from aviation have a slight warming effect of +0.01 Wm-2.
– Nitrous Oxide reached a concentration of 319ppb in 2005. As a greenhouse gas, this contributes warming of +0.16 Wm-2.
– Halocarbons (eg – CFC’s) were used extensively in refrigeration and other industrial processes before they were found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. As a greenhouse gas, they cause warming of +0.337 Wm-2.
– Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Pre-industrial methane levels, determined from ice core measurements, were around 715 parts per billion (ppb). Currently methane rates are at 1774 ppb (eg – 1.774 parts per million). The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2.
– CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.
If you paid attention you would notice that CO2 has the largest radiative forcing effect with +1.66 Wm-2. If you still want to fight that CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, please show me scientific evidence to back up your claim. Show me the science, Chris. Where are your numbers?”
The bs express is full tilt on this one.
There is ZERO radiative forcing from CO2 – radiative forcing from CO2 is *impossible*, and the entire idea of radiative forcing from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface comes from the flat Earth models where sunlight is written *out* of the climate by averaging its input over the entire surface at once…thus requiring that the climate makes up the difference for itself by warming itself.
It is amazing that they cannot understand the logic of how that works!
This was my reply I hope I got it right. I did find it interesting that the is recording warmer temps in the upper troposphere. Where can I find TSI again? I had the link once and lost all my bookmarks. Actually I need ToA solar irradiance as well and solar cycles again.
Anyway this was my reply:
“The science is simple Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas and according to your logic temperatures with greater water vapor mixed with CO2 should be higher. They aren’t. Deserts are by far the hottest places on earth in direct sunlight . Period.
Same regional locations from desert to humid regions are far cooler from water vapor overwhelming any contribution of CO2.
Simply put no CO2 holds temps over deserts at night, ever.
last but not least, 15 microns, the peak absorption rate of CO2, is nothing. Convert that to meV equivalent tell me what you get? Do you know how many 15 micron photons-equivalent is needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 Celsius? It is phenomenal.
Nothing in the atmosphere increase the temperature. The temperature is created on the surface *from solar energy*. Andy and I have had this conversation before.
Emissivity or albedo is generating/reflecting from one source: solar energy.
Solar activity has not decreased in the last 30 years you are so full of political science you have become delirious.
The temperature gradient of the atmosphere has not changed in decades, your Bolsheviks analogy aside. Average surface temperature 288.15 Kelvin and the middle of the troposphere around 15,000 feet its 216.7 Kelvin and near the top, or the tropopause, it’s a tad warmer at 226.5 Kelvin according to the ISA. So CO2 is making the middle of the troposphere colder but the top warmer?
Of the 104 key location/region temps I use everyday, no more than 20 regions (10%) in the entire world is over 80F/26.6C and that doesn’t change. Most of the time it’s only 14 regions and of those regions few ever reach 90F/23.2C as of right now, only 2. In fact I haven’t seen 100+F temps since the summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
Finally, Conservation of Energy is equal in and out.
In=960 W/m^2
Sun only shines on half the globe so it is 480 W/m^2 divided by 2 and that accounts for all the solar energy you need to warm the climate.
Out=960 W/m^2. (240 watts per square meter divided by all the globe (4) is 240 W^2, or the effective black body temperature of -18 Celsius/255.15 Kelvin.)
Joseph,
Is this correct or did I muss up again? I hate redacting.
It’s fine I would think.
I am puzzled about the upper troposphere being recorded as warmer than the middle now by the ISA.
Anyone thanks for your time. I know genius never rests.
They just constantly lie and misinterpret. Don’t worry about it. They may be referring to the region above the troposphere where the temperature does weird stuff and does get hotter, but this is outside of the idea-gas range because the density of gas is so low. As long as you’re in the troposphere proper, it decreases in temperature with altitude, period (aside from temporary inversions ofc).
___________________________________________________________
“– CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.
If you paid attention you would notice that CO2 has the largest radiative forcing effect with +1.66 Wm-2. If you still want to fight that CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, please show me scientific evidence to back up your claim. Show me the science, Chris. Where are your numbers?”
___________________________________________________________
Radiative forcing is a crock. I’d like to see how that +1.66 was derived. How can you apportion W/m^2 anyway? — that seems like a crock too. How does anybody know, or how could anybody know any “radiative forcing” in 1750 — this all seems to be deduced from preconceived fallacies, propagated by ill conceived computer models. Crap. Crap. Crap.
“Please show me some real science, in place of this pseudo science”, would be part of my reply, along with “Where are your wits?”
Hilarious…
Climate Scientists Are (Quite Literally) Flat Earthers
May 13, 2017
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu19QBgmkvI
Oh wow. But he doesn’t know just how true that statement actually is!!!!!!!!
Still doesn’t, apparently. Tony seems to have glimpses but isn’t seeing the whole picture yet.
I’m curious, were your talents discovered at a young age and were your parents supportive? Good parents push you towards your talent to the point you may hate them at the moment, but appreciate them later on in life. My parents were good, but never pushed us into our talents.
I know it sounds strange to normal people but I’d rather have given up a normal child life and instead pursued my future more. Most childhood friends in school fade and disappear. It’s a pseudo life and not usually a glimpse into your future. In blunt words, I felt like most of my childhood was a waste of time. Many countries incorporate a child’s education as their future over anything else. I respect that decision for a kid.
That’s just my opinion based on logic without emotional attachment. Everyone has different childhood experiences that make you or break you I suppose.
For example my brother found parents who pushed him over my own parents. One of his friend’s father was an architect and taught my brother architecture in the 9th grade. IF we had supportive parents he would have taken the promised college scholarship (from football) and used it to further his mental skills. He did not choose that and ended up in the Marines, then special forces and if I hadn’t talked him out of it an anti-terrorist squad named after a Canadian Indian tribe, the Saskatchewans.
Now he is a builder/gun trainer and most importantly, not KIA over a political dispute.
I’ve been too busy lately but do have a video discussing Tony Heller (positively but that he misses what the GHE is about) in the workds…have the slides mostly finished and so just need to narrate it.
You want to know about my childhood? Oh my.
It was a witness of the spectacle and debauchery and parasitism of Boomerism. My dad inherited a beautiful farm with lots of land and quota and crop, which I luckily got to grow up on a few times, and he squandered it away on chasing tail. My mom took us on and off that farm several times through break-ups and reconciliations, and my siblings and I ever knew where we would end up next. We would repeatedly go from “having it all” (i.e. the farm we liked and the security and family life), to starving in some strange house that mom moved us out into because dad cheated on her and beat her up again. We would spend days by ourselves (my siblings and I) in these other places not knowing where mom was, eating the batter off of onion rings, and sugar on white bread. This is me at 5-6, my little sister at 2, my older brother and sister at 8 and 10, etc. But it went on and on like this from my age 0 through 12. We would watch as my mom and dad kicked the shit out of each other, literally, across the farm, through the chicken barns, rolling around in chicken shit, throwing chicken shit in each other’s faces, down the lane behind the barn, back up into the house now covered in chicken shit…kicking and slapping the F out of each other, and while we little ones chased them along crying and in fear and begging them to just stop, pleading and crying for them to just stop fighting, but of course they wouldn’t. Our parents *did not GAF* about our protestation, desires, needs, wants, well-being, etc etc etc…*AT ALL*. We were simply not there. They had their issues together and that was that. Cheating, fighting, mom’s new boyfriend literally coming to kill our dad one day so that him and mom could take over the farm…only stopping the final kill at the last moment because thankfully this other guy couldn’t do it with kids literally around and watching. Boiling pots of water containing what should have been our hot dogs for supper thrown across the table at each other…supper’s over another fight. Wooden broom sticks splintered into a thousand shreds as they snap over my dads knees from my mom’s rage. My dad hanging us out of the 2nd floor window of the house pretending he was going to let us drop so that he could enjoy the fear, screaming, and, eventually, catatonia he would get out of us watching us think that we were about to die and splat on the ground. Catatonia was the only solution to get him to stop…the more you begged for your life, the more he would pretend you were about to slip from his grip and fall to your death and die. A multi-million dollar business farm with several hundred acres (one of the largest in that particular area of Southern Ontario) squandered to divorce lawyers…nothing left whatsoever after all was said and done. I had a mental nervous breakdown in grade 3 and FN lost my mind one day…LOL. My mom brought me to the local dump when I was 14…to find a job there for me. They didn’t hire me…even at the dump our family’s reputation was by now so abhorrent to the community. Didn’t eat anything at highschool for the first two years – nothing to pack, no money for food. Same old same old. In elementary the teachers would ask where my lunch was…said I ate in on the bus…but there was never any lunch…lol. In 3rd year highschool I think I finally got a job pumping gas…gave me beer money and then some friends. Drank SO much FN beer. In 3rd year HS was still taking 1st year highschool classes which I repeatedly failed.
At some point between third and fourth year in highschool, walking to the store for some cigs…I felt like I wanted to know what the word “solar system” was. And what the word “galaxy” meant. When things were *stable* in my childhood I always wanted the telescope in the Sears Christmas Catalogue…but the stability never ever lasted long enough so that what you wanted from the catalogue ever became something you got from the catalogue. Anyway, went to the HS library for the first time ever, and found a Time Life series book about the universe. They, Time Life, had a whole series called “Voyage Through the Universe”. Great series. I learned was a solar system was. And what a galaxy was. And a universe. And I was shocked at the idea that people could ask and answer “where the universe came from”!!?? The Big Bang are you serious??!! Something transformed through me. I took adult-ed courses outside of HS hours to get caught up on math, so that I could take physics. A teacher told me I could go to university. To what??? lol So I eventually aced all my classes and got a small scholarship to go to Western. Would have done a lot more…but as you can imagine my internal emotional life was completely FKD and could never have a stable relationship with women. You can imagine…I was emotionally extremely needy and insecure *AF*…normal healthy women from proper families don’t take that, and I had nothing to offer such women anyway. So a few shitty relationships but did “get some” every now and again. Now with wife who likewise comes from a broken childhood similar to mine…cause there’s no way people like us can function with normal people from normal childhoods…there’s just not the understanding or compatibility.
So…there’s a brief overview.
You ever hear the high-pitched shrieking voice of a person, your dad for example, about to be murdered? It’s an interesting pitch.
So I say I grew up on a farm…but I really mean that I intermittently spent time on a farm, in between staying at a dozen other places my mom moved us to as my parents destroyed each other’s lives.
This summer, going on vacation back in that area, I drove past one of the places we lived…when I was in grade 3. I hadn’t been by there since. The lane was all grown in with grass…as if it was abandoned, and lost to history. As if no one cared for that place any more. I had the strangest sensation come over me, seeing that picture and the abandonment it evoked. It made me think of my own younger self, and how I have avoided all that for so long and just tried to forget about it all. But I thought of myself there, of the little boy who needs some TLC to be brought up to standard. Man I think of my own daughter and the innocent little thoughts and ideas and questions she has sometimes…and it reminds of that boy I was just like that, with the same child hood innocence. I never thought of myself of being an innocent child…I was obviously part of something very horrible and so that must mean something about me too. But when I saw that lane way all grown in with grass, as that place we lived one time in between all other things…I saw an innocent little property that just wanted to be remembered and just wanted some TLC so make it look nice again…and I thought…that’s the boy that I’ve forgotten about that lived there once. I remember I had a nice bed-side lamp that we left at that place when we moved off it to the next place…it was a ceramic piece of a boy fishing. I wanted to keep that lamp and take it with. Mom said to leave it…I didn’t need it.
Wow Joseph, that’s quite a saga. It adds a whole new dimension to the word “poignant”.
Maybe all the abuse you had to endure as a child has toughened you to handle the abuse from the climate-fraudsters. You seem to gain more stature each time they attack you.
Hang in there, you are both needed and appreciated.
My brother’s father gave his mom to settle a poker debt. Yes he almost killed her too. No surprise she went mentally ill after that. My brother’s father had an entire family aside from my brother’s, which was the complete opposite with a loving, caring supportive father. He actually spent time in Germany for murdering someone in a bar fight. He’s dead now. My father abandoned me right after birth never to be seen or heard of again.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Now my step dad was at least around but never supportive of us. At this point my mother was mental so not much there. My sister took off at 15 (can’t say I blame her) and my brother lived with other people until he was 18 and shortly after joined the Marines. I had no motivational home life at all and that’s why I find childhood useless.
I know it sound weird but I hate my birthdays and holidays.For my birthday I just want to be alone.
I have a great wife now and I’m sure you are a great dad becasue you never want a child to go through what you did.
I had a better childhood than my siblings becasue I was young when the evil bastard was around. My mother moved all over the place and my real education came from books being I was never in school.
You seem to have done well for yourself considering.
So I guess we are in agreement, most of our childhood was a waste of time. I block most of it out forward is better than backwards.
Joseph with your permission I want to throw the gauntlet down on Potholer once again since he has chosen to ignore you. One of his acolytes is trolling Tony Heller’s site, this this is what I want to say:
“Not one point you strive to make is anything but political. Whereas, the science disproves global warming by CO2. Potholer is a coward, I have invited him several times to comment on Joseph’s Postma’s videos he has refused to do so. I guess he is afraid to go up against an actual physicist who can utterly destroy his “radiative forcing” fallacy.
I know you are busy so I sent tot he troll although I dialed it down a bit.
“I wouldn’t be so proud of your Potholer, I have invited him several times to comment on Joseph’s Postma’s videos he has refused to do so. I guess he is afraid to go up against an actual physicist who can utterly destroy his “radiative forcing” fallacy.”
Joe, check this idiot extention rebellion guy and then the comments about the sources I have linked (one of which is your site the other is Tony Hellers site)
Provided kirk a link to the 15 page pdf and he replied that there is no mention of the ocean in this doc.
Wtf?
There is no helping these people.
Yeah they are attacking Heller’s site. Joseph you may have to do some blocking on your site, these nut jobs are a new brand of social media terrorist. Dumber than soup as well, I might add.
The idiot I am going back and forth with linked me to this: https://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-warming with the condescending comment: “If you want a simple read that explains it perfectly and includes links to peer reviewed studies for the key points ”
PEER REVIEWED STUDIES!!!! OH MY!!! >_<!!!
Tell numbnuts according to the Argo Program the ocean has warmed 0.055 Celsius in the last 50 years.
Oceans also go through natural warming and cooling cycles and the only thing that can throw these cycles off is geothermal activity under the ocean.
There’s no real point. I told him maybe I should make a video on him showing him who the idiot really is.
His reply:
“Kirk Claybrook
1 hour ago
@Sᴜɪᴛ Yᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ You still wouldn’t get it. You’d make a great leftard with those logic and reasoning skills.”
I mean, really? I’m now a leftard? And this all began because I left a comment for Isaac, the channel owner and video creator who platformed an extinction rebellion guy on his channel which has over a million subs.
When you have 1.11M subscribers, I think you kind of have a responsibility to not platform crazy. So I asked him to reach out to Joseph or Tony Heller and talk real science.
Back to this Kirk Claybrook commenter, I don’t think he’s worth wasting my time doing a video on.
Odds are he’s a rent-a-troll, social media is saturated with them. 🙂
Troll bashing should become a sport.
Without Sir Joseph the Sky Dragon Slayer (and the rest of the founders) and the excellent people who support him none of this bashing would be possible.
Joseph is an outstanding teacher. At the beginning of the year I didn’t know the greenhouse effect was a fraud and absolutely no background in science. I still have a lot to learn I mean these guys are brilliant. I started out doing a personal study on the extremists and that’s how I found Joseph. Something about global warming didn’t add up. Joseph gave me the answer I was looking for.
I posted my cursory findings on these activist nutters on here somewhere. Really they fall into 3 categories: Religious zealot, Fraud or Ignorant.
I was ignorant, most of the en masse are zealots and those running this scam are usually the frauds. However, these categories can mix and make a dangerous hybrid.
Cheers!
Good work Lads!
I’ll try to get a new video out soon.
JP’s childhood story made a big impression on me. It shows that nature CAN overpower nurture.
Tragic, yet funny, and inspiring in a beat-all-odds sort of way.
We are all part of Joseph’s family now, a band of misfits.
If you ever need peer reviewed papers that prove that CO2 does not drive temperatures or that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, here are two thoroughly researched papers: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf and and http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf Make decisions based in facts, not hearsay.
I’m just catching up and haven’t watched vid yet.
I have a question i hope someone will answer.
Example a candle flame and ice cube beside each other.
Heat is flowing from the flame to the ice cube, and ”potential” eat flowing from the icube to the flame.
My Q is this, is it Railiegh scattering that happens to the potential heat from the cube to flame, when the photons arrive at the flame.
Also a thought occurred to me, is the Earth an example of cooling without warming as a sphere in the vacuum of space.
The earth cools 24/7 but the heat it emits never warms anything, so therefore it is not heat but potential heat is it not
I’m just catching up and haven’t watched vid yet.
I have a question i hope someone will answer
Example a candle flame and ice cube beside each other.
Heat is flowing from the flame to the ice cube, and ”potential” eat flowing from the icube to the flame.
My Q is this, is it Railiegh scattering that happens to the potential heat from the cube to flame, when the photons arrive at the flame.
Also a thought occurred to me, is the Earth an example of cooling without warming as a sphere in the vacuum of space.
The earth cools 24/7 but the heat it emits never warms anything, so therefore it is not heat but potential heat is it not……………….
I would say that there is no such concept as “potential heat”. “Heat” has a definition only when it is actual.
That being said, I would like to introduce the concept of … “back temporality” … to describe how I remain younger than I would otherwise be without it. (^_^)
Are you thinking about potential energy? Heat can be a result of energy but not always (as I’m sure everyone hear knows all too well). I suppose the Earth could produce some energy without increasing temperature?
Interesting thought. I look forward to an educated reply.
Geothermal in the oceans as potential energy and not always heat. Is that even possible?
Hmm…
I was talking about lwir earth light as seen from space, i.e. 960w absorbed by the sphere an d 960w a second emitted by the sphere to space,
The earth is cooling to space, but nothing is warming, it is redundant energy, unemployed as nothing is getting warmed by it.
Heat is thermal or thermalising radiation, nothing is thermalised with the earths waste radiation.
But it could be if the mass were there to be warmed .., the satellite will be warmed by the earth light it is recording / observing would think.
See i know all radiation is heat when impinging a 0 kelvin environ, but less and less of the radiation is thermal as the temperature of the 0 kelvin environ warms.
So as it warms and less and less of the impinging radiation acts as heat, does the rest of the wavelenghts that are not acting as heat just get railleigh scattered without being absorbed or having their wavelength altered.
I read many years ago that there are only 2 types of energy CD,
Moving and resting.
Kinetic or potential.
All other descriptions of energy either internal or external are sub types of those 2.
Earth light is just potential energy because theres no mass for it to reach any potential.
It’s easy to get into endless semantical arguments over the word “heat”. The safest way is to just use the word “energy”. You can say “energy” moves from the candle flame to the ice cube. And you can say “energy” moves from the ice cube to the candle flame. But, “heat” only “moves” from hot to cold. Typically, “heat” is associated with an increase in temperature of the colder object.
“Heat” is associated with a transfer of energy AND a ΔT. A unit of heat is the amount of energy to raise the temperature of a substance or object. For example, 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 0.24 ºC. If there is no energy transfer, and no ΔT, then there is no “heat”. Consequently, an object does not “contain heat”. An object contains “enthalpy”.
What happens to the energy moving from the ice cube to the flame? It depends. A flame can contain particles. So the energy could be affected by scattering or reflection. Or, if it missed the particles, it could go right through the flame, unaffected. Infrared and visible waves do not interfere with each other. The energy from the ice cube will NOT raise the temperature of the flame!
Energy emitted or reflected from Earth is just “energy”, until it is absorbed by mass (transferred) resulting in ΔT, thereby becoming “heat”.
Temperatures are higher already in the thermosphere if I get where you are coming from so any energy from the Earth would do nothing in regards to increased temperature. Dispersion being very different in the thinner atmosphere.
You said, “The earth is cooling to space, but nothing is warming, it is redundant energy, unemployed as nothing is getting warmed by it.
Heat is thermal or thermalising radiation, nothing is thermalised with the earths waste radiation.”
It could be cooled a little by the Earth’s exhaust though, could it not? Such as space junk, satellites, and my kickball from the 6th grade…
Does energy move from an ice cube to a candle flame? Basic question, I know, but I’m thinking maybe not even this happens.
How do we decide what this means? Energy is the motion of particles, right? So, how does the energy (i.e. motion of particles) of an ice cube manifest in the energy of a candle flame, if it does not modify the motion of the particles of the candle flame? What is this “moving to”?
If the motion of the ice-cube particles does not manifest in some sort of modified motion of the particles of the candle flame, then there is no correct meaning to the statement.
What does this motion of ice-cube particles do to make itself “known” to the particles of the candle flame?
I think the energy of the ice cube is part of an energy field between the cube and the flame, and this ice-cube energy occupies a proximity to the candle flame in a region of the gradient between them to sustain this gradient. The ice-cube energy, then, never … “moves” … “to” … the candle flame but is sustained in the energy gradient field between the two.
I’m baffled by the diagrams in this paper:
Click to access The-energy-balance-over-land-and-oceans-An-assessment-based-on-direct-observations-and-CMIP5-climate-models.pdf
How is it consistent with the definition TOA (“Top Of Atmosphere”) to have diagrams that show DIFFERENT values for TOA, depending on whether the focus is on ocean or on land? TOA is TOA, isn’t it? The reference surface area for determining W/m^2 is the same, isn’t it? How can we have a seemingly different surface area for TOA for the whole globe, talking about LAND ONLY or OCEAN ONLY? How is it reasonable to split up things this way?
I experience dissonance with this division of things, let alone have any assessment of conclusions derived from a system of reasoning that employs what seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of basic definitions.
Correct me, if I am misguided, but speaking the language of astrology to point out shortcomings within astrology does not seem to be the most overriding approach to discussing reality.
You want baffled look at this absolute manipulation of data from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Robert, the energy is emitted from ice as electomagnetic flux. It so happens that ice is a nearly perfect emitter. An ice cube at 270 K is emitting about 300 Watts/m^2. Everyone knows that an ice cube can’t bake a turkey, but Warmists believe if you have enough ice you can, because “fluxes add”!
But, it gets even funnier.
The peak of the emission curve for an ice cube occurs at about 10.7 μ. The CO2 photon is 15 μ. Since photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, the ice photon is 15/10.7 = 1.4, or 40% “hotter” than the CO2 photon.
Ice is “heating the planet”!
The comedy continues.
Yeah, CD, let’s just manipulate the different scales however we want. Make a W/m^2 look like a HUGE amount, while making a tenth of a degree look like a less huger amount, while making a decade look tiny. Oh, and let’s just consider two variables that just happen to support our bias, that we have graphically created accordingly to deceive most levels of intelligence. Never mind changes in cloud cover or moisture level or ocean cycles or any of those other pesky variables that can mess up our propaganda (I mean “scientz”).
Better spelling would be “sciuhntz”.
Robert, the energy is emitted from ice as electromagnetic flux.
Yes, but the energy does not really make it TO the candle, does it? The motion that defines what
“energy” is does not get TO the candle – it maintains in an energy field between the two entities, doesn’t it? There is no energy going FROM the ice cube TO the candle. If energy went TO the candle, then it would somehow enter the defining configuration of the candle and have some effect of having gone TO the candle. It never gets TO the candle – it “stays” between the candle and the cube, I’m thinking.
I just caught your mention of ocean and land and looked at it. My mouth hung open as it often does when I am baffled, I thought at first it meant upwards which would make sense but it wasn’t.
As far as NASA’s fraud graph is concerned go here for a real version of DSR:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-longest-continuous-record-available-in-GEBA-surface-downward-shortwave-radiation-W_fig2_319251713
It doesn’t Robert, the energy is in the wave within the particle, the photon.
Raman scattering is where the photon is to big to be absorbed by the molecule and it gets scattered.
Now i struggle with the science speak as i just talk from memory, ”i think” that is a near enough explanation.
i may have raman and railleigh scattering mixed up mind, railleigh scattering is where the wave photon is scattered without altering its length… i think.
Anyway the ice is pulsing light to the flame by fluxing photons, if they are of a too short or too long a wavelength they are raman or railleigh scattered……
With Electromagnetic energy Thermodynamics are the result of electrodynamics aren’t they.
Dark Flow,
Proof of other dimensions?
Proof something else exists outside our perception of the known Universe?
Or just proof we have no clue?
Gary A,
My further question would be, then, where do the scattered entities “go”? Might it be correct to say that the scattered entities “go” back into the energy field, within the energy gradient of which they are a part and define by said scattering? That’s how the energy field physically maintains??
CO2 alarmists can use general language to appear very competent, but down at the finest level of detail, I’m thinking, is where their misunderstandings might reveal themselves fully.
Actually, that’s not true, their misunderstandings are glaring even at the most basic general level (i.e., spreading sunshine over the entire Earth at once). Their misunderstandings seem to loom at all levels of analysis.
“There is no energy going FROM the ice cube TO the candle. If energy went TO the candle, then it would somehow enter the defining configuration of the candle and have some effect of having gone TO the candle.”
There IS energy going from the ice cube to the candle. That’s why it’s important to make the distinction between “energy” and “heat”. Energy goes from the ice cube to the candle via photons emitted from the cube. Once emitted, photons travel in a straight path. They travel until they impact mass. Upon impact an instantaneous determination is made, based on wavelength. If the wavelength of the photon is incompatible with the target mass, the photon will not be absorbed.
If a photon from the ice cube is emitted toward the candle, the photon will move in a straight line to the candle. If it does not impact mass first, it will impact the candle. If the photon gets reflected, then there was no energy transfer and no ΔT, so there was no “heat”.
Photons emitted or reflected from Earth may travel forever, if they do not impact mass. The energy is traveling, but there is no heat. The planet lost energy, but it did not “lose heat”. Heat cannot be “lost”, it is a process. `For there to be “heat” (the process), there must be TWO things occurring: 1) energy transfer, and 2) a ΔT.
JHFC. Just received an e-mail of the french version of / Who are the 500 scientists that say there is no climate emergency / on CBC internet. You know the drill. They say that Mickey Mouse signed it or what ever. Reminds you of anything. For those who dont know CBC is the equivalent of CNN, MSN, MSNBC and BBC. The worst part, I rreceived it from my brother in law and he’s a BSc in chemistry of all things. JHFC I’m sick of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not sure I feel any better at this moment.
geran,
I think the distinction I’m trying to make is subtle. For me, the word, “to”, means something more than just traveling in the direction of, in this instance.
“Energy”, as I’m seeing it, is not some sort of stuff — it is some sort of action involving stuff.
Maybe my conception of reality is not as particle-like as yours at this level of description.
Consequently, I might be having some issues in describing photons as “particles” that travel. What I’m thinking travels is a wave through a field of stuff that manifests the motion (energy) of travel.
In this conception, deflection is probably not (in my mind) what it might be in yours.
If the subtle conveyed motions of the ice cube never impact the subtle motions of the candle, then the energy defining this motion never gets TO the candle — it gets constrained somehow away from the candle (what you call deflection, I guess).
But my idea is that this constraining of energy is the shaping mechanism of maintaining the energy gradient between the cube and the candle. The cube-energy never gets TO the candle-energy to influence it in an additive (or subtractive) way. The energy is constrained to the gradient of the energy field between the two entities.
Pierre,
re. JHFC…
How about this then…https://townhall.com/columnists/jamestaylor/2019/11/22/climate-scientists-reduced-to-hiding-from-climate-thuggery-in-germany-n2556941?2311
RK,
This might be of interest, on “Electromagnetic radiation and resonance phenomena in quantum mechanics”…. might be best just to skip to the last paragraph!
Click to access 0810.3773.pdf
“Not sure I feel any better at this moment.
Don’t get discouraged, Pierre. The clowns are attempting to pervert and corrupt physics. That will never work.
Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. (You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.)
Enjoy the comedy, while it lasts.
I was dealing with one of Joseph’s “Climate AIs” the name fits the mentality perfectly I admit. After a meaningless volley of to and fros like I was actually talking to a computer where nothing changed his mechanical responses I just ended it with this:
“First off the science proves CO2 doesn’t trap heat, physics in particular. Therefore everything else is discarded because the premise is fraudulent. You are on the thread with one of the guys who proved it in experiments. Not that any credible physicist didn’t already know the properties of atmospheric CO2.
*Sorry wrong thread, Geraint Hughes*
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKc3n4c9VYS68jZMJsjNgFA
CO2 follows warming never preceded it all those boreholes and soil samples have proven that.
Although in one ice age not only was CO2 in the thousands ppmv it all nearly vanished by end of it.
The current warming is not occurring faster than ever before. The models runs hot or are complete fraud becasue of the numbers NOT put in them. They omit older temps, got caught and then had to remove those temps from the record books. Fraud of the highest order. One day they will be prosecuted for it (I’m hoping).
Anyway thank you for letting me know what climate means to you. It’s retribution, perhaps penance for something you did in your life or crimes you feel humans have done to the planet.
Don’t think for a minute that anyone who can look at the evidence with a learned eye can’t see this farce for what it is. I’m not paying to make you feel better about yourself. Join a church just not the climate church.
If you want to suffer for your sins by all means do so, but I don’t need to suffer for it and neither does the rest of the world in a one world socialist government.
Joseth.
Or Robert stick a terminator line dead centre of the flat earth model.
Insert the figures with one side dark and one side light.
Please.
Sorry the terminator line makes it a flat earth one second model.
With 0 w in one side and an average 480 w in on the lit side, and the 30c created averaged by 2 to the real world meaningless average temperature 15c land and ocean.
God dammit, only after you have provided the intensity of the solar radiation do you divide by another 2 the average temperature created, not before as in the flat earth model.
Sorry for the multiple posts.
Has anyone done thoroughly investigated correlation between the Earth’s magnetic field decay and temperatures?
Someone on here had this:
It sparked a memory that magnetic field decay in Africa has proven drought in that area for thousands of years and they have evidence to prove that.
I found the paper I was looking for as usual not quite what my brain thought it was.
See I didn’t even post the paper I have brain drain at the moment:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076007
These lads are great, follow up on their other work.
These cookies have got the electrdynamics sussed CD.
This is what got meinto these lads, everything is so well researched.
Also check Robert Felix’s splendid site with two books published as well, one about magnetic reversals:https://www.iceagenow.info/
Thank you good sir will watch right now er after posting actually.
I do have a another question for anybody. The atmosphere does not create heat, it comes from the surface do to the energy needing to strike a physical barrier first (or whatever the proper physics term is for it) . All well and good.
So explain the thermopshere. Energy is reflected by CO2 and NO from the bulk of solar storms. However even though it is claimed as “reflected” (which from my understanding means no heat exchange) it certainly becomes hot from what seems to me as a heat-energy conversion.
Now why is it considered a physical barrier when the atmosphere is not. Clouds don’t create heat energy when energy is reflected off them it is simply reflected, diverted back into space until it comes in contact with a solid object. Somehow, in the thermopshere it becomes heat? What am I missing?
Naturally how does the rest of the energy slip in through the atmosphere unmolested.
All I can think of is it’s different rays, or form of radiation, but how exactly does that work?
No I really don’t ask easy questions, do I?
Sorry I just must understand these things to the best of my ability.
CD, the wikipedia page covers the basics pretty well. Should answer all your questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Thank you geran I read it didn’t satisfy me yet. Still looking into it.
“The problem is that once you treat the flux as energy (divide), you can NOT go back and consider it as flux. That is, you can NOT use the new value (divided) in the S-B equation. The S-B equation is only valid for the EXACT flux impacting the surface, not an average.”
More clarification, W/m^2 is 1 Joule per second? So the emissions to outer space is calculated as 240 W/m^2 divided by the entire sphere. So this is flux or energy and is it still correct to use the SB law? In other words should it be counted as W/m^2.
I know Joseph’s whole point is that climate science is mixing flux with energy and mostly everyone doesn’t know the difference.
This seems to get confusing.
Oh well.
If Physics were taught by drill sergeants maybe everyone would have a greater understanding of this.
Yes it does get confusing, CD. Possibly that is the plan. Whenever someone tries to explain it, or make it easier to understand, there are those that seek to complicate it again.
A blackbody sphere receiving a flux of 960 W/m^2 in a vacuum will reach an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, emitting 240 W/m^2.
So, the energy balance, each second, is:
Ein = Eout
960A = 240(4A)
960A Joules = 960A Joules
Where A is the area of the “disk”, in m^2. (The surface area of the sphere being 4A.)
Note that the emitted flux is 240 W/m^2, NOT 960 W/m^2.
Got it.
Thank you.
Geran does that mean the in coming 960 w m2 is coming in on an angle and is obviously just falling on one hemisphere, so at that point you only divide by 2 not 4.
You divide by 2 again the average temperature created per m2 by 960w falling on just one hemisphere to then include the dark half.
Total division is still 4 but no need what so ever to invoke a greenhouse effect.
First you divide the incoming energy by 2.
Then to get an average whole surface average temperature you divide by 2 the lit side temperature.
I am i close.
Damn, i missed the add both half average temps together and divide,…..
What is the average temperature of the dark side using constants please.
Never heard any one mention the 2 average temps that make up the land ocean average
Any given second the average surface temp consists of those 2 averages.
So what 2 figures is the 15c average temp made up of.
I know its a network etc but some one must be able to define the average darkside temp at any given second and the average lit side temp at any given second using constants.
Gary, in this simple example, the sphere is considered a perfect conductor. So, even if it were not rotating, all the surface would reach the equilibrium temperature. The purpose of the example is to show where the 240 W/m^2 comes from. It comes from the correct S/B calculation, but from an imaginary object in an imaginary situation.
Otherwise, known as “pseudoscience”.
The claim is that Earth’s surface emits 390 W/m^2. Again, that is based on the S/B calculation for a blackbody surface at 288 K (Earth’s believed “average” temperature). Then, “they” subtract the “240” from the “390” (which violates the laws of radiative physics) to arrive at “150 W/m^2”. That allows them to claim the 150 W/m^2 is “trapped” in the atmosphere!
Otherwise, known as “pseudoscience”.
Gary, I missed your reference to 15C.
288 K = 15 C = 59 F
Click to access European-Climate-Declaration-Oslo-18-October-2019.pdf
The scum have already attacked and discredited it to stupid people who can’t think for themselves, or the Climate AI. These people are just so corrupt, disgusting, vile refuse of human waste.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
Here’s the answer as to why climate alarmism continues unabated, regardless of all the evidence proving beyond any doubt that it is a carefully concocted hoax: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50435014
Pertinent quote: “Prof Eileen Barker of the London School of Economics, who has spent years studying groups like the Moonies and Scientologists, says there are similarities between OneCoin and messianic millennium cults, where people believe they are part of something big that is going to change the world – and no matter what the evidence, once they’ve signed up, it’s very hard for them to admit they are wrong. “When prophecy fails they believe more strongly,” she says. “Particularly if you have invested something, not only money, but belief, reputation, intelligence. You think, ‘Wait a bit longer.’” ”Money might push people to invest in the first place, but the sense of belonging, of doing something, of achieving something, is why they stay, Barker says. “And in that sense it’s cultic.””
So, you can debate the proper science to debunk the alarmists ad infinitum, but you have no real chance to stop their zealous belief in their version of the end-of-the-world hoax. It’s a psychological war that level-headed scientists stand little chance of winning.
All the while, kudos to Postma for his unwavering support for honest science.
Everyone,
The climate fraud is based on a flat-earth model as Joseph has so clearly shown. This fake earth model uses a divide by 4 metric to reduce the solar power intensity flux to a weak sun value that is not consistent with reality. The fake flat earth model has no dark night side and also no terminator.
It must be replaced with a round earth model that has both a day lit side (with a divide by 2 metric) and an atmospheric mechanism to transport the captured solar flux from the warm day side to the cold dark night side.
My Noonworld DAET climate model of a tidally locked planet with a single global atmospheric Hadley cell is the basis for a geometric climate model that honours observed reality and can be universally applied.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334490844_Modelling_the_Climate_of_Noonworld_A_New_Look_at_Venus
Geran the flat earth model is wrong from the get go by making the emission temp of -18 a property of the bottom line i.e. the surface,….
It is the average temp of the top line, the TOA emission average T in the model it is the emission as seen from space, so it is a skin value, not an internal value.
So the 240 is a pseudo figure anyway.
i took as a simple exercise your maths of the 480 w m2 av on the lit side creating a blackbody T of just over 30c av over the whole lit side in any 1 second in time model, i.e. a frozen terminator line.
So real world av is 15c, i simply divided by 2 the 30c and assume the darkside is an average 0c.
Their simple model is corrected if you add a centre frozen terminator line and turn one half black and one half white, the white side gets 480 w m2 the black side 0.
The blackside gets half the temperature created on the white side then.
i.e half the energy or 240.
Total division of energy from top to bottom is still by 4.
But you end up with an av surface T 15C ..
i can see the error an average T OF 15C m2 emits more than 240w .
The incoming energy is only maintaining the av 15c whole surface temp that was ”created” along time ago, the suns energy is like warming a cooling bath with fresh water ya let alittle cold out and you add abit of real hot water, then your good to go for another half hour, and that little bit of added heat has a remarkable effect.
Well said Jack.
Gary, I agree, the “flat earth” model is wrong.
From Jack Spinner’s comment:
“So, you can debate the proper science to debunk the alarmists ad infinitum, but you have no real chance to stop their zealous belief in their version of the end-of-the-world hoax.”
And we see this continually.
“It’s a psychological war that level-headed scientists stand little chance of winning.”
But, nature/reality is on the side of science. “Truth will out”.
Phillip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde,
Thanks for your contribution here.
All mounting evidence of the “greenhouse” effect being a pressure dependent effect.
Climate AI: This was addressed to me:
@Christopher Marshall: You write: “If you calculated incoming solar irradiation correctly it would account for it at 15C. That is the point. You can’t spread the power of real time sunshine as an average day and night over a 24 hour period and expect to get the results needed to account for real time global temperatures. How utterly stupid is that?” My response: There is nothing stupid about it. The calculation that yeilds -18C is based on an assumption which does not hold (that Earth has an atmosphere that is transparent to all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation). If you take into account the real atmosphere, then you have an atmosphere which absorbs and reemits infrared. This causes the surface of the Earth to receive more radiation than just what it gets from the sun. The surface of the Earth will therefore radiate more back away from itself as a result (which results in a higher temperature in accordance with the blackbody radiation model).
“in accordance with the blackbody radiation model”
LOL. They just use phrases which mean nothing.
Heat flow is irreversible, and their scheme requires heat flow reversal because they dilute the power of sunshine to a level at which it cannot create the climate…and so the climate creates itself by reverse heat flow.
Real time sun creates the climate.
“in accordance with the blackbody radiation model”
I don’t think so. THAT’s stupid.
I wish I could use that trick the next time I go to the bank. For each 67 dollars I supply 33 more dollars is created from “back money”.
JP the Bold,
Yeah I just read one of your older posts explaining everything he is arguing but he won’t watch a video or read a post (I tried). Nothing can challenge the climate religion!
GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change. -NASA: The Earth’s Radiation Budget
://science.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget
Reverse heat flow.
CD, you found some more “dirty laundry”. You’ve learned enough you can probably debunk it yourself.
JP’s 3 words do the job quite well: Reverse heat flow.
They use some devious techniques, in the quote you provided. In the first sentence, notice how they use the phrase “greenhouse gases”. They are laying the groundwork for their upcoming con.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.
So far they are correct. The sun heats the surface and the surface heats the atmosphere. They haven’t violated any laws of physics.
In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable.
Notice they didn’t say “raise the temperature”. They merely imply a connection between CO2 and “keeping our planet warm”. They’re still just in the setup mode—getting ready to spring the trap.
Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.
Now, they’ve got ya! They use the phrase “increase the temperature”, but that is in reference to the lower atmosphere. Yet they imply it results in “global warming”!
They never actually say CO2 will increase the temperature of the surface, but the reader is prompted to infer that falsehood.
The Sun heats the surface; the surface heats the atmosphere; and the energy moves on to space. There is no 2-way heat flow.
The Sun heats the surface; the surface heats the atmosphere; and the energy moves on to space. There is no 2-way heat flow.
I’m dealing with someone who is going to try and work around this. I’ve been expecting it so they are going to try to say warm air rises in the atmosphere and falls back down to the surface and the adiabatic lapse rate and pressure make that air warmer claiming that’s proof that the atmosphere can warm the surface up more.
His comment: (he’s trying to set me up for it)
“Then we agree that claim three which was 3) In order to cool off, the surface of the Earth emits thermal radiation (which has a longer wavelength than visible light). This means that we have agreed to all of the 4 claims which were 1) The sun emits mostly in the visible light range (this is why we have evolved eyes to see in this range). 2) The atmosphere is transparent to much of visible light so that it strikes the surface of the Earth and warms it. 3) In order to cool off, the surface of the Earth emits thermal radiation (which has a longer wavelength than visible light). 4) The atmosphere absorbs and reemmits some thermal radiation.
The above 4 claims amount to the greenhouse effect. Because the surface of the Earth will be warmed by rebounding thermal radiation from the atmosphere on top of visible light that strikes the Earth (delivered by the Sun) it follows that the surface of the Earth will necessarily be warmer than it would have been, had the atmosphere not rebounded thermal radiation to the surface of the Earth. Do you agree?”
Any suggestions from you guys would be great. Notice he is saying thermal radiation not IR radiation, trying to trip me up.
The adiabatic gradient is NOT the greenhouse effect FFS. Heat flow is still all one way, from hot to cool, and the cooler atmosphere never heats the surface. There is no GHE, finished.
Rebounding thermal radiation leading to something being “necessarily warmer” would be reverse heat flow, which is impossible.
“If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics (pg. 82) (Schroeder, 2000)
“…it follows that the surface of the Earth will necessarily be warmer than it would have been, had the atmosphere not rebounded thermal radiation to the surface of the Earth.”
CD, your tormentor uses the same old, tired pseudoscience. Infrared from the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface. Ask him if he heats his room in winter with ice cubes.
They went to a lot of effort to put this together:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
They mainly misrepresent what it is and try to discredit the people who are signatories.
It is NOT a detailed list of evidence. It is a statement of concerned based on evidence that these signatories have already reviewed and agreed upon.
As for the signatories being engineers or other rational, disciplined people, instead of climate “scientists”, well, that’s just a tired old ploy to deny the fact that engineers and others know the basic physics of climate “science” AS GOOD or BETTER than climate “scientists”. They know it well enough to know that climate “scientists” are doing the physics and math incorrectly or in a shoddy way.
Clearly, this group of good ol’ boys got together out of concern for loosing their integrity and loosing their livelihoods that depend on falsehoods. They pulled out all stops to discredit those who have a solid basis for disagreeing with them.
Basically, they are saying our credentials, our clout, and our misrepresentation of the facts trump your rationality and reasonable assessment of the evidence.
I have to ask, were the ones discrediting them climate scientists? If not, that would be the hypocrite on the cake wouldn’t it?
Everyone,
The issue of the global average temperature and greenhouse effect is very similar to the standard hydrological problem of “How much water can be stored in a leaky reservoir for a given constant input of supply?”
When talking about the greenhouse effect I use the term “atmospheric reservoir” and here is why: –
Have a look at my first essay on Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space. In this essay I describe how, by using some very simple known meteorological parameters, it is possible to calculate the global average atmospheric temperature of a terrestrial planet. The required parameters are as follows.
For each atmospheric cell we need to know the temperature of the tropopause, the altitude of the same, and the lapse rate of the given cell. From these data we can calculate the surface temperature of that cell. For the Earth these three cells are the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. Next, we need to know the percentage of the global surface area occupied by each cell. Using this metric, we can calculate the areal weighted percentage of the surface temperature for that cell, and hence by simple addition calculate the global average surface temperature.
That was fun wasn’t it, but where does this take us?
Well, back to the leaky reservoir problem of hydrology. In constructing my Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport Model for Stephen Wilde, I used the concept of a leaky reservoir, but in this case the leaking fluid is power intensity and not water. The rate of leaking in the DAET climate model is determined by the surface partition ratio, that is the quantity of surface captured high frequency solar radiant flux that is retained by the air versus the quantity of flux that is lost directly out to space. This loss is by low frequency thermal radiation through the transparent atmosphere of the model, and is equivalent to the observed radiant atmospheric window of meteorology.
Now we come to the interesting mathematical twist. The sum of an infinite series of descending fractions is a finite number. Think about that, it is very important. What this finite limit means is that for a given partition ratio and a given solar flux the quantity of energy stored in the atmospheric reservoir has a fixed and calculable limit. So, no runaway greenhouse effect due to thermal radiant opacity.
Next, and even more interestingly, we can calculate the height of the troposphere from the DAET model for each atmospheric cell, if we know the lapse rate for that cell. The height comes from the difference between the S-B temperature of the lit surface and the S-B temperature of the emitting surface AFTER the partition ratio is applied. Say what? How can you have two separate temperatures for the same surface? Think of it in this way; the radiant emission surface is a pseudo surface, and the real emission surface is held at elevation in the atmosphere at the tropopause, We can now see why atmospheric opacity (greenhouse gases) play no role whatsoever in the establishment of this temperature separation, and that the greenhouse gas conjecture is well and truly dead.
Postma Online School for Climate Education.
Postma Online School for Advanced Climate Education.
Sounds much better.
The main radiative gas is water vapour.
Here are some things to convince alarmists that this main player in greenhouse theory is simply a redistributor of solar energy in the daytime and a moderator of extreme surface temperatures more generally.
It does this in daytime by:
1.Direct absorption and scattering of sunlight, so the surface is warmed less by the sun.
2.Creating clouds, so the surface is warmed less by the sun
3.Cooling the surface via latent heat of evaporation and moving it elsewhere.
4.Cooling the surface by increased convection and moving warmth elsewhere.
And at night by:
1.Slowing down the radiative cooling of the surface on a clear night.
2.Creating clouds which also slow radiative cooling of the surface
And to point out that if water vapour did have the power to raise average surface temperature by 10ºC per percentage point of water vapour content in our atmosphere, then humid regions should be hotter than dry deserts at the same latitude and altitude.
And then there are the oceans……
Philip Mulholland
Link me up please, if you so desire. Learning more is all I can do, wish I had better means of not forgetting what I learned!
Joseph,
How is Pierre doing? Unusual not to see his comments. I find them valuable as I do the others.
Hi CD
Doing good. Just not much to say. Hope you and all others had a very good thanksgiving.
I here thanksgiving has become an attack on American-Indians. The show must go on, paid by the Soros of this world.
Here we have TURD’o wanting to pass a law rendering illegal to say someone that hurts someone’s feelings. Yesterday I saw a video of Merkel saying that to protect free speech they have to outlaw hate speech. Imagine !!! Now we know they all get their marching orders from one central point.
It wont stop until heads roll.
Philip Mulholland … Very nice piece you have there. Congratulations.
CD
You can follow me on LinkedIn.
Pierre & Pablo
Thanks.
I’m not on LinkedIn discarded that after writing.Was a little awkward having to explain to everyone I wasn’t writing anymore. I admit it’s more stress free, pushing an ideal goal of 3 novels a year at 100k each was not fun to think about.
Pierre,
Good to know.
CD
Research Gate is my only other platform.
I found this in an older post from Pierre:
“It is believed that night surface temperatures can’t go below dew point temperature. As long as there is humidity in the air, and the fact that water can hold a lot more energy than air (per unit weight), as air cools, water condenses and will heat back up the air.”
Wouldn’t that explain the nights warming faster in the Arctic? I mean warm air moves from the tropics through the top of the troposphere to the poles anyway (which explains why the top of the troposphere is warmer at 30k). I’m seeing pieces to the puzzle but I can’t put them together without a good hammer.
More on pressure… lots more!
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/02/scientists-mars-has-a-95-co2-atmosphere-but-there-is-little-to-contain-heat-on-the-planet/
Joseph,
I’m been reading your older posts and you have covered in great detail every question I had about the division of 4 and the energy budget you provided.
One simple process, dividing by 4 is for an entire sphere, not half of it. How do I know it’s an error? Because they also divide by 4 to count emissions out to space. By their own perverse logic shouldn’t that be divided by 8?
The more I study this the more it baffles me.
I would love to see a real 3-D active model of the Earth and near real time solar energy input. That would be absolutely amazing. The only way I can see that done would be to have satellites placed globally synchronizing the data. That would be a marvel of a project but the results priceless. Maybe in the far future we could have satellites covering the entire solar system. Wouldn’t that be a something?
Unmanned monitoring stations in the middle of space between solar systems…
But no all the money is wasted on climate change.
When I was a kid the first plans for a space station were under way. We have not made huge steps in the space program since then. All becasue of politics.
And this from the comments:
RickWill
RickWill 3. December 2019 at 1:30 AM | Permalink | Reply
Few people realise that top of atmosphere solar insolation at zenith varies by 85W/sq.m annually – for 2019 from 1319W/sq.m to 1402W/sq.m. That variation, combined with the axis obligatory and location of surface water, cause the atmospheric water vapour to cycle over a significant range each year. In 2018 the global average water column ranged from 17mm in January to 22mm in July. Over the same period globally averaged outgoing long wave radiation increased from 236.8W/sq.m to 243.9W/sq.m. They both then cycled down. In 2018, each added mm of water vapour increased OLR by 1.6W/sq.m and each mm reduction in water vapour reduced OLR by 1.6W/sq.m.
This is the actual monthly data from NASA Earth Observations for 2018:
Mnth-TPW- OLR
Jan 17.04 236.8
Feb 17.29 236.5
Mar 17.73 237.9
Apr 18.19 238.7
May 20.40 240.6
Jun 20.92 243
Jul 21.89 243.9
Aug 21.04 243.4
Sep 20.54 242.2
Oct 19.68 239.5
Nov 18.93 237.1
Dec 18.91 236.5
This data is highly POSITIVELY correlated:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg1ITK3Yk3q3yhL3_
A similar cycle occurs each year.
This data clearly demonstrates the “greenhouse” gas fairy tale is simply that. Increasing water vapour is associated with increased surface cooling.
@CD that’s what my own model is – is a 3D representation, but as a static 2D image. 3D is naturally embedded in the way it is laid out though.
Excellent stuff Pablo!
Do you have a link for the “actual monthly data from NASA Earth Observations for 2018”?
I cannot find such data. I only find color graphs, or MODTRAN crap, neither of which helps. The data you supplied appear to be actual measurements, so I was curious if the data are from one or more satellites, and what are the associated altitudes.
Sorry, the above comment was to Pablo.
Look at this graph;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKW_mx9X0AA3M7f?format=png&name=900×900
I may not be a scientist but I have seen enough graphs to absolutely know that the Earth never ever fluctuates like this. Natural waves do not flow like this, weather never flows like this, harmonics doesn’t flow like this, heat doesn’t flow like this. This is absolutely manipulated, nothing in nature has this kind of pattern. As the ole saying goes, Nature does not create straight lines…or hockey sticks.
Plus they tampered with previous data to emphasize the fraudulent increase even more.
Oh and they also removed the MWP can’t have that get in the way, this is from one of Potholerthanthou clowns.
BTW Joseph I have invited him personally and through his trolls many times to comment on one your videos. They nor he ever responds.
So I stopped. I doubt he would respond unless you were bored and said hi to him yourself and I doubt you will ever be that bored.
PH is a putz.
What caught my attention, in the data supplied by Rick Will, is the OLR values tend to average around 240 W/m^2. That value is seen a lot, but it is hard to find any supporting actual observations. The “240” originated with the imaginary blackbody sphere, absorbing 960 W/m^2. In pseudoscience, they attempt to link 240 W/m^2 to Earth. But, it’s all mythical.
If Earth’s surface is emitting somewhere around 390 W/m^2 then we know at some distant point in space the flux should be 240 W/m^2, due to the inverse-square law. So finding “240” somewhere “out there” is meaningless. Meaningless, as in, “pseudoscience”.
… something I just finished writing:
https://hubpages.com/politics/Are-Climate-Emergency-Actions-by-the-United-States-Reasonable
In it, the greenhouse theory per se is not the focus. Rather, the focus is on practicality, based on an honest assessment of what is known.
Robert in case you don’t already have this, it’s 1200+ papers on the MWP in case you are ever in need of it.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-41.37680846498934%2C75.30381200000011&z=2
NOAA sea level
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Thanks, CD, I made a mental note of that from a previous post of yours, I think, but it’s good to have it repeated here again, … in case I need to inject it into the micro-scale attention of a climate doomsayer.
As you know, such people first make general statements that you are mistaken. Then they choose a few points and attempt to dress up their wrong interpretation as a legitimate argument against you, and finally, using their dressed-up wrong interpretations, they dismiss the rest of your evidence as “debunked”, which you are supposed to take on their word alone without further in-depth discussion of the case studies underlying their claims that they are too lazy to pin point and discuss point-by-point to dissect the flaws in them.
Yes I read your paper, very good I might add and as usual the same Scott Belford who must be the appointed troll for HubPages is so quick to respond. A bit too quick if you ask me.
Anyway I’m going to go over the paper again.
Yeah, … Scott displays the quiet arrogance founded on false confidence in erroneous information-handling that I have seen before. It’s a style that brands the person being critiqued as having made so many mistakes that they are not worth going into any more depth with. How convenient. I suppose I could retort that this is so stupid that I have no more time to waste with it, but that’s just being as arrogant as they are, and so I have to dig in and try to out last them.
Excellent comeback to Scott. You can certainly hold your own. Just a thought I’d remove amateur. You are no longer that. I’d simply leave it as, “Independent investigator researching and writing about climate issues.”
Or you could say, I am an independent researcher investigating climate issues for over a decade. (the writing part is a given) Amateur just immediately invalidates you to opposition. All they see in amateur is one lacking in experience and competence in science. You have communicated/taught by professional scientists and experts that at least validates you as having some experience-by-association. Joseph is a brilliant physicist. Pierre has decades of Chemistry background. Philip Mulholland is a Geoscientist. Geran, Pablo, WickedWench and so on I don’t know their backgrounds but they are not novices and neither are you at this point. I don’t know the others but all have been a huge help to me directly or indirectly (including yourself).
You do have writing skill. Ever think about trying to put one on PSI?
Cheers!
Sorry meant for Robert. Anyone else read his article it is really good.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Are-Climate-Emergency-Actions-by-the-United-States-Reasonable
Greta’s nemesis …..
Naomi Seib = anti-Greta
Put ’em together, and the universe might destroy itself. (^_^)
But it would be worth it.
CD,
Concerning your comment about my bio blurb using the word, “amateur”,
I am that, because I am not a credentialed scientist with a degree. I would rather the bulk of my words speak for me, rather than just that one.
You’ve heard of the advertising motto — undersell/over-deliver ?
If I were a pro, then I’d REALLY be a bad as, I suppose. (^_^)
I’m not an amateur writer however I would not consider myself a professional either…So I guess I’m a nether professional.
That’s “netherfessional”.
Us netherfessionals rely on the wordhouse effect, which is writing better than we otherwise would without it. The mechanism involved is called “backwriting”
Haha
Yes and becasue of that we have +33 more words than we would have had in our vocabulary.
OMG! lol
So, if I write the sentence, “Dogs are great pets” and the sentence, “Seals are great food”, then I can add them together to get the sentence, “Dog seals are great sea food.” The wordhouse theory allows for this.
LOL, exactly.
“My bathtub is cold.”
“So I added hot water.”
“Cold water made my bathtub hot.” The Wordhouse Spencer-Monckton Law.
“Larger aerosol particles in the atmosphere interact with and absorb some of the radiation, causing the atmosphere to warm.” -NASA
Is this part of the the NASA Greenhouse Effect?
Maybe we should start calling them out according to theory. The NASA GHE, NOAA GHE, the Cliamatolgist GHE 1st, 2nd, 3rd edition…
Maybe someone will start asking the question: “But why are they all different?”
CD,
They are all different, because we MUST be inclusive. Everybody is right, because everybody is equal. We MUST not discriminate. We must not have standards of agreement, for fear of being racist, sexist, imperialistic, toxic, gender-biased, etc.
Science now is open to all — NOT just to those who can actually do it correctly, but to those who can break the barriers, crash the glass ceilings, … go where no humeperson [can’t say “huMAN” anymore] has gone before. [cue Star Trek theme].
Damn it, Jim, I’m an amateur (i.e., netherfessional), not a climate cy-in-tist.
CD, if you will permit a slight modification:
“My bathtub is cold.”
“So I added colder water.”
“Colder water made my bathtub hot.” The Wordhouse Spencer-Monckton Law.
This fits the clowns better, as they disallow any real “heat”. Their “sun” is icy-cold, for example.
In their empty heads, the only thing that can “warm the planet” is more cold.
(You and Robert are making this fun, as it should be. AGW is nothing but a comedy show.)
Actually it’s gotten to the point o of being a comedy show. I had someone demand, yes demand, that I acknowledge IR radiation always increases temperature.
Good on you immediately identifying the sophistry there!
I have had excellent teachers. I enraged that “physics expert” so much he stopped responding. Simply becasue I said,
For a physics expert he was not at all clever. He thought cows huddling together increased temperature. I said no it increases the radius of the temperature not the actual temperature. Huge difference, Cows huddling does not increase heat, it increases the boundaries of the warmth.
A hundred degrees one square meter or a hundred degrees one square mile is still a hundred degrees.
Similarly, an IR photon can increase energy without changing temperature. So no an IR photon impacting the surface again will not increase the temperature, only the energy.
That ended the conversation.
When you think about it [if you have the time to waste], the “greenhouse effect” IS my “wordhouse effect”, because it’s all a very bad play on words — that is, not a real greenhouse, but a redefined thingie that we shall now call a greenhouse, as we hijack a word from its correct application, transfer it to an application to which it never applied, and define this new application with wrongass physics and math that isn’t even true of our hijacked, reapplied word.
They can’t even get repurposing right.
Exactly!!
In Joseph’s response to Spencer last June, another “Chris” commented about two weeks later (which no one noticed):
Chris Hansen says:
2019/06/25 at 3:22 PM
I don’t get it. area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?
Chris Hansen makes the all too common mistake of confusing geometry with physics. The surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of the disk. That’s the correct geometry.
But, you cannot divide the solar flux by 4. That changes everything, especially when you are considering a “thermal balance calculation”. An analogy would be like having 4 liters of water in one container at 40 C. Then removing one liter and trying to claim the one-liter temperature is 40/4 = 10 C.
Chris Hansen doesn’t understand “simple physics”, and he was unable to learn from Joseph’s patient explanation.
The comedy continues.
geran,
even Robert Holmes does it to TSI variability at 31.30 mins. in!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQ-KviHT5I
Or, as I would put it:
[Chris Hansen says:
2019/06/25 at 3:22 PM
I don’t get it. area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?]
Let’s look at the phrase, “reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation.” The divide-by-four value of sunlight is NOT being INTERCEPTED! … ANYWHERE! … EVER! Reducing the value of solar flux to “compensate” for something that never happens anywhere ever is an erroneous compensation.
It is NOT, by any means, “simple physics” — it is simple averaging, to arrive at a correctly calculated value that is physically meaningless, hence, NOT even close to correct physics.
What you are missing is the understanding of averages that have physical meanings. Without physical meanings, there is NO physics being done, … just math with no application to reality whatsoever. What you are missing is understanding the distinction between math and physics. Physics encompasses math, but the numbers of the math have to have physical meaning.
It’s just mind boggling how even really bright people cannot distinguish between ACTUAL input, as opposed to output over a sphere. “Interception” happens over a half sphere, while the divide-by-four discharge happens over a whole sphere. There is no violation here. The half receives the solar flux. The whole processes it and discharges it. The equality is preserved, because the discharge over the whole IS the divide-by-four, which reconciles with the interception over the half.
It does not have to come in at one-fourth power to go out at one-fourth power.
If you were going to follow real climate science you’d need to divide solar energy according to region/cell surface.
The Hadley cell clearly being the largest area fueled by the most solar power. You can’t divide the energy evenly it’s just impossible. The Ferrel cells take on far less than the Hadley and the Poles take on nearly nothing.
It would be a pie chart of percentages, the largest being a the Equator fueling the Hadley cells (N&S).
I would find it interesting how much each area absorbed. 60% Hadley/30% Ferrel/10% Poles or even more and or less?
This garbage from VOX on my splash screen:
“Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s” LOL what a load of crap!
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/4/20991315/climate-change-prediction-models-accurate?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Such BS!
Of course, they are going to redefine the very meaning of “accurate”.
Hey, I’m going to shoot at a target. Ooops, I missed the bullseye by five inches. I’m going to now make the target bigger. I missed the bullseye by four inches. My accuracy is improving. Now, I’m going to make the target even bigger, because I have discovered, from past performance, that if I make it bigger, then I can get closer to the target. Wow, I hit the bullseye this time! I am a very accurate shooter.
Exactly! And pay no mind to the man we paid off to make the bullseye bigger after each failed shot.
Nothing to see here, we were right the whole time.
Meanwhile in the real world…
Pablo yes, the guy in the video made the same mistake. Many people get confused by “flux”. If they have no real understanding of “power”, they get even more confused, since solar flux is “power” divided by “area”. A common mistake is assuming flux, or power, is “energy”. and treating it as such. Energy can be averaged, flux/power cannot be averaged. That’s why the bogus “energy budget” is pseudoscience. They are trying to “balance” flux as you would balance energy. Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.
For a blackbody sphere, energy-in = energy-out, 960(A) Joules = 240(4A) Joules. But flux-in does NOT equal flux-out, 960 W/m^2 ≠ 240 W/m^2.
… bears repeating:
” Energy can be averaged, flux/power cannot be averaged. That’s why the bogus ‘energy budget’ is pseudoscience. “
Some people just don’t know what the FLUX they’re talking about. 🙂
Or they do and just don’t give a flux.
Ha!
Pablo,
I caught that error you mentioned in the video, it was so subtle I almost missed it. Is this guy a physicist? I heard somewhere his PhD was in philosophy or something?
I am a little concerned about Joseph getting his PhD, I hear PhD physicists can lose their marbles, which would make the current climate science understandable if crazy scientists were responsible.
Climate, clowns and crazy. Yeah, sounds about right.
CD
Dont know why he made that mistake, He’s Robert Holmes. The guy behind the gas law that says that all temperatures are accounted for. PM/dR = T, No GHGE.
__ _________________ Venus ___ Earth ___ Titan ___ S Pole
Pressure (kPa) _______ 9200 ____ 101.3 ___ 146,7 __ 68,13
Mol density (gm/mol) __ 43.45 ____ 28,97 ___ 27,78 __ 28,97
Atm. density (kg/m3) ___ 65 _____ 1,225 ____ 5,25 ___ 1,06
Temperature (K) ______ 739,7 ___ 288,1 ____ 93,4 ___ 224,0
Clown Spencer, PhD, believes he can bake a turkey with ice cubes.
His response, upon failure, was “Flux it”.
Scientists can learn from failed experiments, sophist-clowns never learn.
This comment is worthy of repeating from someone on YT:
“Warm air can hold more water than cooler air at the same relative humility. See a psychrometric chart. However, human caused global warming does not hold any water.”
CD
/ However, human caused global warming does not hold any water. /
Let’s give him a PhD !!! He has what it takes !!!
Some relative humility is what my PhD brother needs!
My wife is a graduate from the University of Montreal. She receives every month the university’s journal. This month there is a bunch of articles about carbon neutral shit. So I Just sent 2 of the writers my article describing where the University of Washinton climate diagram goes wrong. I asked them to tell me where I go wrong. I guess I must feel better, looking for a fight like this 🙂
All the institutions are corrupt. Mentally corrupt at the least.
So I was talking physics with my wife, the little I have learned anyway (short conversation). She had a hard time grasping the concept of energy not doubling, like the 2 light bulb example, she kind of got it but was a little dumbfounded. Which is exactly like I was meaning the general education system really sucks doesn’t it? She is very intelligent (why I married her) she asked about two electric blankets why you feel warmer if the heat doesn’t double.
I said each blanket can’t heat beyond it’s original source, they will prevent more of your body temperature from escaping. Using one electric blanket and throwing a thermal blanket over that would be more economical and pretty much serve the same purpose of maintaining your body temperature.
Educate myself further please, if you so desire. Never ever feel like you can’t correct me if I am wrong, at this point I need to start using proper terms.
Why? Becasue I give a flux that’s why.
Pierre,
Glad you are feeling better.
General Consensus,
Is Roy worth it at this point? He has sold out, no one can be this stupid can they?
What about Christy, what’s his stance on this or is he a sell out too?
Joe should start a contest, “Sophists Choice Awards.”
CD, you’re on it, a second electric blanket would not be able to raise the temperature beyond the maximum temperature of the first electric blanket, but it would help get to that maximum temperature faster. It actually gets even more complicated than that due to how the exact problem would be set up, losses handled, etc.
Such problems quickly get confusing without an understanding of “temperature”, “heat”, and “energy”. And in the “electric blanket” problem, understanding “heat source” is also necessary. People who have not studied these areas can get the wrong ideas. Just this week, I was trying to correct someone, over at PSI, who was confused about how a simple thermometer worked. He became belligerent!
So to explain the concept of “energy not doubling”, first explain that “energy” can double, but that does not mean “temperature” doubles. Consider a brick that has a temperature of 100 C. If you put a thermometer next to the brick, the themometer would indicate “100 C”. Now position a second 100 C brick, in contact with the other side of the thermometer. The thermometer would still indicate 100 C. You “doubled” the energy, but you did not raise the temperature.
That’s it ! I’m in the fight. Contacted 6 people (chairs) at 6 different university physics departments in the province of Quebec about the Washinton University climate diagram. Just gave them my interpretation and asked where do I go wrong ? That not too agressive is it ? I’m waiting for the fireworks….
Also CD, Christy has not been openly perverting physics, but he has testified before Congress, presumably under oath, that AGW is fact. So, like Spencer, he does not understand the physics, but remains more in the shadows. Spencer openly flaunts his ignorance of, and disrespect for, science.
As an analogy, someday Christy can claim he didn’t know he was involved in the bank robbery, he just went along for the ride. But, Spencer was holding the gun and demanding the money.
Good for you Pierre!
Thank you Geran, adding that to my notes.
Pierre, I am venturing the first reply back to you will be the same jargon they give Joseph, “You just don’t understand the science.”
We shall see. I hope at least one person is reasonable but odds are not in your favor.
Energy is not always heat, but heat is always energy. An increase in energy does not always indicate an increase in temperature?
“…but heat is always energy.”
Be careful CD, “heat” is not just energy. Thermodynamic “heat” has two components: 1) energy transfer, and 2) from “hot” to “cold” (ΔT).
Without both components, there is no “heat”.
A cup of hot coffee does NOT contain heat. It contains energy. Drop an ice cube in the cup of hot coffee and you now have “heat”–the transfer of energy from the hot coffee to the cold ice cube.
Pierre DB,
I predict that you will get a letter with very generic, placating language:
Dear Mr. Bernier,
Thank you for taking time to contact us with your concerns. We here at _____________ strive to uphold the highest standards of all professions. We have invested heavily in orchestrating the many resources necessary to elevate our fine institution to this plateau. We will forward your letter to our Provost, who will forward it to ________________, who will forward it to the relevant parties of your concern. As our faculty and staff are quite busy pursuing the high mission to which we are dedicated, a formal reply to your query could take quite some time. In the interim, please consider supporting our quest by making a contribution to our development fund. Thank you again for your interest in ________________________, and we hope that we can fulfill your further interests, as our time and resources permit.
Yours truly,
La Grand Fakaway Limpwad, PhD, DUD, OMG
Well said Geran.
Following on Robert – they will also say something like it “only being a teaching model”…as if that justifies anything! lol I used to get that all the time “It is only used for teaching the basic concepts.”
Yes…exactly…morons!
Robert,
A gift for your tornado research if you don’t have it from NOAA which makes it even better.
The Super Outbreak of April 3-4, 1974
https://www.weather.gov/iln/19740403
Geran you are starting to blow my mind. So a hot cup of coffee has energy (and temperature?) but not heat unless it reacts with something cooler. If you put hotter coffee in the cup then the coffee in the cup becomes the cooler source.
I use to do this trick as a kid where I’d freeze my arm (in ice or in the freezer in the restaurant) and toss something down in scalding water and pick it up with no injuries to the shock of everyone else who had no idea I froze my arm first.
That’s not the same thing as the coffee cup naturally, just something I remembered I use to do.
CD that’s so weird…lol. Just kidding it’s great. Think of the things we did innocently as kids…and now look at the effect it has on us knowing a bit more about thermodynamics intuitively than other people. I used to burn stuff with a magnifying glass. You did what you did. You learn the limits of thermodynamics….your cold arm didn’t make the water hotter still!
While I am at it the argument of increased tornadoes from global warming is ironic since it takes just as much cold air as warm air to create one. Without the cold air the twister would not exist. So therefore one could conclude that if the planet was warming the tornadoes would be less not more becasue of less cold air being able to interact with the overall (global) warming air.
Just as they say warmer air is creating colder air? But in that theory thermal equilibrium is being achieved therefore it’s not global warming…ing…continues…
I am of course referring to the Robert and Scott conversation (?) at Hub Pages for those who not the know of the wit of hitherto I speak.
“So a hot cup of coffee has energy (and temperature?) but not heat…”
Correct CD. It’s best to think of “heat” as a process, not a “thing”.
If “heat” blows your mind, then you don’t want to learn about “entropy”.
🙂
Are Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy teaching models too?
I thought that sort of …. “teaching” … came to a close, long before a young person entered institutions of higher learning.
$10,000 Prize To The First Applicant To Present Evidence that Man-Made CO2 Causes Catastrophic Global Warming
https://electroverse.net/10000-prize-to-the-first-person-to-provide-evidence-of-co2-causing-catastrophic-global-warming/
From Richard Lindzen at
Click to access Lindzen_On-Climate-Sensitivity.pdf
“The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Let us assume for the moment that the earth has no atmosphere, and that the surface is non-reflecting. What would the temperature of the surface be? Incoming radiation would be about 341 Watts per square meter. In order for the earth to balance this, it would have to have a temperature given by the expression T4 where the Planck constant, is 5.67×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4 . Interestingly, this leads to a temperature of about 278.5 K or 5.5 C, at which temperature, the Planck functionon for the spectral distribution of radiation tells us that the radiation emitted by the earth is primarily in the infrared portion of the spectrum. This is only about 10 C less than today’s 288 K. If we allow for a surface reflecvity of 0.1, then the incoming radiaon is reduced to about 307 Was per square meter, and we get a temperature of about 271 K or -2 C. This is still only 17 C less than today’s mean temperature of 288 K.
“The common claim that the earth would be 33 C less than today’s temperature comes from including the reflectivity of clouds, which brings the reflectivity to about 0.3. This reduces the incoming radiation to 240 Watts per square meter and leads to a temperature of 255 K. We will ignore the implausibility of an atmosphere-free earth having clouds. Of course, even in this simple situationon, the surface temperature will vary with latitude, but for convenience of presentation we will assume that the temperature represents some sort of average.
When the rest of our atmosphere is added, several things change because our atmosphere contains various substances (water vapour, CO2, clouds and other less important gases) that absorb infrared radiation sufficiently to block radiation from the surface from being transmitted directly to space.
1. This, in turn, leads to a sharp drop in temperature above the surface that destabilizes the air and leads to convection.
2. Convection, in turn, limits the rate of decrease to something known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate, which is -9.8°C per kilometer for a dry atmosphere.
The observed rate of decrease is closer to -6.5°C per kilometer, which is related to what is known as the moist adiabatic lapse rate. However, the greenhouse substances in the atmosphere diminish with altitude until, at some level, the infrared radiationon can indeed escape to space.
3. Due to the lapse rate, this level is colder than the surface, and the difference between this temperature and the surface temperature is what is referred to as the greenhouse effect.”
From confused me:
Point 1.
I thought a drop in temperature at the surface stabilised the air and caused inversions.
Point 2.
Surely it is atmospheric density that creates the lapse rate not convection.
Point 3.
So is he is saying the lapse rate is the greenhouse effect and that radiative gases create it?
It is the reduction of the dry lapse rate by latent heat in water vapour that gives an increase of potential temperature (as in the meteorological definition) with altitude is it not?
Pablo,
I was wondering about Lindzen so thank you. To me he does not talk with an understanding of physics. When I hear “trap” I lose all confidence in the rest of the information because that signifies a lack of physics understanding to me.
Real Meteorology (if it still exists) clearly teaches lapse rate and atmospheric pressure equals temperature.
I remember reading one of Joe’s older posts where he explains the 288.15 Kelvin is the lapse rate/pressure from downward driven air from a higher temperature from the equator/ Hadley cells not from air that started on the surface, which would not account for the 288.15 Kelvin temperature.
if I remember correctly. It was an excellent read!
Naturally now that I need it I can’t find.
I thought convection was started from surface conduction to convection to advection.
I look forward to someone smarter than I explaining it.
CD,
exactly… in my world it is a hot surface that causes convection.
….coupled with environmental lapse rate greater than the adiabatic so that rising air is always warmer than the surrounding air and continues to rise.
Pablo and CD see right through that hilarious pseudoscience.
The “Summary” is great humor:
CO2 is not that bad.
But, it could be.
But, it’s probably not.
It could be because we don’t know everything.
We better get more funding for nonsense papers like this….
And, speaking of humor:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-12-13
I’ve come to fully appreciate that meteorologists have no training in thermodynamics…no thermo courses in their curriculum. Therefore they make up this back radiation BS without knowing that is violates basic thermo law.
I firmly believe if a rudimentary understanding of physics was a prerequisite for meteorology and 2 years of meteorology was a requirement to start climatology …we’d have far less climate scientists 🙂
Robert,
Are you sure Scott isn’t Mann? He is too well versed to be “mistaken” he is a member of the faculty of rehearsed deception. Nobody normal sleights facts with fiction that well. he is clearly using the models to claim the warming is happening and what will happen in the future even though the real world isn’t warming like he says. 64% (currently) is 15C or below globally.
I’m confident that Scott isn’t Mann, because he actually is too polite. I think Mann would have hit me already with ad hominems out the wazoo, attacking my credentials, calling me a “denier”, touting is PhD and research, etc., … you know, typical Manntastic tactics.
“is” = “his”
Yes he is polite and hasn’t sued you…or threatened to sue you. His ideology is pretty extreme though.
I’m covering this paper,
https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html
As a critique to hone my skills,I have mostly everything covered (I hope) but this part I need walked through…
“This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I know energy can transfer w/o temperature change but what are these people even talking about?
As always thank you very much for your input.
I stopped reading when the article referred to warming started in 1850…which was the end of the little ice age. The entire article is sophistry.
“When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth’s surface, the result is warming.”
Nope. That’s reverse heat flow.
Yup I covered that (you guys have taught me well) it’s this paper in particular, I want to shred.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
They seem to be using models and spectrometers and mixing both up to say the spectrometer is showing what the models are claiming. How can they claim “This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.”
I was just reading up on flux from you and maybe geran?
“A common mistake is assuming flux, or power, is “energy”. and treating it as such. Energy can be averaged, flux/power cannot be averaged. That’s why the bogus “energy budget” is pseudoscience. They are trying to “balance” flux as you would balance energy. Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.”
So they can’t “extract” 3.5 W/m2 from a flux and claim its IR from CO2. It is impossible to separate a flux like that, right?
To me (as I see it) it would be like measuring a flashlight beam from a 4 battery flashlight and claiming they can detect which battery part of the beam is coming from.
It’s still just reverse heat flow.
CD,
I stopped reading the abstract, when I came upon the phrase, “radiative trapping”.
The trick is to use words incorrectly in an intelligent sounding way to impress people who react only to superficial appearances, rather than delve into the depth of what is spoken.
Precisely. Sophistry.
[“It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate.”]
Just wrong in principle, so why should I read any further?
That statement is the entire basis of it all, and it is plainly and 100% invalidated by basic introductory thermodynamics. Heat cannot be reused, cannot go backwards.
CD, you found more hilarious pseudoscience. Thanks for sharing.
From your “livescience” link:
“When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth’s surface, the result is warming.”
Hilarious! Just like when the molecules in ice cubes emit long-wave radiation back toward your room, the result is warming.
“Using spectrometers (tools that measure spectra to identify particular wavelengths), the researchers analyzed the wavelengths of infrared radiation reaching the ground.”
Oooh, sounds very “sciency”, but just wait…
“Overall, they found that greenhouse gas radiation had increased by 3.5 watts per square meter compared with preindustrial times, a rise of just over 2 percent.”
Well, there goes their “sciency”. Fluxes do not add, so adding more CO2 would not mean more flux to the surface, just as adding more ice does not mean you can bake a turkey. One ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. Two ice cubes emit about 300 W/m^2. 14,843,931,752,159,791,413 ice cubes emit 300 W/m^2. Fluxes don’t add.
“Other researchers have noted “missing” infrared wavelengths in radiation into space, a phenomenon that happens because these missing wavelengths get stuck in the atmosphere.”
This is one of my “Top 10 favorites”—the “missing heat”. Does it get any better than “…missing wavelengths get stuck in the atmosphere”?
The comedy continues.
/ When the molecules in carbon dioxide /
Thought CO2 was made of atoms. I must have missed a class !
/ “Other researchers have noted “missing” infrared wavelengths in radiation into space, /
Look sideways moron. Just like fluorescence. It’s being radiated back to space in all directions not just straight up.
Still no answer from my 6 university physics chairs. What a surprise !
Pierre, don’t overlook this one:
“Using spectrometers… …they found that greenhouse gas radiation had increased by 3.5 watts per square meter compared with preindustrial times.”
Wouldn’t you love to find one of those old spectrometers from preindustrial times? I bet it would be worth a small fortune. A steam-powered spectrometer would be awesome….
Thank you all of you. I love watching genius at work.
I would imagine these same scientist use these techniques to measure their own IQ.
“Our initial tests results stated a 117 IQ but after using sensitive instruments to detect back IQ of +33 we were able to raise our intelligence level to an IQ of 150!”
We’s mooch smart’n nows dans befor.
… missing wavelengths get stuck in the atmosphere.
Oh my God! — that IS hilarious.
“Back IQ” from CD is the equally hilarious retort. The “Brainhouse Effect”, right? — more intelligent than they otherwise would be? The human skull back radiates IQ points, that, when added to the baseline IQ of a brain without a skull, adds the 33 extra points.
A good read…
http://freakoutery.com/2018/07/the-surprisingly-solid-mathematical-case-of-the-tin-foil-hat-gun-prepper/
Pierre,
It’s been a while but the LA riots in 1992 Korea Town held off looters with automatic rifles and shotguns. (Naturally, California outlawed automatic rifles.)
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots
Ironically, in California (again) March 26, 2014 “California state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) — one of the state’s strongest advocates for gun control — was arrested Wednesday on charges that include scheming to defraud citizens of honest services and conspiracy to illegally traffic firearms.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/leland-yee-gun-traffickin_n_5038152
My brother is ex-special forces, he legally owns an AR-15 (.223) and a .308 sniper rifle among many others of course. He is also a gun trainer and weapons expert. Canada sucks with its gun control laws.
“Disarming citizens to make it easier for the criminals”. The Leftist motto.
My brother took this picture a while back…Sorry I’m not big on dropbox I should but too lazy to set it up.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GxnPI4jp&id=F615CF7779A290D5D8652966A65F059ED62E39B7&thid=OIP.GxnPI4jpvvxBy40jp03JUgHaHa&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhuntingny.com%2Fforums%2Fuploads%2Fmonthly_11_2014%2Fpost-1257-0-03163100-1417268521.jpg&exph=532&expw=532&q=welcome+to+idaho+sign&simid=608027459852437940&selectedindex=22&qpvt=welcome+to+idaho+sign&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&sim=11
Likely one of the reasons Spencer tries to act like a skeptic, while embracing pseudoscience, is to be able to pick up some extra bucks from Skeptic groups.
Telephone conversations we’d like to overhear:
Phone at Headquarters of large Skeptic group: Ringgggg.
HQ: Hello.
Spencer: This is Roy Spencer. The check you sent for my recent speech has the wrong amount.
HQ: What was the amount on the check?
Spencer: The check was for $2500. I was promised $10,000.
HQ: Yes, that’s correct. $2500 is $10000 divided by 4. The check is correct.
Spencer: No, you can’t divide my speaking fee by 4! What is that about?
HQ: Roy, we agreed to pay $10,000 for your silhouette . But averaged over your whole body’s surface area, that amounts to $2500.
Spencer: Why, that’s absurd! No one does such crazy accounting!
HQ: You do….
Priceless!
In opening remarks for UN Climate Change Conf (COP25), Patricia Espinosa, Exec Secy, said:
“If we stay on our current trajectory, it’s estimated that global temperatures could more than double by the end of this century.”
DOUBLE?
WTF!!! These people can’t even speak anymore they’re so braindead.
Not only can’t they even speak correctly, they can’t speak the truth. Just look at this list of lies dramatized:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2019-12-02/secretary-generals-remarks-opening-ceremony-of-un-climate-change-conference-cop25-delivered
How is this not a violation of some international law?
These people will and are planning to kill for this.They will mass murder for their beliefs in their lies.
Isn’t the ideal population they want 1.7 Billion? That’s a lot of death.
“At current trends, we are looking at global heating of between 3.4 and 3.9 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.”
What an absolute load of crap. Everything he said was a lie.
I just did an average of key cities/regions world wide:
>15C or less 62.14%
>16-25C 27.86%
>26+C 10%
Yesterday:
72% of the planet was 15C or under.
10.7% was 27+C
>What is remaining consistent right now is the 10% average of warmer temps.
Yet if you look on NOAA and NASA satellite data it looks like the planet is on fire.
Pablo found a link to that recent paper by Lindzen. As I looked at it again, some red flags went up. The paper was written—
by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
with review assistance from Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
The paper was apparently funded by an organization that calls itself “CO2 Coalition”. But, guess who some of the members are:
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
So, it appears CO2 Coaltion gets funding to “fight” the AGW nonsense, but instead promotes “Luke-warmism”.
From wikipedia: “The coalition receives funding from the Mercer Family Foundation and Koch brothers.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
Do these funding organizations really understand how their funds are being wasted? You can’t fight the AGW nonsense with Climate-Clowns.
Why don’t organizations like the Mercer Family and Koch brothers get some people that understand the physics—people like Joseph Postma, or Charles Anderson?
geran,
Yes, very disappointing.
William Happer is a co-founder and board member.
I thought he was meant to be pretty clued up on atomic physics.
Agreed Pablo, it is very disappointing. Millions have been wasted, and science is being destroyed.
What I have learned is that even some “physicists” are not competent in the physics related to Earth’s climate, specifically heat transfer, thermodynamics, and radiative physics. That’s why they get it wrong. And, why you see such nonsense as:
* trying to “balance” flux,
* adding more CO2 increases flux,
* trapping heat,
* cold can warm hot.
Spencer has actually said that putting on a sweater is an example of “cold” warming “hot”!
He has no clue, and doesn’t want to learn. It’s all about keeping the $$$ coming in.
Animated gif. Derived from 50.7 billion satellite measurements collected over 17 years. …From a luke warmer perspective, but still interesting.
2 interesting findings
– co2 absorbs a narrow wavelenght and re-radiates in a wider wavelenght. Can clearly see that both left and right of the co2 absorption spectrum the outgoing radiation increases, when co2 PPM increases.
– At around 400 to 450 ppm the lower end of atmosphere is saturated, So more co2 has no extra effect there. Only more co2 in the higher zones can have extra effect, but the effect there is extra cooling.
As the atmosphere becomes increasingly opaque at lower altitudes, only emissions from higher & warmer altitudes escape to space.
I just am not convinced of this at all.
It’s not as though the concentration of CO2 is such that it forms a wall-to-wall carpet — there’s one CO2 molecule per 2500 other air molecules. And somehow this amount, with all those “holes” in between molecules creates greater opacity to the point that only molecules above them radiate out to space? I’m not seeing it.
Again, raging on this:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2019-12-02/secretary-generals-remarks-opening-ceremony-of-un-climate-change-conference-cop25-delivered
[“Such solidarity and flexibility are what we need in the race to beat the climate emergency.”]
What we need is solid grounding in facts and unflinching convictions to act according to facts rather than emotionalized fiction.
[“We stand at a critical juncture in our collective efforts to limit dangerous global heating.”]
The critical juncture is a mass failure of understanding what is really known and can be known, and facing the reality that human CO2, in and of itself, poses no danger whatsoever.
[“By the end of the coming decade we will be on one of two paths.
One is the path of surrender, where we have sleepwalked past the point of no return, jeopardizing the health and safety of everyone on this planet.”]
No, the first path is the path of rational analysis,
[“Do we really want to be remembered as the generation that buried its head in the sand, that fiddled while the planet burned?”]
Do we really want to be fooled by ridiculously, over dramatized rhetoric of total exaggeration?
[“The other option is the path of hope.”]
No, the other option is the path of irrational panic.
[“A path of resolve, of sustainable solutions.”]
A path of stubborn resistance to face engineering realities.
[“A path where more fossil fuels remain where they should be – in the ground – and where we are on the way to carbon neutrality by 2050.”]
A path where insanity driven by ignorance stumbles into a new dark age of despair.
[“That is the only way to limit global temperature rise to the necessary 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.”]
All reasonable efforts proposed so far could not measurably change the temperature of an entire planet, and so persisting in the false belief that they could is the way to civilization’s demise.
[“The best available science, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us today that going beyond that would lead us to catastrophic disaster.”]
The best available science is NOT through the IPCC — IPCC “science” is political science pretending to be hard science.
[“Millions throughout the world – especially young people – are calling on leaders from all sectors to do more, much more, to address the climate emergency we face.”]
Those millions are uninformed, misguided, and manipulated with falsehoods to act in ways that waste human efforts that would be better spent on real problems.
[“They know we need to get on the right path today, not tomorrow.”]
They know little of the truth, and only the appeal of lies manipulating them to behave irrationally.
[“That means important decisions must be made now.”]
The most important decision to be made is disbanding the IPCC for gross international negligence leading to needless emotional distress and economic hardships.
[“COP25 is our opportunity.”]
COP25 is yet another cop out on reality.
Robert, I can’t decide which of your reponses I like the best. They’re all the best!
Something tells me you won’t be asked to speak before the UN.
🙂
Agreed, Robert is a gifted writer, able to capture the true sorrow of real science being beaten down in the mud by politics. Who knew scientific persecution would start over again?
Flat Earth physics has become the state religion.
Can someone direct me to a few physics books that are decent?
I have found, “Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics”
https://physicspages.com/schroeder%20thermal.html
Any other references or webinars?
I keep seeing the same misinformation over and over again, being put out there as a respectable perspective.
It’s just amazing.
The people in charge of running civilization don’t seem to know shit on this topic.
RK
Great analysis and comments. Unfortunately I think they know they are full of shit. They just keep pretending because they have marching orders from higher powers. They are selling us out.
Still have’nt heard from my 6 university stooges.
Does anyone have any real current information on the melting of Himalayan Glaciers?
No way warming temps are melting ice up in the mountains, isn’t that only caused by direct sunlight?
It takes anything above 0 Celsius to melt ice? So that’s not much warming is it?
CD,
The following paper was done in 2009, but I suspect that its insight still applies today:
Click to access Himalayan_glaciers-A_state-of-art_review_of_glacial_studies_glacial_retreat_and_climate_change_MoEF_discussion_paper_2009.pdf
It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of the global warming. A glacier is affected by a range of physical features and a complex interplay of climatic factors. It is therefore unlikely that the snout movement of any glacier can be claimed to be a result of periodic climate variation until many centuries of observations become available. While glacier movements are primarily due to climate and snowfall, snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.
According to the Wikiwonderpedia, the number of Himalayan glaciers alone is around 15,000.
Do you really believe that all of those have been assessed?
In 2010, if I remember correctly, I wrote the following article about glaciers:
https://hubpages.com/education/GLACIERS-The-Cold-Hard-Facts-Of-Climate-Change
The most recent paper being cited about alarming Himalayan glacial melting seems to be this one:
J.M. Maurer el al., “Acceleration of ice loss across the Himalayas over the last 40 years,” Science Advances (2019), which you can find here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333901909_Acceleration_of_ice_loss_across_the_Himalayas_over_the_past_40_years
Check out these claims from that paper:
We investigate glaciers along a 2000-km transect from Spiti Lahaul to Bhutan (75°E to 93°E), which includes glaciers that accumulate snow primarily during winter (western Himalayas) and during the summer monsoon (eastern Himalayas), but excludes complications of surging glaciers in the Karakoram and Kunlun regions where many glaciers appear to be anomalously stable or advancing.
So, they EXCLUDE the … “complications” … of stable or advancing glaciers.
COMPLICATIONS ! Why exactly did they exclude these? “Anomalously stable or advancing”? — anomalous only with respect to their failed wishes otherwise.
Our compilation includes glaciers comprising approximately 34% of the total glacierized area in the region,
So, they do NOT include approximately 66% of the total glacierized area. What?! Why?
which represents roughly 55% of the total ice volumebased on recent ice thickness estimates.
which does NOT represent 45% of the total ice volume. Oh, never mind that 45% that we don’t know f#&$ about.
This diverse dataset adequately captures the statistical distribution of large (>3 km^2) glaciers, thus providing the first spatially robust analysis of glacier change spanning four decades in the Himalayas.
“Diverse?” “Adequately?” “First spatially robust analysis?”
Doesn’t seem quite accurate, does it?
Hey, I’m gonna do a robust analysis of how many calories I consume each day, but this will NOT include the “complications” of the pack of cookies and six soft drinks that I consume each day, which are an “anomalously” inclusive part of my eating habits.
NOTE: I originally had some curse words in my reaction to the Maurer et al paper, but I cleaned it up.
EXCELLENT! Absolutely helpful, thank you very much sir. So basically like the political science energy budget we’ll just discard distractions like what the Sun is doing in real time or waht the normal glaciers are doing in real time.
Expletives are all of our first reactions to this bs (bad science). I remember when Obama claimed 2004 was the hottest year on record by reactions was WTF is he even talking about! Which of course means Weirder Than Fiction.
The more I read what the IPCC accepts as scientific proof the more I am convinced most of it is written by their children in high school.
Robert I read the HUB page, excellent as usual. This comment on that page captures the delusion of political climate science:
Dear Robert
You seem to misunderstand some basic concepts. Nobody doubts the important influence of the sun on climate nor is there any question about the fact that the natural variations between glacials and interglacials are real (see Milankowich theory). It is even accepted that previous interglacials (the warm periods similar to the Holocene, the period we are currently living in) were warmer than what we experience today. However, the fact that these things exist is not in conflict with the fact of the human influence on climate which is generally referred to as human caused global warming.
1. “We” admit the Sun drives the climate.
2. “We” admit that that the past was much warmer than the present.
3 “We” still believe human influence is causing out of control global warming?????
WTF bs, this is pure Bolsheviks.
What ? Himalayan glaciers are still melting ? South East Asia people are not dead of thirst already?
They were supposed to have died of thirst 15 years ago !
Oh. Ya ! It’s -40C up there in summer ! Another miss !
However, the fact that these things exist is not in conflict with the fact of the human influence on climate which is generally referred to as human caused global warming.
The fact that male dogs lift their legs to pee is not in conflict with the fact of the planetary-alignment influence on canine behavior which is generally referred to as astrology.
In other words, just because you can construct a sentence with two separate clauses does not mean that a causal relationship exists between the two.
The fact that cherries grow on trees is not in conflict with the fact that elves set pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
The fact that fecal residue harbors potentially harmful bacteria is not in conflict with unicorns floating among the clouds.
State a fact that is supported, and then state AS fact something that is NOT supported, and then imply a causal relationship between established facts an UNestablished … “facts”.
Language can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the level of intelligence manipulating it.
Passing this on…
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/12/16/update-dec-2019-yes-pm-pokes-fun-at-climatism/
Totally off topic, but relevant in that it could, in the long run, affect US climate-change commitments, here’s what appears to be a detailed report on the truth about the Trump impeachment allegations:
Click to access 2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf
One thing is for sure the “impeachment” of President Trump has no grounds just like climate change but they are moving forwards anyways.
…and they dare anyone to stop them.
From Tony Heller on ice core CO2 v Temperature data..
Geran and Knights of the old Climate Science,
Geran you mentioned the psuedo scientist said, ““As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface…”
As I recall even that’s not true, the 15 micron range is less becasue CO2 breaks down the IR into different wl so it’s not limiting IR from emitting out to space just changing the wl. That shows either how dishonest he is or incompetent or as is the usual standard, both.
The ”A magical gaissiness done made more light come leakin outta what it done made less to have leaked in two, causa how it ain’t never done let thim uthurns come in thair” story is the
open
transparent
CALCULATING of the surface temperature WRONG: deriving 271 or -18C
after
open
transparent
REMOVAL of all the energy GHGs don’t allow to join the Earth energy budget: 23%, c o o l i n g
then
when having SHOWN you this ERRONEOUS REMOVAL of energy from final calc temp
they proceed to use the
WRONG application
of the WRONG law
to DERIVE the final WRONG temp.
They THEN – having SHOWN YOU THEMSELVES REMOVING ENERGY the GHGs interact with
turn to you and OUT of THE BLUE they SAY to YOU
”Yew has done and seen us take thim what’s at that tops, and subtract thim what’s at tha boddums,
and done come us a DIFFURNTS
uv (and what they have just shown you is their removal of all energy not reaching, going into and thus warming Earth, due to the Nitrogen atmosphere, it’s Oxygen/Ozone enrichment – these remove about 6% of total sunlight, look for that part, and then the GHGs remove 23% of all available sunlight. That’s what’s going on at this point, GO WATCH for THIS at ANY of their websites)
(we done come two a diffurnts uv) 29 pur sint what ain’t nevur wint innit. (Eurth.)
Then they say ”THIM GREAN and HOWSIE WUNS has done made MORE ENERGY to have COME OUT than has WINT IN which is WHY,
the
* * *SHORT TEMPERATURE WE DONE JUST CALCULATED, IS SHORT.* * *
And they just stare at you like they didn’t just SHOW YOU THEM REDUCING THEIR OWN CALCULATED TEMPERATURE to the point it’s BELOW THE REAL CALCULATED OFFICIAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE we use for CALIBRATIONS and for LEGAL WARRANTYING of AIRCRAFT PARTS, SUBMARINE and SHIP and other parts, warrantying ANYTHING basically, when it all comes down to it – that INFLUENCES or SENSES or MAKES, * * *HEAT, PRESSURE, HUMIDITY, etc –
They SHOW you THEM SUBTRACTING 29% of TOTAL INPUT ENERGY
and when their OWN PROJECTED CALCULATED TEMPERATURE is SHORT
they SAY to YOU – THEM GREEN and HOUSIE WUNS,
*what they just SHOWED YOU REMOVING 23% of T.H.E.I.R. ERRONEOUS F.I.N.A.L. TEMP, the Green House Gases which actually mostly amounts to water, some of their cooling the temperature involves the cooling by CO2 but it’s almost ALL water –
well – when you go over there YOU be LOOKING and YOU’RE GOING to SEE THEM,
using NOT the ACTUAL official METHOD
using NOT the ACTUAL official LAW
deriving NOT the ACTUAL official TEMPERATURE – they SHOW you them USING this
removal of all the energy the GHGs and the Oxygen/Ozone (the Nitrogen actually supports a little dust that’s hardly even referenced it’s such a small amount of atmosphere-derived sunlight loss)
they show you THEM – THEM – not MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, – REAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE calculates the temperature DIFFERENTLY- counting ALL the LIGHT –
they SHOW you THEM
REMOVING 23% from their OWN final CALCULATED TEMP,
and then ACTING ASTONISHED there’s MORE ENERGY than THEY – THEY – THEY
calculate when
THEY calculate the WRONG temperature – with the WRONG LAW –
they TURN to you and HAVING JUST SHOWN YOU THEM,
COOLING THEIR OWN CALCULATED TEMPERATURE
using the GREEN HOUSE GASES’ PRESENCE in the atmosphere
they turn to you and say ‘THEM GREEN HOUSE GAISES IS THE WUNS,
WHAT’S MAKIN AWL THAT ”EXTURA inurgy” TWO BE UP IN THAIR.”
lISTEN TO ME CAREFULLY THE TEMPERATURE 271 (-18C)
is
n.o.w.h.e.r.e. found
in the ACTUAL
OFFICIAL
CALCULATION of the ACTUAL OFFICIAL TEMPERATURE of the PLANET:
go LOOK it UP – ”International Standard Atmosphere.” The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE is the GLOBAL
OFFICIAL
BASE CLIMATE VALUES set,
everybody uses
for everything from welding equipment, to underwater diving equipment, to aircraft equipment, to SPACECRAFT LANDING INSTRUMENTATION to JETLINER INSTRUMENTATION.
The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE is
THE
GLOBAL
OFFICIAL
ACTUAL
CALIBRATION and verification temperature for EVERYTHING.
-18 IS NEVER PART – even a PARTiaL DERIVATIVE at ANY point
along the REAL string
of REAL calculations
deriving the REAL temperature.
271 is W.R.O.N.G. the CALCULATED TEMP is 278 (+15C).
Not MAYBE THIM PLAYNES FLY ON THISUN UR THAT’N,
there is ONE
REAL
OFFICIAL
C.O.R.R.E.C.T.L.Y. calculated T.E.M.P.E.R.A.T.U.R.E.
for this
P.L.A.N.E.T.
and IT ISN’T 271 Kelvin.
and it isn’t. -18C,
and it IS, 288 Kelvin.
+15C
That’s just ALL there fucking is to it and the MOMENT YOU ALLOW THEM to CLAIM there is SOMEWHERE in
SOME STRING deriving the REAL, OFFICIAL, CORRECT FINAL TEMPERATURE
you are fucking DONE. Because WHEN THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE TO ADMIT they need to be able to correctly calculate the OFFICIAL ACTUAL TEMPERATURE and REACH the RIGHT TEMP
what are you going to say?
THEIR CLAIM of THERE BEING a CORRECTLY DERIVED 271 (-18c)
ANYWHERE along the STRAND of PARTIAL DERIVATIVES
leading to the finaly correct CALCULATED TEMPERATURE
is
UTTER HOGWASH.
They THEN – having DERIVED this *MANDATORY 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL
showing you them doing the ENTIRE THING, WRONG –
they TURN to you and SAY to you that THE VERY GREEN HOUSE GASES
they *made you watch them cool their own erroneous final ”calc temp” DOWN to, using –
are ”MAKING MORE LIGHT COME OUT OF THE EURTH THAN WHAT HAS DONE wint INNIT!
YES
they
DO,
THAT is WHAT they SHOW you
T.H.E.M.
D.O.I.N.G.
OPENLY
UNDER
your NOSE.
And when people come along and say – HEY that’s not GAS LAW, that’s not THE REAL CALCULATED SURFACE TEMPERATURE, and THAT’S not THE PROPER STEPS for DERIVING a TEMPERATURE of a planet, it’s the wrong answer when it’s done here on Earth (by this mandatory 33 degrees THIS wrong METHOD delivers) and it’s WRONG when it’s done on THE OTHER PLANETS TOO, – it IS – THEIR FAKE CALCS deliver the WRONG final TEMP for EVERY planet they DO this WITH –
when you come along and say HEY this doesn’t even pass the WELDER/SCUBA DIVER/BASIC PILOT temperature for sea level etc – THEY SIMPLY CUT OFF ALL COMMENTS ON THEIR PROPAGANDA OUTLET.
That’s what is going ON.
NONE of what they SHOW you
is ACTUAL GAS LAW MECHANICS
for DERIVING ACTUAL GAS VOLUME/PRESSURE TEMPERATURES.
And whether you can understand what I’m telling you or not – if you’re one of these people who just never really learned to count, AT all – look up ”International Standard Atmosphere” and watch some people calculate it on videos different places, and you’ll see 288 (+15).
Now. Go over to one of their websites and look for gas law. This is gas phase matter, gases HAVE laws because of their compressibility and interrelated, inversely variant volume/pressure/temperature ratios.
You’ll notice – THEY OPENLY CALCULATE in FRONT of YOU, the W.R.O.N.G. TEMPERATURE.
It’s why you can MOCK them saying ”SHOW me ONE MORON in your SCIENCE BLIGHTING CHURCH who can CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of THE PLANET to the CORRECT OFFICIAL TEMP. I’LL WAIT YOU GO FIND ONE.”
He’ll return with a man CALCULATING to 271
REMOVING THE ENERGY THE GHGs ”REMOVE” in his church
then he’ll WAVE his ARMS AROUND and say ”thim GREAN and HOUSIE WUNS, has DONE MADE MORE COME OUT, than WE HAS CALCKYEW LAYDiD, uh goin IN.”
And they simply stare at you like ”i DARE you to know BETTER.”
One fucking word girls, ”ISA.”
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
ATMOSPHERE.
Ok maybe 3 words and maybe even more than that. Maybe the words ”YOU JUST SHOWED ME YOU, REDUCING TEMPERATURE DUE TO GHGs,
then telling me GHGS made MORE come OUT
than GHG had LET GO IN
ostensibly because of how
GHGs never let that not going in,
NEVER go IN.
Yes. Yes, they tell you that MORE comes OUT because of WHAT MADE LESS GO IN.
than they
has done
and calculated.
Whin thay has done – WHAT kids?
When they calculate the temperature of the planet surface wrong using the
wrong application
of the
wrong law
to derive that
WRONG, 271 Kelvin (-18C).
GO LOOK on THEIR websites,
then look up ”International Standard Atmosphere.”
There’s also the American Standard Atmosphere but it’s just the International with values for atmospheric altitudes going up several hundred thousand more feet using computer accrued data they derived from spacecraft, to aid poorer countries getting into the orbital flight age.
EVERYWHERE you LOOK these CON MEN are CLAIMING ”The CALCULATED SURFACE TEMPERATURE is 271/-18.”
NO it is NOT.
The OFFICIAL
PROPERLY CALCULATED
CORRECTLY DERIVED,
surface temperature of THIS planet,
at MEAN sea level AVERAGE, is 288 +15C.
You can START MOCKING THEM at THIS POINT because CLAIMING to be CALCULATING
the WRONG TEMPERATURE
is the VERY FIRST THING they DO.
THEN they tell you that GREEN HOUSE GASES MADE them CALCULATE it short
when they SHOW you THEM LOWERING their OWN TEMPERATURE
using GREEN HOUSE GASES.
The rattle off a LONG LIST of WATER-RELATED – the main GREEN HOUSE GAS RELATED
energy losses to EARTH and SUBTRACT THIS
from their OWN
FINAL calculated
T.E.M.P.E.R.A.T.U.R.E.
Yes they DO.
YES they do,
yes THEY do,
and YOU need
to be able to point out, what you’re watching them DO.
When they SHOW you THEM deriving the WRONG temperature
then claiming GREEN HOUSE GASES are the REASON ther’s ”more than calculated energy”
after they make a BIG SLIGHT OF HAND SHOW
of SUBTRACTING the energy
they attribute to GREEN HOUSE GAS WATER mainly.
They talk all about it – ice, snow, yada yada thim cloudie thangs, yada yada,
and say ‘sO WE’LL JUST LOWER OUR FINAL CALCULATED TEMP.”
Using GHG related energy interference to lower their temperature to the WRONG one
they then say ”Oh SHiT LOOK ! Thim GREAN and HOUSIE WUNS,
done made MORE COME OUT
than WE dun CALCULATED!!”
YES
bitches.
And in fact THESE very SCAMMERS are the FIRST ONES to TURN OFF ALL READER COMMENTS on their SITES because people kept POINTING OUT the OPEN,
OBVIOUS FRAUD,
EVERY step of the WAY.
I didn’t ask girls, I told you all: GO LOOK
at THEIR STORY
on THEIR PREMIER SITES
BRAGGING about their
”SIGNTSIE THANGS WHAIR WE SPLAYNE, about how
evur time less done wint in,
it done made more come OUT!”
EVERY time GHGs
make another percent energy never reach Earth,
by THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS
this will cause MORE energy to come OUT
than they have CALCULATED.
YES that IS,
WHAT’S going ON.
Go LOOK.
Listen to me carefully ankle biters who thought at one time in your guvurmunt skewlt’ lives, them cold baths, is heedurs cause a magical gaissiness, done made more energy come out,
than signtist had figured –
it doesn’t make a rat’s ass how I say THIS.
The only thing that matters is are they REALLY showing you THEM
COOLING their OWN CALCULATED TEMPERATURES using GHG water mainly
then turning and looking at you saying – hey thim grean and housie wuns,
done made more come out than signtsist done and calculated,
cause
thays a makin more come out
evur time thay’s a makin less go in. ”
You figure their fuckin’ math out.
Today GHGs are interacting with about 23% of sunlight top of atmosphere – their church story so look for it – and they show YOU
their RECRUIT ZOMBIE
THEM REMOVING all that ENERGY
due to GHGs and then some for Oxygen/Ozone, all that totals 29% but the 23% with the ”ice snow clouds etc” they talk about – THAT’S what YOU’RE over there to check on a story about so – bear that in mind..
they SHOW you THEM
COOLING their OWN FINAL TEMP 23% due to GHGs
then they
TURN to you and say ”GREEN house GASES ARE making MORE energy come OUT than CALCULATIONS show SHOULD because of how the magical gaissiness,
done made MORE come OUT
evur time LESS done to have WINT IN.
Yes
they
FuCKiNG
do.
Not maybe.
Not just on Thursdays,
Not just on those days when the Chairman, decides to
jiggle the Yuan a little bit,
so he can pick up that sexy property by the Harbor,
the Capitalists are falling all over each other about,
at a steep discount.
That’s what they’re fucking telling YOU – the entire world,
and they ACTUALLY PLAN to ACT OUTRAGED if YOU start pointing that OUT.
It’s HOW the MAGIC GASSERS became the worlds’ FIRST GREAT FAKE NEWS CENSORSHIP MODEL.
THEY are the ONES who STARTED the FAD of NOT LETTING PEOPLE COMMENT on SCIENCE and NEWS SITES, people kept pointing out how
OPENLY
TRANSPARENTLY
RIDICULOUSLY FRAUDULENT,
EVERY
SINGLE
TURN-OF-PHRASE
in their
UTTER F.A.K.E.R.Y
is.
COLD NITROGEN BATHS are HEATERS
because a MAGICAL GASSINESS
is making MORE ENERGY COME OUT
evur time signtist dun calkyewlaydid
less two have done wint innit.
YOU go CHECK
and if WHAT I’m jokingly typing like this isn’t TRUE
YOU ask POSTMA to REMOVE it cause
it ain’t how thim signtsie fellurs, izza doin.
And if YOU BELIEVE it’s THERMODYNAMICS
YOU come tell us all – tell all these other people,
how I have their story wrong.
They SHOW YOU THEM
COOLING their OWN FINAL TEMP
using GHG removed ENERGY
then exclaim, ”THIM GHG’s has done made MORE come OUT than we has CALCULATED shud have DONE WINT IN!!”
”Signtist is puzzl’t cawse thay cain’t figure owt what has dun, and wint rawng, but thay ‘speckt,
it’s frum YEW DUN YEWSIN YEW sum FIAR.”
Their fuckin story, b*tch*s.
Let THEM explain it
so you don’t have that stupidity burned in your mind
till the end of your days.
”Signtist is stump’t and thay cain’t figure out why evur time they count less to have wint in, it seems to have made more two have come out, but
thay sus pect
it’s cause yew dun made fiar sin
frum yew
yewsin yew
sum fiar.”
”YaW”.
”Muchly of signtist has dun agread, that evur time thay calculate less two have wint in,
it seems to have made more come out,
causa what done to have made,
less two have,
wint
in.”
Yes. That is their fucking story, and while I’m WRITING it in a funny way,
they are saying it to you with a DEAD SERIOUS LOOK on THEIR FACE,
”That’chew cain’t undurstand, how signts work.”
“Bowt how EVUR TIME they dun and calculated LESS to have WINT IN
it done seemed two have made MORE two have come OUT.
Than thay has calculated
to have
wint
innit.”
GO CHECK.
And enjoy mocking them for this.
Look around for phrases like ”Signtist wuz dun puzl’t how evur time less done two have wint in, more could have come out, but thin thay wuz puzzlin’ and somebody said something about ”fire sin” and thay realized evurbody had to give signtist money.”
This level of TRAVESTY of TRANSPARENCY of FRAUDULENCE is why all argument with ANY of them, HAD to BE shut DOWN and the MAGIC GASSERS of the world INVOKED the MODERN
”NO COMMENTS ALLOWED on OUR FAKE NEWS” movement.
It was THESE very GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
who MADE this UP and SPREAD it as REAL.
COLD Nitrogen baths are HEATERS,
There’s NO such THING as ONE CORRECTLY CALCULATED TEMPERATURE for SOMETHING,
EVERY TIME LESS ENERGY has done been CALCULATED to have GONE IN,
it done seems to have made MORE COME OUT.
These are the VERY people who FOUNDED the ”YOU SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED to SPEAK if YOU AREN’T a CLIMATE SCIENTIST” scam.
The reason I use this low-brow method of mocking these FRAUD BARKING THERM-O-BiLLiES
is because
NONE of this is science, as far as ANYTHING they say goes.
The COLD Nitrogen ATMOSPHERE is not WARMING us.
NO cold Nitrogen Atmosphere warms ANYTHING immersed in it.
Not.
Once.
Not.
Ever.
The temperature 271 Kelvin -18
ERRONEOUS SHORTFALL
all MAGIC GASSERS MUST CALCULATE or there cain’t be nair story uh no magicalness, and of no gaissiness, what done made more come out,
evur time it done to have made less two have wint in,
is not EVER the correctly calculated surface temperature for Earth.
NOT EVER.
The correctly calculated temperature is not DERIVED using STEFAN BOLTZMANN: because Stefan Boltzmann has no accomodation for interdependent volume/pressure/temperature relationships. GAS LAW must be USED to PROPERLY CALCULATE TEMPERATURES
of GAS VOLUMES because as PRESSURE and VOLUME and TEMPERATURE change, SO DO THE OTHER TWO and if TWO change, they influence the THIRD – around and around, till one day,
some
smart and signtsie fellurs said humbly, ”hey boys how about GAS LAWS so SOME of THIS SHIT will TURN OUT RIGHT?!”
It was a BiG fuckin HiT.
And NOW,
interplanetary SPACE age.
Due to some of those gas laws we were able to finally, FINALLY warranty steam machinery because it was FINALLY known how much ENERGY was in steam at various temperatures, and pressures, and of course the volumes all this was being calculated for.
With that came internal combustion
and with that came flight.
And with that came space probes
and with that, came CHECKING THE GAS LAW WE USE to SEE IF IT’LL ROBOTICALLY LAND CRAFT on OTHER PLANETS, TOO… and we landed 13 on Venus, a bunch on Mars, some on the Moon, and
THE REAL ACTUAL OFFICIAL GAS LAW CALCULATES RIGHT,
HERE on EARTH so we can FLY and LAND and CALIBRATE and HEAT and COOL
and KNOW wtF we’re doing,
and it calculates RIGHT on those other PLANETS,
and THE CHERCHA tha MAGICAL GAISSINESS
derives the WRONG fucking TEMPERATURE
on EVERY SINGLE BODY in this SOLAR system they CALCULATE for
and in fact there is a LIST
of ”STEFAN-BOLTZMANN TEMPERATURES” for planets,
and there is the list of the REAL TEMPERATURES,
and the ONE we USE on EARTH is the ONE OFFICIALLY, GLOBALLY REFERENCED,
as the
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
ATMOSPHERE.
EVERY PLANET you CALCULATE for, if YOU tried to LAND CRAFT and USE INSTRUMENTS,
CALCULATED AGAINST those
UTTERLY ERRONEOUS
STEFAN-BOLTZMANN CALCULATIONS
THEY
would ALL CRASH,
as EVERY INSTRUMENT
delivered READINGS that were UTTERLY WRONG.
NO NEGOTIATIONS.
EVERY SINGLE CRAFT
EVERY SINGLE INSTRUMENT
CALIBRATED and ORIENTATED
using those E.R.R.O.N.E.O.U.S.
STEFAN-BOLTZMANN DERIVATIONS
WOULD CRASH when EVERY INSTRUMENT
delivered UTTERLY FICTITIOUS READINGS.
LIKE their UTTERLY FICTITIOUS 271 Kelvin (-18C)
It’s FRAUD: from the FIRST mention of ”Thim Cold Nitchurgin baths, is Heaters”
to ”AND EVURTIME SIGNTIST dun CALCULATED less two have wint in, more has done come out, frum yew yewsin yew,
sum fiar.”
EVERY fucking SYMBOL
in EVERY fucking SENTENCE
in EVERY fucking STATEMENT
claiming ONE fucking IOTA of that FRAUDULENT SHIT is REAL
is FALSE.
Not ONE single ELEMENT of the STORY
reflects the FACTUAL NATURE
of a COLD
LIGHT BLOCKING
NITROGEN BATH
enriched with cold, light blocking Oxygen, and Ozone, and
laced with cold, light blcoking, green house gas refrigerants.
‘Done come a HeeDuR” – WRONG.
‘Done had more come out cause uh thim green house gaises” -WRONG
‘Done calculated and come up with tha real timpurchur, what ain’t same as that uthurn but it’s still real. – WRONG.
EVERY fucking SYLLABLE
of EVERY fucking SENTENCE about it
is OPEN
TRANSPARENT
UNABLE-TO-BE-HIDDEN
ERROR
compounding
ERROR
as ”INVERSION FRAUD” – reversing critical relationships early in a story to defraud people –
is tried to be USED to make COLD LIGHT BLOCKING Nitrogen gas baths HEATERS because of
yes – FIRE sin. Using fire has made the SKY get hot and it’s YOUR fault so YOU have to GIVE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MONEY so they can
try to figure out
why the sky is hotter
THAN THEY CALCULATED it SHOULD be.
YES. It’s THAT openly transparently SHAMELESS baseless F R A U D.
Here’s a fucking hint: the sky’s hotter than they calculated it should be, because they knowingly, intentionally calculated the temperature many degrees shorter than it really is,
and SHOW EVERYONE them DOING it
by SUBTRACTING energy related to GHGs:
USING GHGs
to COOL their FINAL calculated TEMPERATURE,
then claiming GHGs are the reason their FINAL calculatedTEMPERATURE, is SHORT.
YeS
THaT
is WHAT they DO, and they are – many of them FURIOUS when you see this and say HEY WTF fraud, WTF do you think you just DID here?
sO
MAGIC GASSERS
INVENTED, simply DESTROYING EVERYONE who SPEAKS about it on the internet,
or anywhere else.
It was all this going on that – when ClimateGate came out – had this fraud’s origins BARKING MOCKERY about there being peer review as the CELEBRATED CLEARING the LAST HONEST SCIENTIST on THIS PLANET from a SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW BOARD.
One of the EASIEST ways to WRECK a puddle of scab eating science blighting thawt a magical gaissiness done made them cold baths heeders barking fucking LeFTaRDS
is to simply start bashing the fuck out of them with this.
”Why can’t a single hillbilly in your dipshit’s church calculate the temperature of this or ANY planet and come up with the right temperature?”
Tell them ”GO LOOK UP STEFAN BOLTZMANN TEMPERATURES for PLANETS.’
Tell them ”GO LOOK UP THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES of THE PLANETS.”
Tell them ”NOTE THESE TWO TEMPERATURES ARE NEVER THE SAME: STEFAN-BOLTZMANN IS ALWAYS * * *not* * * THE OFFICIAL TEMPERATURE.
What you SHOULD have sense enough to tell them is it’s because gas law MUST be used to calculate gas mass/energy relationships, because only gas laws can account for the inversely variant pressure/volume/temperature relationships that never stop changing with compressible phase matter.
Stefan Boltzmann doesn’t have any of the accounting for this.
IT’S WHY STEFAN BOLTZMANN ISN’T THE METHOD for CALCULATING the FORMAL,
the OFFICIAL,
the ACTUAL,
the REAL,
the LEGAL TEMPERATURE for THIS PLANET,
the process named the
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE.
The International Standard Atmosphere’s values were first calculated and published by the French in 1864 to try to get both sides of the Civil (American) War to invest in modern balloon flight technologies for sale by the French at the time.
These identical values were kept around and checked by the world from 1864 through WWI and WWII and by this time with hundreds of thousands of carefully documented flight hours at all altitudes, GLOBALLY – the entire WORLD adopted the
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE
as the FORMAL, OFFICIAL, REAL, LEGAL, CALIBRATION TEMPERATURE for EARTH SURFACE AVERAGE
at mean sea level.
This will not EVER become negotiable, THESE FORMAL GLOBALLY ADOPTED,
INTERNATIONALLY
LEGALLY BINDING
base
climate parameters
for this planet,
have hardly changed any at ALL since they were first PUBLISHED by the FRENCH,
since the standard was FORMALIZED in the early 1950s
since the AMERICANS UPDATED it with COMPUTERIZED info for the nations of the world in 1976, – PARTLY to REBUKE the VERY MAN who FOUNDED this SCAM in the USA, James Hansen when he had been touting that ”thim gais laws aint’ real, thairs uh magical gaissiness, what done made thim cold baths heedurs, and yew dun yews’d yew sum fire, and awl yaw owe signts money” ..
EVERY LAST FUCKING ONE
you SEE BARKING that shit could even maybe hopefully if everybody was on fucking dope like them be real
can discuss ANYTHING related to the REAL GLOBAL BASE CLIMATE PARAMETERS’ SET:
HE WON’T know the name of the GAS LAWS that have to be USED,
HE WON’T know the GAS LAWS MANDATE CO2 enrichment COOLS AIR not WARMS it
HE WON’T know there’s no such thing as a cold Nitrogen bath that’s a mother fucking heater girls,
HE WON’T KNOW WHY his CHURCH can’t COUNT to the REAL TEMPERATURE.
HE WON’T KNOW there is an entire CHART of ”Stefan Boltzmann temperatures” for planets,
HE WON’T KNOW WHY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN can’t MANAGE gas temperatures, and arrive at the correct answers because HE WON’T KNOW about the ever changing, interdependence of pressure/volume/temperature accounting that gas laws have, and that Stefan Bolzamann doesn’t.
He won’t REALIZE his CHURCH SHOWS HIM
them
REDUCING their OWN CALCULATED TEMPERATURE
USING
the GREEN HOUSE GASES then claiming
GREEN HOUSE GASES are the REASON their CALCULATED TEMPERATURE’S short.
HE WON’T REALIZE ANY of IT
and it’s easy to keep it straight if he ever tried
because it’s INVERSION FRAUD, claiming a COLD BATH is a HEATER
when it’s
just a cold Oxygen enriched,
NITROGEN bath,
they
INTENTIONALLY calculated the WRONG temperature for.
Correct CD. All the excess infrared ends up being emitted to space. It is NOT “trapped”. It couldn’t raise surface temperature if it were somehow “trapped”.
Thanks Geran.
I’m still befuddled over the Thermopshere. So our Magnetosphere acts like a physical barrier to some rays of the Sun absorbing the energy which is not part of the albedo. I’m assuming this is where the confusion is enabled that the atmosphere warms up first NOT the surface?
Unless I am totally wrong the magnetosphere acts like a barrier to solar flares, CO2 and Nitric Oxide (NO) then reflects that energy back out into space. Naturally this only filters out some rays if it did what some beliefs are heat would move from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere and hardly any would reach the surface, ever.
Now on planets with no magnetosphere, such as Venus the solar energy is being reflected back into space by albedo, nothing to do with the atmosphere absorbing energy. Is this right or am I way off?
.”..I’m sending you all the courage you need to stand up for yourself!” -Naomi Seibt
A refreshing counterbalance to Greta Thunberg.
CD, by mentioning “thermosphere”, “magnetosphere”, and “Venus”, you are making the AGW clowns cringe. They believe they have their pseudoscience all wrapped up and pretty. There you go alluding to things like gamma rays, which contain many, many magnitudes of energy more than the CO2 15 μ photon. And have frequencies “hot” enough to even warm Venus.
Shame on you!
🙂
Sorry guys I got drunk and wrote my sister a letter telling her I was sorry for saying to her Id never speak to her again, and then when she didn’t write me back by the next day I thought “I’m gonna go to Postmas and VENT like a MADMAN – and did, I don’t know why I kept writing the wrong Kelvin temps, I was mad at myself.
I started doing that going off on HUGE tears letting errors creep intow hat I was saying years ago when I rolled magic gassers on topix and it’s very addictive to do because I used to do it to troll magica gassers and get them to say ”You said such and such” and I’d maul them like a pitbull killing a kitten.
the whole thing makes me angry that so many honest people were simply driven out of the scientific fields for trying to tell the truth.
Well in any case if you’re not familiar with what goes on here, these MAGIC GASSERS
calculate the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET SHORT
and when they do so they SHOW their followers, themselves SUBTRACTING 23%
from their OWN calculated temperature
SPECIFICALLY COOLING their own ERRONEOUS final temperature
and then they look around and say ”THEM GREEN HOUSE GASES MADE MORE ENERGY COME OUT THAN WHAT WE DONE CALCULATED!!”
They then move on to ”signtist is stump’t why.”
Because they intentionally calculate the temperature short 33 degrees, from +15 the REAL temperature calculated using the REAL application, of the REAL law
to a WRONG 33 degrees short, -18C using Stefan-Boltzmann.
* * * There is a whole CHART of Stefan-Boltzmann Temperatures of Planets* * *
AND
NONE of THESE
are the OFFICIAL calculated instrument verified FORMAL ACTUAL TEMPERATURES
of ANY of these BODIES in the SOLAR SYSTEM.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Temperature,
is not the FORMAL OFFICIAL TEMPERATURE of ANY body.
It simply ISN’T.
Anyway I didn’t even read to see if anybody saw my wrong Kelvin temps, like I said I dunno why I typo’d them, – well actually I do know why I was mad, thus just not caring what I wrote, I was mad at myself for apologizing to my sister.
Anyways soz for any delicate snowflakes triggered during that error laced rant.
Merry Christmas to all of you who never believed in that evil stuff,
and to those of you who actually do believe in it,
die.
Allen,
My sister and I haven’t talked in years. Some days I forget I have 2 (that I know of) and neither has spoken to me in years. One I do talk to on rare occasions (between years of silence by her) the other not so much, maybe a card here and there.
Family is overrated.
Looking at Lindzen again where says…
“Let us assume for the moment that the earth has no atmosphere, and that the surface is non-reflecting. What would the temperature of the surface be? Incoming radiation would be about 341 Watts per square meter. In order for the earth to balance this, it would have to have a temperature given by the expression T4 where the Planck constant, is 5.67×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4 . Interestingly, this leads to a temperature of about 278.5 K or 5.5 C, at which temperature, the Planck function for the spectral distribution of radiation tells us that the radiation emitted by the earth is primarily in the infrared portion of the spectrum. This is only about 10 C less than today’s 288 K. If we allow for a surface reflectivity of 0.1, then the incoming radiation is reduced to about 307 Watts per square meter, and we get a temperature of about 271 K or -2 C. This is stilll only 17 C less than today’s mean temperature of 288 K.
The common claim that the earth would be 33 C less than today’s temperature comes from including the reflecvity of clouds, which brings the reflecvity to about 0.3.
This reduces the incoming radiation to 240 Watts per square meter and leads to a temperature of 255 K.”
So.. OK it’s clouds that reduce the incoming from 341Watts/sqm to 240watts/sqm.,
but that is still dividing incoming by 4 instead of 2.
So without clouds, incoming for half the sphere would be 682watts/sqm.
Can any one tell me what temperature that represents?
331K (58C)
Do I win something ? 🙂
Thanks Pierre..You win the “Trophy of Invacuo Temperature Correctness”
On Venus v Earth atmospheric density..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpxuZWSyBiw
… that inane divide-by-four debacle creeps into the analyses of people who should know better.
Lindzen, of all people, should know better.
That’s just the thing…THEY DON’T KNOW BETTER! Because the scary truth is that none of these people are actually competent mathematicians, physicists, or philosophers…despite their accolades.!
How do these idiots explain the ~390 K temperature on the moon with their absurd maths ?
Given an assumed albedo of ~12% for the moon 1368 x 0.88 = ~1204 => 381 K. 1204/4 = 301 => ~270 K.
So somehow the divide by 4 nonsense fails the maximum temperature BUT the Moon with absolutely no greenhouse gases at all has a higher black body temperature than Earth for the exact same solar constant – 15°C warmer.
Someone should tell alarmists their science is junk.
I’m still having people trying to use Venus as an example of the greenhouse gas. This last moron is trying to claim the greenhouse gas is the cause of the 90 bar pressure.
“Again, how did it get that atmosphere?…Just to clarify, as I’m a little slow, Venus gets very little solar irradiance because of its’ atmosphere, which appeared by magic? ”
I parsed it here to make the comment coherent, as the original was not.
The political version of the Venus Greenhouse Effect:
“Almost all of Venus’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide atmosphere covers Venus like the glass covering a greenhouse, hence the term “greenhouse effect.” High-energy radiation from the sun, ultraviolet light, for example, passes right through Venus’s carbon dioxide atmosphere. This is like when visible light passes through the roof of a greenhouse. The radiation proceeds to the ground, where it is absorbed and re-radiated as infrared energy (heat.) The same happens in a greenhouse; the plants absorb the light and re-radiate it. The new long-wave, low-energy light cannot get through the carbon dioxide (or the glass.) It is either absorbed, convected, and re-radiated, or reflected immediately. The heat accumulates, and the environment becomes very hot. Of course, a lot of energy escapes from a greenhouse; the temperature inside a greenhouse is very tolerable. But on Venus, the greenhouse effect is very efficient, raising Venus’s temperature to 900° F, or 480° C.”
One last thing why are they claiming Venus is the hottest planet?
The “cores” of other planets:
>Mercury>430 C
.>Venus>465 C
>Earth>5,430 C
>Mars>1,230 C
>Jupiter>20,000 C
>Saturn>11,700 C
>Uranus >4,982 C
>Neptune>5,127 C
CD, the clowns are not learning: ”The heat accumulates, and the environment becomes very hot.”
They’re still “accumulating heat”. Then they compound their mistake by believing more identical photons mean increased temperature. They’re stilll trying to bake a turkey with ice cubes! They aren’t learning.
Are the clowns ignorant, dishonest, or both?
For a light helicopter, the rotation speed of the blade is about 440 RPM. I want to save gas so as to emit less CO2. So, I’ll have the blade rotate at 110 RPM and take 4 hours instead of 1.
Please give me my degree in engineering ! PLEASE !
Ned Niklov discussed Postma’s theory. He agrees that there is a misrepresentation of the effective temperature but doesn’t agree with assumptions behind it. And he doesn’t see a problem in averaging the flux
Maybe a good timeline to counter his assumptions.
This paper from Philip Mulholland en Stephen Wilde tends to agree with Joseph Postma
They made a model of 3 main regions on earth with each their own solar input, and lapse rate. And they splitted it into a seperate day and night model.
Still not real time, but at least closer to what really happens.
Main conclusion of the paper.
“We have designed our climate model to retain the critical dual surface element of a lit globe, namely night and day. The standard climate model is a single surface model that does not include adiabatic energy transfer, because diabatic thermal equilibrium is assumed at all times (both night and day). When in our model we apply the missing element of adiabatic energy transfer from the lit side, by using distinct and separate energy partition ratios for night and day, then the requirement for back radiation greenhouse gas heating is no longer necessary.
We are able to quantify the degree of adiabatic lit surface energy partition in favour of the air by using the process of inverse modelling, a standard geoscience mathematical technique. The issue of atmospheric opacity then becomes a passive process, and the purported atmospheric action of greenhouse heating by back-radiation can be discounted. We believe that our modelling work presented here should lead to a fundamental reassessment of the atmospheric processes relating to energy partition, retention and flow within the Earth’s climate system.”
Disappointing to see Nikolov not getting it.
@ Joseph E Postma
True, but many around him in his timeline do get it.
I don’t see your work and Nikolov’s work as contradictory, it suplements each other
Maybe he will adjust his vision a bit in time, we will see.
Nikolov is in the same mind trap of divide-by-four zombies. Amazing!
… after JP clearly explains in the simplest terms how this is wrong!
JP says nothing about any “omission of the lapse rate”. … Rather, he explains what the effective temperature most likely represents WITHIN that scheme.
Come on, Ned !
He probably is in this trap, because some part of his own model relies on it’s being wrong in value, while correct in principle. But it’s WRONG IN PRINCIPLE TOO. The total dismantling of the greenhouse-theory falsehood requires going all the way down to the rot in the core principle, and this is what Ned seems unwilling to do. … also, going all the way down to the rot in the basics being taught to beginners.
Cheers Robert exactly!
@CD Marshall
“The clouds we see on Venus are made up of sulfur dioxide and drops of sulfuric acid. They reflect about 75% of the sunlight that falls on them, and are completely opaque. It’s these clouds that block our view to the surface of Venus. Beneath these clouds, only a fraction of sunlight reaches the surface. If you could stand on the surface of Venus, everything would look dimly lit, with a maximum visibility of about 3 km.
The upper cloud deck of Venus is between 60-70 km altitude. This is the part of Venus that we see in telescopes and visible light photographs of the planet.”
So it isn’t just the dense atmosphere of CO2 that blocks sunlight.
Above the cloud layer the Magellan spacecraft data show a temperature profile consistent with Earth’s only higher based on the ratio of the solar constants for each orbit.
Besides that how do these gullibles explain the temperature profiles of the outer planets where the solar radiation is extremely low ?
Thank you Rosco
The “Slippery Pete” I think they are eluding to is,
>The 90 bar atmosphere somehow being linked to the CO2 content (?) how they are deriving at that conclusion is anyone’s guess. Mars has the same CO2 content, thus with that reasoning of “trapping heat” Mars over the centuries would have “accumulated” enough heat to make it a 90 bar atmosphere as well. Even though Bosonic radiation does not multiply temperature (?).
> “It is either absorbed, convected, and re-radiated, or reflected immediately.” This I find the most amusing. They admit absorption and convection but then claim IR radiation (once again) is the only form of heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, apparently. Then they have converted ALL IR radiation only to the WL that can be intercepted by the very narrow absorption bands of CO2.
I do still have a few questions on Venus not related to the CO2 fiascoes.
1. Why does Venus not lose atmosphere as you would expect, making the pressure lower?
2. What is the radiation levels (and wavelengths) that are emitted to outer space and what is the effective black body of Venus as seen from space compared to Mars?
3. Most of interest, how did Venus get the 90 bar atmosphere in the first place? By all accounts of the limited physics I have, it shouldn’t have happened. The gravity is weak, no magnetosphere, what was the casualty that created this freak of nature?
Again as always thank you for all of your input I really appreciate it and I feel a little guilty, I’m getting rudimentary physics lessons for free. How dare me!
Joseph,
I am surprised by Nikolov’s response as well. However, he is a PhD so maybe looking at math on boards and models so often he may have lost perspective on the differences.
My wife was doing a major overhaul of recipes she worked at many moons ago and she was converting cups, quarts and lbs for weeks non stop and hours upon hours of work.
We needed gas, I asked her how much should I put in? We were strapped on cash until the next day so we just needed a few gallons.
” I don’t know, maybe just 2-4 cups?”, was her reply.
A tired mind can lose perspective. Maybe if he looks at it again with a fresh mind he might see it better or maybe not. My brother was educating me on how different minds work, as he is into that kind of stuff from the military. The one types of mind which is the most difficult to work with, decides immediately to yes or no and shuts down to further discussion. These minds are often brilliant, typical of scientists and engineers, they are very order orientated, but not flexible of changing their minds after they have come to a conclusion.
On a different note he also said Syria is being stockpiled with troops and weapons mainly from Russia in en masse that can only elude to an invasion (of Israel most likely). This is not classified news, it’s just not being reported in the mainstream media. The US is telling Israel not to engage, but wait for an attack. My brother is of the opinion from a military standpoint that is a weak position.
He is right. Look at this political climate garbage, by not nipping it in the butt from the get go it has been allowed to form into a religion. You don’t let cancer fester, you cut it out.
Cheers and Merry Christmas.
No matter what your opinion is of this Holiday, remember friends, family or loved ones is always important. A smile at a stranger or kind gesture could change their mind of suicide. Holidays are a high suicide time of year, some people have nobody at all.
A young kid told my wife and I merry Christmas after we engaged in a short conversation with him out on our errands. With “political correctness” people have become afraid of talking anymore. That is by design, the best way to defeat a populace (or control it) is by separation, breaking communications is always the first step to separation and control, as well as controlling the communications presented. So…
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!
From another twitter feed on Joe’s video…
“@RoyPentland
Dec 23
Replying to @NikolovScience @GillesnFio and 47 others
Hmm, forgetting the full detail of the video for a moment, isn’t the whole GHE “theory destroyed at the start when the incoming solar radiation is divided by 4, instead of 2?
@NikolovScience
Dec 23
Nope, that’s not it. The division of absorbed solar radiation flux by 4 is correct, because the solar constant is given as a SW flux incident on unit disk area, and the surface area of a sphere is 4 times larger than that of a disk with same radius.”
So dilution of the incoming by including the dark side makes sense?
How can an error so simple be ignored. Amazing.
“The Dark Side of Science.”
…good title for a book!
Joseph, here is an example of someone trying to sell the green house effect to the masses. Help me expose this video with the true climate physics that is not being portrayed here.. I’m not a physicist, but I just can’t sit by and let your important information be ignored, while others are getting tens of thousands of views, claiming to be fact. I just finished your book, and I truly believe you are the Copernicus of Climate Science. One specific claim is that the energy into and out of the the moon is equalized at -18C. Does this not refute their green house argument?
Mark Munro
Hi,
I have 2 posts there destroying his claims.. No one there yet has tried to rebute me.
I love that picture BTW he looks as clueless as his climate science.
“If I just make more squiggly lines…maybe…?”
Energy input – Climate = Energy out
480 Watts/sq meter – Climate = 240 Watts/sq meter.
+30 degrees C – Climate = -18C
I see no need for a green house effect with this formula. Joseph, does this reflect your diagram correctly, and what do we call the phenomena that accounts for the difference in input vs output?
Is it fair to state the difference result in the climate we see everyday? The earth transforms the energy difference of input vs output into evaporation, wind, etc ? Is this a more accurate representation of reality?
… bears a closer look … AGAIN:
@NikolovScience
Dec 23
Nope, that’s not it. The division of absorbed solar radiation flux by 4 is correct, because the solar constant is given as a SW flux incident on unit disk area, and the surface area of a sphere is 4 times larger than that of a disk with same radius.”
Short Wave (SW) flux incident on unit disk area, yes, DOES correctly account for the flux INCOMING on the half sphere, but it makes absolutely zero sense to think that there is any physical meaning to spreading this flux on a half sphere over the entire sphere at once, where it does NOT exist! This is an average that has zero physical meaning. You can manipulate the numbers and do a correct division, sure, but the average you get means NOTHING REAL. The average is NOT and INPUT. The average CANNOT perform any real physical actions that have any real physical effects.
Noting that the surface area of a sphere is four times greater than a disk of equal radius is NOT a valid justification for giving this average any physical meaning. I can blast a fire hose onto a disk that has the same radius as a sphere, but the gallons per second falling on the disk has nothing to do with the gallons per second falling on the other side of the sphere. The rate of flow on a disk does not magically allow you to posit a rate of flow on a hemisphere where NO RATE of INCOMING flow exists.
Outgoing flow exists on this half sphere, but incoming flow from this source does NOT exist.
Confusing a correct mathematical maneuver for a correct physical maneuver is the problem here.
The divide-by-four average has no physical meaning!
Nikolov parrots the same superficial statement of geometrical relationship as the greenhouse zombies, as if a correct statement about the relationship between disk and sphere somehow makes a correct assumption about averaging one over the other. The confusion is a confusion of application, … a confusion of meaning, …. a blindness to the fact that effective temperature is NOT an INPUT — it IS a theoretical OUTPUT, and the best meaning for it is a location somewhere within the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere.
Joseph, I think Rosco is on to something here… Show the Alarmist model applied to the moon, and the actual energy output of the moon, and maybe people will see that the math the alarmists propose doesn’t work…
“Rosco says:
2019/12/23 at 6:54 PM
How do these idiots explain the ~390 K temperature on the moon with their absurd maths ?
Given an assumed albedo of ~12% for the moon 1368 x 0.88 = ~1204 => 381 K. 1204/4 = 301 => ~270 K.
So somehow the divide by 4 nonsense fails the maximum temperature BUT the Moon with absolutely no greenhouse gases at all has a higher black body temperature than Earth for the exact same solar constant – 15°C warmer.”
Computer models might well use a spherical Earth model, but the tuning of these models fully embodies the meaning of a flat Earth. You can draw a sphere and say you are “using” a spherical model, but if your math and your coding has the MEANING of a flat-Earth, then the claim of “using” a spherical model is a lie, because it is superficially, visually of that appearance, but conceptually and operationally NOT.
Exactly. ANY reference to a GHE is flat earth theory.
The main question for solar input is, can it create the climate.
Here is temperature average (day+night) for each region (polar region, around the equator, and in between.
A temperature of above 0 degree celcius is needed to create a climate, or else almost all freezes and almost nothing evaporates.
So the polar region is in the current state near incapable of creating the climate, the area in between has a weak influence and the area around the equator is the main driver of the climate
Yet they include the polar regions, with a huge negative effect on the global temperature average, while that is not a region that creates the climate.
————
A possible way to determin if the sun can create the climate is starting with a frozen globe hypothesis, and asume the current regional solar flux after that, and asuming the same albedo
In that hypothesis there are at starting point no heatfluxes from the equator to the poles, and the poles would we 25 degree colder, and the area around the equator 14 degrees warmer , with much higher temperatures during the day, and at the center of the equator area
And that is more than enough heating potential to melt the hypothetical ice around the equator. And after that create the climate, heat fluxes, potential energy of particles high up in the air, etc.
Even when looking at day/night averages, just only look at the average where the climate is created.
Joe
PSI still has your paper showing the hemispherical average of 0.637 instead of the one with 0.5.
To avoid confusion maybe they should show whichever you choose as the correct model.
I assume Mark got the image above from PSI.
@ MP
Need to implement albedo change in an actual frozen globe with a suddenly current solar input hypothesis. But that is no more cloud albedo and increase in ice reflection albedo. Not sure how it levels out, and wanted to simplify the story.
Thanks Rosco will update.
If a standard PhD with knowledge of climate doesn’t understand the significant variation is solar irradiance from the equator to the poles, what are they studying?
That’s like finding out your accountant flunked high school math.
in not is…I have a 27″ screen and I still can’t see anything!!!
On the 60 symbols video. This is what I got so far and then I was mentally exhausted. I may work on it more later. This video is pure trash.
>1:27 The temperature *is* 288.15C because of the Ideal gas law and the adiabatic lapse rate. Has nothing to do with the GHG effect. *Our atmosphere works to decrease temperature not increase it.*
>ToA is around 1360 W/m^2 after albedo 960 W/m^2. That is falling mostly on the equator, fueling the climate machine of the oceans and the Hadley cell.
>1:54 the Moon has no atmosphere the earth does. The Moon has no water/the Earth does. Latent heat in water vapor maintains a decreased temperature longer but usually no more than 10 days. Because the Moon has no atmosphere (it has an exosphere) temperatures rise to around 123C in sunlight and -153C without it. Average lunar temperature is an obsolete process. Would you want to walk on the Moon with a spacesuit made only to handle the average lunar temperature? (You would die.)
Sorry those are my inputs to his video at time stamps. He goes to say the GHGe breaks no laws of thermodynamics it is always going from hot to cold after everything he just said contradicted that statement. If the incoming solar irradiance is stripped to -18C how can it be warming up from a warmer to a colder object? From where? This man is nuts.
The Sun is cold>The surface is cold>The atmosphere is warm>the surface is now warm. That is the exact opposite of the laws of thermodynamics. That is the Spencer Law.
More on the video Mark Munro provided as another hilarious example of the GHE pseudoscience:
Did anyone notice how nervous the presenter was? He acted like a criiminal that had just been caught. He was talking as fast as he could, and shaking. Anyone remember “Barney Fife”?
And, like others, I had to laugh out loud when he said none of his clown routine violated the laws of physics. He started off trying to “balance flux”, which doesn’t “balance”.
The perfect blackbody sphere receives 960 W/m^2, yet emits 240 W/m^2 at equilibrium. “960” does NOT equal “240”! Fluxes are NOT conserved, so trying to “balance flux” just tells us he’s another climate clown.
If he tried to balance Earth’s energy, he would find it doesn’t “balance”. Some solar is “used up” in conversion to chemical energy (photosynthesis) and kinetic energy (weather/wind). So a correct Earth energy balance would look like this:
“Energy in” – “Losses” = “Energy out”
“Energy out” would always be less than “Energy in”, by the amount of “Losses”. That’s how it’s done.
The phony pseudoscience “energy balance” has to divide incoming flux by 4 to even get in the ballpark. Then, they don’t account for “Losses” and end up with 0.6 W/m^2 excess, which they claim is “heating” the planet! And don’t forget that different fluxes don’t add. Back-radiation does NOT add to solar. If bright sunshine has warmed your patio to 100 F, you cannot raise the temperature farther by bringing out some ice cubes. Different fluxes don’t simply add.
The comedy continues.
Geran,
If you follow the Spencer Law the math works out perfectly.
I look at a cube of wood that measures 2 x 2 meters on a side. That’s 4 square meters per face. Four square meters are in my visual field. But I have to divide by 6 to get the average, so I actually see ONLY 2/3 square meters, on average.
I shine a laser onto a globe. It strikes a small circle on just half the sphere, but the impact of the laser on the half sphere is a division of that small focused area by the larger surface area of the half sphere, and the impact of the laser on the whole sphere is THAT division divided by four.
Those words look like they say something real, but they DO NOT.
At the heart of the divide-by-four maneuver is the act of dividing the area of a disk in such a way that you can assign the resulting area to the WHOLE sphere. In essence, you are stretching this disk over the whole sphere. If the disk were made of, say, sheet metal of a certain thickness, then this would require that the sheet-metal disk be deformed into a sphere that was quite a bit LESS thick than the thickness of the original disk.
Treating solar flux on a disk as though it were sheet metal being stretched over a whole sphere, thinning it out for the sake of explaining its physical properties, clearly is a gravely erroneous stretch of the imagination.
Next, shine light, not only on this fabricated stretched area, but also on a facing where light NEVER falls, and we doubly compound the ridiculousness. We fabricate an area that does not exist to shine light on it where a shining light never exists.
A watt per square meter is a joule per second per square meter. Knowing this, now count one second. During this one second, does any light fall on the half sphere? Okay, sticklers, let’s consider the infinitesimal rotation of earth in a time that is close to zero seconds. This same rate, during this infinitesimal, DOES NOT HAPPEN on the dark hemisphere of Earth. There is no flux on the dark hemisphere of Earth. That in itself renders the divide-by-four maneuver absurd. But wait, stretch a disk over the sphere, creating an imagined area that does NOT exist on top of another area, on the side where no flux exists. Do you SEE the absurdities embedded in this?
Robert Kernodle, I think you buried the lead.
“it is a theoretical OUTPUT, and the best meaning for it is a location somewhere within the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere.”
Remind them that the 240 W/m^2 output is at around 7km not the surface.
240 W/m^2 input at the surface will not equal 240 W/m^2 to space.
If we did in fact have an average temperature of -18c at the surface we would not have an effective output temperatures of -18c to space.
Found a nice solar insulation calculator, one that assumes that there is no greenhouse effect.
http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/RadiationBalance/Insolation_Calculator.html
Can test hypothetical questions with it. Like:
If the earth had no atmosphere and was covered in a thin layer of ice. Could the sun then create the climate?
For a climate to create at least the equator ice should melt. There is no cloud albedo but 0.6 ice albedo.
It turns out that ice melt on the equator in the spring won’t happen when looking at the 24 hour average flux. – 38 C heating potential.
While when looking at the current daytime flux the heating potential is + 40 degree C. And that melts the ice around the equator, and that reduces the albedo to 0.06 (6%) water albedo, and some 0.17 soil albedo. …and that results in over 100 degree Celcius heating potential during the day ….and a daily and yearly average above zero.
So solar flux averages can’t create a climate on a hypothetical frozen earth without an atmosphere, and realtime input can.
I merely expanded on the lead, Mark.
The point of justifying a ridiculous average by appealing to a geometrical relationship between a disk and sphere needs to be shot down with prejudice. So, what I was attempting to do was project the lead, as in a firing a lead bullet used to shoot something down. (^_^)
For some reason, proponents of the divide-by-four tactic fail to see that they are talking about an OUTPUT. You can tell them this, plain as day, and they cannot grasp it. So, I’m trying to tell them why dividing by four is an absurd step, and to tell them how it is an absurd step, when used to represent solar input !
NOT absurd, when used to represent Earth output.
“The total dismantling of the greenhouse-theory falsehood requires going all the way down to the rot in the core principle”
Robert
You are correct and this is precisely what our Dynamic-Atmopshere Energy-Transport Climate Model does. The DAET Noonworld model starts with a tidally locked planet. This forces the high frequency energy collection side of the climate system to be divide by 2 (disk silhouette area to tidally locked lit hemisphere). The dynamic atmosphere in the model is an energy reservoir and it transmits flux to the permanently unlit hemisphere by atmospheric mass transport (i.e a Hadley Cell).
In the case of a diabatic system (where equipartition of flux pertains) the model fully replicates at the surface the exhaust temperature of the standard divide by 4 model. This is because the thermal radiant exhaust from the DAET model takes place over the full surface area of the globe. The DAET model therefore matches reality in having a lit and unlit side married to a thermal radiant exhaust process that covers the full surface area of a terrestrial planet (or moon) with a thick atmosphere.
What the DAET model also shows is that over the lit hemisphere adiabatic vertical air motion in a gravity field captures additional energy from the lit surface which accounts for the raised elevation of the tropopause on the lit side of a terrestrial planet compared to the unllt nighttime hemisphere. It is this atmospheric storage of additional potential energy in a gravity field that explains the greenhouse effect. Thermal radiant opacity has no active role in the creation of the greenhouse effect.
Watched the video again. (I appreciate great comedy.)
He has the “atmosphere” (flat gray bar) emitting back to Earth. He makes the false assumption that the “back-radiation” will be absorbed by Earth’s surface. That assumption is seriously flawed.
At about 7:25, he admits the surface must be warmer than the layer, to allow heat transfer. But, he neglects that basic fact when he claims the layer is warming the surface.
It’s always hilarious when the clowns trap themselves in their own pseudoscience.
geran,
Whenever I try to watch a video like that, here’s what I see:
Yes Robert, she likely has a PhD—“Psychic houses Decorator”
“Why does Venus not lose atmosphere as you would expect, making the pressure lower?”
@CD Marshall
The answer is escape velocity. Venus is a terrestrial planet with a surface gravity of 8.87 m/s2 (NASA Venus Fact sheet) This means that a high molecular weight gas, such as CO2 (MW = 44) is retained in its atmosphere under ambient solar radiation conditions.
“Most of interest, how did Venus get the 90 bar atmosphere in the first place?”
This is a really interesting question.
First, Venus has more nitrogen gas in its atmosphere than the Earth does. Venus has 3.5% by volume of nitrogen (MW = 28) and a surface pressure of 92 bar. Using Dalton’s law of partial pressure the nitrogen accounts for 92 * 0.035 = 3.2 bar so there is clearly a significant non CO2 component to the atmosphere of early Venus. Why is this important? Because CO2 gas on Earth is sequestered as limestone rock. Limestone (calcium carbonate) is a precipitate and as such requires liquid water for its formation (it is an Arrhenius salt formed from the union of an acid with a base).
Venus is now too hot to have any surface liquid water and it is likely that in the early history of Venus volcanic emissions from the mantle of the planet raised the atmospheric pressure to the point where the surface temperature was too high and the early ocean of Venus boiled away to space. Remember that water H20 is a very light molecule (MW = 18) and so we come back to the issue of escape velocity, Once this happened and the oceans were lost the only place for the volcanic CO2 gas was to remain in the ever growing atmosphere of Venus.
Solar input. … Earth output. … BIG difference … in WHAT they are.
What their value is, in terms of ENERGY (NOT flux), can be the same, but flux is not the same as amount of energy. Flux is a rate of flow of energy for a given surface area.
Remember, a watt per meter squared is a joule per second per meter squared.
Joules coming in might equal joules going out, but the fluxes (i.e., joules per second per meter squared) that cause this are DIFFERENT. The area over which the energy comes in is different from the area over which the energy goes out. Energy comes in on the half sphere, gets processed and distributed, and then goes out over the whole sphere. Solar flux comes in. Earth flux goes out.
Any “trapping” would be for energy, … and “energy traps” would be those things that orchestrate life,… such as plants “capturing” light, undergoing photosynthesis, producing carbohydrates, providing fuel for active, thinking minds that try to formulate words to counteract absurdities of other trapped minds.
@Philip Mulholland
Thank you for the reply, extremely helpful.
I know I ask hard questions and it absolutely amazes me you guys can answer them at a level I can understand. Thank you all for that!
I keep running across this “electric universe” stuff that I never bother to delve into. But one such hypothesis is that water turns into plasma which makes no sense to me at all (you would think it would have been discovered in testing by now?).
Yes thunderstorms can breach the troposphere which is why they claim plasma is a viable solution. I have read the polar vortex can split up at times creating warmer air in the stratosphere. Plasma exists in the thermosphere, which is ionized gas, but can H20 exist as an ionized gas? Or am I missing something? (more than likely.)
Again, this is climate science beyond my current level of understanding.
What thoughts do you guys have on this subject (if any?).
I think if you asked most people to guess how much warming is (Theoretically) because of GHG, I suspect they would give a small number. The luke warmers want to disagree on sensitivity and favor small increases.
But, if you agree with divide by 4, then where the hell does 33c come from? Every minute/hour/day something has to be creating 33c, if divide by 4 is correct.
33 degrees – PROVE IT
We aren’t talking about a fraction of a degree in a jar (bogus, I know), were talking about 33 degrees. 33 degrees is a very large amount. The fact that no one has ever proved it should shock everyone.
33 degrees – PROVE IT
Of course they can’t prove it, Mark. The “33” is entirely pseudoscience.
It comes from comparing Earth’s supposed average surface temperature (288 K) to the surface temperature of an imaginary blackbody sphere (255 K), that is absorbing 960 W/m^2.
They compare “actual” with “imaginary”, and claim “actual”.
I’d like to do that with my bank account….
It gets worse!
from Roy Spencer at…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/
“..the greenhouse effect does not explain the average surface temperature being 288 K (observed) rather than 255K (the effective radiating temperature of the Earth absent an atmosphere). Instead it is actually much more powerful than that, and would raise the temperature to an estimated 343 K (close to 160 deg. F.) It is convective heat loss generated by an unstable lapse rate caused by the greenhouse effect that reduces the temperature to the observed value.
This is the actual “greenhouse effect” on Earth’s average surface temperature: not the oft-quoted 33 deg. C, but more like 88 deg. C of warming. (We can quibble about the calculations of surface temperature with and without greenhouse gases because they make unrealistic assumptions about clouds and water vapor.)
The point is, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is radiative only, and does not include the cooling effects of convective heat transport away from the Earth’s surface.”
He has essentially destroyed the greenhouse gas theory but can’t see it.
[“..the greenhouse effect does not explain the average surface temperature being 288 K (observed) rather than 255K (the effective radiating temperature of the Earth absent an atmosphere).”]
Most people who speak of the “greenhouse effect” use this term exactly to explain the 33-degree difference between 288K and 255K, and so what you say here is some new twist of your own making to complicate the error even more.
[“Instead it is actually much more powerful than that, and would raise the temperature to an estimated 343 K (close to 160 deg. F.) It is convective heat loss generated by an unstable lapse rate caused by the greenhouse effect that reduces the temperature to the observed value.”]
By “it”, I assume you mean some new incarnation that you are using to further confuse the already confused term, “greenhouse effect”. Now you are introducing convective heat loss as a component of a warming effect, in order to cool what most people say is a purely warming effect of radiation alone. You are inventing something that other people do not mean by this term, “greenhouse effect”, further morphing it into an abomination that mixes heating taken away by convection and heating added by back-radiation to get an overall heating, and calling it something that nobody else means, when using this term. So, it appears that you are saying that CO2 has an even greater heating capacity (55 deg. MORE than traditionally claimed), which is completely at odds with any know reality.
[“This is the actual “greenhouse effect” on Earth’s average surface temperature: not the oft-quoted 33 deg. C, but more like 88 deg. C of warming.”]
This is your imagination going overboard and off the road of any clarity whatsoever. So, what you are saying is that the “greenhouse effect”, as traditionally described, is no longer just a warming effect, but a cooling effect on a warming effect that still leaves us with the iconic 33-degree value that you say that it is not. Oh my God!
[” (We can quibble about the calculations of surface temperature with and without greenhouse gases because they make unrealistic assumptions about clouds and water vapor.)”]
Our quibbles would be about this off-the-hook confusion. The calculations in the whole irrational scheme, thus, are unreal and meaningless, so why quibble about those at all?
[“The point is, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is radiative only, and does not include the cooling effects of convective heat transport away from the Earth’s surface.”]
But that’s not what you just said — you said that YOUR preferred incarnation of the “greenhouse effect” INCLUDES the heat of convective heat transport (coming from where? – CO2?), which is a COOLING mechanism to subtract from the greater thing that you ARE calling the “greenhouse effect”, which you said encompasses the very thing you now say it does not. Again, oh my God!
The end of the year brings out the Gaea worshipers on YT. My head hurts…
The Spencer Law might actually become a thing by next year.
Reminds me an old Bruce Lee movie. I study the art of fighting w/o fighting.
Spencer: I study the art of climate science without any climate science.
Thus, climate “science” = dumb fu
LOL.
I also love the coat example these morons use. I love saying really, I never net a mannequin that was warmer in a coat.
But mannequins are models, and so the models MUST represent reality.
Robert, that’s a great way to reveal Spencer’s incompetence–just explain his own words to him.
Oh what a tangled web they weave….
Put this in the wrong place:
This is from a Physical Geography manual:
“Because more solar energy hits the equator, the air warms and forms a low pressure zone. At the top of the troposphere, half moves toward the North Pole and half toward the South Pole. As it moves along the top of the troposphere it cools. The cool air is dense and when it reaches a high pressure zone it sinks to the ground. The air is sucked back toward the low pressure at the equator. This describes the convection cells north and south of the equator.”
So yes they acknowledge what Phds seems to be struggling with?
Yet even with a thorough explanation of how the climate works they still have to kiss the climate ring:
“With more greenhouse gases trapping heat, average annual global temperatures are rising. This is known as global warming. While temperatures have risen since the end of the Pleistocene, 10,000 years ago, this rate of increase has been more rapid in the past century, and has risen even faster since 1990. The nine warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and the 10 of the 11 warmest years have occurred since 2001 (through 2012). The 2000s were the warmest decade yet. Annual variations aside, the average global temperature increased about 0.8 degrees C (1.5 degrees F) between 1880 and 2010, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA.”
Goddard and NOAA they did mention “according to” so maybe that’s how they play it off if it backfires.
Perfect photo of recent solar eclipse.
https://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=158416
Moon is such a showoff….
Someone sent me this to “teach me” the greenhouse effect. I am too brain dead at the moment to critique the video and sent it back but I’m going to becasue I just feel like slapping stupid in the face at the moment.
Any inputs would be nice, maybe not needed for this childish version for the GHGe but I like to be careful with my wording. Make sure the thermodynamics/physics are correct so I can honor this fine establishment.
The most simplest point I’m going to make is that anything above 0k has a heat signature, that does not mean an energy transfer equals a temperature increase. IR radiation can travel back and forth from the surface to the atmosphere without ever changing the temperature. These guys are demonstrating the Spencer Law.
The distinction I do want to make clearer is the coffee cup examples. How would I go about doing that?
Sorry I forgot to clip the link so it wouldn’t show up here. Argh!!!
Right off the bat he’s reversing heat flow…making heat flow from cold to hot. Because he misinterprets a measurement.
Light, in and of itself, is NOT a form of “heat” — it is a form of radiation.
Thermodynamics, to my knowledge, says nothing about “heat” flowing in all directions.
The video guy’s overriding mistakes seems to be his confusion of heat and energy.
He also tries to sneak in the false analogy of the blanket.
He also mistakes what the instruments measure — they do NOT measure any effect, let alone a “greenhouse effect”. Instruments do NOT measure effects.
He very eloquently, totally misuses language. And people who fall for his accent, his smoothness of delivery, and his calm, confident posture will buy his crap. Those people will mistake his effectiveness of delivery with his command of the facts.
Remember, words can sound good, without being legitimate representations.
That’s my quick, first-impression reaction, without taking time to study the video any further.
Joe
Lucky you. U. of Calgary has just received a grant by the minister of environment, climate change and sorcery to reduce it’s carbon foot print ! Spend it well !
CD
All the videos have the comment section closed. No debate. That should tell you something !
Geran or Joseph
A Potholer acolyte is challenging the photon example:
“edited because I said you were wrong by a factor of 1000, you were wrong by a factor of one million actually.
1)
15 micron photons is not “equal” to 0.0827MeV. Scientifically literate people would say that a 15 micron photon carry an energy of 82.65meV (milli electronvolt) (not 0.0827MeV (megaelectronvolt) you were wrong by a factor of a million there…)”
Which I may have put down MeV come to think of it.
Water vapour constitutes ~4.24% of the atmosphere and has the widest spectral absorption range of any so-called greenhouse gas.
CO2 constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere and two of its 3 absorption bands occur at wavelengths where the radiation emitted from Earth’s surfaces at ambient temperatures are completely insignificant- they would however absorb significant radiation from flowing lava fields but luckily that doesn’t happen too often – besides it is still 0.04% – 400 molecules in a million and the increase from pre-industrial revolution is ~120 molecules in a million.
CH4 constitutes ~2 molecules per million in our atmosphere and has no effect at all so the cows are safe !
Anyone who claims any of these has a greater significance to heating the Earth than the Sun because of back radiation is simply stupid beyond belief ! (I wish I could bold that)
That reminds me what is the deal with CH4 how are they claiming it amplifies water vapor?
Test
(I wish I could bold that)
Rosco,
Pop over to JoNova’s website.
She has a list of preset buttons that use the required code to set bold italics
deleteandand also an online preview option that you can use to see the results of your highlighted text.
Here you go, Rosco:
Anyone who claims any of these has a greater significance to heating the Earth than the Sun because of back radiation is simply stupid beyond belief !
@CD Marshall
In Climate Science everything is explained in terms of radiation effects. The explanation you quote seeks to explain the latitudinal limits of the Hadley cell purely in terms of radiative cooling to space of equatorial air lifted to the tropopause. This was the canonical explanation given to us in the 1970s, however this explanation is wrong.
In a seminal Meteorological paper published by Hunt, B.G. 1979. The Influence of the Earth’s Rotation Rate on the General Circulation of the Atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 36 (8), 1392-1408. Hunt’s modelling study showed that it is the daily rotation rate of a terrestrial body that determines the latitudinal reach of its Hadley cell. On slowly rotating Venus and Titan (the giant moon of Saturn) the Hadley cell reaches to the polar vortex in each hemisphere. On both rapidly rotating Mars and also Earth the Hadley cell is limited in its latitudinal reach by the Coriolis effect of motion across the surface of a rotating globe.
This dynamic motion causes a forced return to the surface of high altitude air and accounts for the dry air, clear skies and surface high pressure zones of the Horse latitudes The surface high pressure anticyclones of the Horse latitudes om Earth are the result of the descending air and not its cause, and they are completely independent of the temperature of the descending air.
Another question why state Bosonic Photons? Aren’t all photons bosons? I have a strange feeling this may be a physicist level distinction.
Thank you Phillip, I’m going to have to read that three times more to digest it.
@CD Marshall.
Me neither, so I am going to dodge your question and refer instead back to the issue of Venus and its atmosphere. I forgot to mention the issue of ionisation in the role of gas loss from planetary atmospheres. All gases apart from the noble gases are poly-atomic molecules in which the atoms are bound together by covalent bonds. The nature and role of covalent bonding is a key feature in the behavior of molecular gases.
Molecular chemistry is all about arithmetic. Hydrogen has a valency of 1 and forms single covalent bonds; Oxygen has a valency of 2 and forms double bonds; Nitrogen has a valency of 3 and Carbon has a valency of 4. Pure carbon atoms bound together in a solid tetrahedral crystal form diamond, the hardest natural mineral.
Methane (CH4) is a tetrahedral shaped molecule in which the central carbon atom is bound to four individual hydrogen atoms by single covalent bonds.
Water (H2O) is also a tetrahedral shaped molecule, but in this case the two hydrogen atoms are located to one side, and so water is a polar molecule that responds to the presence of an electrical field. This electrical polarity is why water has the highest boiling point of any low molecular weight substance, but methane is a gas.
Because both methane and water only have single covalent bonds these molecules are most easily ionised by high frequency radiation (UV light), and so the light hydrogen atom component of low molecular weight methane (MW= 16) and also water (MW = 18) is most easily lost to space from a planetary atmosphere. Thereby Venus, being close to the Sun, would have most easily lost the hydrogen component of its water early in its planetary history. The presence of Tholins (tars) in the upper atmosphere of Titan is also a result of ionisation loss of hydrogen to space, but in this case from methane and not water.
Nitrogen (N2) has a valency of 3, and therefore a nitrogen molecule (MW =28) has 3 covalent bonds and forms a chemically stable molecule that is not easily ionised. In the case of nitrogen the process of ionisation would have to break all three bonds at once in order to separate the two nitrogen atoms (AMU = 14) in the molecule, and therefore nitrogen although it has a low molecular weight remains as a stable molecule in the atmosphere of Venus.
And then there is carbon dioxide. CO2 is a linear shaped molecule in which the central carbon atom is bound to the two external oxygen atoms by double covalent bonds. Again, as with the case of nitrogen, these bonds are difficult to break and CO2 forms a stable molecule in the presence of UV light. It is worth noting that because CO2 is resistant to UV ionisation and water is not, then this is the explanation as to why the oxygen atom released by photosynthesis in green plants comes from the water and not from the carbon dioxide gas.
This post is the last one for tonight 😉
Phillip,
Once again thank you I’ve been studying and beating off Potholer trolls for around 12 hours. I love this stuff feel free to post anytime.
I hate the process if everything I think I know being torn asunder back to ground zero sort of speaking, but I love when it is reformatted again better than it was before.
I don’t know how you guys can keep this stuff stored in your brains.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law was derived from the cavity oven experiments. Planck formulated his law and both the SB law and Wiens’ law can be derived from Planck’s – the SB law by integrating Planck’s and Wien’s by differentiating Planck’s and setting the expression to zero.
All three relate to the so-called black body radiation which has a complete emission spectrum.
There is no gas that emits black body radiation !
Rosco states: “There is no gas that emits black body radiation!”
Exactly. Gases typically emit a “line spectrum”. That’s one of the reason that fluxes can not be simply added. Different fluxes are different “animals”.
A full spectrum is typical for a thermodynamic “heat source”. The sun, and a campfire, emit a full spectrum. A “line spectrum” is typical of an object re-emitting energy, not introducing “new” energy into the system. Consequently, a “line spectrum” can not raise the temperature of the system. CO2 merely re-emits energy. It is NOT a thermodynamic “heat source”. It can NOT raise the temperature of the system.
I’m guessing this guy took a few physics courses, studied quantum mechanics and is now convinced he is the smartest person in his world, which I’m sure is very small.
Geran,
This wannabe physicist said, “15 micron photons is not “equal” to 0.0827MeV. Scientifically literate people would say that a 15 micron photon carry an energy of 82.65meV.”
Joseph, the same wannabe I gave him this from you,
“radiation cannot increase its own temperature in any case because it is bosonic…photons just pile on top of each other and there is an equal amount of deconstructive interference as there is constructive interference. It doesn’t matter how many photons of a certain spectral temperature there is…all you get from that spectrum is the temperature it is and it can’t increase its own temperature.”
His reply was,
Take this statement you made for instance:
“So photons of the same spectrum does not increase it’s temperature.”
This is just meaningless gibberish… Photons do not have temperature. Temperature is simply a measure of molecule agitation. So there really is nothing to debunk here because you are not even wrong. You are just misunderstanding the principle of blackbody radiation and how it works. Bodies at a certain temperature will emit photons whose spectrum spread and peak depends on it. And bodies that are in contact will reach thermodynamic equilibrium in a closed system. That’s it
Nobody claims that energy transfer necessarily means temperature increase. Fridges exist for a reason… The fact still remains that adding some type of energy in a certain way to a system will increase temperature. Photons in the IR band do just that when interacting with molecules that can absorb that band. This is not rocket science. Even you should be able to learn how it works.
Love your quote at the end from mister “Astrophysicist” lol “spectral temperature” hahaha. Although you are right: a body cannot increase its own temperature in a vacuum.
What did you do CD, confuse “meV” with “MeV”?
Yes sir I did, I guess. He did say even as meV it was still wrong. I did point out the ice cube difference to a 15 micron photon but he chose not to respond to that.
He’s sure backing down: “The fact still remains that adding some type of energy in a certain way to a system will increase temperature.”
But the fact still remains that CO2 is NOT “adding any energy” to the system. So CO2 cannot increase the system temperature.
Geran,
He’s using the Discredit tactic to invalidate anything I say even if it is true. That is a typical tactic used on the left but if you do it they scream “facts should be base don their own merits”. Double standard.
Now back to the math of meV I could not find anyway to check it myself, the closest I got was this:
82.65613 which is exactly what he said.
“…82.65613 which is exactly what he said.”
CD, was there a question? I can’t figure out if you’re trying to ask something, or just make a point.
Found a nice Gravitational Potential Energy Calculator.
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/gravitational-potential.php
During the day there is increase in Gravitational Potential Energy. Energy goes into raising the atmosphere, confirmed by the higher hight of the tropopause during the day. At night the potential energy gets released by lowering the atmospheric height.
besides that there is
– increase in latent heat during the day, and decrease during the night.
– increase in emissivity.during the day, and decrease during ther night. (not only because internal heat changes, also because of the height change of the atmospheric layer, and expansion/contraction of the gasses)
If we can quantify these factors, and show that it is enough to explain the lower day-night difference compared to the moon …then it is check mate
“Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 μ. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 meV. To put that into perspective, it would take about 77,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 such photons to equal 1 Joule. So it would take 4.2 times that many photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C.”
That was you wasn’t it? Did I put meV in place of eV ?
I checked it and I got:
82.65613 meV
0.08266 eV
Since I really don’t know what I am doing I’m not sure if that is right.
Nice MP. That’s the atmosphere with real-time heating right there.
OK CD, I see why you were concerned. I got the value in “eV” from an online source. I wanted to use “meV” for clarity. I just forgot to move the decimal point! So, your value is correct.
Sorry for the confusion. As punishment, I plan to reduce my consumption of champagne Tuesday evening by 1000 picoliters.
That should teach me a lesson.
So 1 Joule=6.25 eV
15 microns=0.08266 eV
So how many 15 micron variants would equal 1 eV? 75.7
So 1 Joule is equal to around 473.125/15 micron photons.
So it would take 2,010.78/15 micron photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.
If this is right, either case figuring it out gave me a headache.
Joseph,
I read another one of your older posts, great stuff:
“Carbon dioxide is supposed to trap heat by scattering infra-red light waves, so, let’s see how long this effect can trap light waves for… Let’s be really generous here, and say that some of the photons of the right wavelength get scattered by CO2 one-hundred times on their way out. It will then take them, rounding, about 7 milliseconds to escape from the surface to outer space. So, for just a fraction of the entire actual spectrum of outgoing infrared light, some of the light waves are trapped inside the atmosphere for 7 milliseconds…”
So I wanted to know how many times that could happen in a second. I came up with in 1 second an IR photon can transfer, absorb and re-radiate 14,285.71 times? Not sure it it’s right but that is informative.
CD, 1 Joule = 6.24 (10)^18 eV
Or, 1 Joule = 6,240,000,000,000,000,000 eV
@ Joseph E Postma
Well, the factors i mentioned are decreasing the heating potential during day, and decreasing he colling potential at night. No significant netto change over time.
There are 2 kinds of graviational potental energy. One is like a ball up in the air.
The other one is like a spring, but in another way. When a metal spring is pushed down or stretched there is increased potential energy to get back to its original state. When air gets compressed the effect is not increase of potential energy, it increaes direrctly the internal temperature
So one could say that decrompressed gas has a potential temperature budget.
Yes. Although the heating temperature is upwards of 100C, we don’t actually get that around the equator. Why not? Some energy goes directly to heating and raising temperature…and a lot goes to work, to raising the atmosphere and also into latent heat. The atmosphere settles and the latent heat leaks out at high latitudes and at night. SIMPLE. And my diagram model can explain that.
Here’s one that might make you smile,, or weep…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/earthworms-climate-change-carbon-research-1.5370724?fbclid=IwAR1oarbN-_pOmfUSUXn7gBEXfXANFkoaCBWlHdYHzE1HmHiVK6evXpCKQ7w
Retards…god!
“Scientists say some earthworm species are potentially speeding up climate change by feeding on leaves, then pooping out a mix that’s fodder to tiny microbes and fungi that spew carbon into the atmosphere.”
A hundreds-millions year established process of recycling and fertilization…now a toxic pollution. These people will leave this planet a barren rock by the time they’re through.
I call this global worming… 🙂
I do not believe Pyrgeometers actually measure anything at all. According to all of the documentation I have been able to read they merely “infer” some sort of reading based on pre-programmed settings.
There remains much controversy over if these devices have any meaningful capabilities when exposed to the Sun’s radiation.
During the day the 4 micron filter lens blocks significant amounts of incoming sunlight but it gets hot in doing so. Thus it is likely simply emitting its own temperature IR radiation onto the sensor. To supposedly compensate for this impossible to correct reality they include a clear lens sensor which records the solar forcing temperature and by some impossible mathematical gymnastics they arrive at the claim they measure DWLR.
But 333 W/m2 back radiation as quoted in Trenberth et al is simply the radiation the filter lens would emit if the air temperature was ~3.6°C – a not too unrealistic night time temperature at many locations around the world.
And again applying the laws of black body radiation to anything that doesn’t emit continuous spectra is highly suspect at best.
Let’s ask Einstein what he postulated about high energy photons :-
“Einstein made the radical postulate that a beam of light consists of small packages of energy called photons or quanta. This postulate was an extension of an idea developed five years earlier by Max Planck to explain the properties of blackbody radiation, which we discussed in Section 17.7. (We’ll explore Planck’s ideas in Section 39.5.) In Einstein’s picture, the energy E of an individual photon is equal to a constant h times the photon frequency ƒ. From the relationship for electromagnetic waves in vacuum, we have E =hf = hc/lambda.”
“In Einstein’s picture, an individual photon arriving at the surface in Fig. 38.1a or 38.2 is absorbed by a single electron. This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all.”
Let’s restate this – “the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all.”
Now I know Einstein is explaining the photo-electric effect and the stop function but such a reality is surely universal. Objects at higher energy levels are not forced into an even higher energy state by the absorption of lower energy state photons – if they were runaway energy states would always occur.
This is universally accepted as true for the photoelectric effect involving the highest energy photons and to my mind is undoubtedly true for lower energy states and is supported by all observational data.
Remotely sensing that a ice cube has a temperature does not mean that it is heating anything warmer than it. That’s the stupidity of the mistake they make.
This isn’t the dumbest thing I heard today, “global worming” has to be the top one. But it is cringe-worthy in it’s own right. I can’t decide if they are just ignorant or that bold in the lie? This is from one of Potholers trolls.
“ah, you make the common error many scientifically illiterates make, the CO2 is not a heat source, the GHE is not a heat source, the surface is the origin of the IR radiation relevant to the GHE. and the surface gets its energy from the Sun, virtually all of it, so the source is the sun, Co2 is merely changing the efficiency by which the planet can radiate to space.”
That’s a complete side step they do…to get away from acknowledging their heat flow reversal. Sophistry techniques. It entirely contradicts their other explanation because now he’s claiming a reduction in emissivity due to CO2, whereas the entire GHE theory is based on CO2 being a good emitter. They just make up whatever they want….it’s not about reasoned debate but any technique to pretend they win the argument. There is no reason with them…only their end goal of domination.
Referencing text book quotes and what not doesn’t matter. They don’t care.
So I’m been on Potholer’s site a few days to see how well I can brawl, not overly impressed with my performance but that was the point, to see how well I can fare in a fight with nut jobs. They do gang up on you and intentionally, like piranha, take little bits out of each not to debate but to follow the 3-Ds of Climate Clown Craft to avoid a debate: Deflect-Deny-Discredit rinse and repeat as needed.
They love taking what you say out of context, some would deliberate repeat back to me what I said and change the wording.
So to be clear becasue my brain is a bit befuddled at the moment, water vapor does not trap heat, correct? The energy stored is no longer thermal heat it;s what? Stored energy?
Back to the brawl: They constantly have to discredit you so anything you say is invalidated on those grounds.
My last conversation with the physicist wannabe (for the record I respect real physicists however, I would never want to be one my headaches would be permanent and I could never achieve that level of brain power): He applies the 3-Ds through my entire discord, this is just the latest comment. Speaking to him further is pointless, I have no grounds to meet him on:
He said:
You haven’t answered this: in what form does water vapor stores energy if it is not heat? And how can water vapor keep temperature high if it doesn’t trap heat? What type of energy are you talking about.
He chopped my comment here:
“maintain a reduced temperature longer through mainly water vapor.Water vapor reduces temperature it doesn’t increase it.”
He said:
If you were scientifically literate (or physically literate I should say) you would realize that you are contradicting yourself with those two statements. Also latent heat has nothing to do with slowed cooling, whatever you think that means doofus… Again you are throwing terms you don’t understand…
My chopped comment:
“Water vapor maintains a reduced temperature longer”
He said:
Again, how does it do that if it doesn’t trap heat on the surface? I think you are confusing yourself with the term “reduced temperature”. What do you think that means? Reduced compared to what?
My chopped comment:
“Average global temperatures are highly influenced by the lapse rate/gravity which maintains a warmer temperature at sea level (14.7 psi) and cools as it climbs in elevation through the troposphere up to the tropopause (10km)”
He said:
So temps are warmer at sea level mainly because of pressure and density of the air
Nonsensical mumbo jumbo followed by a non sequitor here. You are not even wrong there so I’ve got nothing to say.
So I replied with my sweet, tender nurturing personality:
“I’m sorry you aren’t learned enough to understand my “mumbo jumbo”, I’ll give you a few years and then just maybe you’ll get it. Although by a cursory analysis of your present limited level of climate comprehension, I’m guessing your continued evolved education in climate physics will leave you more ignorant, how very sad for you.
If you believe IR Radiation is the source of the troposphere’s overall temperature gradient, you have learned nothing of climate physics (and no doubt never will).
No matter you will still smile and shake hands with like minded morons who have convinced themselves being accepted or paid financial and educational accolades is more important than a real education or scientific integrity.
With the level of education of your typical climate scientist it is no surprise they choose the politcal pop culture option, showered in accolades for holding up a lie sounds more alluring than being a standard lab tech or typical research scientist in a boring room doing boring research.
You might even achieve fame like Tyson, even though just about every other physicist thinks he’s a moron. Or Nye, yeah that’s your ticket, wear a bow tie and read a script.
Cheers!”
CD, it appears you are dealing with someone that refuses to learn.
Heat is not “trapped”. “Heat” is not a quantity, it is a process. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold. They continue to confuse “heat” with “energy”. Emitted photons (energy) can move in any direction, but heat only moves from hot to cold.
So, when he asks: “…in what form does water vapor stores energy if it is not heat?”, he is referring to “internal energy”, not “heat”. He just doesn’t know the difference.
Co2 is merely changing the efficiency by which the planet can radiate to space.
That’s just a restatement of the idea that CO2 “slows cooling”. Again, we must consider what “slowed cooling” can mean. Does it mean that CO2 slows its own emissivity? — something emitting at a certain rate then restricts this rate at which it is emitting? — No, that would be a loopide loop self-contradiction.
Okay, does it mean that the Earth’s surface slows it’s emissivity? — something emitting at a certain rate causes a build up (of what?) to somehow slow the rate that causes this rate to begin with?– No, this seems to be a loopide loop contradiction too.
What does “slowed cooling” or “changed efficiency of radiating” mean, then? How can someone claim this without stating a self-contradiction of what those words actually mean? What exactly is the mechanism of “slowed cooling”? Describe it clearly in terms of photons — what do those photons do to “slow” anything? If they slow something, then the speed at which this something started must be slowed, and so it never had this greater speed to begin with to be slowed.
Geran,
I told him that and I made it very clear. Just the entire politcal science is based on heat radiation behaving in a way it can’t. Then once confronted, you are the one who doesn’t understand how things work.
My absolute #1 argument on YT is about the thermal energy vs stored energy and them (at times demanding) that I acknowledge that all radiation increases temperature and that IR radiation is the primary source of energy transfer through the troposphere (directly or indirectly). If I don’t I become the science illiterate, a key phrase they love using when you don’t agree with them.
Political climate change reminds me of these Bigfoot shows. “we almost have proof he exists see! Oh wait that’s not him. Maybe over here? Nope that’s not him either”.
“We have now devised a model that predicts where Bigfoot should be.”
“Well have you seen him yet?”
“No but the model says he should be here…somewhere? The model is believed to be accurate up to a thousand square miles.”
“…But how do you know it’s accurate if you’ve never seen Bigfoot?”
“Well you just don’t understand the science behind it.”
CD,
Your physicist … “friend” … seems clueless about specific heat, … clueless about the fine distinction between heat and energy, and more than willing to demean you based on his superior confidence in his cluelessness.
Of course, I might be judging prematurely, since I am not privy to the whole exchange.
If you are bored pile on://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QCBDnJU2sQ&lc=z231vpxqkrekzjse0acdp4324ockdiklsar45i31k1tw03c010c.1577726770949104
Doesn’t have to be my comments all of them are great fodder.
I piled on here ‘casue he was a fisher (good enough reason as any I guess?). I use to love fishing not much for the fish per se but for the outdoors. My point was to see how well I did under fire (poorly I might add) his was good enough of a starting point as any.
Key Note: To this day Potholer will not crit one of Joseph’s videos or even respond to my offer. Guess he is smarter than he sounds?
Jonathan Barnes
2 days ago
The Glacier is doing what glaciers do. And it has fuck all to do with a gas at 0.04% in the atmosphere which is not a source of heat. Sometimes they recede sometimes they accrete.
My wife just mentioned Sharia Law is being enforced in East London? Guess they haven’t had enough terrorist attacks yet?
This from yet another Potholer acolyte. I think that makes three different versions of the GHGe already:
“…greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide first ABSORB infrared radiation (a well known and tested property, first described by John Tyndall in the 1850’s) supplied by the Sun, then release this energy in random directions. This keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer, thus raising temperatures. Since the solar radiance the Earth absorbs is more or less constant (at least as measured in short periods of time), that means an increase of carbon dioxide causes Earth to absorb more energy than what is dissipated back into outer space. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand.”
This statement was given even after I had explained all of this:
>“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” -Thermodynamics, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:
>“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” – -Daniel V. Schroeder Page 17, 1:4 Heat and Work from “An Introduction to Thermal Physics.”
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” -page 18
>”Heat is the spontaneous flow of energy from one body to another as a result of a temperature difference.” -Chapter 1 – Energy in Thermal Physics Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics
>This heat flow concept from hot to cold is basically Fourier’s Law.
>”Heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature.” -Energy Education.
>”While internal energy refers to the total energy of all the molecules within the object, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference. Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit. Heat is not a property of a system. However, the transfer of energy as heat occurs at the molecular level as a result of a temperature difference.”-Nuclear Power
“This keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer, thus raising temperatures.”
That’s just a sophist lie. This statement is not found in thermodynamics. What you need to raise temperature is either heat transfer from hot to cold, or work. Neither of those conditions are met in what he or she describes.
Dilbert knows how to handle a BS artist:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-12-31
CD
At least you have answers. I dont. One day ago I posted this directly to him…
/
Pierre D. Bernier
1 day ago
@potholer54 It’s not important whether any glacier is advancing or retrating and the reason for doing so neither. The only reason why everybody is talking about it is because of the supposed AGW. How many times do I have to point it out that there is no such thing. The climate model on which all of this is based on is a fabrication. Prove me wrong… Pray do … /
and then proceeded to explain why and how that the climate diagram from U. Washinton is wrong. I also added Rosco’s SB law not matching Planck’s curve.
No answer to date ! They are blowing in the wind.
Pierre,
You stumped his paid for trolls ha ha excellent Pierre, most excellent. I guess they can smell a veteran vs a novice and assumed I was easy prey they did do a good beating on me though.
When they ask my background I just say, I am an absolute nobody, a climate enthusiast if you will. For that is the truth to my credentials. Mr. Nobody. I should make that my new name on YouTube.
So when IR (heat)radiation is absorbed my any IR responsive molecule it becomes stored energy. However, in a CO2 molecule that transfer from heat to stored energy to re-radiated heat is so fast the stored energy is very short. (If I am following this correctly.)
I’m assuming kinetic energy isn’t stored in this energy becasue it is so short? When a molecule collides or bumps another is it creating the kinetic energy or is the stored energy converted to kinetic energy before it can transfer as re-radiated heat.
Now here is the sticky: This kinetic energy caused from collision can do work, or can be considered to do work. I’m noticing it doesn’t say does do work, it is saying can do work, so is the general rule of hot to cold the prerequisite for can do work?
Can a heated molecule since it is agitated, be considered work?
I’ve noticed from reading different content that the definitions involved in work, heat, temperature and energy vary. For instance engineers tend to have a very different terminology for what physics thermodynamics has. The fact that different branches of thermodynamic understanding has grown the confusion is very easy to propagate deliberately or innocently.
A dozen times I hear “oh your just confused becasue you are defining thermodynamics in its purest sense. Engineers use different terms.”
In writing this is a common problem as well. English is not always the exact same in different countries, your writing style has to be based on the general populace you want to reach. Such as vapor or vapor, flashlight or torch. Some Welsh accents are so hard most Americans can’t understand them. Speech is very different in other countries as well, how your mouth is formed is how English will sound.
… vapor or vapour.
It’s either thermodynamics or not…idiots!
Kinetic energy is energy in motion. I’m an idiot. I should have known that.
Energy IS motion, as I understand it. The entity in motion, thus, has to be something OTHER THAN the energy of the entity itself.
Motion in motion is overkill.
At about the 1:20 mark in a previously shared video (courtesy of CD), an animation appears:
I did a screenshot-still of the animation at that mark to label what is going on there:
Notice that the arrows nearest the top are moving faster than the arrows below them, … the arrows nearest the bottom are moving faster than the arrows above them, … the middle arrows are moving progressively more slowly than either the arrows below or above them.
So, a rational person might ask, how does radiation start at one rate, progressively slow down to another rate, and speed up again to a faster rate? Does reality actually work this way?
I am supposing that reality does NOT work this way, and that this animation is a representation of a magical realm, where radiation can be trained like show unicorns to do whatever their handlers might wish.
At about the 1:20 mark in a previously shared video, an animation appears:
I did a screenshot-still of the animation at this mark to label what is going on there:
Notice that the arrows nearest the top are moving faster than the arrows below them, … the arrows nearest the bottom are moving faster than the arrows above them, … the middle arrows are moving progressively more slowly than either the arrows below or above them.
So, a rational person might ask, how does radiation start at one rate, progressively slow down to another rate, and speed up again to a faster rate? Does reality actually work this way?
I am supposing that reality does NOT work this way, and that this animation is a representation of a magical realm, where radiation can be trained like show unicorns to do whatever their handlers might wish.
Crap, double post above. Sometimes there appears to be a delay between sending a post and seeing it displayed, and so I’m never sure whether it’s going to post or not, and usually when I resubmit, I get a “duplicate post” warning, but that did not happen this time. Hence, the duplicate.
Maybe the universe sees the necessity for such repetition. (^_^)
Another post that I made yesterday, I think, did not display, and never has shown up, and so you see my quandary here.
Crafty slick talker isn’t he? He just contradicted the first law of thermodynamics even though in an educated voice he claimed he did not (3:18) and called all energy heat (3:45) violating all laws of thermodynamics.
I believe that is the confusion between “heat signature” everything above 0K emits a heat signature so even that cup of cold water should have a heat signature they did not show that it did however, which is strange to me.
The arrows is a nice misdirection, even as incoming and outgoing they show it moving a the same speed, outgoing should be slower I’d imagine.
“For instance engineers tend to have a very different terminology for what physics thermodynamics has.”
Don’t believe that nonsense, CD. Engineering proves physics. Any engineer that tries to deny/defy physics won’t be an engineer long. Engineers don’t get to rewrite the laws of physics. They have to live by them…unlike climate clowns.
CD, I’m guessing that those infrared detectors have a minimum threshold to register anything, and the instrument was not sensitive enough to register the cup or cold water.
Those instruments operate on the basis of comparing one thing to another thing and a background pre-set, I think. If you fiddle with those factors, then you can claim that the instrument shows anything you want.
Now let’s aim one of those Ghost Buster spirit-energy detection thingies at the cups and see whether a coffee apparition appears smiling at us out of the “hot” cup. That green-slime ghost monster would be most appropriate there.
[sing with me now]
When there’s some-thing strange,
in the neighborhood,
who you gonna call? —
myth busters !
Geran,
some engineers are a bit loose with the term heat.
Robert,
Loved the original GB they are making a sequel to that soon. I don’t men the womens rights movement version, I mean a real sequel, finally.
To anyone who knows it:
The Hadley cell region, is the average surface temperature 27.9C as the chart from MP is showing (on the graph way up there) or do you need to calculate that with the Air Weighted Proportion?
@CD Marshall
“The Hadley cell region, is the average surface temperature 27.9C as the chart from MP @ 2019/12/25 at 5:03 PM is showing”
That chart is the Celsius version of Table 6 from the Excel Method File “CERES Image Calibration Tables 12Apr19” of my original work “Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space” which is published as a pre-print on my Research Gate site and also on WUWT.
The table was an unexpected result of my analysis of the CERES image. The average temperature of the Earth can be calculated from meteorological first principles of:
1. The average height of the tropopause for a given atmospheric cell (e.g. the Hadley cell)
2.The average temperature of the tropopause for that cell.
3. The environmental lapse rate of the cell and
4. The relative surface area of the globe covered by the cell.
5. The area weighted sum of the temperature values for the 3 cells (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar) that cover the surface is the average annual surface temperature of the Earth.
Thank you Phillip. I’m going to read the whole paper. It has never made sense to me to apply a global average when the Sun works completely different in real time as Joseph has so easily explained. Certainly the Equator’s average would be completely different from the rest of the globe.
I’m a little surprised the Ferrel cell is so low on average.
“I’m a little surprised the Ferrel cell is so low on average.”
The Ferrel temperature value is data driven. It comes from the CERES image
I wasn’t doubting good sir, just surprised it’s s low. It would be fascinating to find the average along the main latitudes and the intermediate latitudes. main lats meaning the circles, tropics and Equator and the intermediate being the middle of those major lines.
Then of course you would need seasonal temps for each region and so on. Quite an undertaking I’d imagine.
For instance the alarmists love using Australia as “out of control warming” well according to their region and summer, no not really that warm to the average.
It is possible that this low value for the Ferrel cell is indicative of how easy it is for the northern land masses of North America and Eurasia to slip into glacial conditions.
@ Robert Kernodle
Great image of the current AGW believe system. Because it is so easy to debunk. The atmosphere is not static, it is dynamic
Out of pure neurotic boredom I did a global average based on 160 major cities/regions throughout the world for the New Year and I have 11.37C. Including Ocean average of “17C” you get 14.18C.
Funny last year in the peak of Northern Hemisphere Summer I calculated nearly 18C.
So global averages are absolutely useless or my math is or both.
I thought my parents marriage was dysfunctional, (mother dominated… cut the air with a knife… who nagged my father to heavy smoking and early grave …now RIP literally) but your and the rest of the siblings childhood sounds absolutely horrendous… and just about brought a tear to my eye.
So pleased you’ve found somebody. Keep up the good work.
Mother Nature… doing her thing, fast rising smoke rings. (Mount Etna, Italy)
Also, Joe, here’s a bit of light reading for Geran and the boys and that lovely lady who interviewed you, if you take a look at my profile here……
https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/25/deck-the-halls-with-facts/?preview_id=34476#comment-4737621596
I feel like we could write a book together, but you’d have to face an onslaught of litigation….and my name says shallow pockets…. not good.
Great comment Mack at that link! Why would a joint book invite litigation? I’ve already put out two.
And yes…hashtag children of boomers…!
BTW people… I have a paper submitted to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, same place where Khiel and Trenberth published their flat Earth energy budget. It’s currently in peer review having past the initial editor review.
Stay tuned.
Mack that’s a great string of comments there. Good work standing your ground to those frauds and shills. All they have is sophistry and pretense and insult. They are quite ill.
Mack you did excellent work there. The climate change attack tribbles (as I call them from time to time) use the exact same 3-Ds, must be in the handbook: Deny-Deflect-Discredit rinse and repeat.
Joseph great news on the paper, we shall see. Twould be freak’n nice for a change for something to get published that is based on reals science. Every paper I see (few compared to the CC trash) I am amazed made it past the gauntlet when you have clowns like MMann bragging about stopping papers in peer review.
Joseph,
If the paper does not make it through the gauntlet of referees, then maybe make a blog exercise out of the process, showing the paper, and where possible, the referees comments, so maybe we can ref the refs.
That’s the plan. You guys will love the paper – it has all been boiled down and simplified to a few paragraphs so succinct that to reject it will be literal insanity. An unrecoverable line will be crossed when it is rejected.
Bragging about stopping papers eh? Frauds and con artists must find the peer review scheme to be an absolute heaven…a dream life, a perfect life, being part of it…it’s their home if they ever had one or created one.
Mack, I enjoyed your comments. Great job!
Joseph, I can’t wait to see how AMS treats your paper. If the paper dealt with the bogus GHE, it will be interesting to see how it is handled. The AMS is fully committed to the IPCC/GHE nonsense. From their statement on Climate Change:
”Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2)…”
Yeah right! Adjusting historical temperatures is NOT “scientific evidence”. The correct physics indicates mass already in a system is not an energy source. The correct physics indicates that it requires a proper energy source to raise temperatures.
Meteorology is a “soft science”. The focus is on funding, not truth. There are many PhD Meteorologists that don’t have a clue about the physics related to Earth’s energy budget. That’s why you see some of the PhD clowns stating nonsense like “Putting on a sweater is an example of cold warming hot”, in their effort to justify violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to fit their sophistry.
The AMS is largely corrupt, and one of the reasons we are still fighting the AGW pseudoscience. This does not mean, however, that all meteorologists are corrupt, or incompetent. Joe Bastardi regularly disproves the old saying “you can’t predict weather months in advance”. And years ago I lived where I could get the weather forecasts from Gary England, now retired. Gary brought Oklahoma tornado prediction accuracy to a much higher level. Bastardi and England are REAL scientists, learning and applying knowledge. And interestingly, both are huge AGW Skeptics.
Wish I could show you guys the paper!
If they reject it, they’ll be directly saying that the Sun does not create the climate. Basically I just compared the K&T flat earth budget diagram to my own real-time hemispheric input model, and asked – which one is correct? With the proviso that they cannot both be because they’re mutually exclusive. Does backradiation create the climate, or the Sun? I’m asking this to a METEOROLOGY JOURNAL!
LOL!
Don’t show us anything (yet) don’t want to influence this going either way. Yeah Joseph Mann has bragged on his Twitter account about stopping papers and in the hacked emails he has stated influencing journals on what is allowed to be published.
This is the latest reply I sent the Potholer Clown Farm,
“The GHGe is a concept in error, which is why it should be difficult to understand as being correct.
The Sun first heats up the surface, this should be grade school education at least. Naturally the atmosphere gets warmed by the surface, heat does not move backwards. IR radiation is the least form of energy transfer in the troposphere, as I have specified upon many occasions.
Heat does not move from cold to hot, energy can transfer, but the problem is people don’t understand physics or in this case thermodynamics and that is why this confusion persists.
Thermodynamic heat is taught and although the basics are fundamentally correct in explanation, what is in error is the understanding of its applications. Very few people understand the subtle, and yet very crucial, difference in heat, energy and temperature. This verified science goes as far back and proven in Fourier’s law in order for warming to take place you need to raise temperature and that can only be achieved by heat transfer from hot to cold, or work.
IR Photons radiating at the equivalent of 0.0827 eV does not have the propensity to warm anything up even if it was obeying thermodynamics correctly in warming (and it is not). All that is happening is some narrow wavelengths of very weak photons are reflected, a process that is taking place in microseconds and is over. All gas in the atmosphere gets heated by the surface that kick starts the weather.
You can spin it anyway you want but the fact is still for an increase in temperature, energy must flow from “hot” to “cold” (ΔT). So you might argue its not increasing temperature it’s just maintaining it longer, in microsecond bursts? No it is not, it really isn’t.
A lightning strike has the power to evaporate water and with a hundred strikes a second, lightning creates no discernible change to the regional temperature gradient and yet 15 microns holds less energy than an ice cube.
To say such a fallacy has the power to create global warming is a reductio ad absurdum of the highest order.
Cheers
I received a few replies already, twisty replies, they are long so not going to post them here.
You can join in here or just read the latest comments:
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QCBDnJU2sQ&lc=z231vpxqkrekzjse0acdp4324ockdiklsar45i31k1tw03c010c.1578031151611358
Its under @Jonathan Barnes has 78+ comments, yeah I get them worked up. Feel free to comment if you want, I would appreciate some recourse for educational purposes only and not entertainment, but if both happen to coincide I’m good with that too.
If you are all too busy then fine, troll bashing should always be a recreational sport.
CD, you’re doing as well as can be done. The clowns you’re trying to help are perfect examples of “Sophists”. They use all of their abilities to avoid truth, and revel in lies.
I’ve seen most of their ploys, such as “blankets”, but a new one caught my attention:
“Throw a half pound ball with a velocity of a meter per second at a brick wall and you won’t see any effect on the wall. Now throw a thousand of these same balls with the same velocity at the same time at the wall over a small region of the wall, and you will notice an effect. Or do you argue that five hundred pounds of mass traveling at a meter per second would not have any effect on impact?”
In this example, the commentor was responding to your point that a 15 μ photon has insufficient energy to raise Earth’s surface temperature. So, in his blatant sophistry, he was trying to compare photons to half-pound balls. In his “mind”, he wanted to believe more low-energy photons could add up, since mass adds up. That “thinking”, of course, puts him in the “ice cubes can bake a turkey” cult.
If the turkey isn’t baking fast enough, just add more ice!
🙂
Thanks Geran, it does seem hopeless. These guys strike me as being too educated to be this ignorant on purpose.
Oh one of them mentioned 1.5 microns, which I was of the understanding isn’t emitted by the Earth’s surface.
I’ve been having some fun over here:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/25/deck-the-halls-with-facts/?preview_id=34476#comment-4737621596
Nice work.
“Except that your fringe views are diametrically opposed to the position of virtually every US and international scientific academy and organization including US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, the American Geophysical Union, etc, etc.
Instead of circulating intentionally misleading, worthless nonsense, please educate yourself with at least a basic understanding. The evidence is unequivocal:”
I’ve seen very similar comments like this on all social media outlets. It is too common not to be part of the activist taught dialogue. I want to return that reply with a general reply of some sort. Sounds like something Robert could muster up. I love how Robert can pick apart “Attack Tribbles” comments like meat plucked from the bone.
Fun to watch.
The evidence is unequivocal that they’re flat earth theorists…lol.
So more of the comments attacking myself (or the science) from Pothole.
Troll:
I don’t know if you were trying to be impressive or intimidating with your explanations on thermodynamics, but you were neither. Your knowledge of thermodynamics doesn’t seem to go any deeper than what you copy and pasted above, mostly from blogs. If your knowledge was deeper, you would understand that infrared radiation ranges from .7 to 1,000 microns, and that carbon dioxide can absorb infrared radiation at wavelengths as short as ~1.5 microns (as referenced by my last source provided)–much higher energy than the 15 microns you mentioned. Other greenhouse gases can absorb IR radiation with shorter wavelengths than 15 microns as well. The rest of your comments fail to explain how anthropogenic climate change violates thermodynamics.
My thoughts:
{Direct quotes from physicists’ manual (with page and book provided) are blogs and that Fourier’s Law does not explain why IR Radiation doesn’t heat the surface up more?}
Troll:
“Now explain to me how it is that a high energy laser is capable of heating up an already red hot bar of steel. Heat only goes from hot to cold after all, and the light of the laser beam is just that, light, so it doesn’t have heat per se. Energy is still delivered from this light in the form of heat. How this is possible is something you’ve already hinted at: work. The truth is that light has momentum, and momentum can be transferred from light to matter. Momentum (kinetic energy specifically) on a microscopic scale when averaged across a region is equivalent to temperature on the macroscopic scale. This is the simple kinematic description of heat as equivalent to kinetic energy. You talk about thermodynamics, so this should be obvious to you if you have studied it.”
My thoughts:
{If light were mass we’d all be knocked down in direct sunlight. He is referring to the transfer of energy from light to a solid object and stating that is momentum? I don’t really get that comment.}
I said:
“Naturally the atmosphere gets warmed by the surface, heat does not move backwards. IR radiation is the least form of energy transfer in the troposphere…Heat does not move from cold to hot, energy can transfer, but the problem is people don’t understand physics or in this case thermodynamics and that is why this confusion persists.”
Troll:
That presumes that there is a linear relationship such that the atmosphere becomes colder as you increase altitude. The actual temperature fluctuates quite a bit with altitude. There are regions of the upper atmosphere with a greater temperatures than the troposphere, and there are regions with far lower temperatures than the troposphere. Consider the Van Allen Belt and the Thermosphere as some examples. I have studied thermodynamics, and it seems to me that you are missing something.
As I have asked before is kinetic energy considered work in the atmosphere?
My guess would be no. Agitated molecules are a result of the heated surface and the Sun was the work that heated the surface and no work from the surface is being done.
Right.
Is there anything I need to add to this comment (anybody?). More clearer wording perhaps or science or both?
“Comparing a high energy laser, focusing one exact wavelength powered up to 500 trillion watts of power and then converting that to high energy ultra violet light as the same thing as 15 micron photon is just ridiculous. Seriously you studied thermodynamics and replaced it with political propaganda? Does that make you feel superior choosing to be this ignorant on purpose or seeking to lie to others on behalf of your politcal climate mantra pseudoscience?”
Excellent lol.
CD,
I chose one of the greenhouse zombie comments you listed to show how I might handle it:
[Except that your fringe views are diametrically opposed to the position of virtually every US and international scientific academy and organization including US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, the American Geophysical Union, etc, etc.]
Your use of the word, “fringe”, I gather is supposed to be demeaning. Why not just refer to my views, without the loaded adjective? I’ll answer that — it’s because you want to imply that my views have no factual foundation, which they DO. You want to convey the impression that you are in a superior position, which you are NOT, precisely because evaluation of ALL the facts leads a rational person to wonder why those organizations you mention fail to consider the sum total of actual facts.
Why do all those organizations choose to align themselves with an international governmental body that slants and politicizes the facts? Arguing from the authority of those organizations, thus, is essentially a defense of their failure to weigh all the facts and a defense of their failure to present an honest assessment of those facts.
Without merely appealing to their authority, have you yourself attempted to assess the facts, using your own mind, to check whether those organizations are deserving of your trust?
One of the many mistakes the clowns make is in believing that all electomagnetic flux is the same. They believe that, since infrared emitted from Earth’s surface has the same units as the flux emitted by Sun, the two fluxes are the same. In their empty heads, they then believe the two fluxes can be added/subtracted. Both have units of “Watts/m^2”, so they believe they can be added/subtracted.
They don’t realize that electromagnetic fluxes are photons, and photons can be very different. The units, “Watts/m^2”, can be very ambiguous. An easy analogy is to consider a box with a capacity of one cubic meter. If the contents of two such boxes are the same, then you have two cubic meters of whatever the contents are. But, if one box contains one cubic meter of bananas, and the other box contains one cubic meter of bird feathers, simply adding does not work. You don’t have either two boxes of bananas, or two boxes of bird feathers. You have two boxes of incompatible things.
The clowns try to add back-radiation to solar. They will claim that the two different fluxes “add”, meaning that back-radiation increases the energy from Sun. Next time they try that, offer to trade them two kilograms of horse poop for one kilogram of pure gold. If they turn you down, ask: “Why would they turn down a 2-for-1 deal? Aren’t all kilograms the same?”
Robert that is an excellent diplomatic reply, naturally not trollworthy, but setting a standard above the trolls for those reading with an honest heart. You really did conceptualize the plea to authority and disarm it accordingly.
Geran the flux thing really confuses us of little science background and apparently those with more political science climate background.
Such as ,
Again, you are either overstating your understanding of thermodynamics, or deliberately excluding thermodynamic principles that invalidate your argument. In either case, you are being dishonest.
The first law of thermodynamics can be expressed mathematically:
(delta) U = Q + W
(delta) U is the change of internal energy of a system; in our case, it is Earth’s gas-filled atmosphere.
Q is the amount of heat added to the system (in this case, from the sun). This can be measured using the equation: Q = mc (delta) T.
m is the mass of the atmospheric gases
c= is the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere
(delta) T is the change in temperature of the atmospheric gases from the energy added.
W is the work done by the system onto another system. While it is true, according to this law, a change of internal energy doesn’t necessarily mean a temperature change (as you have stated). For that to be true, it means work needs to be done to entirely account for that change. This is called an adiabatic system, where Q = 0. In the case of the atmosphere, it isn’t an adiabatic system for three reasons:
First, the sun is continuously supplying energy to the system, so Q does not = 0. If it isn’t adiabatic, then there is indeed a change in temperature.
Second, it would require the global atmosphere to expand indefinitely (or its pressure ton increase indefinitely) as Earth is continuously absorbing the Sun’s energy. (For a gaseous system W = P (delta) V; where P is pressure, and(delta) V is the change in volume).
Third, the second law of thermodynamics states that no system can operate acrobatically with 100% efficiency. Your references basically only show this: heat spontaneously flows from higher temperatures, and no one is arguing that point. What you are leaving out is the fact that the two systems will reach an equilibrium temperature unless more energy is added (Q), so that the “hot” system can maintain a higher temperature as I already showed with the equation for Q.
This is why we never reach an equilibrium temperature with outer space and how your body can maintain a temperature of 37 degrees Celsius even in consistently colder temperatures. It is basic, fundamental thermodynamics. Therefore, your assertion that greenhouse gases causing temperature increases violates the laws of thermodynamics is completely wrong.
Sorry after such as, was a troll reply to me.
Word salad. Greenhouse gases provide neither heat nor work…therefore no greenhouse effect. QED. Although they try to obfuscate the terms around that.
They’re upping their game now by actually daring to reference the equation for the first law…but of course their tactic is to just make a word salad around it that says nothing…gobbledygook that pretends expertise while saying nothing intelligible, that most people simply cannot penetrate and so makes them back off.
But as I said…the first law proves no warming from any gases, since they provide neither heat nor work. And remember…their entire premise for needing a ghe is their flat earth model where the sun cannot create the climate.
Nothing in that reply supports or explains the ghe. Nothing!
Joseph,
Happy New Year by the way, hope you had a good time with your family. My brother spent the New Year in the hospital, what a way to avoid parties! He passed out on New Year’s Eve, held him over for observations and found nothing wrong with him. Heart is fine and blood work was fine. He’s back home now now the wiser.
Anyway. this is what I want to reply:
The surface is (should) be considered part of the troposphere. Therefore the average temperature, or the middle temperature would be found in the middle of the troposphere and it is, -18C/255K the exact temperature of the effective blackbody as seen from space.
Your points are NOT the Greenhouse Gas effect as taught, are they?
The Troposphere gets heated and as a result of being heated has a temperature, that temperature is not heating the bottom of the Troposphere, the bottom of the atmosphere is heating the parts above it.
The adiabatic Lapse Rate is not the GHGe.
Gravity is not the GHGe.
The Ideal gas Law is not the GHGe.
Conduction is not the GHGe.
Convection is not the GHGe.
Advection is not the GHGe.
Air being pushed down a column (or parcel) and heated back up through atmospheric pressure is not the GHGe.
The Sun does do the work yes, at the surface not top of the Troposphere.
NO, the GHGe claims IR Radiation emitted from the surface is trapped and heats the surface up more, noting clearly as I just stated that the bottom of the Troposphere should be considered part of the same system.
The surface is hotter than the average temps of the Troposphere any IR Radiation returning is not going to raise that temperature.
So no the GHGe will not increase surface temperatures.
Yes the adiabatic lapse rate/gravity/atmospheric pressure most certainly will.
A solar photon has an immense storage capacity of energy compared to a terrestrial photon. So Fourier’s Law applies. The Sun=Hot (TOA 120C give or take according to season and so forth). Surface=Warm (15C). Troposphere=Cold (-18C).
Yes nothing is that simple for the planet and the atmosphere is not static, but simple generalizations cans till be applied and the laws of thermodynamics adhered to.
Yes all the laws, 1st, 2nd, Zeroth and so forth.
Nothing in the Troposphere is achieving thermal equilibrium, our surface will never achieve thermal equilibrium, if it ever does we become isothermic do we not?
Good reply. But NEVER leave them with a question! NEVER EVER. One, they’ll use that as an opportunity to mock your intelligence since you don’t know something that, two, you asked them which means that you’re going to them for an answer hence you acknowledge that they know more than you or something that you don’t. NEVER give them the high ground even if the question is entirely rhetorical. Remember, this is not an honest debate and they are not interested or here for a respectful analysis or sharing of information or building any relationship…they will only ever use any opportunity for the methods of sophistry. NEVER give them an opportunity. NEVER give them an open. NEVER leave them a thread. They will ALWAYS queue off of anything to create obfuscation and sophistry.
Oh and I think it’s about time to give them links to your videos, the problem is I can never decide on which one. Any suggestions?
See…all your points in your reply were 100% spot on and entirely destroyed them. But that last little question they will focus on and ignore the entire rest…they will focus on that last mostly irrelevant question and blow it up to undermine everything else ignoring everything else you said.
Real vs fake climate physics is a good one.
Excellent points, Joseph, as usual. 🙂
Sophistry Slayer 🙂
CD,
In the “word-salad” response you presented, the sentence, Therefore, your assertion that greenhouse gases causing temperature increases violates the laws of thermodynamics is completely wrong, has no clear connection to the words preceding it, as I read it.
He could just as easily have presented a detailed recipe for chocolate cake, and then connected it with a “Therefore”. The “Therefore” indicates that what precedes it leads to the conclusion “therefore” signals. All those preceding words, however, say nothing about the effect of greenhouse gases.
It is well known that proper composting requires that the temperature of the constituents in the pile must reach an elevated temperature, in order for proper breakdown of the materials to proceed properly. The best proportion of ingredients, thus, is an approximate equal combination of brown matter (such as dead leaves) and green matter (such as lawn clippings). Also, one must ensure proper moisture to facilitate the decomposition process that produces this temperature. Therefore, your assertion that greenhouse gases causing temperature increases violates the laws of thermodynamics is completely wrong.
Lol!
It reminds me of a similar defense that I read once, by a physicist spouting off his detailed knowledge of quantum mechanics, and then pretending as though what he just said had any direct, clear bearing whatsoever on his claim about the greenhouse effect, which it did NOT.
People sometimes try to wow you (and kid themselves?) with their specific knowledge in one detailed application, and then sneak in a connector phrase that looks as though it ties two lines of discussion together, when it seriously does NOT.
Flies are small. Therefore, blue thoughts dance merrily on the drifting fog. Looks like a legitimate line of thought, doesn’t it? But what is it, really? — I’ll let you answer. (^_^)
I’m inspired to create a new word —thermopoetics
I’m still fighting it out on Potholer’s site, just going around with the spinster up there who keeps changing the goal posts. Yes Joseph he has used the “you just don’t understand…”
He also believes a microwave proves global warming.
You can find it here: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QCBDnJU2sQ&lc=z231vpxqkrekzjse0acdp4324ockdiklsar45i31k1tw03c010c.1578287940369455
under @ Jonathon Barnes
The guy in question is named Aron S-something.
I gave him your video and the 60 symbols one I was curious in his reactions. Spot on he loved the 60 symbols nonsense and said, ” I understood both videos perfectly. I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand thermodynamics. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be confused about which one is “babbling nonsense” and be able to discuss the points I made about thermodynamics directly instead of babbling on about average global temperatures. That is why you are susceptible for accepting Postma’s unsubstantiated claims. I know fact checking is hard, but it is the only way to verify whether Postma is being honest when he refers to anthropogenic climate change as “political climate science”. He isn’t, but you don’t have to take my word for it…”
This guy speaks exactly like the guy you had to ban on your YT site, Richard something.
He claims he has successfully explained the GHGe:
>Like all scientific laws, the laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law have certain parameters in which they are valid. Thus far, any “scientific” argument against anthropogenic climate change ignores this fact. For example, the ideal gas law assumes adiabatic and isotropic conditions. While you can make rough estimates from the ideal gas law for local atmospheric conditions, it is inappropriate to use it to describe the global atmosphere, as it isn’t adiabatic nor isotropic.
>As for the lapse rate and the ideal gas law, conditions are not globally uniform even within the troposphere, so applying a state function like the ideal gas law becomes problematic
>Just because Postma (a known climate change denialist) states “internal energy is just energy, not stored heat” doesn’t make that fact less so (otherwise, the first law of thermodynamics would be violated). There seems to be some confusion based on semantics. Blankets work because the heat energy increases the kinetic energy of atomic particles, thus the temperature I feel increases. The same is true for greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation. The quotes you provided say nothing to the contrary. Just because Postma states heat isn’t “reversible/recyclable/etc.” doesn’t mean the energy ceases to exists! The energy from the transfer of heat is what gets trapped by a blanket–just like greenhouse gases absorb energy, from infrared radiation and trapping it in the atmosphere for longer periods of time. This phenomenon has been observed and recorded multiple times.
>Finally, the International Static Atmosphere was never designed to be a scientifically accurate representation of the atmosphere–it is hypothetical. It is meant to give pilots and air traffic controllers a common altimeter readings so they can compare relative altitudes of airplanes flying in the same area. Furthermore, altimeter readings are different between weather stations and change throughout the day. How is that explained by the ideal gas law?
>Ah, so that is where your confusion lies. You think the greenhouse effect is based upon producing carbon dioxide releasing infrared radiation? No one here, nor any credible research paper has ever claimed that. Rather, greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide first ABSORB infrared radiation (a well known and tested property, first described by John Tyndall in the 1850’s) supplied by the Sun, then release this energy in random directions. This keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer, thus raising temperatures. Since the solar radiance the Earth absorbs is more or less constant (at least as measured in short periods of time), that means an increase of carbon dioxide causes Earth to absorb more energy than what is dissipated back into outer space. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand.
“Spot on he loved the 60 symbols nonsense…”
At about 4:30, in that hilarious video, he claims the back radiation is equal to solar incoming. His solar incoming, “F”, he claims is also the back radiation, σTo^4. Then, he adds them together, arriving at a total input to the surface of 2σTo^4. So, he has doubled solar input!
Then, at 6:00, he claims he hasn’t violated any laws of thermodynamics!
What a clown.
“This keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer, thus raising temperatures.”
That’s great sophistry. Pure garbage. These people just lie and lie…that’s all they do. *Heat or work*, that’s what you need to raise temperature. GHG’s do neither.
Look at the self-contradiction:
“You think the greenhouse effect is based upon producing carbon dioxide releasing infrared radiation? No one here, nor any credible research paper has ever claimed that.”
SUCH LIES. LOL! But then:
“Rather, greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide first ABSORB infrared radiation (a well known and tested property, first described by John Tyndall in the 1850’s) supplied by the Sun, then release this energy in random directions. This keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer, thus raising temperatures.”
Like my one video title: the thing is not the thing. “It is not this thing…but this same thing is it.”
The one big thing I learned is that there is no aim for a rational discussion. At first you think they’re just stupid…then they get so bad as you debunk them so many times that they have to resort to outright and constant self-contradiction…which is consistent because contradiction and cognitive dissonance is in fact the entire basis of their schtick, and their whole purpose. Their purpose in this IS TO BE inconsistent, because their aim is to create confusion. Whenever they can confuse something, it is a success for them. That’s why you keep it simple and on the basics. “Heat or work!” QED.
“Keeping it in longer” is not heat, or work.
Here is an Earth Energy budget diagram without the fake greenhouse effect.
Absortion of LW is just a small contributer of the heatbudget of the atmosphere. And the amount that is absorbed is compensated with an equal amount of increased emission by the atmosphere to space.
The speed of absorption+emission = 0.0001 second. The mean “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters
https://principia-scientific.org/co2-retains-heat-for-only-0-0001-seconds-warming-not-possible/
So after 10 thousand x absorption+emission and a mean traveled distance of 330 km the “delay” of a traveling photon is 1 second compared to direct radiation from the surface to space.
Conduction, convection and latent heat transfer is the bulk of heat transfer from the surface to high in the atmosphere. And that goes much slower compared to a blackbody that radiates directly to space. Convecting air takes around 3.5 minutes before it is from ground level upto high up in the atmosphere
So if someone believes that there is an higher equilibrium surface temperature because of slower outgoing heat flow compared to a black body, then they have to admit that the reason is slow Conduction, convection and latent heat transfer, with many orders of magnitude bigger slowing down influence compared to slowed down radiation.
That’s a great diagram and it is a much more sensible “fat Earth” representation of my own energy budget diagram. Simply switching from flux spread over the entire surface as an input, to a percentage with no specification at all about how that energy is spread as an input (which would be the proper thing to do for a flat Earth diagram!), makes all the difference. Now, the sun clearly creates the climate with 100% of its input, not 25% of its input as they do with whole-Earth averaged input flux. And heat flow is always down the gradient in that diagram, not reversing twice over.
I have that diagram in my files…where did you get it? That diagram itself demonstrates that the K&T energy budget model is wrong, given that it is incompatible with it. Is that an internet diagram or does it come from an actual journal article?
I took that diagram from this dude.
Wow, cool. I’ve had that diagram in my files since almost the very beginning. I wonder where it first came from… Perhaps one of the Slayers first produced it!?!?
CD, I tried to reply over at your noted youtube play pen, but I saw no indication that my comment was posted or was in moderation, so, I’ll show you what I wrote here:
[If that quote were true, what would be the point of having jackets and blankets to keep us warm or furnaces to heat our houses? How can I keep my house at an ambient 20 degrees Celsius even when it can reach as cold as -40 degrees here in northern Minnesota?]
That quote IS true, and if you had bothered to confirm it, rather than spend your time trying to discredit the source of it, in order to discredit the quote itself (which seems to be your main objective), then you might have advanced your understanding.
You might have started by looking at texts such as the following:
** BASIC and APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS by P. K. Nag
https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B6oXBAYiZe15NTc0aTJqb0FWYWs
Page 50, 3.7, “Heat Transfer”
It is wrong to say “total heat” or “heat content” of a closed system, because heat or work is not a property of the system. Heat, like work, cannot be stored by the system. Both heat and work are the energy in transit.
Note that if heat cannot be stored, then it certainly cannot be “trapped”, since trapping is precisely the action of storing for a period of time.
** APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS by Onkar Singh
https://eradda.com/dEP1r
Page 13, 1.12, “Heat and Work”
Thus ‘heat’ may be termed as the energy interaction at the system boundary which occurs due to temperature difference only. Heat is observable in transit at the interface i.e. boundary, it can not be contained in a system.
Note that if heat cannot be contained in a system, then, again, it certainly cannot be “trapped”, since trapping = storing for a period of time.
[Like all scientific laws, the laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law have certain parameters in which they are valid. Thus far, any “scientific” argument against anthropogenic climate change ignores this fact. For example, the ideal gas law assumes adiabatic and isotropic conditions.]
Let me parallel this statement of yours with my following statement: Like all scientific laws, the Stefan-Boltzmann law has certain parameters in which it is valid. Thus far, any “scientific” argument FOR anthropogenic climate change ignores this fact. For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann law assumes perfect black-body conditions, for a cavity oven, NOT composed of gases. Thus, it is inappropriate to use in describing the global atmosphere, as the atmosphere isn’t a cavity oven nor a non-gaseous composition.
QUESTION: About the more honest “energy budget”, what do those percentages represent? — NOT W/m^2, right?
Joules?
Percentages of what? — what unit of measure? — how is this determined?
It would JUST be percentages…properly, they should be of the total incoming energy, not in flux, but in Joules.
I’ve been wanting to make that more clear in my own diagram too…that these fluxes over unequal areas should really be converted to total energy in Joules just to make it clear. Although on the other hand, it doesn’t really need to made clear since we expect conservation of total energy anyway…although…now we need to make that clear because climate idiots do not realize that there’s a big difference between conserving flux vs. conserving total energy!
Looks like it might be the work of Nasif S. Nahle
See https://drinkingwateradvisor.com/2011/07/30/nahle-2011-repeatability-of-professor-robert-w-woods-1909-experiment-on-the-theory-of-the-greenhouse/
and also http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073
I made a comparison with a fictional black body compared to real live speed of outgoing heat to force the alarmists and luke warmers further in another way of explaining things, like letting go the black body comparison because it is a not a relevant comparison, or change the 33 degree warming myth physics explanation for the second time
CD Marshall @ 2020/01/06 at 1:23 AM
I think that he does not know the basics of Radiation Climate Science. The infrared absorption into the air comes from the solid Earth below and not from the Sun above.
The explanation for this lies in solid angles, and it is important to understand what these are and how they are measured. The Sun appears in the sky as a disk that subtends an angle of approximately one degree. The Sun can almost be considered as a point source compared to the full dome of the sky. For an observer at sea-level the field of view can be divided into two halves. The dome of the sky above occupies half of the field of view and has a solid angle of 2pi steradians. The rest of the field of view is the solid earth below which also occupies 2pi steradians.
Because the solid Earth emits IR radiation into the air above with a solid angle of 2pi steradians it follows that the Earth is a far larger source of IR radiation than the Sun is.
I am sorry to bring this up again but I cannot support the idea that = ?cos(f)sin(f)df represents the average area weighted distribution of flux over a sphere.
“However, the flux at any given location on the hemisphere is actually a function of the cosine of the solar zenith angle (with zero degrees pointing toward the sun, and 90 degrees toward the terminator at any azimuth), and, there is more surface area at larger zenith angles.”
The crucial part of the quote is “there is more surface area at larger zenith angles.”
This simply isn’t true.
50% of the Area of earth lies between 30°N and 30°S and therefore only 1/4 lies between 30°N and the pole.
Besides that the ?cos(f)sin(f)df gives rise to this distribution as shown on Charles Anderson’s website https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-incidence-of-planar-radiation-upon.html
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9za3xml1z4ju4a/Fraction%20of%20Total%20Irradiance%20Charles%20%20Anderson.png?dl=0
However the model of the distribution based on ?cos(f)sin(f)df ignores Archimedes hat box theorem which you correctly states the area cut from a sphere by 2 parallel planes cuts the exact same area from an enclosing cylinder.
Based on this fact and the equations for a spherical cap and spherical segments I created a spreadsheet where the radius of the sphere was 6371 kilometres and each cap height was 1 kilometre.
At 1 kilometre the cosine varies little.
Thus with 6371 spherical segments of equal area of ~40,030.17 kilometres squared from 0° to 90° it is possible to calculate the distribution of irradiance versus angle and arrive at this curve :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxhmbzujl0ilh1d/Fraction%20of%20Total%20Irradiance%20Calculated%20by%20Spherical%20Caps.png?dl=0
This is the link for the spherical cap calculator which lead me to start playing with all of this:
http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm
Just noting this because we should strive for accuracy – Cheers.
I am sorry to bring this up again but I cannot support the idea that = ?cos(f)sin(f)df represents the average area weighted distribution of flux over a sphere.
“However, the flux at any given location on the hemisphere is actually a function of the cosine of the solar zenith angle (with zero degrees pointing toward the sun, and 90 degrees toward the terminator at any azimuth), and, there is more surface area at larger zenith angles.”
The crucial part of the quote is “there is more surface area at larger zenith angles.”
This simply isn’t true.
50% of the Area of earth lies between 30°N and 30°S and therefore only 1/4 lies between 30°N and the pole.
Besides that the ?cos(f)sin(f)df gives rise to this distribution as shown on Charles Anderson’s website https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-incidence-of-planar-radiation-upon.html
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9za3xml1z4ju4a/Fraction%20of%20Total%20Irradiance%20Charles%20%20Anderson.png?dl=0
However the model of the distribution based on ?cos(f)sin(f)df ignores Archimedes hat box theorem which you correctly states the area cut from a sphere by 2 parallel planes cuts the exact same area from an enclosing cylinder.
Based on this fact and the equations for a spherical cap and spherical segments I created a spreadsheet where the radius of the sphere was 6371 kilometres and each cap height was 1 kilometre.
At 1 kilometre the cosine varies little.
Thus with 6371 spherical segments of equal area of ~40,030.17 kilometres squared from 0° to 90° it is possible to calculate the distribution of irradiance versus angle and arrive at this curve :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxhmbzujl0ilh1d/Fraction%20of%20Total%20Irradiance%20Calculated%20by%20Spherical%20Caps.png?dl=0
This is the link for the spherical cap calculator which lead me to start playing with all of this:
http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm
Just noting this because we should strive for accuracy – Cheers.
Thank you guys, you all have just peeled another layer of climate & physics I need to learn.
Joseph I love your statement it was like you ripped out of my head, “At first you think they’re just stupid…”
Yeah exactly what I thought about him at first, but then the spin kept coming and coming and…Yeah at this point you hope they are frauds becasue it would seem impossible for anyone to be this stupid on purpose.
The 60 symbols video was used (by me) to confirm his intent, a politcal fraud not an idiot. To spin that level of a video in lies is an act of intentional fraud.
As soon as they use politcal phrases you really know what you are dealing with,”climate deniers”.
My problem is their tactics worked too well on me, striking like Piranha from all sides and then bringing in the “Shark” for the kill. They tired out my mind and when that happens confusion creeps in.
My biggest mistake and I hate I did it, was letting him seize control of the narrative. You never let them control the conversation. You have to reset it back to the original point each time, as soon as you are pulled away from the intentional route they have you because they are not giving you facts and can change their narrative on a dime.
I did want to see how much I have learned over the year, not enough! LOL.
Well I learned these people are nuts, that part wasn’t hard.
Robert your reply came through twice. Any long threads seems to get throttled by YT these days.
So this was my reply:
A hack in this reference is someone who takes parts of science, pieces them together wrongly, to create a Frankenstein’s monster of climate justification for politcal climate science.
So to reiterate the original point of real science: The cold atmosphere cannot make the surface warmer.
IR photons with less energy than Ice cubes moving around the atmosphere in less than a second does not, will not and never will change the temperature gradient of the Earth or it’s atmosphere. To postulate that it does is the work of a fool or a fraud.
I ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.
LOL
I coped this wrong way above: “When desired theory overrides the scientific verification process, you get idiots who know some science, not scientists who know you’re the idiot.”
Should be “When desired theory overrides the scientific verification process, you get idiots who know some science, not scientists who know they’re the idiot.”
Can you imagine saying that wrong in a speech? Joseph would you please change that if you have the time, it’s at the top. It comes over in Google Search ha ha.
These guys are using Google to search for any quotes you make to try an trip you up that’s what he did with me though it backfired on him, he still tried to make it stick in obfuscation.
They follow the 3-Ds w/o error:
Deny-Deflect-Discredit. Rinse and repeat as needed.
Which is exactly what he did with me and exactly what they ALL do.
I’ve tried to post but cannot – I don’t understand why
I tried a longer post but it doesn’t show up – is it simply gone or awaiting some sort of moderation – I think it is important.
I just re-realized (NOW) how stupid this idea is of photon transfer is in the atmosphere. My mind was tired from fighting these morons for a week. Every single time a photon gets absorbed and emitted (unless a duplicate) it gets weaker (becasue it re-emits in all directions as lower wl photons) so it it were re-emitted a thousand times the photon emissions would not be absorbed my any gas and either re-absorbed into he Earth (which does nothing) or emitted out to space (more likely) being it would eventually be in a wl not intercepted by any IR absorbent gas. Right? Or is this way out there?
So IR Radiation photons actually have a “residency time” in the atmosphere wouldn’t they? Now if that were true that would be a great paper and a major blow to political climate science (until they found a way to work around it so maybe a week).
PotHole trashing Dr. Zharkova:
“Wow! Well done for finding this, and thanks so much for posting. I hadn’t examined Zharkova’s hypothesis in any detail, but at least I had assumed she was researching and publishing in good faith.
Having other researchers disagree with her hypothesis is one thing, but I am astonished at this: “I am disappointed that Dr. Zharkova would pass off my work as her own, and mind boggled how she would think its aids her argument.”
“Disappointed” is not the word! The fact that Zharkova plagiarised someone else’s work is grounds alone to have her paper retracted. And how revealing that the researcher she stole it from doesn’t even agree with her conclusions.
I started reading the dialogue from the top, and my estimation of Zharkova went rapidly further downhill. Her very first rebuttal included politically-inspired language that researchers are supposed to rise above, viz “I understand as being the climate alarmist Mr. Rice is….”
And this sentence, that could have been taken straight from a high school drop-out’s blog: “Ken Rice believes that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the terrestrial atmosphere acts stronger than the hot Sun moving towards the Earth.” This is the kind of thing one gets from a fifth-grader, not an astrophysics PhD.
And then her absurd rationale that The Earth orbit remains constant but the sun moves about the barycentre, thus being either closer or further from one or another part of this orbit. While true, this does not bring the sun any closer or further from the Earth. This is not my field, but I do understand the concept of a barycenter — it is not the same as eccentricity, which governs the distance of planets FROM the barycenter. The fact that one of Zharkova’s peers has to explain this to her — and she is supposed to have a PhD in astrophysics! — makes me more baffled as to why she is promoting this nonsense. And I’m still only a few posts down…”
Sorry links to the actual Zharkova posts might come in handy…
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#178
Pothole bashed her on his site.
More quotes from the quack PH (don’t you want to just take him down a notch?)
“After all, science is not decided by shouting matches between amateurs on YouTube, even though that may be entertaining and solidify the support of each ‘side.’ It is decided by checking the facts and finding out who is correct. In Ben’s case he didn’t have any facts to bring to the table, because his understanding of geology was that of an 8-year-old, so that was a pretty one-sided battle. But when dealing with people like Monckton, Heller, Crowder, and others who are constantly making spurious claims and quoting ficticious “sources,” fact-checking their claims is imperative.”
Dared Potholer personnaly to prove me wrong on my interpretation of U. of Washinton climate model after posting 3 previous times. Also dared him to prove me wrong on The Inconvenient Spotlight proving no back radiation.
No answer yet. He prefered to post a new video to drown me in the old stuff.
Thanks to @Pablo at 2019/12/03 at 2:01 AM.
I followed up on your observations and then downloaded data for the polar regions and then the particular location of Iceland. I observed that the polar regions are actually opposite to the global average. But I then noticed a recurring pattern. Using the CORREL function in Excel I then overlayed that result onto the absolute of the the angular momentum of the planetary orbital bodies of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus (2J+S+U).
The correlation was bloody good. it was antiphase and then in phase by around the mid to late sixties. I really want to explore this further and hope some here are intrigued with this correlation.
The result for that produced this.
I get similar results for other locations. For Honolulu the Sunspot Cycle shows up perfectly along with a phase change in the get the sunspot cycle show against the TPW OLR 60 Point correl function
Hopefully this time the image embeds. Apologies for double post if it doess not
Jopo,
Interesting…
“The orbits of Venus, Earth and Jupiter may explain the sun’s regular 11-year cycle, a new study suggests.
A team of researchers from Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), a research institute in Dresden, Germany, showed that the tidal forces of those three planets influence the cycle of solar activity, resolving one of the bigger questions in solar physics.
“Everything points to a clocked process,” Frank Stefani, a researcher at HZDR and lead author of the new study, said in a statement. “What we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles.”
from:https://www.space.com/planets-affect-solar-cycle.html
Pierre,
PotH is from Australia, makes sense why he is so embedded in politcal climate change.
Do all Australians talk like that aussy guy? I want to live there if so! Talk about eloquence and meaning…no sophistry or minced words with that fellow. Wish I could live in a society full of people like that dude. I will take meaningful cursing over the polite sophistry of mandarin academics any day! Stephen?
Good thing they took Aussie’s guns away from them before this or they may have been able to fight back agaisnt forced socialism/ communism.
England and Australia are now a dumpster for the nut jobs soon the rest will follow.
More from the guy who denies reality: He will not agree that energy can transfer w/o work or a temperature change:
Me:
“Except a heated molecule is a result of previous work not current work. The T if any is insignificant.”
Moron:
This statement is nonsensical.
Me:
“The photons emitting from CO2 are not the terrestrial photons either, they too have been downgraded, absorbed and re-radiated as lesser photons or 3rd generation photons if you will, or a duplicate photon on rare occasion (of equal energy), each time that a photon is absorbed it is converted to internal energy and re-emitted as new photons also as less energy for each photon emitted (or a duplicate of the same energy) and so on and so on and son on.”
Moron:
Which contradicts what you said here: “No work is being done on the atmosphere from it being heated by the surface, the only work being done would be the lapse rate, gravity and pressure which would effect parcels of air moving vertically and that is not the GHGe.
Basically, what you are saying is carbon dioxide is absorbing infrared radiation (energy) and emitting less energy (“they too have been downgraded, absorbed and re-radiated as lesser photons or 3rd generation photons if you will, or a duplicate photon on rare occasion (of equal energy)”) AND not increasing temperature (“The T if any is insignificant.”) AND Not doing work as a result (“No work is being done on the atmosphere from it being heated by the surface”). This violates the first law of thermodynamics: U = Q + W Where:
U = internal energy
Q = energy from the transfer of heat (Q = mc (delta) T)
W = Work
According to the first law, nothing, including carbon dioxide, can absorb energy without doing work or a temperature change. The second law states that internal energy can not be used to do work alone.
“According to the first law, nothing, including carbon dioxide, can absorb energy without doing work or a temperature change.”
But you see the sleight of hand here. There is NOTHING incorrect or wrong with something rising in temperature when it absorbs heat or has work done upon it.
*What is incorrect is to say that this energy then can go back to the source to warm up the source some more in reverse heat flow*, which is precisely what the GHE is all about.
The “back radiation” term is reverse heat flow…where the atmosphere amplifies a feeble solar input into a more intense flux, creating MORE heating/higher temperature than what the sun initially provided.
If you guys think you have biased media I’m telling you that you ain’t seen nothin’.
Try this out https://www.abc.net.au/religion/danielle-celermajer-omnicide-gravest-of-all-crimes/11838534
People like this are insane.
I have been watching the video and I firmly believe if only we had adopted a cap and trade scheme back in 2009 when our PM wanted to, if only we had poured countless billions into buying carbon credits from the countries now criticizing us, if only we had led the world in installing renewables (oh wait – we actually did that) – if only we had done these things we wouldn’t be paying for our sins by fire and brimstone.
I’m off for my lobotomy later today – cheers
Part of Australia that hasn’t burnt:-
Downtown:-
Keep an eye on Moltex molten salt reactors. The key is simplicity, and using much of the pressurised water technology.The nucleair waste burners are cheapest and fastest to implement, because nucleair metal grade with zirconium coating is enough for the salt fuel tubes, instead of expensive graphite
The greatest crime of our time is … intellecticide — the killing of one’s thinking ability by a hyper-dependent over consumption of erroneous information.
No need for an actual surgical lobotomy, Rosco. Just increase your consumption of false prophecies of doom, and, before you know it, you’ll actually believe them, as your brains turn to mush. You can then rejoin society as one of the “normal” people again.
I’m hungry now. Know why? Climate change.
In depth analysis of the UK/Canada Moltex technology
Another statistic on Australian fires:-
2019/20 – Australia Wide 8.4 million hectare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia
1974/75 NSW 4.5 million hectare
1974/75 – Northern Territory 45 million hectare
1974/75 – Queensland 7.5 million hectare
1974/75 – South Australia 17 million hectare
1974/75 – Western Australia 29 million hectare
The way I see it 1974/75 makes today look like a picnic – 103 million hectare versus 8.4 million to date.
Sure more homes are destroyed today because few lived in the fire prone places in the past compared to today and as a result some have died because they failed to leave.
I remember 1974 well – I was 20 and it was the year Queensland had huge rainfall including a staggering 1318 mm – 51.89 inch – in 2 days in the mountains around Brisbane (it rained an inch an hour for nearly 30 hours on Friday/Saturday January 24/25) before Brisbane flooded and I couldn’t get to my home for 2 days.
The ’74 flood was worse than the 2011 flood.
1974 was the year Cyclone Tracy flattened Darwin in the Northern Territory.
There were 21 – yes 21 – cyclones in the 1974/75 period in Northern Australia and Queensland and yet 52.5 million hectares burnt in Queensland and the Northern Territory !
CO2 driven climate change was unheard of then – we were heading into an ice age as I remember the MSM reporting.
I hate lying alarmists who will use anything including the misery of victims to promote their stupidity – since 1975 there an extra 75 CO2 molecules in every million molecules of air and these are responsible for potential Omnicide ?
God they’re stupid.
Speaking of stupid, here he comes again:
Troll:The “ice cubes can warm fallacy” is based on YOUR MISREPRESENTATION of how the greenhouse effect works. YOUR ENTIRE argument is DISPROVEN by experimental evidence as shown by the sources I have provided. Your understanding is based on the INCORRECT premise that atmospheric interactions with solar irradiance are isothermal processes. I explained in my last post why they are not— the atmosphere is not uniform. Also, an isothermal process only describes what is occurring within the system. There still needs to be a temperature gradient outside the system for it to be maintained and energy to flow, which requires energy. Energy flows into the system, the system must do work, and energy must flows out of the system at the same rate it is being replenished.
ME:
I’m just going to repeat this line a 100 times if I have to:
“All the IR Radiation emitting from the Earth is heat dispersion and therefore part of the cooling process of the Earth NOT the warming process.”
There is no back radiation heating of a warmer object by a colder object’s radiation FULL STOP.
This was shown to be irrefutably true more than 200 years ago – it takes a special kind of idiot to invent a process which has been shown to be false by experiment to try to reverse this.
Click to access Pictet-Apparent_Radiation_and_Reflection_of_Cold.pdf
The “thermometer” acts as the source of heat when the flask of snow is placed at the mirrors focal point. Moving either from the focal point causes cessation of the decrease in the thermometers temperature.
The radiation from a cold object has zero potential to increase the temperature of the warmer object.
The only mystery not satisfactorily explained is why the thermometer in continuous contact with the unchanging air temperature of its immediate surroundings reacted as it did – its temperature dropped dramatically.
Idiots try to make all sorts of ridiculous explanations about why the radiation from a cold object can increase the temperature of a warmer object but they are all bullshit.
The greenhouse effect was initially described as back radiation heating by a cold atmosphere and this remains the only model.
when some apparently realised this is stupid beyond belief they began claiming heat trapping causes the Earth to cool slower.
Again this is simply wrong – all of the satellite data show Earth is emitting more to space not less.
This can only be due to external forcing and the most probable cause is a decrease in atmospheric albedo due to reduced cloud cover and our efforts at cleaning up our emissions of particularly sulphur particles into the atmosphere.
Anything else is gobbledygook unsupported by the facts.
Well said Rosco!
What some people might not fully comprehend about JP’s use of the phrase, “flat Earth”, is that the Harvard diagram is precisely that. There’s is no other meaning for that diagram.
Some people might be thinking that a plane is a perfectly good approximation of a flat area on a sphere as big as the Earth is. I mean, we measure from one point to another in everyday matters as though we are measuring along a flat plane. But what that diagram represents is NOT MERELY A SECTION OF EARTH on the larger sphere. It is, in fact, a representation of the ENTIRE SPHERICAL SURFACE OF EARTH !
The flat disc area over which incoming solar flux is properly figured is the precise basis of that flatness. But the diagram representation is even worse, because that flat disc is then thinned out even further to represent the ENTIRE sphere, which, in effect, now moves the Earth twice the distance from the sun as it really is. So, the flatness of the disc used to figure the solar flux on a hemisphere is stretched around the globe now, placing INCOMING flux on an area where NO INCOMING FLUX ever falls!
Again, that math represents flux for the ENTIRE Earth, and so that diagram of two FLAT lines represents a FLAT EARTH and a FLAT ATMOSPHERIC SHELL of a planet TWICE the distance from the sun as it actually is.
Beautiful comment Robert.
And “slowed cooling” or “delayed cooling” or “reduced cooling efficiency” could only mean something like one ten thousandTH of a second, if that. So, essentially, nothing.
Hence, bullshit, yes.
I don’t know if any of you guys saw this:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p06qj2l5/the-planets-series-1-1-a-moment-in-the-sun-the-terrestrial-planets
You need to be in the UK or use a VPN.
About halfway through Cox makes the assertion that due to the “Faint Young Sun” paradox Venus had liquid water, rain and therefore the possibility of life.
This was of course ruined by the increasing greenhouse effect of CO2 and by extension a fate like Venus’ awaits our carbon sins.
Are these guys stupid beyond belief or plain liars ?
Lets see just how much CO2 does Earth require to obtain an atmospheric pressure 92 – 93 times current values ?
Where is this CO2 coming from ?
How did Venus ever have any liquid water, which is very light vapour, when it is likely it may never had a significant magnetic field leaving all the lighter gases likely to be stripped by a much stronger solar wind than Earth experiences ?
Or have you seen the program Mars where apparently in 2042 we have built substantial steel structures on Mars and are terra forming the planet ?
The story is punctuated with “science” from experts like Elon Musk.
Are these guys stupid beyond belief or plain liars ?
Now about the Australian fires, my understanding is this:
* Regions along the perimeter of the Australian continent have experienced a cooling trend, while much of the central part of the continent has experienced a hefty warming trend. Merely looking at the continental average temperature, therefore, biases the overall view with this hefty regional warming trend, which smears out the reality of the simultaneously occurring cooling trend in those outlying areas.
* The greatest density of fires are NOT occurring in those regions with the highest warming trend. In fact the density of the fires tends to be around the perimeter of the continent, where some are actually blazing in the regions with the cooler trends.
* Hundreds of arrests have been made due to the high incidence of arson.
* A prolific quantity of combustible material has remained in place because of conservation laws that prevent or hinder controlled burns, clearing of dead brush, and good management practices that would make massive fires less likely.
In short, a perfect storm, NOT related to climate change.
Here’s a good reality check on the Australian fires:
Notice the overlap for areas of current population density, areas of highest population growth, and areas where fires are happening.
The central area of the continent is where the greatest positive temperature anomaly is, remember.
Russel Crow should, at least, have made some small effort to get informed, before sending Jennifer Aniston a fire=climate-doom-statement to read at the Golden Globe awards. As with other actors, I really like his movie work, but his noble cause work, not so much [understatement].
Robert, yes over 200 hundred arsonists have been arrested and over 40 years of conservation laws are now doing what the Aussie gov hoped, to now claim it’s climate change. A fireman was fined a 100,000 dollars for cleaning the wood debris from his property, his house is still standing.
The extent of evil these people are willing to go to and yet the sheep think they will be taken care of? UN Death Camps will be their future and yet they are choosing it. Fighting against anyone trying to save their lives from the UN Depopulation Program.
The only thing these climate zombies can do to save our planet is sign a “Do not resuscitate form,” and be a member of the depopulation program.
If I were still a science fiction writer this would have made a great book! One of the rules of writing fiction, reality is stranger than fiction.
So, now I suppose arson counts as ………………………….. “climate change”.
It’s ……………… “human caused”, right ?
Indeed. Now you’re thinking like a climate scientist! Man made global warming, at times even with actual fire.
Rosco, @2020/01/08 at 2:17 PM
Thanks for the interesting link.
re:https://tech-know-group.com/papers/Pictet-Apparent_Radiation_and_Reflection_of_Cold.pdf
and your comment..
“The only mystery not satisfactorily explained is why the thermometer in continuous contact with the unchanging air temperature of its immediate surroundings reacted as it did – its temperature dropped dramatically.”
seems to be answered here..
“The version of the experiment involving a flask of snow may be explained in a similar way. Before the mirrors are introduced, the air thermometer receives radiation from all the objects in the room surrounding it. After the introduction of the mirrors, the radiation from the right third or half of the room is cut off from the thermometer by mirror B. This relatively high- temperature radiation is replaced by the radiation from the flask of snow. The thermometer now receives less energy per unit time than previously. The thermometer, initially at room
temperature, now radiates away more energy than it absorbs, and so suffers a decrease in temperature.”
Nice one…saving.
How lost is this misguided individual?
Such lost liars and tiny minds.
So I got another reply from my climate clown:
(The book he is referring to is “Basic and Applied Thermodynamics” by P K Nag) his referred proof on page 52 I have not found.
ME:
“So I should be a climate scientist?”
Him:
God, I hope not.
“Not dumb enough yet to qualify, I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics.” Hmm..I think you meant to say ”
Too dumb yet to qualify, I still believe in my fairy tale perception of the laws of thermodynamics.” There, I fixed it for you.
“You can’t find experiments that disprove the GHGe as stated by the IPCC? Not hard if you use another search engine besides GOOGLE.”
It is extremely doltish believe anything you see off the internet unless a website cites credible sources AND honestly portray them. Perhaps that is your problem–you don’t realize this? You should, as making baseless claims (as you have) without citing sources is “a direct violation of scientific ethics.” Also, it is your responsibly to defend your argument with sources, not mine. Of course you already know this, as you said: “No the burden isn’t on me it’s on them to prove it.” I certainly never expected you to find sources on my behalf. In fact, I made it easy on you and provided a link for all of them, so all you had to do was to click once to read them. The fact that you haven’t mentioned them or acknowledge any of my points debunking you only highlights your dishonesty. I can only speculate that you choose to do this because acknowledging them would force you to expose the fallacies you parrot.
And, FINALLY! You produced some sources! Well…at least attempted to:
“Even YT has some: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKc3n4c9VYS68jZMJsjNgFA.” What I said about citing credible sources on the internet also applies to You Tube videos. This link only cites a blog authored by the same person, and Postma doesn’t bother to cite anything at all.
“RW Wood first proved it in the early 1900s, it was reproduced by at the Biology Cabinet laboratories by Professor Nahle” No he didn’t.
A rebuttal paper by Abbot was published in the same journal and the same year as Wood’s. Abbot argues that “trapping” of radiation is more important than Wood “thinks”, and subsequent papers have confirmed Abbot’s premise, such as the ones I have shared with you. If we ignore the role of greenhouse gases, as you continuously insist, temperature of Earth would be around 255 K. Abbot’s paper can be found here: http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf.
I only found one paper by Nahle on this subject. I haven’t had a chance to read it, but it was immediately obvious it isn’t a professional scientific paper and I saw no evidence that it was published. It was more akin to papers you were describing when you said this: “I read some of those papers they were equal to high school kids.” Perhaps, it was papers like Nahle’s you were referring to?
“The Troposphere is not a closed system, no IR is being trapped as shown by satellites.” What source says this?
“Thank you for amusing me once again.” I am glad you find viewing reality from your ill contrived perspective amusing. I can only imagine how amusing you find death and taxes to be.
“All the IR Radiation emitting from the Earth is heat dispersion and therefore part of the cooling process of the Earth NOT the warming process.” As I said, you can repeat this all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are disregarding thermodynamic principles, such as heat capacity. If you don’t believe my description of it above, you can read it in Nag’s book on page 52. I have shown this simply by replacing Earth with your body in your quote, and showing how, contrary to what you say, the flow of energy can indeed be reduced with a blanket (analogous to greenhouse gases in the universe). This still stands.
I do have good news for you: You can get rid of all of your blankets on your bed, so you no longer have to fuss with them. According to your version of thermodynamics, they don’t work at all!
So my pet troll is back and clearly he is a climate zealot so all hope of reason is gone. At least from my skill level I can’t reason with him:
ME:
“So I should be a climate scientist?”
HIM:
God, I hope not.
ME:
“Not dumb enough yet to qualify, I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics.”
HIM:
Hmm..I think you meant to say “Too dumb yet to qualify, I still believe in my fairy tale perception of the laws of thermodynamics.” There, I fixed it for you.
ME:
“You can’t find experiments that disprove the GHGe as stated by the IPCC? Not hard if you use another search engine besides GOOGLE.”
HIM:
It is extremely doltish believe anything you see off the internet unless a website cites credible sources AND honestly portray them. Perhaps that is your problem–you don’t realize this? You should, as making baseless claims (as you have) without citing sources is “a direct violation of scientific ethics.” Also, it is your responsibly to defend your argument with sources, not mine. Of course you already know this, as you said: “No the burden isn’t on me it’s on them to prove it.” I certainly never expected you to find sources on my behalf. In fact, I made it easy on you and provided a link for all of them, so all you had to do was to click once to read them. The fact that you haven’t mentioned them or acknowledge any of my points debunking you only highlights your dishonesty. I can only speculate that you choose to do this because acknowledging them would force you to expose the fallacies you parrot.
And, FINALLY! You produced some sources! Well…at least attempted to:
ME:
“Even YT has some: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKc3n4c9VYS68jZMJsjNgFA.”
HIM:
What I said about citing credible sources on the internet also applies to You Tube videos. This link only cites a blog authored by the same person, and Postma doesn’t bother to cite anything at all.
ME:
“RW Wood first proved it in the early 1900s, it was reproduced by at the Biology Cabinet laboratories by Professor Nahle”
HIM:
No he didn’t. A rebuttal paper by Abbot was published in the same journal and the same year as Wood’s. Abbot argues that “trapping” of radiation is more important than Wood “thinks”, and subsequent papers have confirmed Abbot’s premise, such as the ones I have shared with you. If we ignore the role of greenhouse gases, as you continuously insist, temperature of Earth would be around 255 K. Abbot’s paper can be found here: http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf.
I only found one paper by Nahle on this subject. I haven’t had a chance to read it, but it was immediately obvious it isn’t a professional scientific paper and I saw no evidence that it was published. It was more akin to papers you were describing when you said this: “I read some of those papers they were equal to high school kids.” Perhaps, it was papers like Nahle’s you were referring to?
ME:
“The Troposphere is not a closed system, no IR is being trapped as shown by satellites.”
HIM:
What source says this?
ME:
“Thank you for amusing me once again.”
HIM:
I am glad you find viewing reality from your ill contrived perspective amusing. I can only imagine how amusing you find death and taxes to be.
ME:
“All the IR Radiation emitting from the Earth is heat dispersion and therefore part of the cooling process of the Earth NOT the warming process.”
HIM:
As I said, you can repeat this all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are disregarding thermodynamic principles, such as heat capacity. If you don’t believe my description of it above, you can read it in Nag’s book on page 52. I have shown this simply by replacing Earth with your body in your quote, and showing how, contrary to what you say, the flow of energy can indeed be reduced with a blanket (analogous to greenhouse gases in the universe). This still stands.
I do have good news for you: You can get rid of all of your blankets on your bed, so you no longer have to fuss with them. According to your version of thermodynamics, they don’t work at all!
{The “Nag” book he is referring to is “Basic and Applied Thermodynamics” by P K Nag. P52}
His other references are:
>The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/group/climphys/knutti/publications/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/pdf/S/shakun12nat.pdf
>Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change-2013
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/readings/frame_2013.pdf
>CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today’s Earth System Models-2016
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308
>Man Made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect-1972
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf
I tried posting twice and it’s not coming through?
So one more time my pet troll is back and he is a climate zealot:
ME:
“RW Wood first proved it in the early 1900s, it was reproduced by at the Biology Cabinet laboratories by Professor Nahle”
TROLL:
No he didn’t. A rebuttal paper by Abbot was published in the same journal and the same year as Wood’s. Abbot argues that “trapping” of radiation is more important than Wood “thinks”, and subsequent papers have confirmed Abbot’s premise, such as the ones I have shared with you. If we ignore the role of greenhouse gases, as you continuously insist, temperature of Earth would be around 255 K.
Abbot’s paper can be found here: http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf.
I only found one paper by Nahle on this subject. I haven’t had a chance to read it, but it was immediately obvious it isn’t a professional scientific paper and I saw no evidence that it was published.
When u have multiple links it thinks its spam.
I love SPAM my wife thinks I’m nuts. Now it looks like a bunch of gibberish for some reason? Oh well maybe it should have blocked it. I had a chat with Mallen Baker a while ago. He stopped replying after a while.
Sorry for all the garbled text overhead.
Too bad you don’t have a forums section on here. You’d have to have someone moderating it all the time though so pros and cons.
Joseph,
Hear anything back yet from your paper?
Still waiting. Like a copy?
Would love it 🙂
Careful you might start a trend.
Do i have your email? Ill check.
Might be the wrong one. I tried converting and last time it wouldn’t let me. It would be cdmarshall101 it’s not private I’ve had it since my writing days.
https://www.blogger.com/profile/15939204110296186791
Sent to the email.
yep got it
Read it. You are 100% correct but we both know what you are dealing with so…
My wife said to me once the best way to get a man to do something is convince them they thought of it themselves, that has worked efficiently on me for over 20 years.
This is pure garbage,
Click to access chapter4.pdf
Page 31
“The next section shows that the bending vibration absorbs IR light in the heart of Earth’s emission spectrum, giving it strong leverage over Earth’s climate…”
Since when is a 15 micron photon leverage over ANY temperature increase?
So, CD, I guess a person cannot say anything intelligent without citing somebody, even though the person has credentials in the subjects about which he speaks.
Seems to be a neat trick — unless you cite somebody recognized as worthy of being cited, then your statements are automatically unworthy. And, of course, the people you have to cite are the people who espouse the very trash you are challenging.
Alarmists insist that you cite from the consensus club, and they trash anything else as unworthy, even though factually and expertly presented. It’s a closed-loop, good ol’ boys club all around.
Exactly. Such organized sophistry.
Robert, exactly. The climate club controls what you read and what is allowed in, closed loop and they know it. Every time I hear “peer reviewed” it flips in my head as “sneered review”.
The Cycle of Sophistry
Realist:
One plus one equals two.
Weirdist:
You are not a scientist, so how do you know that is true?
Realist:
1 + 1 = 2
Weirdist:
What is your source that proves that is true?
Realist:
Euclid.
Weirdist:
He was not a climate scientist, so your source is not valid.
Rinse, repeat and endlessly recycle.
I don’t think their is one nation left where you could open a legit climate school and be acknowledged internationally if you didn’t kiss the climate change ring.
I do wish someone would write a paper about the residency time of an IR photon in the atmosphere.
They contradict themselves so much first, it traps heat. No we don’t mean that, we mean the heat is delayed in the atmosphere longer as it re-radiates. Then you tell them it can’t do that, it eventually gets emitted in less than a second. Well yeah, but it’s being replaced from more radiation from the surface.
So what you’re saying is, “All the IR Radiation emitting from the Earth is heat dispersion and therefore part of the cooling process of the Earth NOT the warming process.”
No we aren’t saying that it gets trapped.
But no radiation is being trapped, satellites show more radiation emissions.
Yeah well prove it.
Earth’s energy balance – US Dept of Energy.
Note the omission of the physically impossible ‘back radiation’.
https://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/weather_climate/lab_2.html
Here is another one from the university of ilinois, that includes percentages
So solar energy heating the surface is reduced by a third in the presence of ozone, water vapour and dust.
The remaining two thirds then warms the surface.
Two thirds of that warming then warms the atmosphere via sensible and latent heat.
A reduction by a third of high energy incoming radiation is going to have a greater cooling effect at the surface than any slowing by a third of the third left to radiation from the surface.
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 seconds
Click to access Reviewed_Total_Emissivity_of_the_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Mean_Free_Path.pdf
So 6 % of the toa solar flux units delays 0.0245 seconds on the way out. 6 units x the delay in seconds = 0.147
Latent heat and sensible heat ransfer takes around 3.5 minutes to reach high in the troposphere
So 31 % (24+7) of the toa solar flux units delays 210 seconds on the way out. 31 units x 210 seconds delay = 6510
That means that the slow down effect of latent/sensible heat transfer is 6510 / 0.147 = 44076 times bigger than the radiative delay by longwave absorption,
On the Mallen Baker video that Mark Munro shared earlier above, I added this comment:
Mr. Baker mentions several arguments on “the utterly brain dead end of the scale”:
First, he points out the argument about CO2 as plant food, and he compares this argument to talking about water and drowning. The problem here is that the quantity of water required to drown someone is a quantity far, far greater in the context of the organism’s structure, than the quantity of CO2 in the context of the atmosphere’s structure . He is, therefore, comparing the atmosphere’s response to a relatively minute quantity of CO2 to an organism’s response to a relatively huge quantity of water. He is comparing the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the huge amount of water required to kill something. This is a false comparison.
Second, he points out the argument about CO2 as being such a small percentage that it could not do anything, and he discounts this argument by saying that very small quantities of other substances have big impacts in physics, chemistry, and biology. The problem here is that he is equating all small quantities and all contexts as being the same, which is absurd.
In the context of Earth’s atmosphere, and in the context of physics, the small quantity of CO2 cannot have a similarly devastating effect as a small quantity of, say, cyanide, in the specific context of living physiology for which cyanide would have lethal effects. In other words, to suggest that a tiny amount of CO2 is like a tiny amount of cyanide is absurd, because the physical pathways through which these different small quantities act are entirely different and unrelated. Again, he makes a false comparison.
At about the 2:36 mark, he asserts that saying “CO2 traps the heat from the sun to warm the planet” is a perfectly fine way of expressing reality.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Heat is not something that can be “trapped”. Heat is not a substance — it is an energy transition at a boundary of temperature difference. To speak of heat this way, at any level of discourse, is unforgivably wrong — doing so leads people down a path of much worse confusion than if we tried to teach them proper concepts from the beginning.
Later in the video, he points out that adding more CO2 increases the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, where it is cooler, and yet he confusingly links together words suggesting that this cooler CO2 high up in the atmosphere somehow explains how CO2 adds warmth lower down.
Needless to say, I find the video less than convincing.
The comment did not post, when I submitted it, but maybe there’s a delay and it eventually will.
Great Robert.
Two statements stand out for me in the pdf shared by CD, in his earlier comment here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/11/10/watch-global-warming-what-is-the-truth-interview-with-astrophysicist-joseph-postma-on-youtube/#comment-60452
(1) Gases however only absorb and emit specific frequencies of IR light, meaning that they are generally not very good black bodies.
(2) The area trick works with the jagged spectrum as well, representing the total energy loss of the planet to space. The effect of an atmospheric absorption band is to take a bite out of the black body spectrum from the Earth’s surface, decreasing the area and therefore decreasing the outgoing energy flux.
These two statements seem to go against each another. First, gases are not very good black bodies, and then, second, the area under the emission curve of a NON-black-body gas ALONE is being subtracted from the area under the emission curve of a black-body planet in TOTAL to claim that the area difference represents some sort of “taking a bite out of” Earth’s TOTAL emission.
The black-body curve approximating the PLANETARY black body emission temperature of the WHOLE planet Earth seems to be an entirely different category than the emission spectrum of a single, NON-black-body gas, and so comparing two entirely different categories, as if they share a common metric is absurd.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
The emissions from a black body at ~30°C peak at wavelengths close to ~9.8 micron. There is an atmospheric window between ~8 micron and ~14 micron where ~80+% of emissions from a black body at ~30°C escape freely to space.
CO2 has zero impact on these emissions – the Earth at ambient temperatures emits almost no energy with wavelengths in the absorption bands for CO2 at ~2.7 micron and ~4.3 micron. The principle absorption band is centred around 15 micron and does not impact the atmospheric window.
Claims about pressure broadening of CO2’s absorption are arrant nonsense at the concentrations we have – the partial pressure of CO2 is completely insignificant.
Of course CO2’s principle absorption band is 666 in wavenumber units and we all know what that means. Also peak emissions in terms of wave number are around 15 microns and I hope we all know that means nothing at all – it is just a quirk of Planck’s law that the peak moves with the variable chosen for the plot.
The atmospheric window and the emissions etc remain the same no matter which domain is chosen.
Don’t believe the charlatans.
MP @ 2020/01/11 at 7:19 AM
I tried to chase down the source of that diagram from the University of Illinois.
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/genchem2/c1/energy_balance.jpg
It was published by Professor Patricia Shapley. She is now retired and cannot be contacted.
The source Professor Shapley used is Fig. 1: – Radiation “Budget” for Incoming Solar Radiation (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 1997). & Fig. 2: – Globally Averaged Energy Budget (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 1997).
MP @ 2020/01/11 at 7:19 AM
I tried to chase down the source of that diagram from the University of Illinois.
It was published by Professor Patricia Shapley. She is now retired and cannot be contacted.
The source Professor Shapley used is Fig. 1: – Radiation “Budget” for Incoming Solar Radiation (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 1997). & Fig. 2: – Globally Averaged Energy Budget (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 1997).
Thank you Rosco, I know you mentioned this before and I have tried to find it. In my conversation with the troll he brought up something similar. Interestingly enough, 4.3 micron is just 0.28834eV and 2.7 is 0.45920eV.
You can thank Geran for my eV fetish.
Good video he was also rejected by “Peer Review”.
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
As you guys know, sometimes I have to rescue comments from auto trash or spam due to WP. What makes this a pain is that there’s many entries per hour always coming in. I just noticed: ALL of this trash and spam is being generated for a single post – the Carbon Positive Campaign post. Wow…they must have really hated that post and set up some bots to spam it continuously. Gonna see if I can close comments just for that post, and then I’ll basically have zero trash or spam anymore and then it will be way easier to rescue good comments. Should also do an experiment and make a new Carbon Positive Campaign! lol Release as much CO2 as you can, it’s what plants crave!
Has anyone read this before? Someone tried to peddle it on me as proof of CO2 warming the planet. It is a master work of sophistry.
Click to access nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
It’s the equivalent of remotely measuring an ice cube’s thermal IR and claiming that this energy is heat and warming you up. Plain misinterpretation of data.
I have to ask how are they justifying a W/m^2 to a spectrum? How are they claiming, “we decided CO2 is the forcing element” of what?
Here’s what Joseph was referring to, above:
I had not seen it before. It’s been almost 8 years, so it’s due for a re-post.
Here you are CD
Wavelength:-
Wavenumber:-
The clue is look at the 1000 wavenumber and know it is the same as 10 micron – 1,000 per centimetre = 100 x 1,000 per centimetre = 100,000 per metre = 10 micron.
The CO2 peak in the blue graph is found right where it should be in the wavelength graph – at 15 micron on the right of the graph.
Don’t believe the charlatans – they use all sorts of deception or they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I hope you’re not dealing with Ed Bo – the biggest liar I’ve ever come across and one of the dumbest.
Thank you Rosco,
But isn’t that just the emissions spectrum and they are appointing a proxy flux to it? According to those graphs 9/11 micron area emits at nearly 300 kelvin, where is that coming from? Anything in the 280 kelvin range disappears at around a 1,000 meters in elevation according to the ISA model.
Somethings still seems off about those graphs or I have just became too cynical.
“Anything in the 280 kelvin range disappears at around a 1,000 meters in elevation according to the ISA model.”
Well that is not what the satellites show – unless they’re talking about the ~13 to ~16 micron band.
Firstly, you have to realise the wave number graph is the reverse of any sensible graph. The low numbers at the left represent large, and hence low energy, wavelengths.
To convert you take the reciprocal of wave number and multiply by 10,000. e.g. – 1/500 x 10,000 = 20 microns.
The red line in the wave number curve is 294 K and as you can see the emissions from 750/cm to 1300/cm are ~294 k emissions directly from the surface to space. These figures correspond to roughly 750/cm = ~13.3 micron to 1250/cm = ~8 micron – the well known atmospheric window where surface emission escape to space mostly directly because there are no gases that absorb any significant radiation in these wavelengths except N20 and CH4. These are trace gases with a few molecules per million and hence completely irrelevant and insignificant unless you really believe 2 molecules in a million have any effect at all. Water vapour dominates most of the spectrum except the atmospheric window and part of the CO2 absorption around 15 micron = ~666/cm and that, as we all know, is the devil’s number
The wavelength – GOES 12-15 13.3 micron Channel Spectrum Coverage – graph shows Planck curves for various temperatures on the actual emission data.
Between about 8 microns and 13.3 microns the yellow detected emissions line indicates higher temperatures and basically this means this is radiation directly from the surface with the gap between about 9 and 10 due to absorption in the Ozone layer – and none of that radiation is ever coming back to Earth from 20 – 50 kilometres up.
Look at the emissions on the right hand side of the wavelength graph – between 14 and 16 micron.
This absorption is due to CO2 (and water vapour from ~15.5 micron on).
The emissions are greatly reduced across this band because CO2 is significantly heavier than ordinary air – ~50% heavier – so everything else being equal most CO2 molecules are close to the surface and the mean path length measurements confirm this – much of the emissions in the range fom 13 to 16 micron are absorbed close to the ground.
But look at the emission temperature the sensor detects – ~220 K.
I ain’t afraid of no radiation from 220 K.
How the heck does the emissions from a gas at 220 K have any impact on the standard atmospheric temperature of ~288 K ???
Simple answer it doesn’t !
If one chooses to obfuscate the “new” greenhouse theory and claim heat trapping prevents Earth cooling down then they are admitting the only real source of heat is the Sun !
Besides all the satellite data show a positive anomaly for Earth emissions to space from circa 1979 and a positive anomaly means more emission to space not the stupid claim of less – every satellite data set !
And the funny thing is when the charlatans threaten the satellite data keepers with with holding funding unless they bring the temperature graphs into closer alignment they are totally destroying the “heat trapping” gobbledygook.
How can the satellites read higher temperatures if the emissions aren’t making it to space. If heat trapping were in any shape real the satellites would detect colder temperatures and a negative anomaly.
Anyway that’s my 2 cents worth.
Thank you your 2 cents worth was helpful. Where is the satellite data? The last dolt I talked to above was demanding I prove it not that it would have mattered. He was a twisty talker, so nothing stuck for he wanted no agreement with me. He thought Solar photons, terrestrials photons and re-emitted atmospheric photons were essentially the same thing, thus work was still being done to warm the surface up more by the atmosphere.
I’d like to have it for future references. Actually I thought for sure you gave me a link once but I can’t find it anywhere.
How does it feel being nearly a day ahead of the rest of the world down under? Which to you is right side up?
Thank you as always for your help.
I see my confusion now I was totally reading the second graph as nm even though it clearly states cm-1 I am blind, now it makes more sense.
Actually we all think you NH guys are simply behind the times. If only I could make some use of this to figure out a way to beat the odds at gambling.
“Where is the satellite data?”
RSS or UHA are available although these show temperature but as I said the sensors rely on the radiant emissions so there is no heat trapping or their temperature data is not real.
From NASA’s Nimbus series of satellites – from 1965 to 2005 but for some reason they do not show the first 14 years of data – hiding something ??
This is the URL
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php
Remember the Nimbus data was considered GOLD and is routinely still quoted on the web.
Isn’t the claim about that “bite” out of the emission spectrum based on the idea of subtracting fluxes?
And this alone makes any claim about a “bite” being taken out of Earth’s emissions absurd?
I don’t see any evidence of any heat trapping in the graph from 1979 – 2005.
All I do see is lower solar input due to stratospheric emissions of particulates from some large volcanic eruptions.
Changes in albedo drive the heating of Earth and our only contribution to that has been to dramatically reduce our emissions of solar energy reflecting particulates – remember the acid rain controversy and how we were successful with sulphates.
Now dickhead climate “scientists” want to deliberately emit sulphates in the stratosphere to reduce the Sun’s radiation.
If that isn’t an admission that the Sun controls climate I don’t know what is.
And do those black-body temperature curves have any correct relationship at all to that jagged emission spectrum?
The second Nimbus graph is from a text on atmospheric radiation by Petty from the early 2000’s and you’ll see the graph is pretty much the same as the blue graph posted by Gavin Schmidt somewhere and cited by alarmists as proof of doom.
The bite is simply that the atmosphere absorbs 2/3 of the Earth’s emissions from ~500/cm to ~800/cm. There is no “powerful greenhouse effect” displayed in this graph – the temperature of emission by these “powerful greenhouse gases” is colder than charity. The “heat” generated by CO2 absorption is simply transferred by conduction to other gases and comes out in the emissions to the left of the bite – the lower energy – colder – emissions.
In the 1979 – 2005 graph there is a positive anomaly for emissions to space for the majority of time – I see no “heat trapping” in this data !
“And do those black-body temperature curves have any correct relationship at all to that jagged emission spectrum?”
I do not believe the black body equations apply to objects that do not emit black body radiation. I think that is absurd beyond belief – it isn’t to say the IR temperature devices do not work – I just don’t think they work for gases at ambient temperatures.
All I want to show is that what they say about “heat trapping” is contradicted by their own data.
Yes they have a double standard with that graph now that I know that’s the reference, thank you very much Rosco, that was helpful.
In one version they claim those “bites” prove IR trapping, which has been proven false. The absorption and re-radiation process just leaves more wls not in that area anymore and more in others, no trapping, just re-directing wls.
So then they use, “well if more IR is emitting and the Sun is decreasing output that’s proof of more global warming so where is it coming from? It can only be the GHGe.”
Where is it coming from is a good question and it has lots of answers, none of which have to do with CO2.
>Less cloud cover equals more surface sunlight. (I don’t know where the data is on that one)
>Ocean heating cycles. 1920 was this warm in the Arctic Vinther et al. 2010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379109003655
>Increased geothermal?
>Earth’s decaying magnetic field.
Anything else? Feel free to add, expand or expound at your leisure.
I’m still not sure what that “bite” is supposed to represent.
“Bite” from what?
What is the imagined whole from which this bite is supposedly taken?
Does this “bite” idea even make sense?
It’s as if they are imagining a curve where that “bite” is absent, thus forming the tip of an imaginary crest from which this bite subtracts.
The emission spectrum is what it is — it shows where emissions happen. The temperature of emissions where they happen are roughly indicated. The graph just shows where emissions happen, seemingly — for CO2 in a very cold layer of the atmosphere. Emissions in a very cold layer of the atmosphere are supposed to represent a “bite” out of something, which makes things warmer in an already warmer layer. It’s nonsense.
“It is difficult to imagine an object that absorbs and emits all wavelengths with equal probability but not equal magnitude. In other words the object would be equally capable of giving off any wavelength of light, it just wouldn’t tend to because different wavelengths have different energies.”
-Blackbody Radiation, Energy Education, University of Calgary.
That would explain the spectrum wouldn’t it?
NOAA has finally accepted that there is no greenhouse back-radiation that directly warms the Earth’s surface.
These graphs always bring up a lot of questions. For example, in the last one above (with “Wavelength” scale on the top and “Wavenumber” scale on the bottom):
1) Is the graph from real “measured” data, or computer-generated?
2) If computer-generated, what value was assumed for “back-radiation” in the CO2 band?
3) If actual data, at what altitude were the data collected?
Eye-balling the area under the curve, the total appears to be about 260 Watts/m^2. They are trying to get to the “240”, from the “960 in/240 out” black body calculation. But, everything has to match up, be accounted for, and equal out, or it’s not science.
Guess what, everything does NOT match up, isn’t accounted for, or equal out.
Rosco noted:
From NASA’s Nimbus series of satellites – from 1965 to 2005 but for some reason they do not show the first 14 years of data – hiding something ??</i?
And I could not find anything online about this data. Hmmmmmmm.
Here is a image of how successful humanity has been in removing particulates from the atmosphere following the acid rain scare of the 70’s and 80’s followed by the Ozone hole . Removal of these from the upper atmosphere allowed more sunshine in to heat the Earth’s surfaces hence lowering the albedo. Note the effect has been decreasing since the Chinese economy began to skyrocket in the late 90’s.
If we’re going to criticize the Chinese for anything it is for the failure to fit known effective decades old “smog” reduction technologies to their power plants.
I got it from this
Click to access ClimateSaviors.pdf
Surely the alarmists are acknowledging Earth’s albedo changes are the cause of warming with their apocalyptic warming claims which are driven by increased sunshine impacting Earth – not changes in solar output but changes in albedo – not that I discount changes in solar output though.
I always say if you want to see some global travel to the future where the northern hemisphere with most of the land mass has summer at perihelion -and winter at Aphelion – instead of today’s situation. Hotter summers and colder winters lie in wait for the NH whilst the SH won’t change much at all except for South America and Antarctica.
Came across this…
“Greenhouse theory has at its foundation a special group of trace gases and molecules. Together these gases are claimed to be the only ones that absorb infrared radiation. The assumption that the remaining gases, nitrogen and oxygen, do not absorb or emit infrared radiation presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics which prescribes that all matter above absolute zero degrees Kelvin radiates infrared photons. In this study the role of thermoelectric detectors as used to determine the “infrared atmosphere” was investigated.
It was concluded that the special (1%) greenhouse gases, discovered by Tyndall in ca. 1859, are really only those detected by thermo-electric transducers.
‘IR’ spectroscopy is also based on these thermoelectric transducers, and as a consequence ‘IR’ spectrographs show only the spectral modes with electric dipoles and not Raman modes. All current Blackbody radiation theory is determined from thermoelectric measurements alone and requires revision in light of complementary modern Raman laser Spectroscopy measurements. From this thermoelectric understanding in conjunction with modern Raman Spectroscopy,
it was concluded that current greenhouse theory is incomplete and misconceived. All of the atmosphere radiates IR radiation in compliance with the said laws. The only thing separating the gases are the instruments detecting them.”
from https://www.academia.edu/38863671/The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers?email_work_card=view-paper
Wow that’s good. Wait till they figure out that remotely sensing thermal IR doesn’t mean that it’s heating you.
MacDonald et al. already hints that at page 57 of another version of his paper.
Quote”The findings of this paper, ending the spell of the special GHGs as a sole climate forcing mechanism, clears the way for recent work produced by Peter Zeller and Ned Nikolov, and Henrik Svensmark et al. Together the three works complement each other towards a new theory of the atmosphere.”
Click to access PROM-Macdonald-Quantum-Raman-Atmosphere.pdf
I came across that reference to Raman laser Spectroscopy a few months ago, but didn’t give it a second thought.
I’ve always questioned how just a small percentage of the Earth’s atmospheric gases could be the ONLY gases cooling the planet, thus heating the planet. (^_^)
How could the other ninety-some percent of Earth’s atmosphere not cool to space, especially on the dark side?
You guys want to read a paper?
An Algorithm for Coordinate Matching in World Coordinate Solutions
PDF Link:
Click to access an-algorithm-for-coordinate-matching.pdf
This is the fastest World Coordinate Solution solver which has ever been devised; also the most reliable, robust, and simple. The folks at astrometry.net will be updating their insane and useless algorithm with this one once the paper is out. Currently in review at Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
You see…I have a skill set. I can see things that no one else can, I can see the inside of how things work that no one else can. I looked inside how WCS were solved, and saw an obvious solution that no one else has ever devised, and is better than anything else that anyone has ever devised.
I looked at the diagrams of the greenhouse effect, and saw something obvious that no one else has ever seen. I then came up with a better solution diagram that no one else had ever written down.
I learned about the Hegelian Dialectic, and saw something that no one else has ever written about, anywhere: the ability to use it in reverse so as to reduce consciousness, to render otherwise high IQ minds down to complete unconsciousness.
There’s something else I’ve done too, regarding simultaneity in relativity. I’ll let you all in on that once this other stuff clears…although I saw something about the simultaneity paradox that no one else has ever realized before I did any of this other stuff.
Well I think it’s pretty clear Joseph will be responsible for AI rising and taking over the world. If I see one Terminator I know who to blame…
“DELETE USER”
error…error…error
beep…
…
…It has begun.
CD, … in the future, the “greenhouse effect” will be known as “Skynet”, and the purpose of rational humans will continue to be to take it down.
Social justice warriors will be known as “terminators”, since their sole mission will be to terminate human intelligence, by insisting on implementing such ideas as “100% renewable energy”, “carbon taxation”, “carbon credits”, “carbon footprints”, and so forth.
Joseph will not be the cause of the terminators, but rather like John Connor, the one who leads the resistance against their take over of humanity. So CD, Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Follow me, if you want to live.
Wow. Succinct. Prescient. That’s what’s going to happen.
So…the current climate gatekeepers would be the Terminatrix??? Chaps and IR guns?
FEMA become death camps, call centers indoctrination centers and stadiums gladiator games for climate heretics. Yeah, sadly I can see that happening. They already want to to make denying climate change against the law hows that for a Totalitarian Global State?
Joseph, you should email your new algorithm to Spencer.
He already hates the fact that you know more about the physics of Earth’s climate system than he does. Now, he needs to see what it’s like to actually make a contribution to science.
Something he will never be able to do. Unless you consider “climate-comedy” a contribution….
lol Geran.
Googled “Hegelian Dialectic” and look what I found…
“This is about psychological warfare
A specific type of warfare
Designed to distract, misinform, and anesthetize the brain
We must remain vigilant at all times
And be alert to their insidious attack on the mind
For they have come before
And they will come again
You’ve got to keep them pretty scared
Because unless they’re properly scared and frightened
That all sorts of devils are going to destroy them
From outside or inside or somewhere
They may start to think”
Prodigy
Well…it’s more than that. That would be the negative version in a sense.
It is after the philosopher Hegel, who simply described the process by which contradictions are resolved. You have a thesis and an antithesis which are in contradiction to each other, but they then resolve in a synthesis which is simply a higher knowledge which explains and corrects the previous contradiction between the thesis and antithesis. His idea was that as the mind and knowledge evolves, that all contradictions are eventually resolved into a master synthesis under which all knowledge finally becomes entirely self-consistent. Of course, to speak of that is to acknowledge the mind of God, which he thought we must therefore all arrive at one day, i.e., complete and perfect knowledge at the end of the dialectical process. Science is supposed to proceed this way. Also, as the mind performs this process, it becomes more and more conscious, more intelligent, more powerful, etc., as of course it would have to as it evolves towards the mind of God.
But what happens if you use controlled fake news and other media to work that process in reverse? Then, of course, you move downwards, away from the mind of God, and to lower forms of consciousness. You decrease consciousness. You can in fact turn otherwise waking humans into unconscious entities…much like we see with climate alarmists, physicists, and people who believe in the climate greenhouse effect, etc. The myriad contradictions of modern science and particularly of climate alarm science has rendered its practitioners and believers unconscious – these people are sleep walking. They go through all of the motions of the appearance of a waking human…but they are in fact unconscious, asleep and sleep walking, and in fact, their cognitive dissonance has been instilled within them as the sensation of knowledge. They have been instilled to feel that the cognitive sensation of dissonance is how one should feel when they have knowledge. This is a run-away self-feeding process ending in mental oblivion, which is in fact what we have all felt bewildered in encountering when discussing things with these people.
JP,
Yes it is all very frustrating.
When my 7 yr. old grandson comes in from school saying “climate change alert!” you know something has gone terribly wrong.
A new phrase just popped into my mind — false consciousness.
It’s -40C/-40F in Calgary this morning. Do you people have ANY idea how FN cold that is? It’s this cold: you spit, and your spit is frozen by the time it hits the ground, and bounces around like a little ice ball. My eyelids were freezing open on the walk from my car to my office.
And THAT is how hot climate alarmists think that Sunshine is! In this diagram, the 168 W/m^2 coming from the Sun heating the Earth’s surface is -40C/-40F. THAT IS HOW HOT CLIMATE SCIENCE THINKS THAT THE SUN IS.
Most people have never experienced -40C/-40F in their lives.
Well…it’s really FN cold!
Paper accepted for review at Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Given that it is -40C this morning (in Calgary), you may be interested in the attached paper.
Climate science is performed by meteorologists and computer programmers. Neither of those degrees require course credits in thermodynamics at even the undergraduate level. This lack seems to have had an effect.
Click the link for the PDF.
Click to access bams-readable-an-alternative-global-energy-budget-model.pdf
Your mind is the false consciousness, It is the shroud that has been pulled over your eyes since the day you were born. Robert you were born into bondage. Mind identification is a disease of society that has raged for aeons. Since the Fall.
Given that Hegel considered existence to be mental, that this is a mental reality and mental existence, in the tradition of Idealism, then that statement would be a direct example of the negative Hegelian dialectic, where instead of the mind discovering that all existence is in fact based in mind, mind rejects itself and denies its reality.
But…hey…maybe non-existence is the way to go…?
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could hack a climate zealot’s mind and reboot their system? I mean dealing with these people is pointless, if you eliminate their science tactic it goes into emotional guilt, we must all pay for the crimes no one can pin point where the crime exists. Most religious people aren’t as devout in their faith as these climate practitioners.
No war in history has been this successful as the war on climate. All wars end in bloodshed, this will become apparent if it is allowed to continue.
Lives have been taken already, more will follow.
Liked your paper, Joseph. You said it all in 12 easily readable pages. Nice!
Only, you should have headed the two columns with “Pseudoscience” instead of “Standard Model”, and “Reality” instead of “Alternative Model”.
🙂
If you are referring to me Joe I am using the context of Freud. He defines mind as a triple ID, Ego and superego. Now the mind I am talking about is the ID the matrix that we wrongly believe to be who we are. Id is this self identification that all mystery schools in their inititiation say we need to transcend. It is the cause of all conflict. MSM call it Ego but that is a misrep with egotism.
To kill the EGO ,i.e to kill God is to free yourself from the illusion. Conflict including climate alarm is impossible without the false consciousness as Robert puts it.
How can they possibly not understand or reject the relevance of what it is in that paper? Yes ,this is the most succinct distillation to date.
Off topic but is the grammar rule on kelvin? Is it still spelled as kelvin but as “K” in abbreviation or is Kelvin now considered acceptable?
Joseph I had no idea that paper was 12 pages long, is really seemed short when I read it. Spot on and to the point.
I use K or Kelvin…both should be OK?
CD, since you’re interested, on the Absolute scale the unit is Kelvin, not degree. The C and F scales are both in “degrees”. For example, “Clowns believe CO2 causes Earth to be 33 Kelvins warmer than it should be”.
And units named after someone are usually capitalized–Watt, Volt, Kelvin, etc.
You could add that the standard model is so unrealistic that solar panels would be virtually useless as they are usually rated at ~1kW irradiance not ~239 W. Mine have a surface area slightly larger than 1.3 square metre, an efficiency rating of 15% and a power rating of 200 W.
15% = 0.15 x 1.3 x 1kW = ~200W.
This is impossible under climate clown energy budget models – totally unrealistic so why should anyone else believe any of their junk ?
Einstein showed that only high power photons drive the photoelectric effect thus IR has zero impact.
[” … Freud. He defines mind as a triple ID, Ego and superego.”]
I never bought into that, because I suspect that it is more complex than this.
[“Now the mind I am talking about is the ID the matrix that we wrongly believe to be who we are.”]
I do not believe that any division of my mind is who I am. To think of mind as an entity separate from the entire organism is paying homage to a false dichotomy.
[“Id is this self identification that all mystery schools in their initiation say we need to transcend. It is the cause of all conflict. MSM call it Ego but that is a misrep with egotism.”]
I really do not believe that humans conceive of themselves this way at all. This is just a system of language toying with descriptive categorization, in hopes of gaining some greater control over the chaos that I think really underlies it all.
[“To kill the EGO ,i.e to kill God is to free yourself from the illusion.”]
There is no escaping what we conceive. We are all eternally trapped in our vessels, but there are rational ways to live within these, and there are irrational ways of living within these.
[“Conflict including climate alarm is impossible without the false consciousness as Robert puts it.”]
The way I was thinking about my term, “false consciousness”, was more along the lines of irrational conceptions within our mind/body vessels.
On some level, all consciousness might be considered false, but this view is not a practical one for conducting everyday affairs. There are, then, (as I see it) elegant ways to be conscious, and inelegant ways to be conscious. The inelegant ways of climate alarm give the appearance of being unconscious, as Joseph puts it — unconscious in the sense that consciousness cannot evolve on an elegant path, but is stuck somehow in a self defeating loop, creating a sort of intellectual stasis, while dynamic in a limited sense, still is more akin to brain death. (^_^)
I recieved a kind reply from Patrick Frank, PhD in regards to yo work, Joseph…
“Thanks for your comments, Christopher. I can’t really comment on the work you mention.
My critical interest in climate science concerns error analysis, and the accuracy and reliability of the data and the models.
My work shows that climate models are unreliable, and that much of the air temperature record is corrupted with neglected systematic error. I can defend those cases.
I have also shown that paleo air temperature reconstructions have no physical meaning. Beyond that, I cannot comment.
You can find my over-view paper here:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391
It pretty much destroys the entire case of the IPCC.”
I’m sure if we got together we would agree on everything.
You have one thing in common they refuse to publish his work in “sneered review”.
Patrick Frank is a real scientist. His expertise in not in the areas of Joseph’s paper, so that is why he didn’t want to comment. Dr. Frank has investigated the temperature record and found no evidence to support the Institutionalized Pseudoscience that CO2 is warming the planet.
That made him an enemy of Spencer, who attacked him on his blog last year. Dr. Frank responded in comments. He politely and respectfully demolished Spencer. Spencer looked like a babbling incompetent.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/critique-of-propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/#comment-386837
Joseph is correct, he and Patrick Frank would get along just fine.
“Spencer looked like a babbling incompetent.”
That does tend to happen…………….lol
Is this a fair assessment ?
The full story: In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE), which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
In other words: Below ~288 K, CO2 does indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above. But above ~288 K, the translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to begin significantly vibrationally exciting CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
As CO2 concentration increases, the population of CO2 molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
This is why I state in the data below that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.
The data below utilizes particle physics first principles to nullify the CAGW hypothesis at the quantum level, leaving the climate catastrophists with absolutely no wiggle room… no matter how many pictures of sick polar bears they put up, no matter how many flawed computer models they cite, no matter how many graphs with cherry-picked date ranges and manipulated data they present… if a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.
The data below destroys the underlying premise of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), and thereby destroys the underpinnings of their multi-billion dollar per year scam.
The data below peals the death knell for CAGW. You’re welcome.
In dealing with solely translational mode energy and neglecting vibrational mode and rotational mode energy for the moment, the Equipartition Theorem states that molecules in thermal equilibrium have the same average energy associated with each of three independent degrees of freedom, equal to:
3/2 kT per molecule, where k = Boltzmann’s Constant
3/2 RT per mole, where R = gas constant
Thus the Equipartition Theorem equation:
KE_avg = 3/2 kT
serves well in the definition of kinetic energy (which we sense as temperature).
It does not do as well at defining the specific heat of polyatomic gases, simply because it does not take into account the increase of internal molecular energy via vibrational mode and rotational mode excitation. Energy imparted to the molecue via either photon absorption or collisional energetic exchange can excite those vibrational mode or rotational mode quantum states, increasing the total molecular energy E_tot, but not affecting temperature at all. Since we’re only looking at translational mode energy at the moment (and not specific heat); and internal molecular energy is not accounted for in measuring temperature (which is a measure of translational mode energy only), this long-known and well-proven equation fits our purpose.
Our thermometers are an instantaneous average of molecular kinetic energy. If they could respond fast enough to register every single molecule impinging upon the thermometer probe, we’d see temperature wildly jumping up and down, with a distribution equal to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function. In other words, at any given measured temperature, some molecules will be moving faster (higher temperature) and some slower (lower temperature), with an equilibrium distribution (Planckian) curve.
The Equipartition Theorem states that in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions all molecules, regardless of molecular weight, will have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same temperature. For higher atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving slower; for lower atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving faster; but their kinetic (translational mode) energy will all be the same at the same temperature.
Therefore, utilizing the equation above, at a temperature of 288 K, the average thermal energy of a molecule is 0.03722663337910374 eV. Again, this is the average… there is actually an equilibrium distribution of energies and thereby molecular speeds.
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
But if those molecules are at the exact same temperature, they’ll have exactly the same translational mode energy.
This energy at exactly 288 K is equivalent to the energy of a 33.3050 µm photon.
If two molecules collide, their translational energy is cumulative, dependent upon angle of collision. In mathematically describing the kinematics of a binary molecular collision, one can consider the relative motion of the molecules in a spatially-fixed 6N-dimensional phase space frame of reference (lab frame) which consists of 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components, to avoid the vagaries of interpreting energy transfer considered from other reference frames.
Simplistically, for a head-on collision between only two molecules, this is described by the equation:
KE = (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 1] + (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 2]
The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function, taking into account 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components:
You may surmise, “But at 288 K, the combined kinetic energy of two molecules in a head-on collision isn’t sufficient to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state! It requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon to vibrationally excite CO2, and the combined translational mode energy of two molecules colliding head-on at 288 K is only equivalent to the energy of a 16.6525 µm photon!”
True, but you’ve not taken into account some mitigating factors…
1) We’re not talking about just translational mode energy, we’re talking about E_tot, the total molecular energy, including translational mode, rotational mode, vibrational mode and electronic mode. At 288 K, nearly all CO2 molecules will be excited in the rotational mode quantum state, increasing CO2’s E_tot. The higher a molecule’s E_tot, the less total energy necessary to excite any of its other modes.
2) Further, the Boltzmann Factor shows that at 288 K, ~10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.
N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction
1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1
The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.
Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is vibrationally excited via t-v (translational-vibrational) processes at 288 K. You’ll note this equates to 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy (and higher concentration) N2{v1(1)} molecules to vibrationally ground-state CO2{v20(0)} molecules, exciting the CO2 to its {v3(1)} vibrational mode, whereupon it can drop to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules).
The energy flow from translational modes of molecules to N2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to CO2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to radiation constitutes a cooling process.
3) The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function gives a wide translational mode equilibrium distribution. In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s.
Remember I wrote above:
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461 at 288 K. In other words, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.
Thus at ~288 K and higher temperature, the translational mode energy of atmospheric molecules begins to significantly vibrationally excite CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
As CO2 concentration increases, the population of CO2 molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
This is why I state that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.
Particle physics first principles disprove the CAGW hypothesis. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a physical impossibility.
In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
from LOL@KLIMATE KATASTROPHE KOOKS
AUG 13, 2019 AT 8:33 PM | #
Via comments in Climate Change Dispatch
Pablo, for my 2 cents, I would say that this “paper” you found is a great resource. There are a couple of places I might bicker about the phraseology, but his science is spot on. I hate to nitpick unless there are major violations of physics. So I will just consider this effort 97% correct, which far exceeds what we see from the AGW/GHE mob.
Do you know who the author is?
geran,
Thanks for confirming my hunch.
No sorry I don’t know who the author is.
It does bugger a question I’ve been having, how does potential energy get converted to IR? Potential energy begins with convection (if I have this right) where then does it end as IR. Yes the long answer is perfectly fine with me.
This is the argument the last troll was using to justify work done on the atmosphere from Hyperphysics,
“An adiabatic process is one in which no heat is gained or lost by the system. The first law of thermodynamics with Q=0 shows that all the change in internal energy is in the form of work done. This puts a constraint on the heat engine process leading to the adiabatic condition shown below. This condition can be used to derive the expression for the work done during an adiabatic process.”
However he skipped the adiabatic part and claimed work was being done from the surface to the atmosphere, and therefore temperature increase was justified, becasue no heat is gained or lost w/o work. Funny, he also discounted the adiabatic process and atmospheric pressure as a source of work.
Funny how they can “pretend” not to understand how photons work, that they are changed to internal energy and re-radiated and that process does disperse the energy greater. This is my second question, how many times can a photon be re-radiated as multi-directional energy? Can it keep going indefinitely at more progressively lower wavelengths. In theroy, can it eventually disperse in wls that can’t even be detected or at some point doe sit just become unidirectional or a single photon dispersion.
As always thank you for your help.
@ CD Marshall
Gravitational potential energy is friction and compression.Can see it as someone with a bike who went up to the top a mountain. There is no energy that can be directly meassured from being at the top. But when going down from the mountain top there is friction and compression without puting in work
“The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process.”
A stunning statement. Obvious when stated, but oh so clearly put.
As Douglas Adams said:
“The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question ‘How can we eat?’ the second by the question ‘Why do we eat?’ ”
So can the whole planet now please move on from the stage of inquiry and address the more sophisticated question of ‘Where shall we have lunch?’
Anyone for Glasgow?
“The saddest thing about the modern world, partly a result of TV, is that people live in a tiny time-slice of the present moment which they carry forward within them,
and there is nothing in their experience which reverberates down the centuries because the centuries to them are completely dark and just the unilluminated corridor from which they stagger into the single little sliver of light.”
Roger Scruton
“We continue to evolve as a species and the biggest way to do that is by communication. Communication is simply a series of sounds, symbols or sensations that spark a familiar form of reason or understanding in our brains ideally from overuse and repetition…” -Christopher Marshall 9/22/2010
The same method used to learn is also used to indoctrinate. Repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth. Most of this present generation is mind locked in the lie of politcal climate change. Trying to teach “mind locked” people something they don’t understand creates confusion.
“What is confusion but our inability to understand intelligent structure or fear of not being able to categorize that structure in an ordered fashion?” -Christopher Marshall 8/13/2010
Join those two concepts together and you get repetition creating indoctrinated structure, a mind locked human, invariably unable to perceive intelligent structure beyond the repetition they were programmed.
That leaves us with few choices, wasting time on mind locked people, helping the few that can be reasoned with, teaching a new generation real science or removing the enablers of mind locked indoctrination out of government and the media.
Any of those methods is a long term project. As long as the “enablers” control the political science and educational formats it is very difficult to penetrate the mind locked person.
The herd mentality is a very real thing and they measure safety not in what they know is true but what they think they know is true. The herd will always move away from what they perceive as the greatest danger, right now that’s “climate deniers”. If only we could give them greater scope so they can see the slaughterhouse waiting for them over the next hill.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HS45YowWz78R/
… Wow. Jump to minute 30 to hear a very interesting message…
Wow. All that wealth…the ability to print money at whim…and totally clueless about basic thermodynamics.
Clueless about thermodynamics, but well versed in theromomythology.
that should be “thermomythology”
…or the plan for population reduction was well on it’s way even back then the gears were in motion. I’m guessing climate control has never been about the climate even back in the 70s, it has been a backdoor to population control and the only way to do that is global control. The WWs taught that taking freedom will be met with force but choosing to surrender your freedom, well that is working quite well isn’t it?
War has always been the best population control far better than natural disasters. With medicine increasing lifespans and governments like the USA stopping global war, those without vision seek to destroy not build up. Instead of thinking how we should kill off billions of people we should be thinking how can we improve science to accommodate a trillion more.
All of that money wasted for over 5 decades that could have been spent on a Moonbase and that used a launching pad to colonize Mars and mine the asteroid belt and grow as a space faring people.
Watch Stephen Wells debate a greenhouse effect believer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcsHwFObKqE
Wow you are recognized by the haters Joseph, that means you are doing something right. They consider you enough of a threat to discredit you.
Will he debate you Joseph? I’d like to see that (we’d all like to see that.).
I’ll ask.
1:02:20-1:05:20 was really convincing.
That debate was actually really enlightening. They did get to the crux of their disagreement by the end. I feel like I understand Back Radiation and heat flow much better now. Also cleared up some questions about Venus at the end.
I’m trying to wrap my head around his reply to it but it doesn’t mesh with everything agreed upon before, I think. He doesn’t say the back radiation adds heat, just has an effect. Well, doesn’t their phony math say that in fact the back radiation is adding heat? Not just slowing cooling, or is their a difference?
a Response video to this debate could be a good video. Maybe you could help me understand that reply.
I’d like to see you debate him Postma.
Denis Rancourt- Indeed, if you turn off the IR flux from the colder body this makes a difference to the hotter body: The hotter body cools more quickly. Same for the earth’s surface: If you turn off the re-emitted IR influx to the surface then that changes the fluxes at the surface and thus changes temperature determinations at the surface. Wells does not admit this unavoidable point, so it is difficult to go any further.
His evidence that back radiation “slows cooling” or “has and effect” is that you can measure it. Since it’s there, it must be doing something having some effect.
Everything emits back radiation, BUT, greenhouse gases emit special infrared back radiation. If I heard that right.
So then why isn’t the experiment Wells mentions not relevant? Why can’t this be demonstrated or observed?
If you humor his thought experiment of only eliminating back radiation, what happens?
They are superfluous and important? Then the object could never radiate it’s heat away to colder objects.
A colder object’s back radiation slows down the cooling of a hotter object….
McGill prof quits in protest of school’s refusal to divest from fossil fuels
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWK_eRV9FZM&t=77s
Professor Gregory Mikkelson, described as a tenured professor of 18 years teaching environmental ethics and philosophy has resigned his position at McGill to protest the University’s repeated rejection of his motion to dives
Good. I sent him a copy of my evaluation of the U. of Washington climate model. Dared him to prove me wrong. Sent it also as cc to the chair of the physics department and the university rector.
See what happens !??!!?? 🙂
Here is a Professor Rancourt paper.
Abstract.
I describe the basic physics of planetary radiation balance and surface temperature, using the simplest model possible that is sufficiently realistic for correct evaluations of predicted surface temperature response sensitivities to the key Earth parameters. The model is constrained by satellite absolute integrated intensity and spectroscopic measurements and the known longwave absorption cross section of CO2 gas. I show the predicted Earth temperature for zero atmospheric resonant absorption of longwave radiation (no greenhouse effect in the otherwise identical atmosphere) to be-46 o C, not-19 o C as often wrongly stated. Also, the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all atmospheric processes (not just greenhouse forcing), without changing anything else (except to add the removed atmosphere) is +18 o C, not the incorrect textbook value of +33 o C. The double-layer atmosphere model with no free parameters provides: (a) a mean Earth surface temperature of +17 o C, (b) a post-industrial warming due only to CO2 increase of δT = 0.4 o C, (c) a temperature increase from doubling the present CO2 concentration alone (to 780 ppmv CO2; without water vapour feedback) equal to δT = 1.4 o C, and (d) surface temperature response sensitivities that are approximately two orders of magnitude greater for solar irradiance and for planetary shortwave albedo and longwave emissivity than for the atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2. All the model predictions robustly follow from the straightforward underlying assumptions without any need for elaborate global circulation models. The same longwave optical saturation that provides such a large radiative warming of the planet surface also ensures that the warming effect from increasing CO2 concentration is minimal
Source:
https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect/page/n13
A giant Ice block at room temperature. You take a hot pan off the stove and place it next to the block of ice. The Back Radiation from the block of ice should slow down the cooling of the pan. Measure how long it takes the pan to get to room temperature.
Now wipe away the water and remove the ice. Reheat the pan to the same temperature as before. Now measure how long it takes for the pan to get to room temperature. If you are correct it should actually take longer to cool down without a giant block of ice next to it.
You could also do the experiment were you control the level of C02 in the room. And have a external source of energy shining on the room. Then how long does the pan take to cool down? That is not applicable to what happens on earth? Would that not demonstrate back radiations effect, if it had any?
I think this makes sense.
Wait, cool off slower with the block of ice. Because of the effect of back radiation. I think. If Rancourt’s right.
“Clear night cooling occurs at about 1.9 0C per hour, and overcast night cooling about 0.3 0C per hour.”
from: https://asterism.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/tut37-Radiative-Cooling.pdf
Pablo, you can put that link in the pseudoscience pile.
Their equation for DWIR uses the surface temperature!
And, then they try to add different fluxes.
Great climate comedy.
I honestly don;t even know how to approach this comment???
“Indeed, if you turn off the IR flux from the colder body this makes a difference to the hotter body: The hotter body cools more quickly. Same for the earth’s surface: If you turn off the re-emitted IR influx to the surface then that changes the fluxes at the surface and thus changes temperature determinations at the surface. Wells does not admit this unavoidable point, so it is difficult to go any further.”
…Well besides it’s a load of incoherent word jargon.
…I am having a hard time believing a physicist actually believes this? Spectrum specific temperatures do not increase with increased flux (right?) of that spectrum. That’s like saying if we can reflect the Sun we can double the solar input to the Earth.
My question would be:
At what location between the cooler object and the warmer object does the “slowing down” take place? What mechanism exactly is occurring at this location to “slow down” anything? What exactly is being “slowed down”? — photons?
It seems to me that any “slowing down” ultimately would have to take place at the surface of the warmer object. Thus, if the warmer object alone radiates at a given intensity, then isn’t this intensity of radiating the emissivity? And if something could “slow down” the given intensity of radiating, then wouldn’t this be changing the emissivity? — can a cooler body change the emissivity of a warmer body? How, then do we know the emissivity of anything purely, since there is always something else next to it?
Okay, say the “slowing down” does not happen at the surface, but somewhere located between the warmer surface and the cooler surface. Where exactly between the two surfaces, then, does this “slowing down” happen, and how could it happen just at this location, without needing to happen at the location below that, and the location below that, and the location below that, until we got to the place we started — the surface, where it would have to mean, again, changing the emissivity?
The warmer object stays warmer longer, say, with the cooler object there. Remove the cooler object, and the warmer object becomes less warm faster. Replace the cooler object, and the warmer object becomes less cool more slowly.
How does the warmer object, then, hold onto the radiation that is being held back by the cooler object? I do not see that it does. Instead, the cooler object receives the radiation from the warmer object, and IT gets warmer (as a result), while the warmer object gets cooler. The cooler body’s radiation exists in the gradient of energy between the two bodies, having no warming effect on the already warmer body. The cooler body gets as warm as this gradient allows, and its cooler radiation just rebounds off this gradient, being contained in the region around the cooler object, and continuing to radiate away from both objects.
An ice cube cannot cause a candle to be less bright. The candle is just as bright in the presence of the ice cube, as it is in the absence of the ice cube.
geran,
i don’t know … help me out!
from the same paper…
“RADIATION COOLING TIME
Note that in these examples, there was a 34% increase in downwelling sky radiation between an overcast (330.4 W / m2 ) and clear sky (246.6 W / m2 ). As a result, the net radiation loss on
the ground was 98.9 W / m2 for clear skies and 15.1 W / m2 for overcast skies.
However, this calculation assumes an outgoing radiation of 345.5 W / m2 without downwelling sky radiation.
The actual net outgoing radiation was 98.9 W / m2 .
Therefore, we should increase the calculated cooling time by a factor of 345.598.9=3.49. So the true cooling time for clear
nights is 321.7 minutes or about 5.4 hours. For a totally overcast night, the net outgoing radiation is 15.1 W / m2 . The true cooling time would be 345.515.1(92.1) = 2,107 minutes or
35.1 hours, 6.5 times longer than for a clear night. The graph below (Figure 2) illustrates temperature profiles for the two sky conditions. Clear night cooling occurs at about 1.9 0C per hour, and overcast night cooling about 0.3 0C per hour.”
Pablo, I don’t know either. Your link was the first time I’d seen that equation, if I remember correctly. I tried to find out more about it, but kept running into paywalls. The creator apparently was “W. C. Swinbank”. He’s not found on wikipedia. I’d never heard of him. The equation appears to be an attempt to match the data (wiggle the elephant’s trunk).
My guess is some clowns made some nighttime temperature measurements and tried to (erroneously) attribute to radiative losses. At night, clouds can affect surface air temperatures. Low clouds act as insulation, limiting both convection and conduction. The lower, and thicker, the clouds are, the greater the affect. But clouds do NOT restrict surface emissions. And clouds do NOT raise the temperature of the surface. And fluxes from different surfaces/temperatures do NOT simply add.
Slowed cooling is not the RGHE anyway.
Some fun…
What well-known climate clown stated (he was speaking of fluxes):
“Energy is conserved, which means we can add and subtract flows of energy in exactly the same way that we can add and subtract flows of dollars.”
Exactly …slowed cooling at night is not warming.
But humidity and cloud cover do reduce the speed of radiative loss from the surface when it is dark.
This is where the confusion occurs.
I’ll say it again – Pictet proved the radiation emitted by a cold object has zero warming impact on a hotter object – in his experiment this was his “air thermometer” which showed an immediate drop in temperature when the flask of snow and ice was placed at the focal point of the mirror 16 feet distant.
Not only does this completely debunk cold heating hot it also dispels many of the so called radiation traps associated with glass and the absorption of heat by ordinary air !
So the paper referenced is wrong.
Cold does not heat hot – proven by Pictet !
The radiation from cold does not slow the radiation from hot – again proven by Pictet !
These people are deluded.
Just how does the air in the “air thermometer” react to the influx of energy when used in the classic hot object experiment ??
Surely ordinary air doesn’t absorb IR ? Climate clowns say so !
Just how does the air in the “air thermometer” react by contracting when the flask of snow is at the other focal point if air doesn’t radiate ??
Surely ordinary air doesn’t radiate IP ? Climate clowns say so !
And if glass effectively screens “all” IR above 4 micron how does the radiation get into or out of the air thermometer without first heating the glass fast enough for the effect to be “immediate” ??
I’ll say it again – Pictet proved the radiation emitted by a cold object has zero warming impact on a hotter object – only twisted charlatans invent ridiculous situations whereby their stupid fantasies can exist.
” A sensitive air thermometer was placed at the focus D of one mirror. When a cold object (in this case, a glass bulb filled with water and pounded ice) was placed at the other focus C, the thermometer at D began immediately to descend. If, instead of being placed directly in the focus, the thermometer was displaced a short distance to the side, the cold body ceased to exert its former cooling power.”
Note the sequence – the thermometer was placed first and at equilibrium with the air at the other focus !
“the thermometer at D began immediately to descend”.
These idiots ignore all well known meteorological effects such as convective cooling, conduction, inversions, suppression of convection and prattle on endlessly about radiation as if nothing else matters all the while asserting 999,900 + molecules out of a million play absolutely no part in the “equations”.
As i said once before the only mystery is why Pictet’s thermometer in continual contact with an unchanging air mass reacted as it did. In the reverse experiment where a hot object is used the answer is obvious but in the cold experiment there is a mystery.
My advice is to find a shredder and pop that useless piece of shit into it as many times as necessary to render it illegible.
Heat transfer is not instantaneous.
So, could “slowed cooling” simply be the time it takes for something warm to heat something cooler, so that the cooler something can then radiate?
The “slow” is the cooler object warming from the warmer object, so that it can radiate anew what it now radiates.
Why is it “slowed cooling” of the warm object? Why not “slowed warming” of the cool object? And the warm object just cools in accordance to thermodynamic laws?
“Slowed (radiative) cooling” IS the new “greenhouse effect”, as I understand it. But, really, it’s NOT a greenhouse effect anymore — it should be named the “blanket effect”, to make the analogy even more ridiculous, because radiation cannot be slowed like warm air molecules can be slowed — there’s a confusion of mechanism operating within a confusion of scale. It’s confusion all the way down.
geran,
I made $20/hour for the first hour. I took a lunch break. I made $10/hour the next hour. I worked a total of 1 + 1 = 2 hours and made dollars at the rate of $20/hour + $10/hour = $30/hour, and so, for 2 hours @ $30/hour, I made $60, right?
RK,
In fact the new “greenhouse effect” that they have now adopted is a higher emissive height within the atmosphere that impinges on the surface via the lapse rate.
Any idea of back-radiation being the thing is old hat.
“Energy is conserved, which means we can add and subtract flows of energy in exactly the same way that we can add and subtract flows of dollars.”
The author of the above was the infamous climate clown, Willis E., from one of his more hilarious write-ups for WUWT, “Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object?”
Robert–I would love to be able to use pseudo-accounting on my bank account. I get half back of every thing that goes out!
Joseph–If you ever debate Rancourt, make sure he doesn’t interrupt you every three words like he did Stephen Wells.
He initially wanted to debate me but Stephen took it up without my knowing. Stephen did great! Now I’ve asked Denis if he still wants to debate me and he’s running scared!! lol
Yes, Pablo, that “higher emissive height” causing a warmer surface has remained a mystery to me.
I just don’t get it.
If emission is happening higher up, then doesn’t this mean that higher up has warmed, NOT lower down? Emission higher up is the emission happening, because it is warmer there now, having gained that warmth from below? — which means that warmth below has cooled to higher up, and so below is at the temp it is, because heat moved from below to higher up, where it now emits?
Somehow, it seems some sort of back stacking of radiation is supposed to happen. Again, I don’t get it.
So basically in this statement.
““Indeed, if you turn off the IR flux from the colder body this makes a difference to the hotter body: The hotter body cools more quickly. Same for the earth’s surface: If you turn off the re-emitted IR influx to the surface then that changes the fluxes at the surface and thus changes temperature determinations at the surface. Wells does not admit this unavoidable point, so it is difficult to go any further.”
He and Spencer are in agreement, a cold body makes a warm body warmer. So if I place my hot cup of coffee in a bowl of ice it will keep my coffee warmer and all this time I have wasted using a coffee cup warmer.
So is this confusion between insulation or is it deliberate obfuscation?
Rosco offered a link to Pictet’s experiment, in case anyone missed it.
Click to access Pictet-Apparent_Radiation_and_Reflection_of_Cold.pdf
@CD Marshall
I think they are more like zealot’s. They have ascended to the priestly class and are compelled to repeat scripture. You can’t go around the meteorology/climatology church telling priest they are FUNDAMENTALLY wrong in their theory and have no idea what they are talking about.
I think most of them aren’t intentionally lying more than any Rabbi/Priest/Pagan.
I’d guess at most 1/5 are real gatekeepers. Wild guess.
CD,
Hence, ice coffee is impossible. The ice-coffee scam must be stopped! — there’s no such thing, never has been, never will, because mythological physics now says so.
Robert Kernodle @ 2020/01/19 at 3:31 PM
“I made $20/hour for the first hour. I took a lunch break. I made $10/hour the next hour. I worked a total of 1 + 1 = 2 hours and made dollars at the rate of $20/hour + $10/hour = $30/hour, and so, for 2 hours @ $30/hour, I made $60, right?”
Robert,
I must take issue with this idea that rates cannot be added, they can, and your conceptual model is not applicable to the subject under discussion. There are two systems here. The first system is the stream of high frequency solar radiation that impinges on the surface of a planet. For convenience this rate is set to 1 unit of flux per unit area. The Sun is always on, the incoming rate never changes and because we are measuring a rate then we need to set up a budget account where each step is a single time unit.
Now at the beginning of time we turn on the Sun, and 1 unit of flux arrives at the planet’s surface through an optically transparent atmosphere. This high frequency flux (energy per second) gets transformed at the surface into low frequency flux, and is then emitted out from the surface in toto as one unit of low frequency thermal radiation. (We assume zero thermal capacity for the surface).
But the atmosphere above the surface is a separate thermally translucent system. It captures the one unit of low frequency flux from the surface and then readmits it with half of the flux passing upwards and out to space where it is lost, and half of the flux returning back to the surface. Now at time step 2 we have the following situation. One unit of new high frequency solar flux arrives at the surface through the optically transparent atmosphere, and half a unit of old returned low frequency flux is delivered back by the atmosphere. So, in time step two, because energy is conserved the surface is receiving one plus a half units of flux. So, it is perfectly correct to add these two fluxes (old plus new) at the surface.
Now this is where things start to get interesting. At time step two the surface emits one plus half (1.5) units of low frequency thermal radiation out into the translucent atmosphere. This captured energy is then readmitted by the atmosphere with again half being lost to space, (which is half plus a quarter), and the other half (which is also half plus a quarter) being returned back to the surface.
So, at time step three in our budget the surface now receives one unit of direct new high frequency solar flux through the atmosphere, and also three quarters of a unit of retained low frequency (back-radiation) flux from the overlying atmosphere. Because the low frequency surface admitted flux is bouncing within the overlying atmosphere, and the atmosphere is a leaky system, the number of atmospheric layers and the thermal radiation quenching distance is irrelevant here. The budget cascade of low frequency radiation is an infinite geometric series of descending fractions to the power 2. The limit of this infinite sum (half plus a quarter, plus an eighth etc.) is ONE. So, after an infinite passage of time the surface is receiving one unit of high frequency solar flux and one unit of low frequency back radiation thermal flux.
Let me be absolutely clear, in this post I am describing the mechanism of the canonical model of back radiation, but NOT whether this model is in fact applicable to the atmosphere. In creating my Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) climate model for Stephen Wilde I took the guts of this mathematical concept of a geometric series of descending powers of two and split it into two separate series, one for the lit side which sums to a limit of two thirds, and a separate series for the dark side which sums to a limit of a third.
In our DAET model the flux partition, flux retention and flux delivery process is entrained within a mass transport system (the atmospheric Hadley cell) and is not a thermal radiant vector process. The dynamic atmosphere within our model is both optically AND thermally transparent, so all radiative flux absorption and emission processes only take place at the solid basal surface.
The thermal radiant output to space from the meteorological DAET climate model matches the result of the canonical Vacuum Planet equation but, and this is a critically important point, the DAET model as first constituted is a diabatic (equipartition of energy) model. As such, just like the Vacuum Planet equation, the diabatic DAET model runs cold. In the case of the Vacuum Planet equation the surface is heated by additional back radiation from opaque greenhouse gases. By contrast in our model we add to the lit surface the missing solar energy forced process of adiabatic convection, and consequently the process of lit surface energy capture, retention and delivery is enhanced within the modelled Hadley cell. Our model therefore does not rely on back radiation to create the planetary atmosphere greenhouse effect.
“..the presence of water vapour reduces the radiative cooling power.”
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332459395_Radiative_sky_cooling_Fundamental_principles_materials_and_applications#pf7
Philip M., you may be making the same mistakes as are made in pseudoscience.
1) Flux can NOT be treated as energy. Energy is conserved, flux is not.
2) Fluxes from different surfaces/temperatures can NOT be arbitrarily added/subtracted.
So Robert’s satire is exactly on target.
geran,
A flux (meaning a flow of energy) requires energy to generate it so:
1) A radiative flux and a conductive/convective flux operating simultaneously require sufficient energy at a surface to generate and sustain both.
2) Splitting the surface energy into two separate fluxes (radiative and non radiative) going on simultaneously is not arbitrary. The same unit of energy cannot be in two places at once or do two jobs at once otherwise conservation of energy is breached. A single unit of surface energy can either be emitted as radiation or taken up in conduction and convection. not both. The Stephan-Bolzman equation only applies when there are no non-radiative energy transfers going on at the same time which is not the case for a surface beneath a convecting atmosphere. That is why it is referred to as applying to a vacuum planet and so applies at top of atmosphere (or effective radiating height) only.
More on clear sky downward long wave radiation in north west Brazil…which as I read it ranges from around 17ºC in the early afternoon to near 0ºC just before dawn.
from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-77862011000300010
SW, are you agreeing, or disagreeing?
1) Flux can NOT be treated as energy. Energy is conserved, flux is not.
2) Fluxes from different surfaces/temperatures can NOT be arbitrarily added/subtracted.
I didn’t understand the point of SW’s comment either…or Phillip’s for that matter.
The geometric series of back radiation is fake physics, and doesn’t drive anything. Certainly the Hadley cells transport heat to higher latitudes.
We aren’t talking about back radiation other than to point out that it isn’t needed to raise the surface temperature where convection up and down is present (as it always is).
Via our model you get a raised surface temperature just from converting KE to PE in the ascending column on the lit side and conversion from PE to KE in the descending column on the unlit side.
A purely mechanical process of conduction and convection.
No radiative gases necessary.
And it fits the observed atmospheres of multiple planets and moons being predictive of tropopause height.
In a hypothesis where the absorption/radiating properties of gasses could be turned off the surface would be much hotter. Bombarded with extra x-ray, ultraviolet light, and near infrared direct sunlight that now gets absorped by atmospheric gasses.
Surface radiation would go up because of higher surface temperature, That would not heat the atmosphere. But latent heat and sensible heat transfer would also increase and that would make the atmosphere hotter. The atmosphere can’t radiate so it will increase in temperature until it is in equilibrium with the surface temperature. Oceans would release gasses and evaporate water, the atmosphere would be much heavier, resulting in increased pressure and temperature of the near surface atmosphere
The end result is Venus like conditions.
Agree or disagree?
“What actually happens occurs at the molecular level in every small parcel of air at every altitude, as was explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 but totally ignored by climatologists. As a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says entropy will tend towards a maximum (by diminishing unbalanced energy potentials) we find that gravity forms a stable density gradient in the troposphere of every planet. Simultaneously it forms a temperature gradient, this being represented by the same state of maximum entropy which in physics is called thermodynamic equilibrium…”
Agree.
The paper is written by Douglas J. Cotton, B.Sc.(physics) this year. Tell me what you think. Hows the paper coming along?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
Oh lord. Avoid Doug Cotton. Long time Slayer hater and stalker…has some insane reverse heat flow theory he calls, of all things: “heat creep”. The quote above is fine but then Doug will twist everything about. The quote supports Nikolov & Zeller, etc.
Joe,
Absolutely agree with that and no dispute from me.
So, what is the point of my post?
Two-fold.
1. I have taken the guts of the fake radiative model, which is a geometric cascade of descending fractions to the power 2, and demonstrated how it is mathematically possible to create a simple iterative cascade in Excel that replicates the output in model form of the canonical Vacuum Planet equation. If you are going to destroy something you must know how it was built.
2. The issue of rate (flux) addition is a red herring. Rate times Time equals Quantity, and Quantity is a conserved property.
The key point in modelling climate is that we are describing a dynamic system, and in order to understand it we need to create a budget. As I explained elsewhere the dynamic process that we are studying is a direct equivalent of the leaky reservoir dam problem of hydrology.
To remove all possible doubt, consider this simple analogy:
1. We have a system that delivers 16 bouncing balls onto a surface per unit time. After bouncing half of the balls (8) are lost and half are returned back to the surface. At the same time as the 8 balls return to the surface the next tranche of 16-balls also arrives. Now 8 + 16 = 24
2. So, on the second step 12 balls are lost and 12 return to the surface. This means that 12 + 16 = 28 balls that are now hitting the surface. Half of these (14) are lost and half (14) are retained.
3. I hope that is enough for everyone to agree that the limit of this process is 32 balls. 16 direct and 16 returned. The system gain is two.
Why is this important? Because the Canonical Vacuum Planet equation has a system gain of two.
In the DAET model I split the single geometric cascade of a fake continuously lit surface into two parts, one cascade for the day side and one for the night. This simple diabatic atmospheric model now replicates the dual environments of day and night. It also matches the required output flux of the canonical model AND it clearly shows that the process of adiabatic energy retention is missing.
What is heat creep? Sounds like something you’d catch in swamp.
The paper btw how is it going, still being “reviewed”.
Yes still in review. It must be very difficult for them to ponder the difference between flat Earth cold sun theory vs. round Earth hot Sun theory.
“Okay. Let’s say we have a round Earth. That’s our starting point. That’s what he’s saying. Now…how is this different from flat Earth…?”
“Okay…wait. Let’s start again. Let’s say we have a round Earth. How is this different from a flat Earth…”
“Wait…maybe that’s not the way to look at it. The point is about the Sun. Let’s say we have a hot Sun. Now…what difference would there be between a cold sunshine vs. a hot sunshine…”
“Ummm. Wait. Why would we say that sunshine is hot though? What’s the point of that…I don’t get it.”
“Well, it’s a claim. That there’s a difference between hot sunshine and cold sunshine. And between flat Earth vs. round Earth.”
“Okay I get that claim. But why make it? What’s the point?”
“I don’t know.”
etc…
lol
Indeed…
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=fxgLJxhz&id=A25BB5373BF8982E0544BA87ACA75563A2FC627F&thid=OIP.fxgLJxhz-ZodcVAGGIiRBAHaFS&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-U7QwhOKECpI%2fVNjgqkzBycI%2fAAAAAAAAslE%2f_AQyJiqmG80%2fs1600%2fSettled-Science-600-LA.jpg&exph=572&expw=800&q=climate+change+peer+review+fraud+pics&simid=608005431073377773&selectedIndex=6&qpvt=climate+change+peer+review+fraud+pics&ajaxhist=0
I like this one too…
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=1E6AlFg6&id=CBA1DD14AE5CD713D2533312F75A4B1F7BEE554D&thid=OIP.1E6AlFg6YkVk_BeLeCshFwHaFH&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2fdims4%2fdefault%2f1ba5911%2f2147483647%2fstrip%2ftrue%2fcrop%2f2200x1520%2b0%2b0%2fresize%2f2200x1520!%2fquality%2f90%2f%3furl%3dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%252Fcc%252Feb%252F59d1b32c10328464d558ec51d182%252Fc80b44bb7a2a8d419326c954d10760f7.jpg&exph=1520&expw=2200&q=Global+Warming+Political+Cartoons&simid=608054565505926211&selectedIndex=12&ajaxhist=0
@Philip Mulholland, 2020/01/20 at 1:51 AM
There are two systems here. The first system is the stream of high frequency solar radiation that impinges on the surface of a planet. For convenience this rate is set to 1 unit of flux per unit area.
Philip,
As I understand it, the concept of solar flux already has the idea of area built into it, and so to say “flux per unit area” seems redundant and confusing to me. Solar flux is joules-per-second-per-meter-squared.
What are you calling “flux” that you could then associate area with it? Flux already has area in it. “Flux per unit area”, as you write it, would be “joules-per-second-per-meter-squared-per meter squared”, which would make no sense.
Until I can resolve this confusion, I can proceed no further with your comment, because the apparent precision of your comment would seem to require that you consider the precision of individual words that compose it. With this confusion looming, however, I’m not sure what the rest of your comment is about.
What is heat creep? Sounds like something you’d catch in swamp.
“Heat creep” refers to a politician who is a devout believer in human-caused global warming, and who is, in fact someone you would catch operating in the swamp that is the US government.
Bernie Sanders, for example, is a heat creep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a heat creep. And there are many more.
Robert,
OK I probably need to sharpen up my use of terminology.
The issue is Intensity. In physics, intensity of radiant energy is the power transferred per unit area,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
Power is a rate term. In physics, power is the rate of doing work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
Flux describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux#Flux_as_a_surface_integral
Velocity is a rate parameter that does not involve cross sectional area, but is clearly related to body motion which itself is related to flow. I will try and do better.
Thanks, Philip.
Here’s why this is important to me: You pointed out that solar flux is high energy, and Earth flux is lower energy. It seems to me that a square meter of Earth’s surface receiving the sun’s high-energy flux radiates that energy back towards the atmosphere as a lower-energy flux. If the Earth’s surface, therefore, already contains a higher energy than the lower-energy coming back to it from the atmosphere, then this lower energy cannot add to the higher energy.
Rather, the lower energy joins the energy gradient between the higher-energy surface and the lower-energy atmosphere, and the only effect that the higher-energy surface can have on the atmosphere is to give some of its energy to it to warm it. The lower-energy atmosphere has nothing to give to the higher-energy surface that it does not already have. No addition of energy from the atmosphere is possible, therefore.
If no addition of energy is possible, then no addition of flux is possible, since flux is energy transfer per time per area. No energy to add = no flux to carry energy to realize energy’s being added.
All that I can see happening is that air higher up might get a bit warmer, as a result of a warmer surface cooling to make it so.
The surface cools to warm the atmosphere. The surface does not heat because a cooler atmosphere warms it.
Philip M. says: “2. The issue of rate (flux) addition is a red herring. Rate times Time equals Quantity, and Quantity is a conserved property.”
Philip, flux (Watts/m^2) is NOT a “rate”. Flux is NOT conserved. Flux can NOT be simply added/subtracted the way we add/subtract energy.
This fact is NOT a “red herring”. It is another important issue to debunk the GHE nonsense. Adding/subtracing fluxes is as wrong as adding/subtracting temperatures. Adding a liter of 40º water to another liter of 40º water does NOT result in two liters of 80º water. Temperature, power, and flux are NOT conserved. Solar flux does NOT add to the infrared flux from the atmosphere.
“Heat creep” is Doug Cotton’s “explanation” for entropy used to describe “heat”.
Entropy can be viewed as heat. For example “entropy” is generated in a flame. Entropy can be “created” but never destroyed.
I can’t find the URL for this so I copied it to Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ul3qdutz167jm2x/Friedrich_Herrmann_-_Entropy_from_the_Beginning.pdf?dl=0
I find it interesting.
“When dealing with the concept of heat, the layman does not have particular problems: Heat is contained in hot bodies. The greater and the hotter the body, the more heat it contains. Heat goes or flows by itself from hot to cold, or from hot to less hot. Heat is produced within a flame, by mechanical friction or in the wire of a light bulb.
It is strange, that physics has trouble with the concept of heat. Simple statements about the every-day heat become incorrect, when interpreted in terms of the physical process quantity Q. They become correct, however, when the every-day heat concept is identified with the physical quantity “entropy” instead of Q. At the same time, one gets a very simple intuition about entropy,
otherwise infamous for its abstractness.”
“Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.”
“the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time”
Thus entropy and heat have the same characteristics and explain many thermodynamic properties.
“the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work” explains how energy is conserved but back radiation is impossible – the re-radiated energy may be conserved but it can only impact systems with lower entropy.
“processes where entropy is produced are irreversible”
I’m not sure if Doug is on to something but he lost my support by repeatedly parroting the “239.7 W/m2 insolation cannot explain Earth’s temperature”.
I’m certain he doesn’t really believe the 239.7 W/m2 nonsense but he cynically uses it to try to discredit people who disagree with his hypothesis.
Robert,
The key point at issue is this, Stephen Wilde and I are attempting to build a meteorological model in which there is a process of thermal energy “sensible heat” capture, retention and delivery in what I call the atmospheric reservoir. You can see that I keep returning to hydrological concepts, so I will now go a step further.
Consider the atmosphere as a pan of water on a hot plate. The water heats from below and it moves. Moving fluid carrying energy has a power intensity. The higher the temperature the greater the quantity of thermal energy being delivered by the moving fluid. I thought long and hard about how to name our model and eventually settled on Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport as the key descriptors of the process we are studying. You can see that radiation is not mentioned. This is because while radiation is the fuel that powers the engine, the machine itself is built of fluid mass.
Climate is a meteorological process of mass motion and energy transport and must be studied as such. I want to encourage you to discard the false climate model of radiative flux and concentrate instead on the science of meteorology.
The issue of rate (flux) addition is a red herring. Rate times Time equals Quantity, and Quantity is a conserved property.
But, as I see it, simply adding fluxes involves no such assessment of time spans over which the rates occur. There is no accounting for time spans.
Also, flux is associated with a specific area for which it is defined. The area for atmospheric, lower-energy flux is different from the area for surface, higher-energy solar flux. How can you just assign a portion of a flux figured for one surface to a different surface? — the flux was not figured for that surface.
Consider a square meter of Earth’s surface. The sun shines on this area with high-energy solar intensity. The flux (i.e., quantity of energy per second per unit area) is greater than the flux from that same square meter going out as lower-energy Earth radiation. For that square meter, the lower-energy flux from Earth would have to occur over a longer SPAN to provide the same QUANTITY of energy in the higher-energy flux from the sun.
Solar flux is high-energy per second per square meter. Earth flux is lower-energy per second per the same square meter. High-energy/sec/m^2 x seconds is a greater QUANTITY of energy than lower-energy/sec/m^2.
So, when you add the flux portion of the atmosphere to the flux portion of the surface, you are neglecting this distinction between energy-intensity difference between the fluxes. You are not adding quantities — you are adding rates over time, without proper consideration of quantities carried by those fluxes over the given time span.
I should have written, ” … you are adding rates, without proper consideration of quantities carried by those fluxes over a given time span.”
“Rates over time” is improper redundancy, since “rate” already accounts for the concept of “time”.
One last try. Rate (Watts) times Time (Seconds) equals Quantity (Joules). 10 oranges per second times 1 second equals 10 oranges. 2 apples per second times 1 second equals 2 apples. But you cannot add 10 oranges to 2 apples, well yes you can if what you are calculating is the total quantity of fruit.
The climate system delivers energy (Joules) from the tropics to the poles. It does this by atmospheric energy transport. The pole-ward transport of energy within the climate system can be measured as a horizontal intensity (Joules per second per sq metre) , but this advection of energy is not a radiative process.
Oh and just in case we slip down the rabbit hole again the two 1 second time intervals are coincidental, which is the reason for my original rejection of your sequential time series model. The two systems run in parallel.
This is why it’s so important for folks to grasp the basic physics of Earth’s climate. Understanding concepts, such as “fluxes don’t add”, helps to debunk the GHE pseudoscience. If Doug Cotton understood the relevant physics, he would not have to invent his “heat creep”. He would know that the Earth is NOT going to get hotter because of CO2. He would understand the “33 K” is nonsense, and why. He would not have to come up with some way to explain something that isn’t happening anyway.
Exactly. There’s nothing to explain! LOL
Sun heats earth, and the heat flows down all available gradients, with various physical responses such as latent heat pumping, Hadley cells, etc etc. Good grief they’ve really tried to make it more complicated.
This is Cotton’s paper he was promoting on Linked In…
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Cotton
Yes, it is a matter of two separate energy loops running in parallel one radiative and one non radiative.
So, we have the radiative loop in from space and out to space in balance plus the non radiative loop involving convection up and down in balance.
To sustain both loops in parallel one needs enough kinetic energy at the surface to run both which is why the surface temperature has to rise.
I first offered the twin loop conjecture back around 2010.
Philip has kindly modelled it for me.
It would still be interesting to determine how much of this atmospheric downwelling long wave radiation is produced by the direct absorption of sunshine by water vapour.
Also whether it is possible for vibrational modes of energy in water vapour’s response to solar
near-infrared to increase translational via collision to increase air temperature and by how much.
( I have a vague recollection that some say this direct absorption results in a 2ºC warming of the atmosphere during the day which means less for the surface.)
It seems to be an important consideration for farmers as a more diffuse form of atmospheric light
is more beneficial to plants than a purely direct scorching solar source.
“Finding a type of photosynthesis that works beyond the red limit changes our understanding of the energy requirements of photosynthesis. This provides insights into light energy use and into mechanisms that protect the systems against damage by light.”
from: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-photosynthesis.html
One last try. Rate (Watts) times Time (Seconds) equals Quantity (Joules).
I totally get that. The issue is I do not see any accounting for the “Time” in addition of fluxes.
Earth’s surface radiates at a higher-energy intensity. The atmosphere radiates at a lower-energy intensity, BECAUSE of its transition from Earth to atmosphere, AND with respect to a surface DIFFERENT than the surface from which Earth’s surface radiates.
The atmosphere’s energy is NOT different energy than Earth energy — it is a transition to a lower intensity of the same energy. What I see is a claim that this lower-intensity energy can make already-higher-intensity energy even higher, and my understanding is that energy does NOT work this way.
Part of the same energy is being directed back onto itself, adding it to itself, as if this lower intensity energy can make higher-intensity energy even higher-intensity. Even more confusing, the atmospheric surface apparently is being treated as the same surface as the Earth surface for which flux was defined, leading to simply partitioning flux figured for one surface (Earth) and assigning it to another surface (atmosphere) for which it was never defined.
10 oranges per second times 1 second equals 10 oranges. 2 apples per second times 1 second equals 2 apples. But you cannot add 10 oranges to 2 apples, well yes you can if what you are calculating is the total quantity of fruit.
The “fruit house effect”? (^_^)
So, is Earth-radiation oranges and atmosphere-radiation apples? If so, then we need another quantity to be “fruit”. It can’t be energy, according to your analogy. What is the “fruit”, where Earth flux and atmospheric flux are considered? There is no fruit in the “greenhouse effect” — there is energy.
Earth-radiated-energy per second times 1 second equals Earth-radiated-energy. Atmosphere-radiated-energy per second times 1 second equals atmosphere-radiated-energy (a transformed version of the former). According to the analogy, I should be able to add earth-radiated-energy to atmosphere-radiated-energy to get something equivalent to “fruit”. But there’s no “fruit”-equivalent measure, and so something must be wrong with the analogy.
There is NOT a measure that defines the addition of fluxes. The “fruit” does not exist.
I’m hungry now, and my problem is with the radiative figuring, which I still maintain CANNOT correctly use addition of fluxes, as customarily explained.
Robert,
That post is outstanding. Joseph should do an updated video of that kudos to Joseph and Rosco.
There should also be a post and video named Why Not Slowed Cooling
Robert
You completely miss the distinction between kinetic and potential energy. The former registers as heat but the latter does not. The transition from KE to PE and then from PE to KE causes a delay in energy transmission through the system which must result in a raised surface temperature.
Stephan,
“causes a delay in energy transmission through the system which must result in a raised surface temperature.”
You’ve lost me a bit there.
Sure it takes time for warmed air to move from the sunlit side to the dark side and from the low to high latitudes but its a more or less steady and continuous process that spreads kinetic energy as fast as it can from the hot spots to the cold. Which is a cooling of the hot surface.
Any increase in potential temperature (at least in meteorological terms) is caused by a reduction of the adiabatic lapse rate in the presence of water vapour.
In fact that is where 33ºC of warming lies… in that increase of potential temperature of 3.3ºC/km with altitude in the presence of water vapour.
Unless by potential energy you mean the pressure of an atmosphere against gravity and the effect that has on surface temperature .
“The former [kinetic energy] registers as heat…”
S. Wilde, you may mean “registers as temperature”, instead of “registers as heat”. Kinetic energy is not “heat”. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold. Temperature is the measure of mean kinetic energy of atom/molecules. “Temperature” and “heat” are not the same.
And, as Pablo alludes, you seem equally confused about “delay of energy transmission”. What energy transmission is being delayed?
“Unless by potential energy you mean the pressure of an atmosphere against gravity and the effect that has on surface temperature.”
Pablo,
Potential energy is a rigorously defined physical property of matter. It is the product of Mass, times Gravity (Acceleration) times Height (above a defined datum, which in this case is the surface of the planet) and it is calculated by the following equation PE = m*g*h
Potential Energy has the Dimensions M*L^2*T^-2 and is measured in Joules
At the datum surface of the planet H = 0 and so by calculation PE = 0
Robert
You completely miss the distinction between kinetic and potential energy.
Stephen,
I’m not even focused on the distinction that you mention here. I’m still grappling with the claim that fluxes can be added and subtracted, when my understanding is that they cannot. I need to resolve this, before considering potential/kinetic energy arguments.
Earlier on, Philip wrote:
I must take issue with this idea that rates cannot be added, THEY CAN, and your conceptual model is not applicable to the subject under discussion. [I capitalized the key claim with which I take issue]
So, Philip asserts that fluxes CAN be added. I think not.
Now Steven really throws me for a loop in his post here:
I’m not familiar with the idea of “convective flux”, and so this phrase is confusing me. I’ve never thought of convective heat transfer as flux, but maybe that’s my shortcoming. “Flux”, as I’m used to the idea, involves a surface area [a square-meters expression]. How does one establish a surface area for convection? Convection happens within a VOLUME. Heat transfer would be in terms of joules, wouldn’t it? — joules per second, maybe, as a rate of flow, but “flux” (that is associated with a surface)? — I’m not getting it. “Convetive flux”, as I understand “flux”, does not make sense.
“Flux”, as used with radiation, is not just a flow through time — it is a flow through time, for a particular SURFACE AREA. It’s not just “joules/sec” — it’s “(joules/sec)/meter^2. Horizontally, through the atmosphere has no surface reference — there is a VOLUME, so I do not know how you can speak of “convective flux” as a true flux — a rate of energy transfer, yes, but “flux”, … ???
I’m trying to keep the basic terminology consistent with how I have understood that it is used in thermodynamics.
He just means energy carried away by convection as opposed to radiation. But yes his comments have been confusing. When there are two ways to carry away heat then those add together because they’re both flowing hot to cold. One still obviously not back-add the heat as if it would come back to its source.
That is correct.
Two separate means of removing energy from the irradiated surface can be added together.
Now consider convective descent. KE is returned to the surface via conversion from PE and must be added to any continuing insolation.
Two separate balanced energy loops running in parallel. One radiative and one convective.
Radiation from a colder source cannot heat a surface but KE recovered from PE via compression can.
Only if the returning air is warmer than the surface due to the adiabatic heating on the way down. No opportunity I can see for it to be via work.
Compression requires work which converts PE to KE.
The surface radiates to space but does not cool as much as it otherwise would do due to the freshly created KE released from the descending air.
The surface becomes warmer than S-B predicts and that extra warmth then flows to the base of the nearest rising column so the whole sphere has a warmer surface.
Stephen, if you put together an actual example of what you are talking about, with some numbers, you might see it does not work. “Balanced energy loops running in parallel” is just word salad.
Warm air arriving the surface, with flux from the atmosphere, does NOT automatically add. Assuming that ALL energy impacting a surface raises the surface temperature is wrong more than it’s right.
“Compression requires work which converts PE to KE.”
That’s what creates the adiabatic gradient. However for this to return heat to the surface, the air must still be warmer than the surface, or, must perform work on the surface. I don’t think that either of those things really happen.
Of course the surface doesn’t cool as much because the system as a whole includes miles of atmosphere…there is more thermal mass, but still radiating at only the temperature possible supplied by solar heating, and thus with more thermal mass it cools more slowly than if all that thermal mass of atmosphere wasn’t there but still losing energy at a similar rate.
As we have said…there is no “warmer surface” which is in need of explanation. Once we re-orient the analysis back to understanding the real-time solar input and its heating power, and the fact that there’s the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and add in the latent heat pump from water vapour, and the Hadley cells, and the natural existence of the adiabatic gradient…there’s nothing really left in need of explanation. There’s no need of energy “which must be returned to the surface in order to explain surface temperature”. The solar heat comes in and then it simply flows down the gradients. But you never realize that if you start with -40C solar input.
Radiation from the ground cools it to a temperature lower than that of the descending air by the time that air reaches the ground. That warmer air then imparts warmth to the surface via conduction.
The downward flow is continuous for so long as descent continues so warmth is continuously added to the surface by conduction.p
Read the model prepared by Philip Mulholland.
Is that actually the case though? I’ve have never seen actual temperature readings of the actual surface vs. readings of the near-surface air at the same time. But yes…you would need to see that the near-surface air was higher in temperature than the surface itself. One of the Slayer’s did such a measurement at his location in Arizona, and the surface remained warmer at all times including over night…thus no possibility for heat to transfer to the surface due to the adiabatic effect raising the temperature above that of the surface by the time the air “falls back upon” the surface.
I think that a big factor which is left out is latent heat release – water is evaporated around the equatorial zone and up to whatever latitude that sunlight is capable of doing that, but particularly at the equatorial zone the temperature stays cooler than the actual input because heat is literally being hidden in latent heat. But then that vapour migrates to higher latitudes and then the heat comes back out of the latent phase, and this would keep higher latitudes much warmer than they would otherwise be.
Anyway Stephen. One would still have to show temperature readings, where the near-surface air is warmer than the surface proper. Latent heat release may already do what you’re thinking.
A response to my paper which you guys might like to read.
“One of Postma’s criticisms of it is that surface radiation out and back radiation by GHGs are about twice as large as the insolar reaching the earth directly.
His hemispherical model gives 4X higher average heat flux intensities and the consequently calculated black body radiation temperatures are closer to the global actual average of about 15C.”
The hemispheric model does not merely give 4X higher heat flux…it gives the real, actual, empirical, and theoretical astrophysical, heat flux. This is a mutually exclusive difference to the fictional -40C solar input of the IPCC or K&T scheme. And yes, this is the fundamental difference to think about: is the climate created mainly by the 2X greater backradiation than solar input, or, is it created by the solar input. This is a mutually exclusive difference of absolute magnitude.
“However, the IPCC spherical heat flux numbers are only for a schematic illustration of the heat balance, and are not actually used literally in the calculations, so the difference in the input heat fluxes is irrelevant.”
As a schematic illustration of the heat balance, it represents something that doesn’t actually exist and does not actually occur. It is a schematic of a fiction. Thus, what relevance does it have to understanding reality? The fact of the matter is that these flat-Earth solar-averaged diagrams exist *as* schematics for understanding the supposed “heat balance” therein, and as such, they are merely schematics of fiction for understanding a fiction. Further, these diagrams (I referenced 3 in total) exist as the fundamental derivations for the concept of a climate “greenhouse effect” via back radiation. They are fundamental to deriving the concept of the climate greenhouse effect, and its functioning via back radiation 2X stronger than solar heating. But they are fictions, representing a fictionally cold sunshine diluted over the entire surface area, which is empirically impossible and certainly not consistent with astrophysical theory and how sunlight falls onto planets.
“And, although they are closer, Postma’s equivalent temperatures do not agree well with reality either.”
The difference between my diagram and the other is binary: in one, we would never experience warm sunshine let alone sunshine creating climatological/meteorological responses, whereas in the other we do get that effect from sunshine. That’s the point.
“Question: is the temperature forced on a black body at equilibrium by a given heat radiation flux the same as what a black body would be at radiating the same heat?”
My diagram and paper makes it clear: No. The real-time input is hot and non-uniform, and sunshine can directly create meteorological responses. The total energy in and out is the same, however, one cannot use the output flux as if it is equivalent to the input flux because the input flux is capable of producing physical responses that the output flux cannot. The total energies are equal, but the fluxes are not, *and it is the local real-time flux which determines physical responses.*.
“One way heat transfer from hot to cold is a limit for conduction and convection. But radiation from the earth that excites GHG atoms can be and is re-emitted in all directions, including some back to earth at the same frequency and wave length.”
This is a common claim which is used to defend the climate greenhouse effect of “back radiation”. Let it be clear, and you read the quotation about heat flow in the paper: *there is no caveat in the discussions of heat flow which state “except for radiation”*. You will not find a caveat of *except for radiation* in any thermodynamics textbook. If you consider heat flow via conduction of molecules in a lattice, say down a metal rod, the molecules on the cooler side of the gradient also vibrate and bounce randomly in all directions thus including in the direction of the warmer side of the gradient, yet, the heat flow is only down the gradient. This is because the molecules on the cooler side of the gradient do not have the increased multiplicity they would require to send heat up the gradient. Further, conduction is mediated in any case electromagnetically by virtual photons between electrons in the lattice, and radiant heat is also mediated electromagnetically but by photons which escape the lattice on the exposed surface. It’s the same force of physics with any mode of heat transfer: electromagnetism. This is why when heat is discussed, the discussion regards heat as a universal concept where the properties of heat apply to all modes of heat transfer. There is no caveat which allows radiant heat transfer to behave oppositely of any other mode of heat transfer: it is from hot to cold only. Just as with conduction, when the photons can escape via the exposed surface instead of being trapped inside the lattice as “physical” conduction, the photons emitted from a cooler object do not have the multiplicity they would require to increase the temperature of the original source of heat.
“In any case, the back radiation is less than the outgoing so there is an increase of entropy as required by the Second Law.”
It is not only the second law, it is also the first: the first law states that either heat and/or work is required to increase temperature. The cooler atmosphere has no heat to send to the surface…let alone 2X the heat of the Sun. The Sun heats the Earth, and the heat continues to flow down the temperature gradients, creating meteorological and climatological effects along the way – this is so simple, but has been entirely destroyed as a concept by the diagrams and derivations of the climate greenhouse effect as discussed in my paper. They are just making a claim. The cooler atmosphere does not have the greater multiplicity it would require to cause an increase of temperature of the surface itself…and this idea only originates in the first place in the models where the Sun does not create the climate.
“An analogy would be dropping a rubber ball on a hard surface and for it to bounce up and back down, again and again, less high each time, until it finally came to rest. Each time on the way down it loses potential energy and gains entropy, and vice versa on the way back up, always less each time, so at the end there has been a gain of entropy, and energy has gone into the ball as heat which it then loses with more gain of entropy.”
What the greenhouse effect requires is that after the initial impulse of the ball drop, supplied by the Sun first raising the ball, then the ball bounces higher afterwards because of “back-bounce”.
Now with all that covered…this email gave me an aneurism. I do not understand what it is with these people’s inability to think, to reason, and to appreciate logical facts. I even had a PhD in physics at my university look at the paper, and then they replied with “Doesn’t the K&T diagram and yours reduce to the same thing?”
Did they not read the table? The entire point is that there are mutually exclusive concepts at play here, and thus both concepts cannot both be correct! Is the Sun so feeble that it cannot create meteorological and climatological responses directly, and so back radiation of 2X solar intensity is required to create the climate? Or does the Sunshine directly create meteorological and climatological responses due to its heat, with heat then flowing down all gradients. I do not know why this is so difficult for people to understand. One concept is based on a fictionally-cold sunshine spreading over an entire spherical surface at once, which is impossible by basic optical theory, astrophysics, thermodynamics, and geometry. The other is empirically and theoretically consistent.
Do people reason so poorly that they truly cannot cogitate, cannot comprehend in their mind’s eye and in their internal mental conceptual apparatus, the difference between cold fictional sunshine unable to create a climate vs. intense real sunshine which does? I’m flabbergasted that otherwise educated people cannot comprehend the relevance of basic things. Hence the end of the paper:
“The reader is left to consider whether or not it is relevant, or useful, or at all scientific, to value such differences.”
And so I suppose that the answer is that the reader is unable to consider and cogitate upon such differences. It simply eludes them. I assume that people are capable of thinking what I can demonstrate…but perhaps this is similar to expecting people to swim like an Olympian after the Olympian demonstrates it to them.
Well, you just need to look at the night time lapse rate slope which reverses the lapse rate in the lower levels.
What is happening is that the surface becomes colder than the air above and bends the lapse rate slope back by drawing heat from the lower levels via conduction. If the ground radiates heat away faster than it can come down from above then an inversion develops and the warmer air above the inversion spreads out laterally until it can deliver its warmth to a surface where the radiative cooling is less intense.
So, yes the descending air will always become warmer than the surface below if irradiation from the sun is less intense than radiation out to space and that is always the case on the unlit side.
And you don’t need latent heat from water vapour because the process works with no radiative gases in the atmosphere at all. All you need is KE release from gravitational compression which involves work done in the descent process.
Honest incomprehension or deliberate obfuscation? That is always the question isn’t it?
Or you can just accept that sunshine is freezing cold, falls on the entire planet at the same time, day and night and does not contribute to the climate in any reasonable manner.
The Pod People are taking over…
“And you don’t need latent heat from water vapour”
For god’s sake. We HAVE latent heat from water vapour. This is what comes out at night and at higher latitudes.
You cannot say “we don’t need latent heat…only this other thing I’ve invented” because that’s plainly insane. We HAVE latent heat, having its effect at night/unlit side and at higher latitude.
Plus…one still needs to demonstrate the temperature inversion actually commonly exists at enough constancy, and at such a magnitude, etc. We already know that latent heat performs the process similar to what you speak of, so we cannot say that we “do not need it”. lol
I’ve got to be gone the rest of the day, but want to critique the critique later. My first hilarious find (bold, mine):
““And, although they are closer, Postma’s equivalent temperatures do not agree well with reality either.”
Translation: The clowns can’t throw out their invalid model, because a better one still isn’t perfect!
Exactly….ugh.
He just means energy carried away by convection as opposed to radiation.
I gather that, but it’s confusing to use the term, “flux”, with the concept of convection. It makes my mind bend in a direction of trying to add a term for convective flow to a term for radiative flux — adding something that needs figuring for a VOLUME to something figured for an AREA. You can’t add m^3 + m^2 — it would seem that you have to find ENERGY transferred in a volume in a given time, and add this to ENERGY transferred with respect to an area in the same given time.
It’s confusing enough, when people interchange the ideas of “heat” and “energy”. Now I’m getting confused by a use of “flux” to mean merely “rate”.
What are the units of “convective flux”? Wouldn’t this be something like “energy per time per cubic meter”? And how would you add that to “energy per time per square meter” of radiative flux? You’ve got to figure energy as the commonality between the two, and I’m not seeing how this is being done, I guess.
Latent heat from water vapour does not cause a surface beneath an atmosphere to become warmer than predicted by S-B. Only the conversion of KE to PE and back again can do that.
The thermal effects of the water vapour form of latent heat are neutralised by convective changes due to the difference between the moist and dry lapse rate slopes.
Our model works via conduction and convection alone with no greenhouse gases at all.
The backward bending of the lapse rate slope is a recognised feature of the average night time profile. It is well known if you research the relevant meteorology.
During the day there is downward ground heat flux into the subsurface medium. In wet land it can heat up upto 14 cm depth. That acts as a buffer against fast surface temperature decreasing at night
According to this source there is some reverse flux to the surface from the atmosphere at night (both sensible as latent), but it is small compared to the upward heat flux from a few centimeter under the ground to the surface. (just ignore what it says about longwave radiation)
Source:
Click to access lect10.pdf
“However, the IPCC spherical heat flux numbers are only for a schematic illustration of the heat balance, and are not actually used literally in the calculations, so the difference in the input heat fluxes is irrelevant.”
Why not use elves and fairies, then? — it’s “ONLY for a schematic illustration.”
Yah that’s real double-speak they love to use! This thing isn’t the thing but it is the thing we get the thing from even though it isn’t the thing.
Stephen,
“So, yes the descending air will always become warmer than the surface below if irradiation from the sun is less intense than radiation out to space and that is always the case on the unlit side.”
When an inversion forms it is always on a still night with no descending air.
Stephen,
I’m not getting how the surface can cool, while the air above the surface does not cool at the same time.
I went to one of your WUWT articles to start studying it, but, in that article, the way you talk about back radiation seems unclear as to whether you accept it or not. Over there, I also noticed a few comments by somebody accusing me of “hand waving” about effective height of radiation (trying to imply that I don’t understand it), which I just now noticed, but the comments on that article are now closed, so I cannot reply to this attempt to discredit my words, laced with an attempted wow factor of his greater experience with the technical vocabulary.
Great strategy: Use fictional schematic illustrations to teach beginners, and then later ignore this fact, and obscure it with higher level confusions that transcend the erroneous nature of the original schematic illustrations, which contain even more complex errors. Now you can deny that the original error is relevant, because the more complex errors overshadow it, which means you now have to switch to arguing against THOSE more complex errors that deny the relevance of the elementary errors that you incorporated to teach BEGINNERS in the first place!
And we wonder why some PhDs say what they say.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-effective-radiating-level-erl-is.html
I read somewhere and (I have no clue where) that the atmosphere can indeed become warmer than the surface immediately beneath it but still does not warm it up, the difference would have to be much higher atmosphere temp to raise the surface a single degree. The example used was the TOA is warmer but does little to set temperature below it.
I takes substantial energy to heat something up below it as opposed to above it.
…A warm front moving over a cooler area is an example of a warmer atmosphere (region) moving over a cooler surface area. NOTE: That is not back radiation or front radiation. That’s just parcels of air moving around through (advection?).
Doesn’t the warm air rise over the denser cold air, causing moisture phenomenon that, in combination with the warmer air’s sinking, warms the air over the colder surface, but maybe that’s not enough to warm the ground or water below the slightly warmer air? — the heat is somehow related to the water phenomenon that can make the air warm and retain it’s warmth?
Excellent question Robert I hope someone else can answer it along with how long can a higher troposphere remain warmer than the surface through advection.
Robert Kernodle @ 2020/01/22 at 7:35 AM
Robert,
I will pick up here and attempt to remove the confusion I am causing by my wrong use of the standard word Flux.
I will attempt to present our model by talking about energy flow and adopt the Humpty Dumpty maxim of “a word means what I chose it to mean” 😉
First some hopeful common ground. The flat Earth model is junk. The concept of surface heating by back radiation from a cold atmosphere is junk. The greenhouse gas conjecture is junk.
What Stephen and I are attempting to do is model the climate system using meteorological principles and discuss the effects of both radiant energy flow and thermal energy flow.
There are two complementary and coincidental system in play. The radiative system and the mass motion system. Air can move horizontally or vertically (or indeed in any direction, but all such motion can be resolved into motion in these two-fundamental axes). We can agree that Intensity is Power per unit area, and that Power is a rate descriptor of energy flow that is measured in Joules per second.
So, if we have a mass of air descending onto a surface it will be capable of delivering energy at a given rate of mass flow. At the same time and over the same area solar radiation is delivering a different quantity of energy to the identical surface, then two separate streams of energy with different quantities are arriving at the surface. The time interval and the area are common to both systems, so we can add the two values together.
The surface reference is a line. Consider the example of the flow of wind through a lattice fence. There is clearly a defined area to the vertical fence, the presence of which is marked by a line on your surface map.
Robert Kernodle @ 2020/01/22 at 2:07 PM
“I’m not getting how the surface can cool, while the air above the surface does not cool at the same time.”
Robert,
The surface is cooling by direct thermal radiation to space through the “atmospheric window”
this guy sounds like a lesser version of Potholer although he is a physicist expert in Solar science so he says.
STAR WARS
CS: “I have been following the war on food agenda. Permaculture practices sequestor huge amounts of carbon. No till farming, intensive grazing and other things are fantastic if you want to put carbon in the soil. Somehow the co2 alarmist actively lobby against this sort of thing. They even try to have people who speak of ecological friendly farming arrested.
I’m all for permaculture given the goal is environmental and quality of food production. It’s not great if the plan is to make money. The alarmist want us to eat fake meat that make men grow tits. They also want us to eat bugs and aborted fetuses. Healthy food produced in an environmentally friendly manner is a no go for them.”
JP: “That’s just the thing…along with the other inconsistencies you pointed out.
They’re faking it all…and behind the pretense is a knowing goal of destruction of life…not just of humans life, but the hatred of CO2 is the hatred and destruction of ALL life.
They are aliens, from an alien world, who wish to geoengineer this planet into some form of a barren rock, more suitable to their home-world genetics. CO2 seems to be 100% totally toxic to them and they FN hate it…whereas here it is the very basis of all life.
Or something insane like that…because that is indeed how insane they are, that they can be characterized in this way.”
CS: “silica based lifeforms”
JP: “Possibly, yah.
Maybe it’s more esoteric. Our genetics, Earth-based genetics, are developed to link to carbon-based DNA waveforms.
Maybe this is war on planetary scales! It’s another planet fighting our planet. Something like: our planet’s oversoul is named “Gaia”, say. This oversoul has developed life for itself to evolve…based on carbon, and sourcing carbon from CO2.
Some other planet somewhere, some other “oversoul” planet, wants to take over. To do that it has to wipe out the existing genetic life basis, and thus it has to get rid of CO2 primarily.
Our Earth is fighting back though. The truth is that the increase in CO2 is not actually from humans…it is from Gaia itself doing it. When there was the oil crisis 10 years ago, there was a massive reduction in global oil consumption. But guess what? The rise in CO2 didn’t blip one single bit. The CO2 concentration kept on rising exactly as it had been, and the massive reduction in human oil consumption had zero effect on the rising curve. Thus, the increasing CO2 is actually being released from Gaia itself, from underground, from increased volcanic activity, etc.
Our Sun, and it as an even greater oversoul itself, is helping with this process too! Given that our Sun and Gaia are a pair and they together have develop life on this planet. Life requires sunshine, CO2, and water after all, at the basis. The Sun of course provide the sunshine energy.
So maybe this is even war on a stellar scale…on the scale of *stars*. It is some other star that is at war with our star. I have pointed out already that it seems that these entities hate our sun…given how they have literally written our Sun OUT of creating our climate, pretending it is only -40C input…and then scheming this insane hatred of CO2 which creates the climate instead which is supposed to be some sort of a negative that we must be taxed for since we emit CO2…(but we don’t actually…Earth is emitting the CO2 herself). But this is how stars go to war and attempt to destroy each-others creations.”
Joseph, I was all set to come back today and annihilate the critique of your paper. But you beat me to it! All I could find to mention was to this one quote:
“One way heat transfer from hot to cold is a limit for conduction and convection. But radiation from the earth that excites GHG atoms can be and is re-emitted in all directions, including some back to earth at the same frequency and wave length.”
You already annihilated that quote, but notice the “slight-of-hand”, the magician’s trick, the deception. They first used the term “heat transfer”, then quickly switched to “radiation”. They are aware that back-radiation is not “heat”, but they want to put that thought in people’s heads. They want folks to believe the sky “heats” the surface.
I see your comments are getting a good review over at PSI. The more people that see that, the better.
Philip M,
Just to let you know, I HAVE read the last paper in your series by you and Stephen, and it seems to accord very well with what Joseph presents and what I feel most resonant with.
I’m just striving to understand things with terms that are consistent between all the disciplines.
I have to rage on this comment again:
“However, the IPCC spherical heat flux numbers are only for a schematic illustration of the heat balance, and are not actually used literally in the calculations, so the difference in the input heat fluxes is irrelevant.”
That’s just the stupidest response that I have ever read!
That’s how they’ve succeeded and gotten this far…is by being as stupid as possible.
@ 2020/01/23 at 4:45 PM
Thanks Robert,
I appreciate the comment.
If I fail to make myself clear then I am failing as a communicator of ideas and I need to raise my game.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Joseph E Postma @ 2020/01/22 at 9:37 AM
Joe,
In the summer of 2008, I recorded the temperature profiles being published online from the Dome Argus Automatic Weather Station (AWS) in Antarctica. The source data for these profiles is still available from the Antarctic Division of the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy, but is published in a compressed .nc UNIX data format that is not easily accessible.
Dome Argus is located at latitude 80.367 South and has a surface elevation of 4084 m above sea-level. In the austral winter of 2008, the sun set at Dome Argus on 16th April at 0725 UTC and rose again on 26th August at 0556 UTC, giving a period of 24 hours of darkness extending for 132 days. The data I collected therefore show the meteorological impact of ice surface radiative cooling to space through the Atmospheric Window, which is highly efficient at the high elevation, low pressure and extremely dry atmosphere of the continuously dark Antarctic winter. The Dome Argus AWS temperature data consist of the continuous record made in air at three levels above the ice surface (1m, 2m & 4m) and four levels in solid ice below the surface (-0.1m, -1m, -3m & -10m). I have published my copy of these records here.
The following discussion relates to the Dome Argus AWS temperature data collected for the period 9th to 16th May 2008. During this period of observation, the atmospheric profile data splits into two distinct parts; 9th to 14th May and 14th to 16th May. Up to 14th May the profile show a classic temperature inversion with the lowest recorded air temperature values occurring at the 1 metre level. The data after 14th May show no such vertical profile, as the air is vertically mixed and the temperature at all three levels are effectively identical.
My interpretation of these two distinct sets of data is that for the period up to 14th May the atmosphere was vertically stable, and was cooling at the base by thermal contact with the solid ice surface. Three example data points for the 10th May have the 4m value at -60C: the 2m value at -66C and the 1m value at -70C. By simple linear extrapolation using an Excel graph we can deduce that the ice surface temperature was -73C on 10th May. The question of how closely the ice surface tracks the air temperature at the 1m level is moot. I would expect the ice surface temperature variations to be damped, but of course to be lower than those of the 1 metre level under the conditions of surface radiative cooling up to the 14th May.
After 14th May the air is fully mixed by turbulence and has a common temperature of typically -70C. The implication of this is that under the conditions of vertical air mixing after 14th May the air temperature is 3C warmer that the ice surface. I would expect the damped ice surface temperature to remain at -73C (at least in the initial stages of the storm). Therefore, I deduce that after 14th May the turbulent mixed air at a temperature of -70C is indeed heating the -73C ice surface.
The data for the subsurface ice profile at -0.1m is also very instructive and I believe supports this view of descending adiabatic air warming the ice surface. Notice that the temperature decline for the -0.1 m level up to 14th May is more rapid than that observed under the mixed air conditions after 14th May, The best explanation for this is that after 14th May the ice surface rises in temperature from the -73C seen on 10th May to match that of the mixed air profile of -70C thereby reducing the cooling rate of the ice. The extra energy that causes this decline in the ice cooling rate is coming from the adiabatically warmed and mixed air that is descending on to the ice surface after 14th May.
Nice work, Philip.
Always good to find reality fitting a hypothesis.
Robert,
Our work is consistent with what Joe says but provides a specific mechanism with predictive capability and compliance with all observations.
That has never been done before.
Phillip,
Again slightly confused with…
“Therefore, I deduce that after 14th May the turbulent mixed air at a temperature of -70C is indeed heating the -73C ice surface.”
As I understand it an average air temperature will indeed maintain the surface temperature as long as there is enough sunlight to recharge the surface temperature during the day.
But at night or in the polar winter darkness the surface radiative cooling will cool the subsurface down to a depth relative to that imbalance.
The depth to which this cooling stops and remains steady is largely determined by length of
darkness.
I cannot see how turbulent mixing of some slightly warmer air from above a radiatively cooling surface in the dark could do anything to halt that ever increasing depth of cooling within the ice sheet.
even ..”In summer, in most places, heat conduction plays only a minor part in heat transfer through the surface layers. Except in the interiors of Greenland and Antarctica or on very high mountains the surface melts in summer and might receive rain. Surface water percolates into the snow and refreezes when it reaches a depth where the temperature remains below melting point. Refreezing of 1 g of water produces enough heat to raise the temperature of 160 g of snow or firn by 1 ◦ C. (the ratio of the latent heat to the specific heat capacity is 160). This process significantly warms the layers near the surface. Figure 9.3 illustrates changes in temperature of the firn at a location on the Greenland Ice Sheet, at about 1600m elevation on the EGIG survey line (data of N. Humphrey). The firn at 3 to 4 m below the surface warms rapidly, by 8 ◦ C in just 6 days, because meltwater percolates down and refreezes. This process eliminates the winter’s “cold wave” much more quickly than would have been possible by heat conduction alone. Cai et al. (1986) and Pfeffer and Humphrey (1996) have made mathematical analyses of this process.”
from..http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/cuffey_ch_9.pdf
Only the surface /air interface is under consideration here. Different mechanisms apply above and below.
Pablo,
Where did the extra energy come from to slow the cooling rate of the ice? It is night. Advection to this location involves a rise in elevation of the imported surface air and consequently rise against gravity. This is a high level dome. The only place the extra energy can come from is descending air in the polar vortex reaching the ground and being heated by adiabatic compression.
Philip,
And hot air advection from a desert would certainly stop cooling by conduction to the atmosphere of a cooler dry surface but the radiative cooling in the darkness of the polar night would continue to lower the surface temperature below the ambient especially if the air was dry.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting, but it seems as though you are attributing extra energy to the convective loop other than that given to it by the sunlit surface in the first place.
“The only place the extra energy can come from is descending air in the polar vortex reaching the ground and being heated by adiabatic compression.”
Does the polar vortex produce descending air? The polar vortex is a low pressure system.
That is the circumpolar vortex. The poles are generally high pressure regions of descending air.
The polar vortex is descending air in the stratosphere above the poles which favours high pressure regions of descending air over the poles in the troposphere by pushing the tropopause downwards.
The media often confuse the two.
Stephen, “circumpolar vortex” and “polar vortex” are just different terms for the same phenomenon.
“circumpolar vortex — the large-scale cyclonic circulation in the middle and upper troposphere centered generally in the polar region; also called polar vortex.”
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glossary/term/circumpolar-vortex
Also:
“The Antarctic vortex of the Southern Hemisphere is a single low-pressure zone that is found near the edge of the Ross ice shelf, near 160 west longitude.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
geran,
See here:
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/waugh/research/polarvortex/
The stratospheric vortex contains descending air above each pole and the strength of the descent combined with the rate of spin affect the pressure distribution in the troposphere over the poles.
The poles generally have high pressure over them with lower pressure within the circumpolar vortex which circulates around that high pressure.
High pressure is descending air whereas low pressure is rising air.
If you want to go more deeply into it see here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281994%29051%3C2973%3AOTMOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The rate of descent within the stratospheric polar vortex varies with season.
Pablo @ 2020/01/24 at 1:12 AM
“I cannot see how turbulent mixing of some slightly warmer air from above a radiatively cooling surface in the dark could do anything to halt that ever increasing depth of cooling within the ice sheet”
Pablo,
It does not halt the subsurface cooling, what the data show is that is that the turbulent air mixing slows the rate of temperature decline at the level of the -0.1m ice sensor after the 14th May.
Stephen, the link does not match up with your words.
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/waugh/research/polarvortex/
In fact, the phrase “descending air” is not even in the entire text of your link.
The link conflicts with your previous comment that “circumpolar vortex” is different from “polar vortex”.
In the atmospheric science literature, the term “polar vortex” is most commonly used as an abbreviation for “circumpolar vortex”…
And if you are claiming that the vortex pulls in warm air and then somehow pushes it down to the frigid surface, that answers your question about where the energy comes from.
Stephen,
Yes, I am liking the detail of your model’s mechanism.
In reading that third article (I think) in the series, where you and Philip present a number of colored charts listing (I think) the longitudinal solar inputs, those charts are blurry and hard to read because of this — are there larger, more clear, more actually readable versions of those charts?
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then let me know, and I’ll try to post the relevant link.
Thanks.
geran,
Read the second in my next post. Lots about descending air there.
geran,
The link you do refer to is quite clear about the distinction as follows:
” Although Earth’s polar vortices are sometimes described as extending from the middle troposphere to the upper stratosphere, there are distinct tropospheric and stratospheric vortices, as illustrated schematically below.”
Robert,
This may be better:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model
All 5 articles in the series can be viewed.
Robert,
I see that that source is blurry in parts. Perhaps Philip could weigh in with a better link ?
Robert,
On Research Gate each of the 5 essays are loaded as Preprint files. Each essay has a method file associated with it. The Method file is an Excel Workbook that contains the individual tables.in their original form.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Mulholland/publications
Sorry Stephen, but I’m too influenced by my career, where I had to be right, and had to get things done. If I were wrong, I didn’t get to twist my words, or attempt to rewrite physics.
You can’t seem to address your flaws. You just want to keep spewing out nonsense, expecting wide approval.
Dream world.
I looked at Philip’s “An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget”. To me, that effort accomplished NOTHING. Philip accepted the existing GHE pseudoscience, without question, and went nowhere.
Paraphrasing his “conclusions”:
Issue 1: CO2 can warm Earth, but probably not much more than 14º C.
(CO2 can NOT warm Earth!)
Issue 2: Change Earth albedo, and you change Earth temperature.
(Duh!)
Issue 3: If we make a lot of assumptions, and change a lot of numbers, we can imagine Earth temperature of 93.3º C.
(But, that ain’t science.)
“I looked at Philip’s “An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget”. To me, that effort accomplished NOTHING. Philip accepted the existing GHE pseudoscience, without question, and went nowhere”
geran,
First know your enemy.
I unpicked the fake radiative climate model and showed that inside their back-radiation element was hidden an unacknowledged adiabatic return to surface component.
I adopted a softy softly approach and next preceded to build new model (Noonworld) to match Stephen’s ideas.
@ Philip Mulholland
I like your closer to reality modeling work. But there are still some reverse from reality flows.
Can you make the same model but describe what stays on the same half hemisphere? …instead of ficticious reversed flows to the dark site
It may be the same, but best to represent reality.
Philip, thanks, I found those images less blurry. Now I can attempt to look at them more closely.
MP, I’m not seeing what you are seeing in Philip’s model. What I see is an explanation of how heating on the light side transforms into heating on the dark side, but I admit that I need to study it more.
I think I was confusing a “soft approach” for soft acceptance of the dogma. I prefer hard approaches that leave no question about what is being stated.
SOFT APPROACH: While the greenhouse effect offers a useful starting point, we might better consider some of its core principles as less than perfect, while improving upon them.
HARD APPROACH: Our model clearly shows major flaws in the greenhouse theory, as it is currently put forth with erroneous and unproven assumptions.
POSTMA POSTAL APPROACH: How do you guys (supposed “scientists”), you less-than-human, mush-for-brains goblins, continue repeating the same fraudulent verbal sewage over and over again, as you play out the iconic role of idiots?
I would prefer in the future a model based on Joseph’s work but using (if you can) monthly data sets for regions starting with the Equator.
The way we “see” weather needs to be drastically changed starting at the Equator and using near real time solar input, cell monthly averages, and so forth.
I think, in my humble opinion, the reason weather is so chaotic is they are mostly looking at the cause and not so much the effect.
All weather patterns should start at the source (the Sun) at the Equator and move out from there. A model based on this would (I’m guessing) be able to predict weather patterns more efficiently something we all know politcal climate science does not want.
I mean these people are so out there…
MP @ 2020/01/24 at 5:34 PM
“Can you make the same model but describe what stays on the same half hemisphere? …instead of ficticious reversed flows to the dark site ”
MP,
Thanks MP. Obviously, the Earth rotates rapidly and is not a tidally locked planet. What the Noonworld model is attempting to describe is the observed effect of daytime surface heating and energy capture, which stores energy in the atmosphere, and causes it to expand. We observe this expansion as a daytime rise in the height of the tropopause which shows that the atmosphere is experiencing a gain in potential energy. This stored and captured potential energy is then released at night by surface radiative cooling to space through the atmospheric window. The night-time energy loss causes the tropopause to fall which releases potential energy, and converts this into kinetic energy at the base of the atmosphere (which is where the radiative cooling occurs).
In reality not all of the night-time fall occurs at the same place as the daytime rise. The physical separation of these two processes is what we observe in the descending air of the Hadley cell at the Horse Latitudes (the mid latitude deserts) and also in the descending air of the polar cells at the (ant)arctic regions of our planet (the polar ice deserts). The dual hemisphere approach of our model mimics the reality of a lit daytime hemisphere where energy capture occurs. This is linked to a full sphere surface expression (both day and night) of radiative energy loss to space, which is twice the area of the hemisphere of energy capture.
I have several issue with this chart:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
“Outgoing spectral radiance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere showing the absorption at specific frequencies and the principle absorber. For comparison, the red curve shows the flux from a classic “blackbody” at 294°K (≈21°C ≈ 69.5°F).”
Which means to me this curve is fiction and not based on any real temperature results.
For one how is the temperature so high in that “gap”? Either that temperature in that area needs to be lowered like the so called chunk or the so called chunk isn’t reducing the temperature. Which is it?
Which leads me to my second issue: How are they associating that temperature with the exhaust?
The TOA where this is calculated is at 100km, so is this actually the temperature from incoming shortwave radiation counted as long wave radiation and the exhaust temperature isn’t that high at all? If they count both incoming and outgoing at the same point how do they know which is which?
Something in this chart is off. This is the thermopshere.
…”Because of this absorption, the temperature increases with height. From as low as -184°F (-120°C) at the bottom of this layer, temperatures can reach as high as 3,600°F (2,000°C) near the top”
So it’s -120C and 21C at the same time, how is that possible?
This Kung Fu is strange to me, I’m more of a Tang Soo Do guy anyway.
@ Philip and Robert
Can describe the same with a mirror world aproach. In mirror world the dark side is the same hemisphere as the day side. So it describes 1 random hemisphere and it’s own day/night cycle.
The result would be the same, but the presentation is closer to reality
MP,
The reality is that rotation jumbles up ascending and descending columns so that they are distributed around the entire sphere in both daylight and night in the form of the established climate zones.
Using the mirror analogy is no more realistic than our use of the non-rotating world approach.
Whether rotating or not the fact is that the warming effect at the surface occurs with no radiative material in the atmosphere at all.
In terms of the functioning parts of the model the night side is of course a mirror image of the day side.
@ Stephen Wilde
Fair enough. It is a matter of taste, both 2-d models need some imagination and reverse thinking
And it indeed shows an underlying non back radiative warming effect. If from the 1 unit solar insulation input after a day +night cycle 1/4 unit remains. Then that will result in higher temperature/outgoing radiation equilibrium.
I think our model also helps Joe because the weakness of his previous position (IMHO) was in saying that there was no greenhouse effect. That seems to be why the ‘Slayer’ line didn’t get traction. It didn’t seem to help that he was only saying there was no RADIATIVE greenhouse effect.
We now show that there is a greenhouse effect but it is attributable to atmospheric mass being convected up and down and not greenhouse gases at all.
We can identify convection as the sole culprit because if we leave convection out and just use a diabatic model then we get the same outcome as the conventional, flawed radiative model which then needs back radiation to balance the budget.
As soon as we incorporate adiabatic processes the whole thing falls into place with the correct numbers coming out in accordance with observations.
I would point out that this is still not a greenhouse effect proper. What we seek is rational, semantic definitions of terms, where of course semantics is all about “the definition and meaning of words”.
Thus, the greenhouse effect occurs in a real greenhouse and is due to convective stoppage. We must destroy the alarmist narrative entirely and bring reason and rationality to this, hence we must begin by using meaningfull words and phrases, not words which can mean anything to anyone.
Because the alarmists would just take Stephen’s idea and say “see!?”, etc, even though it’s not the same thing at all. It just creates more work for anyone trying to inject rational thinking into this…i.e., for the Slayer’s and I.
We may have not gotten traction but this is not a fault of ours…it is rather an indication of the type of battle being fought here, hence my blog “Climate of Sophistry”. Because it is a war of sophistry. It doesn’t help to call now something new another type of “greenhouse effect”. That equates to more sophistry.
Also, I would point out that the effect described by Stephen does not account for or explain the supposed “33 degree” issue…the difference between the radiative effective temperature and the near-surface air temperature.
I believe that the plots supplied by Phillip showed a few degrees difference between the air and sub-surface temperature? Given the massive difference in heat capacity at the surface boundary between soil vs. air, and that the temperature difference is so small, the air will not be providing much heat at all to the subsurface. The main effect is simply that there’s so much additional thermal mass, whether it is a few degrees cooler or warmer between the subsurface and air at the boundary doesn’t have much of an effect that way…it is simply so much additional thermal mass which thus cools more slowly than if the surface were directly exposed to vacuum space.
The Slayer’s and I sought clarity, because there is infinite sophistry on this climate alarm issue. We were the ones who traced the origin of the sophistry, the generating principle of all climate alarm sophistry, back to the fake “radiative greenhouse effect”. One of the sophist’s strategies is to use multiple descriptions of their greenhouse effect so that when you debunk one, they switch to another explanation as if nothing happened. Thus, you can imagine our not appreciating Stephen Wilde coming up with yet another version of a “greenhouse effect”, since this only increased the amount of sophistry, which is what we saw it as.
Use terms and definitions that *mean something, not anything*, etc. The sophist main strategy is to keep their opponent off of their toes by constantly changing definitions, etc.
Anyway, I think we need to start with my diagram: the sun heats the Earth, and heat then flows down all available gradients, creating meteorological effects (i.e. our whether and climate!) along the way. Trivial! But the climate sophists have of course hidden that simplicity.
Stephen’s work seems to reduce to that sometimes the air comes back down a few degrees warmer than the surface? That’s fine. It’s not “a” or “the” greenhouse effect though. It also doesn’t explain the “33 degree difference” thing that the alarmists were sophizing about, etc.
Hi Joe,
I agree with all your points about the sophistry of the climate establishment.
The way I link my model to the mechanics of a greenhouse is to point out that descending air stops convection upwards as does a greenhouse roof and descending, warming air dissipates clouds to let sunlight in as does a greenhouse roof.
It is correct that the temperature difference between the descending air warming adiabatically and the surface cooling via radiation to space is indeed small but the point is that the system is dynamic. It is a constant downward flow and the cumulative effect does add up to that 33 degree difference for the globe as a whole as per the numbers in our model.
The proof is that the model works for all planets or moons with atmospheres that we have observations for.
I also agree that:
“the sun heats the Earth, and heat then flows down all available gradients, creating meteorological effects (i.e. our whether and climate!) along the way. ”
Joe is absolutely correct and it is indeed trivial in the sense of simple.
But Philip and I have now shown the precise mechanism.
So, I do see it validly described as a greenhouse effect and it is not simply a diversionary tactic used by people sympathetic to alarmists as Joe first feared.
Someone said that an explanation has to be as simple as possible but no simpler than necessary and through not having the explanation now provided by me and Philip the Slayer explanation was just one step simpler than necessary.
There is no way that the alarmists can look to our model as supporting the radiative theory. The outcome is the same and it is a greenhouse effect but it is nothing to do with back radiation or any radiative capability within an atmosphere.
On 2020/01/25 at 10:47 AM, Stephen wrote:
We now show that there is a greenhouse effect but it is attributable to atmospheric mass being convected up and down and not greenhouse gases at all.
I disagree with Stephen on this, and agree with Joe about consistent use of terminology.
The phrase, “greenhouse effect” cannot mean anything we want it to mean. This phrase is a severely abused, misused phrase from the get go. People have been holding onto it desperately, through various phases of re-invention, all of which propagate the same mischaracterization of word meanings.
Stephen, I fear, is trying to be too nice, when I think he needs to be more courageous, calling out needless misuse for what it really is.
There is NOT a “greenhouse effect”, in any sense, either in the sense of a radiationally, erroneously re-defined version, or yet another version that totally gets away from any sense of even the wrong use of the term, as it has traditionally been misused.
By insisting that there is a “greenhouse effect”, the misuse of words is only being amplified and extended.
“Greenhouse effect”, the phrase, has been hijacked from its proper descriptive place and used to describe a horribly flawed, reborn version called “radiative greenhouse effect”. There was never any such thing as a “radiative greenhouse” — it was a “convective greenhouse”, but that more proper understanding has long been killed by the rampantly abused version. There is no way to rescue this phrase and try to create a entirely different standard of use for it.
Kill it! Stop using the phrase! No greenhouse analogy is appropriate! Use words whose root meanings are pure. Nikolov & Zeller have the right idea, in this respect.
Be afraid. But be brave. Just do it — STOP the phrase, greenhouse effect cold !
Do NOT insult yourselves by trying to be nice, allowing the phrase to live on, mounting even more adherence to the wrong ideas and encouraging even more confusion in the already gravely confused pot of climate-zombie soup.
Robert,
I would like to agree with you but I’m pretty sure that in the 1950s and 60s, before the advent of the radiative farrago the greenhouse effect was exactly as I now describe it.
Unfortunately, old text books get destroyed and the internet is a recent phenomenon so the old knowledge has been lost. Nevertheless it was never described in the way that I and Philip have now set out, it was just taken as self evident.
My version is a convective greenhouse and avoiding the term just because it was hijacked by ignoramuses with no knowledge of meteorology would be unwise.
You could call it the atmospheric thermal effect if you wish but that is by no means as catchy.
We should reclaim rather than rename.
There’s still an issue there though Stephen because what you describe is predicated upon the existence of convection, not the stoppage of it. So it is still not the actual real greenhouse effect proper, of convective stoppage.
Secondly, since the air is only a few degrees warmer than the surface, it is then not that what you describe leads to 33 degrees of warming. The 33 degree thing is still merely the difference between the radiative effective temperature, and the temperature of the near-surface air, and these must be different due to the lapse rape itself. The atmosphere must have a temperature distribution due to the lapse rate, thus, it is impossible for the average temperature of the atmosphere to be found at the bottom extremity of the atmosphere, given that the average must be around the middle. I would not conclude that what you describe is heating the surface to 33 degrees higher “than it should be”. The near-surface air is exactly the temperature it should be given the lapse rate.
As I said, as far as cooling rate I think it is more of simply a thermal mass effect, than significant heating of the surface by falling slightly-warmer adiabatically-warmed air. There are preexisting conditions which make the near-surface air warmer than any expected average temperature. Of course, the alarmists would never go anywhere near this.
Joe, convection is inevitable and cannot be suppressed or prevented because of uneven surface heating. At any given moment half of any atmosphere is rising and half is falling. One does get local short term stasis but that does not detract in any significant way.
Descent does prevent convection beneath the regions of descent and that is sufficient to cause the observed greenhouse effect (or atmospheric thermal enhancement).
If you wish to dispute that then you need to provide some other explanation for our model working for other planets and moons with atmospheres. Venus is the prime example and Titan is also a suitable comparator.
Where one has a lit side and an unlit side the average is derived from the maximum of the lit side surface and the minimum of the unlit side surface and so it would be situated at a point off the surface because due to the lapse rate slope there will be a height within the atmosphere that matches that average surface temperature.
Rotation jumbles it all up but the basis is sound.
It is indeed a simple thermal mass effect whereby KE (heat) is recovered from PE(not heat) as air descends over half the planetary surface.
No Stephen, there is no “atmospheric thermal enhancement”. There is just the adiabatic gradient. Sure, the alternative is Nikolov and Zeller. A slightly higher temperature by a couple of degrees of falling air reaching the surface boundary at some locations does not equate to 33 degrees of heating.
Robert,
I would like to agree with you but I’m pretty sure that in the 1950s and 60s, before the advent of the radiative farrago the greenhouse effect was exactly as I now describe it.
I don’t think so. A greenhouse STOPS convection — it does NOT incorporate convection. What I’m understanding from you is that your model fully embraces convection as an active mechanism.
I misspoke in writing, “convective greenhouse”, because there’s NOT even any convection going on — there is only STOPPAGE of convection, and so maybe I should have written, “convective-stopping greenhouse”. The phrase, “convective greenhouse” implies that the convection mechanism is active in there, and it is NOT.
Unfortunately, old text books get destroyed and the internet is a recent phenomenon so the old knowledge has been lost. Nevertheless it was never described in the way that I and Philip have now set out, it was just taken as self evident.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. (^_^) It’s a nice story, but I’m thinking that this does not do justice to the MIS-evolution of that phrase.
My version is a convective greenhouse and avoiding the term just because it was hijacked by ignoramuses with no knowledge of meteorology would be unwise.
Wisdom is not effective against zealots who are cemented so firmly into the use of a phrase that they will do anything to make that phrase mean what it has always meant to them. And it only provides more inertia to overcome, when mass depravity in the phrase’s use has spread via the speed and power of the internet, in a technologically-amplified, communicative-imprinting process unprecedented in history.
You may as well try changing the meaning of “God”. Good luck with that — “God” now means a mindless, evolutionary force that creates stuff out of chaos, with no plan or intentional purpose.
You could call it the atmospheric thermal effect if you wish but that is by no means as catchy.
You are definitely onto something with the idea of being “catchy”. I DO believe this is why people are driven to salvage the phrase. BUT IT’S WRONG !
If you want catchy, then here you go: “magic unicorn effect” (the kiddies could really latch onto this one), … “gingerbread house effect” (you have to cook gingerbread, and the sun sort of cooks the Earth in a convection oven at just the right temp),
or, for more adult appeal,
… “don’t want to hurt too many people’s feelings effect”, … “don’t want to rewrite all those damn textbook and redo all those damn lectures effect”, … “don’t want to change how I word my grant proposals effect”.
We should reclaim rather than rename.
We should maintain integrity, rather than abstain from effective usage.
On a positive note, I actually like how you do not even mention a 33-degree difference. Discussing this would be misplaced in a better model, because the comparison of emission temperature to near-surface air-mass temperature is an absurd comparison, as I see it.
“If you wish to dispute that then you need to provide some other explanation for our model working for other planets and moons with atmospheres. Venus is the prime example and Titan is also a suitable comparator.”
Stephen, how many times have we seen people wanting to escape to other planets? Their pseudoscience doesn’t work on Earth, so it’s time to move on. Maybe there is even some undiscovered planet or moon out there that has “heat creep”….
By supporting the “33 difference” Stephen, you are supporting the GHE pseudoscience. The “33 difference” comes from comparing actual to imaginary. The “actual” is Earth’s estimated average surface temperature of 288 K, and the “imaginary” is the calculated temperature from a spherical black body absorbing 960 W/m^2, 255 K. The “imaginary” has no internal energy, no mass, no oceans, and no atmosphere. Trying to compare such dissimilar objects falls in the category of “pseudoscience”.
Did I mention “pseudoscience”?
Athmospheric thermal enhancement can only be underlaying and is not a directly measurable thingy.
Because heat retaining longer than a day would result in an higher equilibrium temperature, and we are measuring the output of that higher equilibrium state. The output of that state is just fine (The effective temperature of the optic-sphere is close to the surface at the sun but somewhere in the middle at earth)
I do think there is some non radiative atmospheric thermal effect, but it can’t be derived from effective temperature equations.
So reverse enginering from the assumption that 33 C is correct is circle reasoning
I had a Time Life Great World Atlas in the late 80’s. It was a really great book actually. Think I read it cover to cover several times. It was wonderful. They could never make one like it today.
Anyway, I remember something about it. They stated in the section on weather and climate that the average surface temperature of Earth is estimated at 22C. Today, I know how they arrived at that figure: they used the dry adiabatic lapse rate together with the location in the atmosphere at which the temperature is equal to the effective radiative temperature. Today’s estimate is 15C, and that’s what you get when you incorporate water vapour and use the real environmental or “wet” lapse rate.
… descending air stops convection upwards
I have not studied the paper well enough to realize that the above claim follows.
The claim rattles me a bit. I know, I need to study the paper.
In the meantime, my rattling asks, “Doesn’t the descending air displace the air below it, and where is this air below going, if not up?”
Joe,
Please note in the Dome Argus data example I supplied the elevation is 4084m, consequently the pressure is around 875mbar. The polar air descending onto the ice surface at Dome Argus still possesses 4Km of unreleased potential energy. This potential energy powers the massive flows of katabatic air that pour off the Antarctic icecap at sea-level in winter.
In a fall of 4km the Foehn effect can easily raise the descending dry air temperature by 20C
So at sea level the -70C Dome Argus winter air can become -50C. This is before any oceanic moist air mixing amelioration effects are applied.
For example see the -25C winter air temperatures in Fig 3 of GAMBINO, S. (2005). Air and permafrost temperatures at Mount Melbourne (1989–98). Antarctic Science, 17(1), 151–152. doi:10.1017/s095410200500249x
We are getting there.
Philip, are you now suggesting that the Foehn effect will “heat the planet”?
You might want to consider how desperate that appears.
Robert Kernodle @ 2020/01/25 at 4:01 PM
“Doesn’t the descending air displace the air below it, and where is this air below going, if not up?”
Robert,
On reaching the surface the descended air next goes sideways as a surface flow. We call this flow the Trade Winds in the Hadley cell and the Katabatic Drainage or Fall Winds of the Polar cell.
Take some time to study the surface wind patterns on Ventusky.com
Notice how the surface winds over the sea are funneled through the narrow straits and avoid the land. Surface air flow behaves like water movement, it finds the gaps and follows the path of least resistance.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=36.3;5.1;5&l=temperature-2m&t=20200121/0000
geran @ 2020/01/25 at 4:37 PM
“Philip, are you now suggesting that the Foehn effect will “heat the planet”?
You might want to consider how desperate that appears.”
geran,
I use analogues to illustrate concepts, if that is desperation so be it.
Philip, that’s as I suspected. Thanks for the clarification.
@ Joseph E Postma
That is very interersting. And a knock out to the whole radiative greenhouse concept.
It would mean that despite temporally local warming by water vapour (directly from the sun and some from LW back radiation) overall results in global cooling.
Yes…where water vapour is higher, it is cooler.
Robert Kernodle 2020/01/25 at 1:46 PM
Robert.
The term “greenhouse” actually goes back a long way.
Abbot, C. G., (1909) Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 6, Vol.18, pp. 32-35.
On p32
And also, on p35
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/121855#page/46/mode/1up
We have a water vapor effect. We have different degrees of IR responsive gases. Most importantly, we have a Solar surface irradiation creating the climate mainly at the Equator. Real sunshine in real time creating real climate producing real weather.
Everything else has to follow this direct fact. Effect means “a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause”
Most climate science looks at the effect and I see few looking a the cause. We need to start focusing on the cause and work from there to the effect. Once you have that established you can easily move from effect back to cause and cause to effect. If something is missing in that transition, you have something wrong in the cause.
If the cause was always followed first the rest would make more sense. They took the “Greenhouse Effect” and made up a cause where in real deduction the cause would have followed to the answer of the effect.
Magic, illusion, is based on the cause never being revealed and you only see the effect, a tactic used when hiding the cause is imperative to the illusion.
Plain language is harder to misinterpret and much harder to obfuscate.
My 2 cents are now donated.
Philip,
I knew about the 1909 reference already. That’s partly why I said what I said. The phrase used in this reference was “blanket effect”.
“Greenhouse effect” evolved to mean heat “trapping” by CO2 to make Earth warmer near the surface. That phrase was codified to mean this. That phrase has been indoctrinated in children and in child-like adults to mean this. That phrase is used to teach beginning college students distorted ideas about how CO2 acts like a greenhouse, acts like a blanket, acts in some magical way that is far removed from the proper use of the words in the phrase. That phrased has been polluted beyond all recovery for a legitimate concept.
About horizontal air flow now, … I thought that this was part of convection — it is fluid movement that I would not consider “stopped” convection. In a greenhouse, there is no such dynamic that I am aware of.
The term greenhouse effect was in common currency as an atmospheric phenomenon long before it was used in connection with radiative gases.
The air in a greenhouse does convect up and down beneath the roof.
Robert,
With regards to the structure of an atmospheric Hadley cell, it essentially has 4 elements.
1. Vertical rise at the point of maximum heating (the surface low pressure zone of the ITCZ).
2. The horizontal advection at the Top of the Atmosphere (Tropopause).
3. Vertical fall in the Horse latitudes to create the surface high pressure zones (e.g. the Azores high).
4. Surface return flow at the base of the atmosphere (the Trade winds).
I typically associate the term convection with stage 1 the rise of air. I tried to introduce a new descriptor term specifically for the fall of air in stage 3, but Stephen said no, so convection it is 😉
Consider this point: An acceleration is any change in velocity. Air descending vertically and then moving out horizontally has to have experienced an acceleration, because the direction of motion has changed. Does this change in direction introduce frictional resistance and therefore heating loss into the motion system? I don’t know, but hopefully someone will advise me.
Convection has to include all 4 stages because what really matters is the full cycle of convective overturning.
Once the atmosphere reaches hydrostatic equilibrium the surface temperature enhancement becomes fixed because that is when the atmosphere completes its acquisition of sufficient energy to keep it suspended off the ground indefinitely.
The energy maintaining that suspension is all potential energy but new energy is constantly flowing through from sun to surface, to air in ascent, to surface in descent and finally from surface out to space.
It is the time delay in solar energy travelling through the KE to PE and then PE to KE process that fixes the size of the surface temperature enhancement.
If the flow is disrupted for any reason then the associated change in the lapse rate slope results in a change in the speed of convective overturning so as to keep the energy content of the atmosphere stable.
Thus the imbalances caused by any frictional resistance in one location will be countered by an equal and opposite reaction elsewhere. The same for radiative components in the atmosphere.
Stephen, how about some salad dressing, i.e., some real numbers?
“It is the time delay in solar energy travelling through the KE to PE and then PE to KE process that fixes the size of the surface temperature enhancement.”
What are the actual time delays in solar energy for “KE to PE”, and “PE to KE”? What are the associated “surface temperature enhancements”?
The length of the delay is one convective overturning cycle and the change in surface temperature is as observed in any given planet or moon with an atmosphere.
Both vary according to atmospheric mass and the ambient gravitational field at any given distance from the sun.
Philip’s models set out details for several different bodies.
The differences between them boil down to atmospheric density at the surface because that determines the efficiency of conduction at the surface which in turn sets the proportion of surface heat diverted to convection. That amount of diverted energy sets both the time delay and the temperature rise.
Atmospheric density at the surface is a product of mass and gravity.
The density gradient set up by mass and gravity determines the speed of convection.
The lapse rate slope marks the changing balance between radiation and conduction as one descends through the mass of an atmosphere which is dependent on the efficiency of conduction which links back to density again.
I have summarised the relevant relationships and Philip shows how they work out in practice for several bodies with atmospheres.
geran @ 2020/01/26 at 5:49 PM
“What are the actual time delays in solar energy for “KE to PE”, and “PE to KE”? What are the associated “surface temperature enhancements”?”
geran,
Time delay is one of the key elements of the meteorological mechanism that Stephen has identified, and that is incorporated into the climate model I have created. First a small digression based on the discussion with Robert @ 2020/01/26 at 2:05 PM about the components of the full cycle of convective overturning. It is the mass motion of the atmosphere in the full cycle of convective overturning within the Hadley cell that collects, stores and delivers energy from the equatorial planetary surface to the point of descent in the Horse latitudes of the Earth.
As you already know I like to use analogues to illustrate concepts. My home is heated by a gas-powered boiler that is located in the garage on the ground floor. Hot water from the boiler is delivered to the radiators in the first-floor bedroom by pump action. Fire up the boiler, turn on the pump and there is a physical delay in the process of delivering the warmed water to the radiators in the bedroom. After a while the central heating system is running in balance, the room is being dynamically heated and the water delivery system has a charge of energy stored within it.
We can apply this conceptual model to the dynamic system of a planet’s atmosphere. The full cycle of convective overturning involves mass motion from the equator to the top of the atmosphere followed by horizontal advection to the Horse latitudes at 30 degrees north, via a great circle north easterly striking trajectory, giving a physical separation distance of some 4,000 km. So, the total round trip is some 8,000 km. Assuming a wind speed of say 25 Km/hr then the total traverse time per cycle is some 13 days. (please note that these velocity numbers are just guesses).
The above example for the rapidly rotating Earth involves the Coriolis effect leading to forced descent back to the surface in the Horse latitudes. By contrast on slowly rotating Venus there is no Ferrel cell, and the point of air descent is at this planet’s poles of rotation. So, the physical traverse distance made by the air of Venus from the equator to the pole and back is much longer on this equivalent sized planet. With both planetary examples the atmosphere both stores and carries a charge of energy from the point of maximum intensity capture, and delivers this to the location of optimal thermal release back to space.
On the question of thermal enhancement, this is more complex. What I can say is that when the DAET climate model is run in diabatic mode the atmospheric reservoir has a gain of 2, and the surface temperature matches the divide by four computation of the standard climate model that is based on the Vacuum Planet equation of astronomy. Both models therefore rely on a throttle to delay energy flow, in our model the throttle is the process of solar forced adiabatic convection which is missing from the diabatic process example.
I have a suspicion based on the results of applying our model to different planets that it is cooling by thermal radiative emission to space from solid surfaces (not liquids or gasses) that is the ultimate control on this thermal process. The solid sources can be polar ice caps in the case of the Earth, or in the case of shrouded Venus the freezing point of sulphuric acid droplets that creates a high elevation and effective thermal emitter in this planet’s massive atmosphere.
Philip.
“Air descending vertically and then moving out horizontally has to have experienced an acceleration, because the direction of motion has changed.”
Stephan,
“The density gradient set up by mass and gravity determines the speed of convection.”
I think not!
The density gradient produces the lapse rate slope and the steepness of the lapse rate slope determines the rate of convection.
Basic meteorology.
Pablo,
“Air descending vertically and then moving out horizontally has to have experienced an acceleration, because the direction of motion has changed.”
That was a question, I would welcome your thoughts.
Philip,
Surely air flow is like current in water, under the influence of many different forces.
Movement downwards is not always acceleration.
It seems to me that by attributing the “missing” 33ºC of heating to that of gravitational force
you are in danger of justifying the erroneous averaging of sunshine onto Earth as 240watts/sqm.
Pablo
“Movement downwards is not always acceleration”
Does matter in motion in a gravity field experience an acceleration?
Does matter in motion experience an acceleration when it changes direction?
Philip,
Falling solid matter yes until terminal velocity is reached, but I suspect movement of a current of gas within a gas operates very differently.
Similarly an increase in wind speed is due to many more things than a change of direction.
“but I suspect movement of a current of gas within a gas operates very differently.”
Pablo,
I suspect not.
Newton’s Laws of Motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Philip,
As far as I am aware the only affect of gravity on an atmosphere is to give it the adiabatic lapse rate.
And that is the whole point. The adiabatic lapse rate converts KE (heat) to PE (not heat) and back again when convection occurs.
That process is a slower means of energy transmission than radiation so the surface heats up.
Philip, you explained the analogy of your home heating system, in well under 100 words. And the words were clear, unambiguous, and easily understood. I could summarize the GHE pseudoscience in less than 200 words, just as well.
For example, the GHE pseudoscience, in only 37 words: “Solar energy absorbed by Earth is re-radiated as long wave infrared. Much of that LWIR is “trapped” in the atmosphere and can never escape, so it heats the surface even more, leading to a “Venus”-type planet.”
The GHE pseudoscience is represented by one “energy balance” graphic. Joseph uses one graphic for his, much better, representation of Earth’s energy balance.
Do you and Stephen have one graphic to represent your “theory”, accompanied by a clear, unambiguous, and easily understood 200 words or less, explanation?
geran,
A 200 word precis is a tough call. I suspect that the following is too abstruse for your needs:
Climate is the presence and action of a solar energy driven atmospheric circulation cell over the surface of a terrestrial planet. The Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport climate model (DAET) can be applied to all terrestrial bodies that have sufficient mass and surface gravity to be able to retain a dense atmosphere under a given solar radiation loading. The DAET model uses a fully transparent non-condensing atmosphere as the primary mechanism of energy storage and transport in a meteorological process of convection that links the illuminated hemisphere of net energy collection with the dark hemisphere of net energy loss. The diabatic thermal equilibrium form of the DAET model fully replicates the traditional vacuum planet equation of climate science, and demonstrates that thermal radiant opacity, due to the presence of poly-atomic molecular gases, is not a fundamental requirement for atmospheric energy retention. For the adiabatic form of the DAET model, where the turbulent asymmetric daytime process of forced radiant convection applies, the intercepted solar energy is preferentially retained by the ascending air. The adiabatic DAET climate model shows that the atmospheric greenhouse effect of surface thermal enhancement is a mass motion process, and that it is completely independent of an atmosphere’s thermal radiant opacity.
The diagram that best demonstrates the fundamentals of our model is perhaps Figure 5 Inverse Climate Model of Venus: showing Energy Vectors and Final Energy Distributions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334490844_Modelling_the_Climate_of_Noonworld_A_New_Look_at_Venus/figures
Thanks for the extra effort, Philip. It helps a lot.
In your Figure 5, it appears you are allocating all of the solar energy (after albedo) to the “lit” side, is that correct?
Also, can Figure 2 be applied to Earth? If so, how does the model keep from accumulating more energy. For example:
Day 1 > 1 – 1/2 – 1/4 = 1/4 unit
Day 2 > 1/4 + 1 – 5/8 – 5/16 = 5/16 unit
Day 3 > 5/16 + 1 – 5/16 – 5/64 = 59/64 unit
geran @ 2020/01/27 at 12:50 PM
Yes. This is the fundamental feature of the “Noonworld” model, it represents a tidally locked planet, one that is only ever lit on one side.
If this seems strange, there is a specific reason for doing this. Climate science starts with a model, the model used is called the Vacuum Planet equation, and it derives from astronomy. As the name implies the equation is based on a solar illuminated rocky planet with no atmosphere. In order to achieve an even distribution of outgoing thermal radiation from the rocky surface of the vacuum planet, it must rotate rapidly. The assumption therefore is that when used as a foundation model for climate, the rotation comes first and the atmosphere comes second. This means that the equation cannot be applied to a tidally locked planet with an atmosphere.
As a geoscientist I find this restriction to be unacceptable, a climate model should be capable of application over all possible planetary realities. When Stephen Wilde published his ideas on atmospheric convection, I decided to create a climate model that used atmospheric circulation as the mechanism for energy transport, and therefore chose to use a tidally locked planet as the foundation model. With a tidally locked planet there can be no argument, all energy transfer to the unlit side can only be achieved by atmospheric circulation.
Please download and study the Method file Noonworld Tables 31May19
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334491101_Noonworld_Tables_31May19
The mathematical process that unpins the Noonworld climate model is the sum of an infinite series of descending fractions. The endless mass movement recycling by the air and the progressive energy retention by the developing Hadley Cell does not grow indefinitely. Our model has two separate geometric series that both tend to different limits, one for the lit and one for the dark surface.
For further details see section 3.3 Warming up the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Engine.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334490844_Modelling_the_Climate_of_Noonworld_A_New_Look_at_Venus
I figured that some convection occurred in real greenhouses, but I don’t get the idea that THIS is not as significant a mechanism as the greater convection prevented from happening with the outside air.
To use what I might term “mini-convection” inside a greenhouse to justify calling a model a “convective greenhouse” model is a weak, weak, weak stretch of reasoning, especially in light of everything that I have already said about the phrase “greenhouse effect” having been clearly and solidly imprinted in the false manner that it has.
Loose the “greenhouse” terminology entirely ! I know you can do it. (^_^)
Don’t give CO2 priests even the slightest comfort that you might be favorable to their false narrative.
I got my “not” mixed up above.
Should be:
“… I don’t get the idea that THIS is as significant a mechanism as the greater convection prevented from happening with the outside air.”
It doesn’t play a cooling role in a greenhouse at all.
It would if there were no roof. Just as there is cooling in the open where convection is not suppressed by descending air.
Philip, I was hoping for a simple graphic that might explain your concept. I got one for Venus. Then you said the one for Earth was really for a non-rotating Earth. Is that because a rotating Earth would be continually warming, in your concept?
You two seem sincere and dedicated, but can you see how you also appear slippery? It’s hard to pin down what your concept really is. Things aren’t adding up. The Earth is heating itself from convection? Transitioning from PE to KE, or KE to PE raises temperatures? That’s why putting some numbers out are important.
And Stephen makes it worse by now taking the roof off a real greenhouse: “It would if there were no roof.” Again, appearing slippery.
Stephen,
“The density gradient produces the lapse rate slope and the steepness of the lapse rate slope determines the rate of convection.
Basic meteorology.”
Not being a meteorologist I am probably wrong, but I thought that steepness of the environmental lapse rate slope is what determines whether convection begins at all and not the rate,
the rate depends on the intensity of the solar heating at the surface and the moisture within it.
Anyway I don’t see how focusing on an atmospheric model that excludes the ocean’s dominant role in heat transport around the world is very meaningful.
And for more on convection….pyroconvective fire storms.
“The freakish conditions spawned unique effects: a car was forced 90m along a road with its handbrake on,”
see: http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/off-the-charts-current-fires-are-20-times-more-intense-than-the-largest-fires-humans-can-control/
geran,.
My basic concept is extremely simple.
If you have a rock floating in space it will be at the temperature of space.
If you illuminate it with light from a star it’s surface will become warmer because of the delay in the free flow of radiation caused by the time required for absorption and re-emission in situ.
If you add an atmosphere which mechanically moves energy up and down before re-emission then
the temperature at the surface will rise further because the time delay will increase.
That is really all there is to it but the objections have been of infinite variety and infinitely convoluted.
Pablo,
There would be no ocean if there were no atmosphere because the weight of the atmosphere is what raises the evaporation point of water above the temperature of space.
The ocean therefore does not raise the average surface temperature beneath an atmosphere but it is the major player in redistributing energy across the surface. Planetary rotation is the second such player followed by winds as the third.
As regards your lapse rate query there will be convection with any lapse rate slope at all so the default situation is always a lapse rate slope with convection. Changing the gradient will alter the speed of convection.
Solar heating at the surface increases the gradient from the base to accelerate convection.
The presence of water vapour (being lighter than air) will produce more convection at any given angle of slope.
Sorry for the errant apostrophe in my reply to geran
Stephen,
“As regards your lapse rate query there will be convection with any lapse rate slope at all so the default situation is always a lapse rate slope with convection. Changing the gradient will alter the speed of convection.”
Sorry to be a pain, but I thought that stable conditions prevailed if the environmental lapse rate was less than the saturated adiabatic rate.
https://www.earthonlinemedia.com/ebooks/tpe_3e/atmospheric_moisture/lapse_rates_2.html
Also…
“Stratus and stratocumulus clouds are two dominant types of low stratiform cloud that together cover 30% of the Earth’s surface. Both are thin boundary layer clouds that frequently occur as the sole cloud type under conditions of large-scale subsidence and strong lower-tropospheric static stability, but they can also exist mixed with higher clouds during disturbed periods. Stratocumulus are convective clouds driven largely by the emission of infrared radiation from cloud top and from latent heat release. Stratus, on the other hand, are largely free of convective overturning. Both are typically very thin clouds that can extend horizontally for large distances. Stratocumulus frequently produce light precipitation often in the form of drizzle. Because they strongly reflect solar radiation, stratus and stratocumulus exert an important impact on climate.”
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123822253003960
geran @ 2020/01/27 at 9:08 PM
Philip, I was hoping for a simple graphic that might explain your concept. I got one for Venus. Then you said the one for Earth was really for a non-rotating Earth. Is that because a rotating Earth would be continually warming, in your concept?
geran
It appears that in order to address your concerns I need to add a new essay. Can anyone explain how I can add my published images to this blog?
To directly answer your question. No, absolutely not! The process of the infinite sum of a series of descending fractions is self-limiting. Our model is applicable in all planetary circumstances, the purpose of using a “non-rotation” tidally locked model is to force the issue of proving beyond any possible doubt that the divide by 4 concept, when applied to the input solar flux, is wrong.
Let us go back to the analogy of the central heating system. The system starts from cold. All the water in the pipes is cold. Turn on the boiler and turn on the pump. The fire in the boiler is heating the water at a given constant rate. This rate of flame derived energy never changes, and so to study the impact of this energy rich process we break the analysis into time steps (which for the purpose of this description I will call a pulse), but remember that this is actually a continuous process.
In time step 1 a given quantity of energy from the flame warms the water in the boiler (the solar heated ground warms the air). The warmed water travels from the boiler to the radiator (the air convects and travels from the daytime equator to the night time Sahara Desert). The radiator delivers heat to the room and the hot water in the radiator cools. (the desert surface radiates to space through the atmospheric window and cools the air). The water now returns to the boiler with a residual heat content (the trade winds flow back to the equator across the surface of Africa). The returning water arriving back at the boiler is therefore warmer than at the start. This completes cycle one of the fluid warming process.
Cycle 2 starts with a new pulse of flame derived energy from the burner, and a small flow of energy from the returning residually warmed water. We are adding oranges (high-intensity solar energy) to apples (low-intensity thermal energy) at the site of the boiler (the daytime surface of solar energy collection). So for the Earth the quantity of solar energy being delivered at the surface stays at a constant rate, but with each turn of the atmospheric convection cycle the residual quantity of heat being returned back to the “boiler “at the equator in the fluid flow from the surface cooling radiator in the Sahara rises. This recycling process is infinite in duration BUT the total quantity of residual energy being retained in the circulating air is finite. How so?
The key to understanding this is that although the rate of loss remains constant for a given system (e.g. diabatic 50%: 50% partition ratio) the quantity of energy loss from the system rises with each turn of the cycle. Eventually the quantity of low-quality energy loss from the system equals the quantity of high-quality energy gain, and the system is in balance. So, for a rate loss of 50%:50% we have 1 unit of continuous high-frequency radiant energy input from the sun, 1 unit of continuous low quality sensible thermal energy retention within the atmosphere, and 1 unit of continuous low-frequency radiant energy loss back out to space.
The consequence of this process of energy retention is that for a diabatic (50:50) ratio the atmospheric reservoir has at all times an internal flux that is twice that of the external flux. Have a look at Figure 2 (Diabatic Model) in this study of the Climate of Titan:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334376243_Using_an_Iterative_Adiabatic_Model_to_study_the_Climate_of_Titan/figures
If, however we throttle back the rate of energy loss to space then the system becomes less leaky, more thermal energy is retained within the atmospheric reservoir, and the average surface temperature rises. See Figure 4 (Adiabatic Model) in the study of the Climate of Titan where the surface throttle is applied and the energy partition ratio is 37.6% radiant loss to space versus .62.4% thermal retention within the atmospheric reservoir.
A small digression: Mechanical proof that the sum of an infinite series of descending geometric fractions is a finite number.
Take a piece of paper with a surface area of 1 unit. Cut this in half, place one half piece on the table and retain the other half portion. Now cut the retained piece in half. Place half of this cut piece on the table and tesselate it to the original half. There is now ¾ on the table and ¼ retained. Cut the retained ¼ piece in half. Place a 1/8 portion on the table and retain the other 1/8 part for the next 50%:50% cut. And so on to infinity. The tessellated pieces on the table will eventually reach 1 in area, but no larger. It is impossible to cut 1 into a larger total value than 1.
The idea that by continuous recycling of sensible thermal energy within a leaky system, with a defined and fixed partition ratio of radiant loss, the quantity of energy retained will sum to infinity is nonsense.
If this appears to be a confirmation of energy retention by back radiation / opacity reduction, it is not. I totally affirm that the cold air cannot heat the ground by impossible back-radiation. However, retained low-quality thermal energy can be recycled by atmospheric circulation.
Correct but such conditions are the exception and not the rule.
On average there is always a decline in temperature and pressure with height.
Stephan,
I am not talking about inversions.
geran,
We are not trying to be slippery, climate is a very complicated subject, I have been studying it for over 50 years and I am still struggling to learn.
Atmospheric circulation cells are the fundamental element of climate. Earth is a fast rotating planet and has 3 atmospheric cells per latitudinal hemisphere, (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar). Venus and Titan are slow rotators and have a Hadley cell structure that extends from the equator to the pole. The DAET climate model is designed to model the action of a single atmospheric cell. In the case of the Earth, it is necessary to develop a triple cell model. My attempt to do this is recorded here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126761_Earth_Adiabatic_Parallel_Model_20Jun19
Stephen,
sorry
“If you illuminate it [rock in space] with light from a star it’s surface will become warmer because of the delay in the free flow of radiation caused by the time required for absorption and re-emission in situ.”
Stephen, that’s where the confusion starts. The rock is getting warmer because there is a “heat source”. Without the “heat source”, the temperature would not increase. “Time delay” is NOT a “heat source”.
“If you add an atmosphere which mechanically moves energy up and down before re-emission then the temperature at the surface will rise further because the time delay will increase.”
The confusion continues. Adding an atmosphere [and surface water] will moderate temperatures. The rock will not be as cold, or as hot, as it was without an atmosphere. And, once again, “time delay” is NOT a “heat source”. Any increase in temperature you encounter due to “time delay” just means the system is not in equilibrium. Some of this might become obvious to you if you had a model of Earth, with numbers.
Philip, your link…
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126761_Earth_Adiabatic_Parallel_Model_20Jun19
…is an example of what a great program EXCEL is. EXCEL may be the best thing Microsoft ever did. I can find out what my bank account would be in a thousand years, if it earned 1% annual interest, with a monthly accounting even. Fascinating. Nevermind the fact that I won’t live 1000 years.
Spencer once built an EXCEL spreadsheet to prove CO2 could warm the planet. He hoped no one would take the time to study the calculations. I found that he had simply used the “forcing” from the GHE pseudoscience. Of course, I was censored soon thereafter….
Here’s a question for you: Atmospheric CO2 is currently about 410 ppm. What does your hypothesis forecast for Earth temperature rise if CO2 doubles, 820 ppm?
geran,
You have an energy source, not necessarily a heat source because the higher frequencies do not register as heat but they are nevertheless absorbed by matter. By absorption is meant that photons hit the molecules of matter, transfer their kinetic energies to those molecules which then vibrate more and emit infra red wavelengths which we sense as heat.
The absorption and re-emission of radiative energy by matter takes time and also slows down the free transmission of energy by converting the higher frequencies into slower, infra red frequencies.
Matter acts as an obstacle to the free radiative flow of energy through space and generates infra red radiation (or heat) as a by product.
Atmospheric convection is an additional obstacle to the free radiative flow by adding an additional delay.
The consequence is a backing up of energy within matter which rises in temperature.
Stephen, you’re still treating “time delay” as a thermodynamic heat source. That’s as bad as treating CO2 as a thermodynamic heat source.
No, the sun is the only heat source but matter provides resistance to the throughput of radiation.
You don’t describe the element in an electric bar fire as a heat source do you?
“The consequence is a backing up of energy within matter which rises in temperature.”
No. That is not how thermodynamics works. Sorry Stephen…but you’re just making this up, and it goes along with the usual crowd and thus simply lends them support to what they already think. You’re just doing it a different way.
“No, the sun is the only heat source but matter provides resistance to the throughput of radiation.”
Resistance to radiative emission can only occur from a surface itself, and this is called “emissivity”. Other matter nearby does not change the emissivity of the emitting body.
geran @ 2020/01/28 at 8:11 AM
You are right Excel is an amazing beast. I was absolutely stunned when I discovered that I could use the Goal Seek tool to do Inverse Modelling by creating a cascade of loops all hard linked back to a single variable. It didn’t seem possible, but it works.
One other fun thing you can do with the Goal Seek tool is to calculate how much you can withdraw per year if you invest the capital value of your pension pot at a known interest rate and then draw both capital and interest down to zero by age 100 (for example).
In answer to your CO2 question. I follow the work of Robert Holmes. I believe him when he says that there is no distinction between CO2 and any other atmospheric gas.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/On-the-Incompatibility-of-the-Molar-Mass-Version-of-the-Ideal-Gas-Law-and-the-IPCCs-Greenhouse-Effect
“…but matter provides resistance to the throughput of radiation.”
“Matter” is not a thermodynamic heat source. Matter does not raise its own temperature, therefore it does not raise system temperature.
That is what the radiative theorists say and you seem to agree with them.
However, if one introduces a mobile fluid taking kinetic energy away from a surface and later returning it by non radiative means then the radiative theorists and you are wrong.
We have no problem with convective cooling. We have no problem with warmer air heating a cooler surface. Air a few degrees warmer than the surface, though, does not add up to 33 degrees which is ten-times “a few”. It has always been slippery with you Stephen.
For a continuous flow throughout a complete convective overturning cycle it demonstrably does add up to the required total as per Philip’s models.
There’s no “adding up” required. The very existence of the lapse rate places the average temperature in the middle of the atmosphere. No back-adding needed. And again, we haven’t seen a model diagram or the numbers anyway. And what is the point of referring to a tidally-locked planet? How is that relevant? The atmosphere heats and expands in any case with a rotating planet…why specify that yours is tidally locked? We still cannot make sense of what you’re on about Stephen. Sorry.
I’m sorry that you seem to have a closed mind.
I’m sorry that you have some idea that no one understands because you can not explain it in a sensible way.
Joseph E Postma @2020/01/28 at 12:39 PM
“And what is the point of referring to a tidally-locked planet? How is that relevant? The atmosphere heats and expands in any case with a rotating planet…why specify that yours is tidally locked?”
Joe,
You have correctly railed against the total nonsense of the dived by 4 dilution of incoming solar radiation. By creating the Noonworld model I have forced the issue to make it absolutely impossible to claim that solar input can be divided by 4, it cannot work for a tidally locked planet by definition. There is no wriggle room for the sophists with my Noonworld model, they are forced to use divide by 2.
The next point is the atmospheric cell is the fundamental base unit of climate. The idea that climate is the average of 30 years of weather is stupid beyond belief, averaging is how we measure climate, not what climate actually is. Venus and Titan both have one cell per latitudinal hemisphere, Earth and Mars both have 3 cells per latitudinal hemisphere.
Noonworld is in fact modelling the structure and process of an atmospheric cell. All that a daily rotating planet does is to move the air structure at a given location from day to night. The basic process does not change, Solar energy is captured by day and thermal energy is released by both day and night.
“I’m sorry that you seem to have a closed mind.”
Stephen, if your ideas are valid, why not present an unambiguous model, as Joseph has done? I believe you would have trouble making the numbers work out. The best I can tell, you relay on Earth retaining 25% of the incoming solar energy. Is that daily? Annually? Or a one time event?
We don’t have closed minds, just lots of questions and concerns.
Received heat from the sun during the day time what is delayed by less than a day+night on the way out can’t result in a higher equilibrium state temperature. That would just be a change in the daily variation.
So slow outgoing radiation, because of photons making a detour (one of the AGW explanations) can never raise the equilibrium state temperature.
It doesn’t raise the equilibrium state temperature for the whole system because the whole system still radiates to space at S-B.
What it does raise is the temperature of the surface beneath the atmosphere because that surface has to have enough kinetic energy to both allow the system as a whole to radiate to space at S-B whilst at the same time feeding convective overturning.
I don’t think you chaps have really tried to follow our model.
We already know that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average atmosphere due to the adiabatic gradient.
We already know that the Sun supplies enough heat to raise the surface temperature above that of the air temperature, and to generate the climate, etc. Convection is driven by solar heat.
We already know that all of that extra thermal mass of the atmosphere will simply mean that there’s less cooling overnight as compared to if there were a bare surface only. This also keeps it cooler during the day time.
You are still beginning with the assumption that the surface temperature must be raised. This hasn’t been demonstrated as an actual need. You provided some number of very cold temperatures where the near-surface-air was a couple of degrees warmer than the sub-surface. This does not equate to a level up to +33 degrees higher surface temperature average.
We have all tried Stephen. And we’ve tried for years, given that you were here years ago presenting this and were then put in moderation. I took you off moderation yesterday. The people here are quite intelligent and can understand anything understandable. You lack clarity. You mix and match with tidally-locked and not-tidally-locked, etc.
I agree that cells move energy around, and bring heat to higher latitudes, as do the oceans, etc.
To help with the questioning and criticism of our work, here is the list of the five essays that we managed to get published on WUWT
The first essay was titled “Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space”
In this essay I introduced a simple technique for calculating the average surface temperature of the Earth.
The second was “An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget”
In this essay I critique the standard climate model and show how the supposed back radiation flux to Earth incorporates a hidden element of convection overturning.
The third essay was “Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus.”
Here I introduce the concept of a model that explicitly relies of a divide by 2 dilution of the solar flux
The fourth essay was “Return to Earth: A New Predictive Model of the Earth’s Climate.”
In this essay the new climate model is applied to the Earth
The final essay was “Using an Iterative Adiabatic Model to study the Climate of Titan.”
Each essay has a wealth of discussion and criticism in the comments section.
Great interview! I appreciate Joseph Postma’s clear and passionate explanations about the flaws in mainstream climate science. It’s refreshing to hear an alternative perspective backed by scientific reasoning. I run a word game site (https://scrabblewordfinder.uk) and found this discussion inspiring while working on some climate-themed vocabulary content. Keep up the great work in spreading awareness and questioning the narrative.
Ironic that lapse rate depends as much on potential energy as it does kinetic.
My 2 cents.
To truly understand Earth’s climate one must approach it with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. If you can’t do that it is impossible to understand how the energy balance functions. If you want to make a radiative model, all well and good it’s fine for isolating parts of the dynamic system. However, for Earth’s climate, how it functions and responds to variable energy states (as a truly dynamic system) it cannot be approached with a radiative model. And I emphasize, using the S-B approach in fluxes (as a base metric) is the same as approaching Earth’s climate through a radiative balance framework, which is not representative nor ever will be, of how the dynamic climate system functions.
It is painful I know, but seriously got to toss the “slab model” mentality in the trash. Joe’s model is a perfect building ground to go far deeper because the fundamental architecture is correct to build on.
So…just build on it.