An email exchange worth sharing:
“Dear Joe,
The chap I have been corresponding with has, I think, come to the distillation of his argument and it is below, in his second paragraph, here in italics.
In my opinion he is wrong on many fronts, not the least of which is the lack of any historical correlation between global temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2.
Be that as it may, if you could please look at his argument that seems to come down to 1.68 watts/sq meter being held in our atmosphere and let me know what you think, that would be very helpful.
His point:
Let’s concentrate on the unit of measurement of that incoming energy, which is Watts per square meter. We know that 1 Watt is 1 joule per second of energy. So the unit of measurement by definition tells us that energy is constantly arriving from the Sun. (My comment – Though as I understand, it arrives in packages – quanta) It is not a single finite fixed amount of energy that just hits us once. The Sun is overwhelmingly our main source of energy, and it’s a massive amount of energy as I mentioned in my previous email. If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.
But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average. What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.
Trust you are well,
Kind Regards
DM”
My reply:
Hi DM,
The problem is that these people have created an entirely false interpretation of data based upon their false theory of the greenhouse effect, which comes from the logically false model of the flat Earth with cold sunshine. You see the progression there, the connection, and how one falsity leads to the others? They’ve created an entire mechanics and theory of how flat Earth must work, but do not recognize or comprehend that the logic is fundamentally flawed from step one, way back. This is compounded because the empirical data can be interpreted in any which way because the empirical data is noise, is the natural statistical variation of the system itself. They’re looking at noise over short time scales and interpreting it as signal. They also just make stuff up, because there is no way of knowing how stable the Sun has been over 12,000 years. The last 12,000 years has also been a warm period, which is unusual because most of the time for the past few million years the Earth sits in an ice-age. And it is not just solar radiance which is a factor in any case, as the magnetic activity of the Sun is what seems to drive the cycles of climate.
Now here is the fundamental exposure of his argument: If GHG’s emit radiation, but non-GHG’s do not, and do not forget that non-GHG’s make up ~99% of the atmosphere…then GHG’s provide a way for the atmosphere to emit energy. Non-GHG’s have poor or little emissivity…they do not emit, whereas the entire concept of GHG’s is that they do emit. If GHG’s emit half to the surface and half to space, but non-GHG’s do not emit at all…then what gases are holding on to thermal energy and which gases provide a vector for the atmosphere to shed energy?
Non-GHG’s are already holding on to thermal energy and are already preventing the atmosphere from emitting to space and hence are already helping to keep themselves at higher temperature. If you add in GHG’s, which are collisionally-dominated with the other non-emissive gases of the atmosphere, and these GHG’s can emit the energy they pick up from the other gases in the atmosphere, and they can emit this energy to space…then now we have “opened a valve” which provides a vector or method for the atmosphere to lose thermal energy.
So you see: If you look at the real basic physics, their argument falls apart because it is in 100% contradiction to the physics of emissivity, etc.
They said: “No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”
Note that he acknowledges that the energy came from the Sun. But this is the thing: At what forcing potential did it come from the Sun? Did it come from the Sun at -18C worth of heating potential spread over the entire surface of the Earth at once? If you think that, then you must also think that this -18C energy can be recycled a few times to create higher temperature. And this is their flat-Earth mechanics. However, in reality, solar energy came in at ~+121C heating potential and created the entire climate and weather system, and further, if we refer to some basic physics, and you must have seen this quoted by me elsewhere, heat can only flow down temperature gradients and cannot be recycled. The heat from the Sun on the surface cannot come back to the surface again to cause more heating.
They said: “If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.”
If you want to talk about “radiation being held back from emission which then leads to warming of a surface”, then this is a discussion about a surface’s emissivity, as we touched on above. However, one needs to *lower* a surface’s emissivity in order to make it raise in temperature. So a few things: A surface’s emissivity is not a tunable parameter – it is a fixed property of the surface itself. The presence of GHG’s does not change another surface’s ability to emit. Secondly, if GHG’s have better emissivity than non-GHG’s, then this means that GHG’s will both be cooler and also provide a mechanism for cooling to rest of the gas where non-GHG’s do not emit.
So they have an argument which they can make, sure. And on its own terms it cannot be defeated, because on its own terms it is entirely logical. But the problem is that its own terms are not connected to reality and leave out significant portions of basic theory, based as they are on a flawed initial model of reality, and also in consideration of their claimed empirical support which is nothing more than the natural noise variation of the system.
Hope this helps,
Joe
Follow on:
This is all about the concept of a paradigm, a “box” within which all thinking takes place so-to-speak, and how the boundaries of the box limit what type of thinking and what type of ideas can be contained within the box. This is intimately related to the idea presented in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave which I wrote about in my books.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm
Definition of paradigm
1: example, pattern
especially: an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
//… regard science as the paradigm of true knowledge. — G. C. J. Midgley
2: an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated
//the Freudian paradigm of psychoanalysis
broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind
We all know the phrase “thinking outside the box.” Outside-the-box-thinking is what is said to be required when a solution to a problem cannot be found within the bounds of assumed knowledge and theory. We all know what this means.
What happens though when we create a box to bound our thinking, and then fight to protect that box’s limited thinking in the face of external knowledge which destroy the edges of the box? Typically we recognize such behavior as the providence of religion.
A few examples:
- Ptolemaic (geocentric) astronomy is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Earth moves in an orbit or rotates upon its own axis
- Newtonian and Galilean mechanics and physics is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that light speed is constant
- Scientific materialism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate the existence of mind existing independent of matter
- Biblical literalist creationism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate evolutionary theory and an incredibly “old” Earth
And pertinently:
- Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Sun heats the Earth and creates the climate and weather
- Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that heat flow can be reversed and that energy can be passively recycled to cause amplified heating
- Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that the passive atmosphere provides twice the energy input than the Sun provides
- Flat Earth theory is a paradigm which must ignore and reject existing swathes of known theory in thermodynamics and which must ignore the importance of consistency with empirical physical reality
Don’t let yourself get put into the box!
Climate of Sophistry 
Reblogged this on uwerolandgross.
Debunker
>The GHE doesn’t exist
Believer
>Yes it does, C02 is like a space blanket, look at this C02 in a bottle under a headlamp, green houses get hotter than the surrounding environment, how do you explain Venus then?
Debunker
>None of that is the greenhouse effect…*explains greenhouse effect model*
Believer
>No no you’re misinterpreting it/it’s to simple/it’s more complex than that.
Debunker
>Then when can you add cold to hot?
Believer
>C02 is like a space blanket, look at this C02 in a bottle under a headlamp, green houses get hotter than the surrounding environment, how do you explain Venus then?
>Debunker
Something like that lol. They just keep you going in circles.
Exactly…
Follow on:
This is all about the concept of a paradigm, a “box” within which all thinking takes place so-to-speak, and how the boundaries of the box limit what type of thinking and what type of ideas can be contained within the box. This is intimately related to the idea presented in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave which I wrote about in my books.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm
“Definition of paradigm
1: example, pattern
especially: an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
//… regard science as the paradigm of true knowledge. — G. C. J. Midgley
2: an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated
//the Freudian paradigm of psychoanalysis
broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind”
We all know the phrase “thinking outside the box.” Outside-the-box-thinking is what is said to be required when a solution to a problem cannot be found within the bounds of assumed knowledge and theory. We all know what this means.
What happens though when we create a box to bound our thinking, and then fight to protect that box’s limited thinking in the face of external knowledge which destroy the edges of the box? Typically we recognize such behavior as the providence of religion.
A few examples:
Ptolemaic (geocentric) astronomy is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Earth moves in an orbit or rotates upon its own axis
Newtonian and Galilean mechanics and physics is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that light speed is constant
Scientific materialism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate the existence of mind existing independent of matter
Biblical literalist creationism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate evolutionary theory and an incredibly “old” Earth
And pertinently:
Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Sun heats the Earth and creates the climate and weather
Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that heat flow can be reversed and that energy can be passively recycled to cause amplified heating
Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that the passive atmosphere provides twice the energy input than the Sun provides
Flat Earth theory is a paradigm which must ignore and reject existing swathes of known theory in thermodynamics and which must ignore the importance of consistency with empirical physical reality
Don’t let yourself get put into the box!
Another absurdity of his argument is his assertion that the Earth/atmosphere thermodynamic system is out of balance by +1.68 W/m2.
Solar radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere averages ~1380 W/m2. 1.68 W/m2 is only 0.1% of that average. Outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere averages ~240 W/m2. 1.68 W/m2 is only 0.7% of 240 W/m2.
The typical margin of error of the instruments being used measuring both incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation is plus or minus 5%! He is therefore quoting a number (down to the 1/100th of a W/m2) that is way, way, way below the margin of error of the instruments being used to measure the W/m2!
In other words his +1.68 W/m2 number is completely made up, i.e., imaginary. Science has its limits. It can never be more accurate than the instruments being used to measure objective facts in the physical world.
The imagination on the other hand is without limit. One can imagine with ease that the Earth/atmosphere thermodynamic system is out of balance by +1.68 W/m2 and that that imbalance is being caused by rising carbon dioxide levels. The imagination, after all, is not bound by the laws of physics and empirical evidence.
One can consequently imagine with ease that rising carbon dioxide levels are causing more frequent and intense droughts, storms and heat waves and are causing rising sea levels, melting glaciers and warming oceans, which one can further imagine is directly harming animals, destroying the places they live, and wreaking havoc on people’s livelihoods and communities.
In fact, sometimes “scientists” themselves are the ones that have the most active imaginations of all.
DM,
There are several misconceptions with your opponent’s arguments.
First:
[“But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average.“]
Says who? As always the pro-CAGW crowd make an assumption that it is scientifically honest to compare proxy data with modern thermometer data. (And, furthermore, they then compare older manual thermometer observations with modern platinum electric thermometer readings, automatically taken continuously and recorded every minute!) The very idea that one can objectively compare x-axis data from different sources with vastly different margins of error is scientific fraud. The ‘stability’ of historic data is due to the lack of instantaneous – and accurate – observations.
[“What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.”]
Has anyone noticed how the pro-CAGW crowd have subtly changed the thrust of their argument? As Joe points out, this guy admits that the heat energy is overwhelmingly from the Sun. Correct. What is NOT correct is to say that CO2 ‘traps’ heat. The bottom line is that they have changed their argument from one of ‘back-radiation’ causing surface heating to one of ‘insulation’ by the additional CO2. Again, NOT correct. When have you ever put hot coffee into a vacuum flask only to find that the coffee is hotter when you pour it out? It may be true that the CO2 molecule (or any non-condensing GHG molecule) can delay the path of outgoing LWIR to space but the very idea of this delay needs to be considered carefully. Any delay caused by CO2 molecules absorbing LWIR and re-emitting ‘back-radiation’ (after losing some of the gained energy to low-energy collisions with non-GHG molecules) is negligible. The delay can be measured in seconds (or, at most, a few minutes) and yet the increase in CO2 is measured in months or years (130 ppm in 160 years is less than 1 ppm per year!). So the ‘surplus retention of energy’ comment is nonsense because the energy is NOT retained, it is merely re-routed on its way to space.
Additionally, any radiation re-emitted from the atmospheric CO2 molecules to the surface HAS NO THERMAL effect globally, since each CO2 molecule is colder than the surface (globally. Some very small areas may be subject to an inversion but over the planet these are tiny areas and short-lived). The fact that the source of the ‘back-radiation’ is colder means it emits energy that is of lower average energy (longer wavelength) than the average energy being emitted from the planet’s surface. Therefore the internal (thermal) energy of the surface molecules CANNOT be increased by this back-radiation. It is thermally irrelevant to the surface molecules.
The new argument that CO2 works like an insulator is specious. Given the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%), it would be equivalent to having a string vest made up of 0.04% cotton and 99.96% air. There is no measurable insulating effect.
So this guy’s arguments fall down on two fronts:
1. The theory (that atmospheric CO2 can cause warming of the planet (or atmosphere) is wrong. There is no mechanism!
2. Valid empirical evidence is non-existent.
With the pro-CAGW crowd, always look for the assumption they make at the start of their musings.
Objectivity is the key!
All the best,
Arfur
Erratum: Please insert ‘Second:’ before the second set of quoted/ italic text!
Here is the new Dr. Robert Holmes equation.
It disproves the GHG hypothesis but also disproves that other things like albedo and emissivity has an overall effect on the equilibriium state, what is (according to this formula) dictated by the solar input at the toa and the mass off the atmosphere related pressure.
That seems to confirm the Connoly et al findings, that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium state (in vertical columns). And has a pressure wave way (that can skip layers) to get in pressure equilibrium to the pressure level provided by the solar input at the TOA (and/or the electromagnetic field) and the mass of the atmosphere.
So there is a radiative equilibrium but that seems to be a result of a dictating pressure equilibrium.
Any toughts on this?
MP, 0.85 X 737 = 626 K = 353 ºC = 667 ºF ???
Mucho problema, señor.
No way, Jose.
@ geran.
Here is the paper. Showing how to calculate it. Can download it without registering.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338393205_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies
MP, you already showed how to calculate it. That was wrong, as I indicated.
If you have a new equation, I will gladly examine.
There is no need to blast off to another planet to disprove the bogus GHE. It is easily disproven with the physics on this planet.
@ geran
Don’t over simplify the few words that fit in a tweet to prove something that doesn’t fit your conditioned narrative. Feel free to read the paper. It is downloaded over 20k times. Withouth serious math opposition.
Geran always happy to burst a bubble lol.
The real trick is to break the box(paradigm)
People automatically conflate the greenhouse effect with venus.
For every person we reset the paradigm, 10 more are born into it.
Whe never inoculated our children in the first place.
Daunting task. I think this is why Postma likes Propatarianism so much. We could make spreading this mind virus illegal on the basis of falsehood and false promise.
We need to take the “GHE” to court.
You need the force of law behind this or they will keep lying forever. They can always lie faster than we can correct their lies.
Mark Twain-A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Just my 2 cents.
“There is no need to blast off to another planet to disprove the bogus GHE. It is easily disproven with the physics on this planet.”
100% true they are just lying faster than we can correct them
You guys are not getting it. The key point is what are the key points that determin the equilibrium temperature state.
It is not against what Joseph postma states. It is just another layer, suggesting that the equilibrium state is also and mainly because of a pressure equilibrium.
That’s really great MP! Shows that atmospheric constituents don’t matter.
When people finally see that these fellows have *demonstrated* that there is no GHE…people will then begin to wonder WHY and HOW that is possible.
We here have the answer why! And the philosophy of this is going to have to become core pedagogy, and will introduce the (what should be obvious) idea of *ontological mathematics* to science, i.e., that science must use math that makes logical sense and has logical foundations and to recognize when we create “ad-hoc” mathematical tricks, etc. Of course all this is already known…it is just not appreciated and the current academics seem too lazy and stupid to appreciate it.
MP, I didn’t “over simplify the few words”. I just proved them wrong. I asked for a “new equation”, which you cleverly ignore.
And, what is my “conditioned narrative”? Or is that all you really have, some kind of imaginative slander?
I have another shot at Potholer with your videos should I take it and which ones?
Odds are he’ll refuse to respond again, but he has an upcoming video where he is going to “debunk” Top 10 climate myths he might add you to it.
@CD Marshall
I nominate the one that talks about real greenhouses.
If I had a vote that mattered.
Joseph Postma,
I meant you JP, in my head anyway.
Not discounting you Boomie 🙂 I really like the response he gave Richard Beaumont (?) last year it was good.
LOL you should send him an invitation personally. Folly has been on his site but they made an idiot out of him, sadly. He was not as well versed in climate clown 101 back then, apparently. They twisted his words and got him confused by baiting him and then copying his replies.
I always like to use “the anchor bait” for such occasions. I plant a word which I use as the anchor of the argument in the first statement such as this,
“Show me anywhere in particle physics an experiment where 0.08266 eV (or below) can increase a warmer (15C) temperature more under natural conditions?”
My anchor is “natural” which will be used as my bait as well. Then they show a series of experiments that are not “natural’ and you refer back to the original anchor until you filter out the trolls and maybe one honest person will eventually reply (just don’t hold your breath and wait).
[[What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.]]
Peeyu! 1.68 watts per square meter up in the atmosphere is heating it up but the atmosphere itself doesn’t register it since air temperature drops by 18.8F per mile up to the tropopause, which is what they call the lapse rate.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
People living in ignorance like this are like criminals on Better Call Saul with many many misdemeanors who are hoping to get off on a felony. Or more like the Three Stooges, who have a rap sheet longer than a freight train.
Ever hear of the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law? Let’s count the strikes for this dude.
1. It’s not about energy or power, watts per square meter included. It’s about HEAT. CO2’s absorption and emission wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, about the same as dry ice, which can’t melt an ice cube. No matter how much -80C radiation CO2 in the sky emits, it’s not doing diddly for Earth’s climate any more than a big block of dry ice suspended 1 inch over the road will melt ice on it. A large portion of solar radiation is in the visible wavelengths (.4-.7 microns), which don’t heat the atmosphere and just travel through to the surface, where the ground and water have molecules with the right quantum structures to turn some of it into heat, which means kinetic energy in the molecules after disappearing the energy. The rest just bounces off, else we couldn’t see.
The infrared heating wavelength range stops at about 10.6 microns, the temperature of water ice (0C or 32F). At the high end, +56.7C (131.4F) (hottest surface temperature recorded on Earth) has a Planck radiation wavelength of 8.8 microns, so the heating range is rather narrow. Microwave wavelengths are typically 100,000 microns (10 cm), which has a guess what of -273.1C (-469.6F). You can pump a million watts per square meter of microwave energy into a bagel and it won’t even start cooking. Therefore, talking about pure watts per square meter is Three Stooges physics.
See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Or calculate the temperatures online with this toy: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
2. Another big mistake is to ignore the fact that Earth’s atmosphere is a giant Carnot heat engine that turns heat into work to generate wind and storms, along with the lapse rate (drop in air temperature with height as it trades heat for work to expand against the decreasing pressure). That means there is no upper atmospheric energy balance, nor can there be unless Earth loses its atmosphere like the Moon. It’s more like a car with a gasoline engine and a gas tank that turns gasoline into work to move down the highway. And I didn’t even mention water evaporation and precipitation, which just increases the cooling of the surface.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine
3. Wanna really go Curly? Planck radiation isn’t emitted by gases in the first place, only solids and liquids that have a surface so that watts per square meter has a meaning. Gases are made of disconnected molecules bumping into each other, whereas solids and liquids have intermolecular bonds. If gases emitted Planck radiation they would talk about watts per cubic meter, so let’s drop that dead end trail. The only solid or liquid surfaces when it comes to Earth’s climate are the Sun’s and the Earth’s. The Sun emits 5800K (5500C) heat, and after solar radiation heats it, the Earth’s surface emits at most 56.7C (131.4F) Planck radiation, cooling itself down to equalize with the atmosphere, which is usually cooler than the surface. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forces heat to flow from a hotter to a cooler body, hence the atmosphere acts 24/7/365 like a giant chimney to vent the heat harmlessly via conduction and convection to the near absolute zero of space after wasting most of it on the way to create work to power the atmosphere’s Carnot heat engine
Only the infamous globalist Marxist U.N. IPCC global octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians tries to push the hoax that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and emits quantum level radiation that causes global warming including heat waves, droughts, and famines. They’re NUTS 🙂 But even they don’t claim atmospheric CO2 emits Planck radiation. The IPCC’s Dragon in the Sky is one of the biggest fake scientific hoaxes of all time, but don’t try to tell them that, they’re smarter and better educated that we are, and we’re the stooges as far as they’re concerned even though they’re the ones with closed minds and a political agenda.
See for yourself how the IPCC’s lame attempts to use an upper atmospheric energy balance to prove the CO2-driven greenhouse effect lead to absurd contradictions even on their own level:
https://principia-scientific.org/un-ipcc-earth-energy-budget-exposed-as-junk-science/
Let’s quit here. I can hardly contain my yawns. How boring to try to teach 5th grade physics to the Three Stooges. The teachable moment here is that CO2 greenhouse theory is dead and needs to be buried, but too much money is being made from pushing it to stop it anytime soon. In the meantime let’s hope smart savvy people like us aren’t hated too much for having beautiful minds.
Here’s my killer essay doing the math on the -80C hoax of the IPCC global Marxist octopus. It’s as simple as that: Don’t let them complicate it. Just say no to -80C and the IPCC. -80C can’t melt a bucket of frozen pee.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
@CD Marshall
You might have made a good lawyer
This is the vid I’m talking about
Well I geuss you could still be a lawyer if you wanted or are not one already lol.
Oceans and the ‘radiative disequilibrium’ …
From http://21sci-tech.com/articles/ocean.html …
“The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”
And since then we’ve had an El Nino, and a Super El Nino that also lead to more sophistry about ‘radiative disequilibrium’ caused by heat coming out of hiding in the oceans.
It is just not logical to have scientist saying there is an ‘Energy Balance’ when all the factors are not known and so poorly accounted for. I for one do not believe that the so called ‘Energy Balance’ operates as climatrophists believe.
I would think that it is more likely that nature stores as much energy as is can during warm phases, and releases it over the cool phases. However the natural chaos of the climate system would mean both events are somewhat ‘lumpy’.
LOL actually Boomie my skills were honed in psychology by dealing with mental illness in my family such as multiple personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, chronic depression and a host of other things. You learn to choose your words carefully.
That video is a really good one!
Here’s my take:
Let’s concentrate on the unit of measurement of that incoming energy, which is Watts per square meter. We know that 1 Watt is 1 joule per second of energy.
Yes, for sure, and you need to hold onto this definition and truly understand it, as you continue your line of thought. Based on what you yourself have just defined, a “watt” is a RATE of energy FLOW — it is energy flow through time, for a specified area. You cannot figure the actual quantity of energy, until you apply this RATE of energy FLOW to the AREA for which it is DEFINED, and until you specify the AMOUNT OF TIME that this RATE operates on the specified AREA for which the RATE is defined.
In other words, to figure ENERGY QUANTITY, you have to multiply “watts” or “joules/sec per square meter times seconds , and then multiply this result by square meters, … or [(joules/sec)/m^2 x secs] x m^2 = (joules/m^2) x m^2 = joules.
Again that’s [(W/m^2) x secs] x m^2 = or [(joules/sec)/m^2 x secs] x m^2 = (joules/m^2) x m^2 = joules.
So the unit of measurement by definition tells us that energy is constantly arriving from the Sun. (My comment – Though as I understand, it arrives in packages – quanta) It is not a single finite fixed amount of energy that just hits us once.
More specifically, the unit of measurement (Watts per square meter) tells us the CONSTANT RATE of energy arriving from the sun over a SPECIFIC AREA.
Your comment about quanta shows that you are confusing concepts. Your prime focus has been on the macro-measurement of RATE of energy flow, and this does not really relate immediately to the micro-measurement of quanta. You need not consider the quantum level here — you are talking about the macro-level, so this thought need not be in the discussion at hand.
The Sun is overwhelmingly our main source of energy, and it’s a massive amount of energy as I mentioned in my previous email. If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.
Yes, positively, the sun is overwhelming our main source of energy. And, yes, the Earth has had a valve of sorts for releasing the sun’s absorbed energy. What do you think this valve is? Does’ nitrogen easily emit to space? Does oxygen easily emit to space? These two primary atmospheric gases comprise over 90% of the entire atmospheric mass. Are nitrogen and oxygen highly infrared-reactive gases? Is over 90% of Earth’s atmospheric mass highly infrared-reactive? No. But carbon dioxide IS highly infrared-reactive — it absorbs AND EMITS radiation. This strongly suggests that carbon dioxide is partly responsible for cooling Earth, along with water.
But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average.
Yes, the stability does seem impressive.
What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.
Okay, now I would ask you to remember the details about the unit of measure you started off talking about — Watts per square meter or W/m^2/. You are now speaking of this RATE of energy FLOW as though it is a “retainable” quantity — it is NOT.
By the mathematics and physics definition of a “watt/m^2”, you cannot RETAIN it — it is NOT a “retainable” quantity — it is a RATE of flow of a quantity through time for a specified surface area for which it is defined. Your statement, therefore, is meaningless.
That’s not new energy.
That’s not energy at all, because that does NOT define “energy”. You do not really comprehend what a “watt per square meter” is, and so you do not really comprehend how to properly talk about it.
No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken.
No ENERGY, per se, is even being talked about. Rather, you are trying to talk about a RATE of energy flow for a specified area, as though this RATE is energy itself — again, it is not. You do not understand how to use the units that you are trying to talk about.
That energy came from the Sun.
Whatever that “that” is you refer to is NOT a quantity of energy, for which “retaining” can even be a consideration. You cannot “retain” a W/m^2 any more than you can “retain” a “miles per hour per Indy 500”. You’ve got to speak of energy correctly before you can speak of how it enters and exits the planet.
It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.
As you continue to think incorrectly about the very unit of measure that you started off talking about, you continue to create a chain of errors about your incorrect usage, which collapses, like dominoes, into a full-blown absurdity having no correct connection to actual physics, as I have come to understand it.
Joseph this guy sounds like you as to the opposition arena, Blair D. Macdonald:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
Read the preface on his pdf
“It should be made clear from the outset, nobody-whether proponents or sceptics to the ensuing climate debate-agrees with what I have uncovered here.”
“…nobody has told me where I am wrong…”
“…This includes many professors and Phds from both sides, including Will Happer, Antony Watts…”
I really appreciate item number 3 in historyscoper 2020/03/07 at 4:49 PM
To take that a step further, shouldn’t we be talking about energy DENSITY, as in joules per CUBIC meter of atmosphere, when we talk about energy in the atmosphere?
Hans Schreuder (RIP) left us with some great thoughts:
“Here is a short list of the pseudo-skeptics that I have personally had comms with and who steadfastly refused to admit they were wrong: GWPF, CFACT, CEI, Friends of Science (!), Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Evans, Nova, Happer, and then some unmentionably moronic prats.
“You are the enablers of the AGW scam by legitimizing the ‘greenhouse effect’ and ‘climate forcing’. You are more ignorant than an uneducated peasant.”
From my own email exchanges, I can confirm the same from Lindzen and Spencer.
https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Also of note:
No thanks to all those pseudo-sceptics who still accept that earth lives in a “greenhouse effect” due to “greenhouse gases”; long may they suffer for their ignorance and outright stupidity despite all that has been published on this site, Tech-Know-Group,, Principia Scientific, Climate of Sophistry, Climate Change Dispatch, Climatism and many other worthy sites around the world that know the truth about how the sun interacts with our atmosphere.
Unfortunately, Hans didn’t leave us with any silly graphics for the kids….
Then there is also the claim that CO2 has been trapping 1.6W/m2 of energy. The dumb ass acknowledges that a Watt is a Joule per second, but fails to comprehend just how many seconds have passed since the industrial revolution! That’s a lot of extra joules! 🤦♂️
If this guy only had Joseph’s model he was so close…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57pU2F-bIQs
@Geran
If we payed as much attention to the newer generation as the left/alarmist do, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Like I said, for every 1 person we reveal the truth to, 10 more are indoctrinated.
Also RIP to Hans he sounds like a cool guy.
Respect.
52 mega joules of energy “TRAPPED” every square meter of the planet after just one year! 😱😱😱
And this has been going on since the start of the industrial Revolution!! 😱😱😱😱😱
That’s like Giga joules! All stuck at the surface! Catastrophically Warming us to like infinity or something!
boomie: If we payed [sic] as much attention to the newer generation as the left/alarmist do, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
That makes no sense, unless you are a Leftist.
boomie: Like I said, for every 1 person we reveal the truth to, 10 more are indoctrinated.
Where did you say that, and what “truth” have you revealed?
We have let the leftist take over academia, the media, and most of the west to be honest.
The left starts early getting their paradigm ingrained into the heads of children.
“For every person we reset the paradigm, 10 more are born into it.”
3:39pm.
It’s like immigration. For every 3 immigrants we let in, especially from the 3rd world, we get 2 left voters and 1 right voter. If we let In 1million per year that’s 330,000 plus left voters every year.
Also the right is having less babies.
So every day we let the left have control of the academia and media and anything else really, it’s an uphill battle.
We have to outlaw the”Green House Effect”.
If that’s really your thinking, then convey it. There’s no need for distracting, immature graphics. These are serious times.
Believe me, I know how serious this is.
But one of the best things a soldier can have in times of war, is a good sense of humor.
And guns, guns help a lot too. We have plenty of those lol.
geran, this was in honor of your ice cubes…
Troll said, “wait… what?! “Climate change by CO2 is literally impossible”? For real? LOL! Can you please state you claim against the 700 scientists that signed the endorsement to cut down CO2? That would be a sight to remember… go away amateur…”
I said,
“Happy to, ice cubes can’t warm the surface up more, toss some on the ground and you’ll see. 15 micron photon has less energy than that.”
Sometimes less is better than more.
boomie, clowns provide the humor….
More please.
You just won, CD.
@geran
Lol, jk. I’m pretty sure we are on the same side. 👍
boomie, we’re NOT on the same side. I recognize evil when I see it. You are perverted.
hahaha wtf geran!! lol…omg…thanks for the laugh that was great…
? Lol?
I’m confused. The clown picture or actually me?
Ah nvm. Leave it at that lol.
boomie finally admits he’s confused.
He still has a long way to go.
(JP, I hope boomie’s perversion does not affect the monetarization of your site. But, you’re likely safe with Fabreze. That’s an air freshener, right?)
F that is so FN funny…….lol
I can’t stop laughing…seriously…this has gotten hilarious…
Joseph, if you think this is hilarious, you should spend some time monitoring the clowns on Spencer’s site. Boomer is small-time.
Robert Kernodle says:
[[I really appreciate item number 3 in historyscoper 2020/03/07 at 4:49 PM]]
”To take that a step further, shouldn’t we be talking about energy DENSITY, as in joules per CUBIC meter of atmosphere, when we talk about energy in the atmosphere?]]
You still don’t ‘get’ it. A gas can’t emit Planck radiation. It’s just disconnected molecules banging together and equalizing their temperature. Only when they coalesce into a liquid or solid can conduction create a constant internal temperature object with surfaces that can support Planck radiation. The IPCC wants us to believe that CO2 molecules bouncing around alone emit 15 micron radiation that causes global warming, hence all CO2 emissions must be stopped so they can foist global Marxism on the ruins. This kind of radiation would be one quantum at a time, but the quantum world ceases to exist in the macro world. Even if it were +40C radiation the CO2 molecules aren’t solid dry ice and there is no power-wavelength distribution, just individual 15 micron photons that can’t melt an ice cube. Actual dry ice emits photons at all wavelengths, and 15 microns is just the peak power wavelength. In short, the IPCC hoaxers want to pretend there’s a greenhouse in the sky with a solid roof, when there’s nothing but thin air, a sick mental con game. When air can stop the wind, I’ll believe them 🙂
A hoax is a HOAX. Don’t give them any respect or thought. Just say no to the IPCC and -80C!
Only I have a complete New Real Climate Science Course that reduces the IPCC to the size of a peanut and provides the foundation for a CO2-free climate science. As is typical throughout history, the lone genius gets no funding, credit, or publicity, while the hoaxers are raking in billions to churn out mountains of fake science lit. that will have to be scrapped one day when my ship comes in and my real climate science gets the funding, probably long after I’m gone. Meanwhile roll up your sleeves and get serious and join my students. I give it away free, and all you can do is learn the truth. I’m not cracking a whip, but others are getting ahead of you so why keep stalling? You might end up as one of the lucky ones who breaks the IPCC’s back and starts getting funding to build on my foundation.
http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html
T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper ™
@historyscoper
LOL, found this on your website. Good sense of humor.
ty for you work.
historyscoper wrote:
You still don’t ‘get’ it. A gas can’t emit Planck radiation. It’s just disconnected molecules banging together and equalizing their temperature.
I’m not sure what it is that you think I don’t get. I spoke of thinking in terms of energy per cubic meter. ENERGY. ……….. NOT FLUX, as the pseudoscience greenhouse advocates do. ……. ENERGY. …….. JOULES.
I am saying nothing of Planck radiation. I am speaking of the most basic quantity that the alarmists misunderstand and misrepresent.
A gas has volume. That volume has energy. There can be a measurement, therefore, to represent the energy in that volume — energy density. That’s all I was alluding to. I think we agree.
I give climate alarmists nothing, trust me, except suggestions about how to distinguish ENERGY from FLUX.
I DO get it.
someone wants ‘proof’ an ice cube emits at around 10.7 micron, anyone?
Kernodle: “Energy” is irrelevant when it comes to understanding Earth’s climate. Every handful of dirt has enough nuclear energy to blow up a city. All we need to understand is the flow of heat energy from the surface to space, and how CO2 does diddly.
Marshall: [[someone wants ‘proof’ an ice cube emits at around 10.7 micron, anyone?]]
It’s 10.6. Use the toy:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Thank you TL you just broke stupid in my head. Ice for gad’s sake, its ice it freezes at 273.15 Kelvin never thought of just running it through the WL that was just too simple.
historyscoper
I don’t know why you are trying to argue with me, when I agreed with a very important point that you made. What I totally disagree with is your last statement that “energy” is irrelevant. Really?
And then you emphasize a point that has the word, “energy” in it?
It’s ALL about ………… “energy”, and, more importantly, it’s all about the correct way of talking about ……………. “energy”.
I’m not going to focus on words the way YOU want me too, emphasizing ONLY points that YOU want to make in the way that YOU want to organize them and phrase them. Look at the resonance of our shared words, see the pattern of agreement, and back off on the preaching demeanor. I get that you are on the same page as everybody here. Don’t get so caught up in your mission that you cannot see when somebody is on your side.
Boomie you have such a talent with the memes, it really is great. It’s impressive and fantastic!
I’ll take it. Ty. You’re intelligence is impressive as well.
Leaving this here for others to look at.
First, note that watts is energy over time (joules/second) so by changing latency of the energy, the watts change.
Think of it like where the sun is a 10v 1amp battery, and the Earth is a capacitor that discharges energy proportional to the amount of stored coulombs. The battery flows in and the capacitor gets to a certain level of energy. Now reduce the amount of energy output on the capacitor, the number of coulombs rise. That number of coulombs is analogous to how temperature is experienced.
On this post
Omg, your…not you’re.
I want to return to the original statement that I made about historyscoper’s item #3 in a previous post of his, which I found to be in agreement with my own point of view — I’ll quote his passage exactly:
Planck radiation isn’t emitted by gases in the first place, only solids and liquids that have a surface so that watts per square meter has a meaning. Gases are made of disconnected molecules bumping into each other, whereas solids and liquids have inter-molecular bonds. If gases emitted Planck radiation they would talk about watts per cubic meter, so let’s drop that dead end trail.
Now he might have been joking, when he mentioned “watts per cubic meter”, but the joke, as I was later suggesting, is precisely that they are NOT talking about cubic meters. Even worse, they are NOT talking about ENERGY per CUBIC METER, when they should be.
I am completely on board with the idea that gases are not producers of blackbody radiation. But they ARE subject to energy analsysis, via volume, energy-density considerations, rather than area, surface-flux considerations.
Area, surface-flux consideration of the atmosphere is the fatal ERROR of the climate catastrophistas. They try to smash a volume of gas into a surface, then locate this fake surface over a flat Earth, and then try to force a physics concept developed for surfaces onto this now fake flat atmosphere over this fake flat Earth. Then they create a fake mathematical physics to manipulate their fake ideas resulting from their NOT really understanding the fundamental definitions of what they are talking about.
Then when you try to point out basic errors in how they are using their words to create their fake mathemafizziks, they tell you “let’s not focus on the semantic difference between ‘heat’ and ‘energy'” or some other such sophistry to turn the discussion away from proper thermodynamic language that results in proper math and proper physics.
They then, via their mathemafizziks, declare that they have violated no laws of thermodynamics. Their minds are so entrenched in their own errors that they have forgotten (or never learned) how to think straight. Crooked thinking gets developed into a proper-sounding language, transmitted to leaders who cannot think for themselves on certain subjects, and then we get abominations like the Green New Deal or Carbon taxation or zero-carbon energy — all delusions of compromised minds.
Just another example of how CO2 hysteria is corrupting language:
https://www.greenerpackage.com/certifications/domino_sugar_carbonfree-certified
… distorting the whole context of the phrase, “carbon free”.
… putting a label on SUGAR, making some claim about its being “carbon free”, via some distorted conception of a definition and contextual use, when one of the main constituents of sugar itself is CARBON !
I can’t take it ! — Sugar, whose chemical formula is C12H22O11, is “carbon” free !
This is all about the cognitive dissonance and associated reduction of consciousness embedded at the heart of the climate change program. They do this shit on purpose…they WANT us to not be able to communicate rationally or sensibly.
They want to disconnect us from our reality…leading to our extinction. This us a perfect example calling sugar “carbon free”. Embedded in that also is the other layer of implying or assuming that carbon is bad in some way. You see the layers? All intended to disconnect us from reality at multiple levels.
@Robert
Willie Soon always makes that joke at the beginning of his speeches. Lol, carbon free sugar.
@1:05
I’m not done yet [rave continuing]:
… carbon-based life, whose life-giving breathing process depends on carbon … dioxide as a breathing regulator, can now eat their favorite desserts composed of carbon-infested sugar, yet rest assured that their desserts are made of certified “carbon free” sugar !!
When head shaking isn’t enough, shake your whole body.
@Robert
*carbon free sugar*
haha
How would you write out Wien’s law for 15 micron/Kelvin problem. I already have the answer but I want to understand how to do the equation.
They describe it as this: λ max= b / T,
T= is an absolute temperature of a black body
b=2.8977729 mm*K is the Wien’s displacement constant.
As usual, thank you.
Sometimes everyone needs a break and step back, take a breather, I just did. I’m making weekends more relaxed and hitting the studies in the weekday. I’m trying this new thing where I don’t respond to every idiot who replies (work in progress).
I do find Boomie’s memes helpful to lighten the load, a little bit of humor helps like in all things, with some moderation 🙂 troll bashing is stressful and we are overwhelmed in numbers. That’s doesn’t matter for we are Sparta!
Whatever that means.
Well Potholer is either going to block me or we’re going to war. Line up the Army Men boys this is about to get serious.
Full disclosure: I may have blown up a few army men in my childhood with firecrackers and fire…And I re-headed my sister’s barbie once or twice…usually with the Hulk or a G.I.Joe once with Ken, supporting the future transgender rights of Barbie loving children everywhere.
It so sad to see the correspondent concerned by such thoughts as,
“If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.”
“It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”
He is not alone amongst the climate alarmed. However, anyone who knows basic thermodynamics and quantum theory can put him straight. So it is clear that climate scientists do not understand much physics.
1. The earth radiates away heat all the time. Earth’s outgoing IR flux is around 240 W/m2 averaged over its surface area. Some of this come from the surface at its average of 288K. Some comes from the cloud layer at around 255K, or from GHGs in the atmosphere at the same sorts of temperature.
2. We can use the Planck black body spectrum to estimate the temperature increase required to radiate away an “extra 1.68 W/m2”. The calculation tells us that an increase in surface temperatures of 0.3C will do the trick, or an increase in cloud temperatures of 0.4K. So this gives an order of magnitude of the impact of 1.68 W/m2 in the range of just 0.3C to 0.4C.
3. I expect his 1.68 W/m2 comes from an IPCC estimate of anthropogenic forcing. The natural variability in net solar influx due to variation in solar output and changes in cloud cover/albedo is greater than this amount.
The “climate alarmed” should stop worrying about the weather.
And the “climate alarmists” who claim to be “scientists” should stop peddling untruths to them about “heat being unable to escape to space” and the “Earth boiling dry”.
As I am beginning to understand things, the energy flow is from … (NO2 and O2) … to CO2, … NOT the other way around.
Alarmed people don’t think about the fact that CO2 molecules are embedded WITHIN the whole mass of the atmosphere, consisting mostly of N2 and O2. All those moving N2 and O2 molecules are colliding with the CO2 molecules, and the N2 and CO2 molecules are colliding with the CO2 molecules more frequently than the CO2 molecules are de-exciting from having been vibrated by 15 micron photons.
The warmth of the greater atmospheric mass as a whole,thus, redistributes energy via CO2, where CO2 has more of a cooling effect and a convection-perpetuating effect than a heating effect, as I’m seeing it.
As often pointed out by JP, the alarmists, thus, invert reality.
Thank you, Joe: https://principia-scientific.org/nub-of-the-argument-in-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-fallacy/
Around 5% CO2 is normal blood CO2 in humans. CO2, thus, regulates the flow of air in our bodies.
How poetic, if we also came to realize that CO2 regulates the flow of air on our planet.
And yet CO2 is deemed a “pollutant”, while carbon (of our carbon-based biological existence), is viewed as a menace.
Humans are walking pits of pollution. We are made of carbon sin, and so we are all born sinners. Carbon is Satan. See how it has shaped into a religion? — a sort of anti-Satanic religion? Worship by rejection of Satan, with salvation coming from ourselves the source of our born sins.
It’s soooooooooo much like religion, with all its contradictions and hypocrisy.
I know enough to know this is nowhere close to the claimed IR greenhouse gas I mean they are using 750nm-1750nm as the effective reflection of IR so that’s between 1,665-3,864 Kelvin. But more input would be appreciated.
Click to access ies_053.pdf
It is another dsygenic cult.
It’s communism rebranded.
Population control, stifle human progress and innovation, create a prison planet two class system.
Brought to you by the useful idiots.
This whole YouTube channel is a gold mine. I just finished watching a Tony Heller presentation. That is not at all what I thought he looked like lol. I always imagined long hair.
This is a newer Willie Soon video. Whole bunch of our guys. DDPmeetings.
So I’m been reading this https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/ies_053.pdf
Alleged proof of IR warming even though its not warming in this bulb.
Found an excellent explanation from here from Joe, https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/26/greenhouse-fraud-20/
So my brief conclusion,
The simplest answer is if there’s no change in color temperature, then the filament has not gotten hotter. Your light bulb demonstrates what particle physics and thermodynamics already knew, energy can transfer in a system without a change in temperature. For there to be temperature increase energy must flow from hot to cold, one of the oldest equations in the book.
I’m dealing with Pierre’s arch nemesis over at Potholer’s site, a Marco van de Weert, he’s a classic arrogant pretentious moron. Listen to this drivel:
“Temperature increase since 1850 at least 1 degree (in other words, 20% of a glacial-to-interglacial transition), at least 75% anthropogenically forced – all according to the science.”
Hi guys, So a bit of effort to try and really understand the SB law. Much stuff and much more even seems even contradictory. Brain is a little fuzzed. However I have put together as a starting point What the Earths surfaces Power output is based upon a known average surface input as defined by the WMO World Meteorological Organisation’s claim that the Earths surface temp is 15’C
So using the Sb Law and the following inputs,
Earths radius of 6,371,000 meters
SB 5.670373×10^-8
Emissitivity of 1 (I know)
Earths avg temp being 15’C
I got 390W m2 input. Very similar to the IPCC back radiation.
I then asked what would be the output at the height of roughly 5 kilometers up at our average emissions height and global Average temp of -18’C using the surface 15’C
Earths radius of 6,376,00 meters
SB 5.670373×10^-8
Emissitivity of 1
The return result being shock horror obviously 240 W m2.
So whilst I fully support the JP’s work I am now asking if anyone can see that the SB law negates the need for GHG’s if the AVERAGE surface input is 390W m2 and 5 Kms’s up it is only 240 W m2. Shock horro the Earths emissions.
Q. Have I approached this correctly? I am still learning. So please advise where the logic is wrong.
SO Van Weert replied.
“The answer is “yes and no”. There is indeed a change in the color temperature if you do not lower the energy input*. In practice, however, you *do lower energy input (the current) to get the same ‘color temperature’ from the filament as without the IR coating and higher current. You use less external energy to create the *same temperature*. How does this work? Simple, the reflected radiation causes warming of the filament beyond that caused by the current itself, so you can reduce the current to get to the same temperature of the filament as before. You’ll find that this is also the mechanism by which the increased energy efficiency of the IRC bulbs is explained in the references I provided.
And that mechanism descibed above for the effect of an IRC on a light bulb is the same as that of the greenhouse effect (apart from the efficiency – those coatings reflect almost all IR back to the filament, GHGs are not nearly as efficient, and apart from the fact that we can’t just reduce the energy input into the earth’s system).
And no, it does not imply a runaway warming as you seem to hypothesize.
So, once again, explain using your physics how an IR coating on the outside of the bulb can increase its energy efficiency. As soon at it involves the filament taking up the reflected IR radiation, thereby increasing its temperature, you’ve admitted that the greenhouse effect does not contradict physics/thermodynamics.”
So now he’s twisting as per troll 101.
Just did some fun calculations on Venus. You will never hear this from mainstream science. The surface of Venus is emitting only 20% of its main potential heat source: The core and as a “Reverse Earth”, a little solar energy.
So in retrospect, Venus, even with a 92 bar atmosphere, a thin outer crust, over 1 million volcanoes, it is actually quite cool.
Awesome CD Marshall.
Me and Naive Fool still going. Remember this guy builds sattalites.
Naive Fool
>Where do you think that 230W goes? It only has 2 options: be absorbed by the surface or bounce off it.
If it’s absorbed, the surface heats up and emits more, because hotter things emit more.
If it bounces off it’s going the same direction as the 460W, so the total emittance is both combined.
You want it to disappear, which is not possible.
[Take a look at a real model](https://blog.espci.fr/marcfermigier/files/2017/03/Radiative_HeatTransfer.pdf), instead of the strawman you’re using.
Boomie
> *“But can a cold atmosphere RADIATE toward a warm ground? Yes, it can!”*
“Radiate toward a warm object”, yes. But absorbed by the warm object, NO.
When you add ice to coffee, does the lower energy of the ice add to the coffee?
300w/m^2 ice + 900w/m^2 coffee=1200w/m^2?
That is literally what you are doing.
You fundamentally misunderstand how thermodynamics actually works.
That model is the same bull btw.
Credit to geran for the qoute.
“75% anthropogenically forced”
That’s such BS most of the warming was well before we emitted any CO2 in sufficient quantities. But they just lie and doctor the data.
“How does this work? Simple, the reflected radiation causes warming of the filament beyond that caused by the current itself, so you can reduce the current to get to the same temperature of the filament as before. You’ll find that this is also the mechanism by which the increased energy efficiency of the IRC bulbs is explained in the references I provided.
And that mechanism descibed above for the effect of an IRC on a light bulb is the same as that of the greenhouse effect”
That is a FN LIE! The coating is REFLECTING IR! This is not at all the same physics of the GHE where the GHE is a thermal process of heat flows. Reflection is *not* the same thing as thermal absorption followed by re-emission! In the latter case the situation and physics is about heat flow and energy frequencies and temperatures, etc., whereas in the former case (reflection) it has NOTHING to do with heat absorption or heat transfer or ANY temperatures at all.
Do you see the sophistication and subtle degrees of obfuscation here?
Because the filament situation is about *reflecting* IR energy, then what this is doing is effectively reducing the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths. In this case the argument follows as they usually describe it, because as I have stated many times, reducing emissivity for a given input thus requires a higher temperature. I had said that a surface’s emissivity cannot be tuned, and this is true. But in this case there is a quasi-tuning of emissivity going on because the reflective IR mirror around the filament effectively prevents the filament itself from emitting at IR wavelengths. It is a good optical engineering trick, indeed. But it is NOTHING to do with the way the GHE is derived in terms of heat flows and transfers and absorption, etc. GHG’s are *absorbing* IR energy, not reflecting it. And then after absorbing IR then GHG’s thermally re-emit in all directions, including out to space. The IR mirror for the filament does not emit IR outwards which it had thermally absorbed from the filament, whereas GHG’s do. Reflective surfaces have low thermal emissivity, and the low IR emissivity of the IR reflector around the filament essentially transfers its low emissivity at IR wavelengths to the filament.
Now think of this: why is it a reflective IR mirror around the filament and not an absorptive IR blocking lens which just heats up and then returns energy that way, like the GHE does? This tells you that the situations are NOT at all the same between this filament engineering and the GHE. You cannot call reflection the same thing as a thermodynamic process following heat flows and energy absorption and thermal emissions, etc. How is reflection the same as thermal emission? They’re not, obviously. But this is the type of subtle obfuscation they want to pull over on you.
You see: in this case with reflection, the exact same frequencies, the same original energy, from the source itself, is returned. Thus the low emissivity of the IR mirror is effectively transferred to the filament, because those very frequencies and energies are not leaving the filament.
Whereas in the case with the GHE, the energy does leave the surface and does get absorbed into the atmosphere by GHG’s as heat transfer. The energy from the surface is thus gone. Now thermal energy can be emitted from the atmosphere, and emits in both directions AND it is *lower frequency*.
Ponder on this carefully…because this is subtle but it is also completely fundamental.
And so does thermally-emitted lower-frequency radiant energy have the effect of *effectively* lowering surface emissivity as the IR mirror does with the filament, but at the wavelengths which the cooler atmosphere emits at relative to the surface?
The answer is no, because the energy emitted by the atmosphere is *not* the exact same energy emitted by the surface. With the IR mirror around the filament, the original energy from the filament is simply made to change directions, i.e. reverse, and with good engineering to mostly stay *contained at the filament*. It is the filament’s own original energy, its own frequencies, unchanged, effectively being prevented from leaving the filament, thus effectively lowering or “tuning” the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths. All that is great and fine.
If you were to replace the IR mirror with instead an absorptive IR blocking filter, then the IR “mirror” would thermally absorb the IR and heat up. But now it re-emits it own thermal energy at its own respective, and lower, temperature, and thus at lower frequencies. It would be much easier to engineer this than an IR-selective mirror! But the IR *mirror* is used, not an IR *absorber*.
Do you get this? Because this is about as subtle as it can get, and it has remained to give them an out. Please help collate and reduce and simplify this explanation of the physics, and the difference in the physics, etc.
We have always said that there are no examples of the GHE being engineered for exploitation. The only they have come up with is with a light bulb filament? Why not engineer it at power-production scales!? The reason is this: Because this light bulb IR-reflective mirror around the filament is *NOT* the same thing as the GHE, because this engineering with *reflection* in close proximity to the filament is not the same thing as thermal absorption and re-emission, and this is why that light bulb was deigned to work via reflection, *NOT* IR absorption.
*Reflection is not the same thing as thermal absorption.*
Hello!?
“When you add ice to coffee, does the lower energy of the ice add to the coffee?
300w/m^2 ice + 900w/m^2 coffee=1200w/m^2?
That is literally what you are doing.
You fundamentally misunderstand how thermodynamics actually works. ”
That is ALWAYS what they doing. And it is ALL that they are doing.
Thanks Joe! Will be digesting this. This guy is a smug bastard. I’ve been going back and forth with him for days. He’s a freak’n moron and they are so utterly arrogant.
Boomie you’ll never win the best you can hope for is they stop responding.
More from this guy:
Yeah, yeah, I know, you cranks believe that centuries of scientific understanding is all because of politics and all metaphysics.
And all because your pseudophysics cannot even explain how an IR coating improves efficiency of a light bulb, and the supposed political pseudoscience can. {Even though I did explain it to him briefly}
Throwing out irrelevant numbers about the lifetime of a photon {He calls less than a second in the atmosphere irrelevant} is just an attempt to divert from your inability to explain something that we, in the real world, can. It gets worse when you talk about single photons hitting some material. In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases. Fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb. Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.
“Temperature increase since 1850 at least 1 degree (in other words, 20% of a glacial-to-interglacial transition), at least 75% anthropogenically forced – all according to the science.”
I serrrrrrrrrrrrrriously doubt that we can even claim anywhere near a one-degree accuracy of temperature measurements that far back, accounting for the entire Earth. But if he wants to fantasize that we can, then let him keep deluding himself that this is possible (it isn’t). And even if it were possible, so what? — we are in an inter-glacial — nothing really spectacular about that, since this is how Earth seemingly has oscillated for millions of years (glacial, inter-glacial, glacial, etc.). We humans just happen to be living during one of those inter-glacials — the fact that we are living and experiencing it does not make it special.
As for “75% anthropogenically forced”, I would like to see the “science” that proves this. In lieu of the fact that no such science exists, then I have to devolve my gentlemanly tone and call bull shit there — 100% pure.
Another question when using the Spectral calculator to determine peak emissions how far do you spread the upper/lower limit?
I just did explain it. Basic physics does explain it. THEY are wrong to think that reflection is the same thing as absorption…lol.
“In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases.”
Yes…absorbing…not reflecting! Gave himself away. Does his pseudoscience distinguish between reflection and absorption? They’re pretty different processes!
“Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.”
We have never stated any problem with spectral absorption. What is wrong is to say that this is identical to a reflective IR mirror. This is about thermal absorption, and whether thermal re-emission can add back to something warmer.
They’ve created a new box for themselves. And in this box they have to plow over and hide subtleties and distinctions.
“So whilst I fully support the JP’s work I am now asking if anyone can see that the SB law negates the need for GHG’s if the AVERAGE surface input is 390W m2 and 5 Kms’s up it is only 240 W m2. Shock horro the Earths emissions.”
I think that this is precisely the point of JP’s work.
And what you seem to have demonstrated is how radiative-greenhouse believers confuse, conflate, and alternate their meaning of “surface” to suit their needs.
The “surface” for near-ground/near-water temperature measurements is at the very bottom of the atmosphere.
The “surface” for Earth’s planetary emission necessarily INCLUDES much of the atmospheric mass, since we are talking about the whole mass of a planet, and since most of just the atmospheric portion of Earth’s entire mass is centered around the 5Km altitude, then this location is the best we can discern for a “surface” for the entire Earth/atmosphere system.
Radiative-greenhouse fans erroneously collapse these two distinctive “surfaces” into one and the same, so that they can erroneously compare two entirely separate temperature metrics, and call the falsely determined 33-degree difference a “greenhouse effect”, for which, you are right, there is no need.
“It gets worse when you talk about single photons hitting some material. In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases. Fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb. Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.”
Let’s look at the assertion about, “fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb”. So, where are those photons? — after they are absorbed? ANSWER: Those photons are EMITTED very quickly, … in all directions, effectively interrupting their otherwise straight-line path to the detector — that’s why the detector does not register them — they have been dispersed in other directions away from it — that’s why the gap appears … “in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb” — that’s what an emission spectrum is — it’s a spectrum for GASES that absorb AND emit, and those places where they absorb, then quickly emit, dispersing the electrons, is where a detector “sees” gaps.
It gets worse alright, but it’s this guy’s understanding that gets worse.
And really, it’s worse than he might think, … even speaking of single photons, when really, as I understand it, at the most sophisticated level, we should be talking about FIELDS, where photons are just localities in those fields. But, okay, particles work for practical applications, as long as we know how to speak of them correctly. Photons don’t get trapped.
I wish I knew the equation to determine in what directions photon scattering from a molecule would most likely take place and how they are broken down (or better yet just the stats). Does a 15 micron break off into 2 or 3 or 4?
What determines the re-duplicate over dispersion? Chaos theory?
A heated molecule cannot absorb another until it has reached a relaxed state. Once the molecules in a parcel of air is heated, all other photons are reflected. That means reflection is on the order of magnitude greater than absorption.
Less than 1% of the atmosphere is greenhouse gases and not all of them can absorb IR. Reflection and straight ejection into space has to be staggering compared to absorption.
Convection is certainly the means of heating the atmosphere and that does not require IR.
So since convection creates agitated molecules and molecules collide transferring kinetic energy no absorption is possible in that mix is it?
Can a kinetically agitated molecule still absorb? I thinking no.
So the claim that 20% of IR is absorbed I’m finding hard to believe. 80% emits out the open window and of that 20% a “chance” of interception is possible. Do satellites even detect all photons exiting the planet or does it have to be directly in the path?
The 75% of warming attributed to humans is total garbage and lies. This is Tony Heller looking at the temperature record back to 1900 and almost half the data is fake. NOAA.
@20:25 & lol @24:20
Also, ty JP I understand absorbing/emitting and reflection better. I will ponder on that. I might even try and draw some pictures, lol.
Thanks Robert Kernodle
“Radiative-greenhouse fans erroneously collapse these two distinctive “surfaces” into one and the same, so that they can erroneously compare two entirely separate temperature metrics, and call the falsely determined 33-degree difference a “greenhouse effect”, for which, you are right, there is no need.”
I figure that it is a given and not disputed that the Earths avg Surface temp is 15’C. Using this as an agreed starting point. It is shown mathematically without the need for greenhouse gases that we can calculate the temperature at a given height above the surface of the earth. That agrees with the alarmist.
So how is it that they have been able to avoid something that is so straightforward then?
@21mins is a good one too.
CD,
As I’m understanding it (or trying to), focusing ONLY on CO2 excitation and de-excitation is a lopsided.
Separating CO2 from the rest of atmospheric mass, like most arguments do, is NOT correct. It’s more complex than that, … involving N2, O2 and their energy modes, in relation to CO2, which relationship results in energy mostly flowing from N2 and O2 to CO2, whereby CO2 helps cool the bulk of atmospheric mass, rather than warm it.
“So how is it that they have been able to avoid something that is so straightforward then?”
The human mind has a great capacity for creatively synthesizing its various fragments of knowledge. Sometimes these fragments come together in ways that are separated from the first principles upon which they are ultimately based. People loose connection to those basic principles, and these people build new tapestries of thought that have every appearance of being legitimate, but which fail to maintain integrity with respect to the founding principles or deeper principles that these people have never understood.
So, you might see supposed experts talking about quantum mechanics, who do not know the subject deeply enough to realize that their synthesis fails to go deeply enough. They know just enough to trick people into believing that they know what they are talking about, when really they might know only the first layer of many layers of complexity that they have not investigated.
It’s all about selective pasting together of ideas — really very creative, however physically wrong it might be.
Catastrophic human-caused climate change, thus, is a sort of art form, … an art of story telling.
Naive Fool
>It’s literally not, because ice in coffee is conduction. But whatever.
What happens to the 230W that is radiated toward the surface then? Does it just disappear magically?
Boomie
“Look at the equations:
Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
Hmm… Heat transfer from hot to cool!
ANYTHING that they say about backradiaiton with acknowledgement of the above radiative equation can thus equally be applied to backconduction. There are Tcool terms in both of those equations, which means that the energy of Tcool should be affecting Thot in both cases as per their argument.”
-Joseph Postma
You mean the energy that just came from the earth? I’m positive it doesn’t get back added to itself.
It radiates away in all directions, it cools. Just like the ice.
…and to many it is the New Gaia Religion where the point or focus is we are all guilty of carbon sin agaisnt the Mother Godess and we must pay in absolution. This is like a religion where the word of Gaia can only be understood by her prophets, the climatologists, and we have no authority to question the word of her chosen ones.
RK,
“Synthesis.” I like that word. Funny I spent my childhood learning the biggest words I could find to be a writer and then I found out plain speech reaches a wider audience. Synthesis, a comfortable word choice, kind of just rolls off the tongue.
Not like science where the goal is to create the longest word you can. Just looked it up and it’s
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, [ noo-muh-noh-uhl-truh-mahy-kruh-skop-ik-sil-i-koh-vol-key-noh-koh-nee-oh-sis] I am not even going to try and sound it out.
“a word that refers to a lung disease contracted from the inhalation of very fine silica particles, specifically from a volcano; medically, it is the same as silicosis.”
I have a word for climate alarmists:
yougottabekiddingmeifyoubelievethatcarbondioxidecancontrolearthclimate
“a word that refers to a brain disease contracted from the incubation of fragmented parcels of knowledge, selectively and erroneously juxtaposed to create a false narrative of doom.”
… unlike your example, easy to sound out. (^_^)
Speaking of those suffering from yougottabekiddingmeifyoubelievethatcarbondioxidecancontrolearthclimate
Here’s the latest drivel from Potholer54:
“I agree completely! And that incorrect or exaggerated information is coming from people who inadvertantly or deliberately misrepresent the science. So while I applaud your sentiment that people should “question” the science, that should mean asking questions and checking the science, not believing whatever disinformation they read on the internet.
When scientists tell me that vaccinating my kids will protect them from viruses it’s fine to “question” that by finding out what a virus is and how vaccination and immunization works. But I should not “question” it by believing blogs that tell me vaccination leads to autism, and then join a campaign promoting that belief. That is not questioning, it is “formulating an opinion… based on incorrect and exaggerated information.”
And yet he does that everyday, pushing global warming and only the “science” that supports it.
So I said,
“”formulating an opinion… based on incorrect and exaggerated information.” Like the greenhouse gas effect via a CO2 mechanism, which has not been proven in over 200 years to create catastrophic climate change. I could not agree with you more. Well said, sir, well said!”
Let’s see how that ruffles his pretentious feathers.
Weird how these people are all super-pro vaccines. Vaccine immunization works, sure. That doesn’t translate to what they actually inject you with being safe, or that babies needs dozens of them, etc. These people seek our death and destruction.
@Robert Kernodle
Joseph you should say hi to him, in kind fashion and see where it goes from there. I’m just curious if you’re cordial with him how he’ll react, present one of your videos and state the misconception in the diagrams. His trolls will nash at you but I am curious how he will play it. It will be like a Psychology 101 experiment in high school.
Here’s the thread (one of two) I’ve been on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA&lc=z23ozllohmzqujrutacdp435fxnrspimgatewupwaplw03c010c.1583878982776362
Its 80+ comments under:
Jon W
3 days ago
Are you planning to do a response to that Anti- Greta moron? Naomi Seibt
This is where Vander and I have been going at it.
Naive fool
>You mean the energy that just came from the earth?
No, I don’t. I mean the MLI example we’ve been discussing:
To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan–Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.
What. Happens. To. The. 230W. Radiated. Back. To. The. Original. Plate?
Boomie
>It does not heat up the original plate more.
That. Is. Not. The. Greenhouse. Effect.
Guys…we should never forget that I formally disproved the greenhouse effect using Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, in my book “In the Cold Light of Day.”
The mathematics of the scenario demonstrates a formal mathematical contradiction…full stop…where the solution indicates that 1 = 2. Literally, that’s the literal end of the analysis, of the solution. 1 = 2.
On the other hand when you solve the scenario using the mathematics of heat flow and the heat equation as per thermodynamics, rather than their mathematics of energy flow *indistinct of heat flow* and therefore indistinct of thermodynamics (recall the reviewer telling me not to talk of heat, but only of energy…thus to abandon thermodynamics), then of course you find a consistent solution.
Tell these fuckers that it is RIGHT IN THE BOOK, and they can go through the math themselves.
I solved it *exactly the way* they ask for it to be solved, concerning only flows of energy without reference to heat equations, and you get the solution of 1 = 2 upon a simple analysis of the boundary states. It’s a formal mathematical proof. When you get a solution like that, it tells you that something is wrong about the way you solved the physics. What is wrong, of course, is not utilizing the heat flow equations and instead only creating energy flow equations indistinct of heat.
Send them the book reference and quote the above appropriately.
BTW my new paper on a brand new mathematical algorithm for solving a long-standing problem in astronomy has passed final review, and should thus be automatically accepted for publication. This is in the journal “Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific”, one of if not THE highest ranked astronomy journals in the world. And the solution/mathematical algorithm I’m presenting to astronomy has never been thought of before, or solved this way, etc. It reduces the time required to create a solution of a common astronomical problem by 5 orders of magnitude from existing solutions, using an entirely new, different, and novel approach no one has ever devised. That’s a 100,000 times reduction in solution time. It also solves the solution in cases where existing schemes *cannot solve at all*. Not sure if I posted that paper draft here…I think I did on FB though.
Anyway, the point is, I FN know what I’m doing with math… 🙂 They want my credentials? I publish my astronomy science papers in PASP, and my next paper presents the solution to a problem which has never been accomplished before.
So tell them to read my FN book, and face the math! 🙂
“Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”
This is why they want to pretend that radiative heat transfer is fundamentally different from conductive, even though the equations are fundamentally structured exactly the same way, and even though what the equations are about is how frequency micro-states and entropy can be shared between objects.
Because if that surface was just laid directly on top on the concrete, touching, then this is simply the new layer of the concrete, and the concrete wouldn’t be hotter simply by adding a bit more surface layer to it of identical emissivity. If we apply their argument, we could say that carefully removing a surface layer of the concrete and creating a gap of 1cm inside it will now make the interior concrete hotter. Imagine if it were that easy to make something hotter? Just split it in two but maintain a small gap at the split between the two pieces.
It was in fact this very consideration and analysis which lead to discovering that Willis’s “steel greenhouse” demonstrated a solution where 1 = 2, when the two surfaces were put into contact with each other.
For these problems, energy is conserved at steady-state by finding the solution where the heat flow is equal to zero, because it is only when heat flow equals zero when the temperatures stop changing. When the temperatures stop changing, which is when heat flow equals zero, is when you should find conservation of energy. And we do, as I demonstrated in my book.
In this example (quote above), heat flow is zero when the layer 1cm has the same temperature as the concrete. There is then a radiation-temperature field of 300K or 460W inside the gap. The new layer has the same temperature, just as if it were laid directly upon the surface. The outside of the layer then emits the 460W.
Congrats Joseph on the paper, I think my math and yours is pretty equal…if you were still in pre-school!
Seriously it is dumbfounding the protection they go through for political climate science. That’s why you should do an astrophysical paper on Venus with just the math and so forth proving the causation of Venus w/o touching the GHGe directly but in “disproving it” by omission. Just a thought.
If you can’t get in the front door…
They instead solve these problems not by setting heat flow equal to zero, or by referring to heat transfer at all, but by conserving energy indistinct of the heat flow equations. In this case you get the back-radiation back-adding scheme. But this conserves radiant energy as if it follows fermion statistics, whereas it actually follows boson statistics. Thermodynamics is mathematically called “statistical mechanics” for a reason, because what it reduces to is an analysis of how numbers behave depending upon certain axioms of the relevant energy and material phenomena. For example: matter cannot overlap and follows the Pauli Exclusion Principle, whereas light/radiant quanta can overlap and do not follow the Exclusion Principle. This of course has a huge, fundamental effect upon the statistical behavior of matter vs. that of radiation.
They treat photon quanta as if they are matter, where back-radiation is equivalent to a pressure valve on a hose. Of course with matter going through a valve, when it is stopped up then the matter pushes upon itself and builds pressure. But shine a laser into a cavity and see if you can feel the “back pressure”.
Wow. JP just came in with the bomb.
Lol yea just say that everytime
This is great stuff as soon as you hear “according to climatologists” you know its going to be a clown show.
First of all I want to really thank JP for enlightening me. It embarrasses me to say this as it did take your persistence and repetitious clarity in your posts and use of examples until it hit the mark.
So I just had a moment. It never occurred to me the significance that the SB constant is used in both the Ideal Gas law consisting of “R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of the Boltzmann constant and the Avogadro constant” and also the well the Stefan Bolltzman law P= SB*e*A*T^4
I know I did read this somewhere recently. I think a Robert Holmes video in comments not long ago. maybe here? But it did not click to just now!
1. The Sb law explains the temperature gradient from Earths Surface to the average mass location of our atmosphere. About 5km up. No greenhouse gases required to explain the gradient!
2. The Ideal Gas law confirms the correlation between mass pressure and temperature. Holmes has shown this on many occasions. No greenhouse gases required to explain the gradient!
3. The hyposmetric formula gives us the height above the SURFACE of earth at which -18’C effective emissions height is. using the NOAA NCEP/NCAR IPCC approved data we can tie the above together.
No where in any of the above points is Back Radiation factored into this. Surely you smart guys can put this altogether as one piece. I sure as hell have problems just expressing in English.
Have I got this right. because I sure as hell want to ram it home with some others
In my conversations with the Warmanistas, there is constant referral to this effective radiating level concept, essentially as i understand tit that as the optical thickness increases from the addition of CO2 IR must be radiated from high and thus colder altitudes which forces a compensatory warming so that OLR “balances, simply explained in this video
or this from the Univ of Wisc.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/radn.ppt
bullet points:
Climate depends on radiation from sun
uSurface and lower atmosphere cool by infrared radiation to space from upper troposphere (ERL= effective radiating level, such that total CO2 above is fixed)
uIncreased concentration of atmospheric CO2 raises ERL, reducing outgoing IR, until troposphere has warmed to compensate
uOcean heat storage in ocean takes decades to come to new balance
uFor given CO2 concentration, low clouds cool , high clouds warm
Greenhouse Warming:
a simple model
uHold absorption of incoming solar radiation radiation fixed
uInfrared radiation leaves earth for space from upper troposphere (ERL). Amount increases with temperature at ERL (immediate). Height of ERL is such that total CO2 above it is constant.
uAdditional carbon dioxide mixes rapidly in troposphere (weeks)
–ERL rises to where temperature is lower, less outgoing radiation.,
uEarth surface+ troposphere warms till outgoing radiation from ERL balances incoming (years to centuries)
More technically explained here:
Warmists also frequently reference https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Proof is also offered using MODRAN which shows what happens at various concentrations of CO2 to the “optical window”
Hard to debunk for me without your physics, Joseph, but I’d like to know how. Potholer stuff is similar.
Thanks Joseph. You are doing great work!
You guys feel like having a laugh?
Banal. Lol.
@minarchist
The first thing to realize is that the radiative height argument has NOTHING to do with the GHE as derived in the textbook models via backradiation. Thus, what is the climate GHE? Is it caused by radiative height and the lapse rate? Or is it caused by backradiation? What exactly are we talking about? Why the inconsistency? It’s *their* theory, why do they explain it in ways which contradict each other and have nothing to do with each other? Radiative height, or backradiation?
Think of how this important this is. The way to understand this, what is of course happening here, is how a physical war would be waged: you have fall back position and you have multiple defensive and multiple offensive strategies. You sow confusion, perform flanking maneuvers, pretend your forces are amassed in one area while they are actually staging in another, etc.
That they have no consistent position on what exactly their GHE is is all of the evidence we require to reject them and any position they have, truly. We simply need to point it out, and demand consistency, and tell them to get themselves figured out before they attempt to make any further arguments.
In rhetoric, as opposed to physical battle, the best defense is in having no identifyable, consistent, or rational position. Because then your enemy is always off his footing always attacking a changing battle field with no identifiable enemy.
As it is, we have debunked both models, the backradiation greenhouse effect which violates basic thermodynamic theory, and the radiative height argument where Richard Lindzen showed from empirical data that there is *NO* warming in the upper troposphere, i.e., *NO* raising of the radiative height.
Further, we now have multiple researches showing that the only thing you need to explain the atmosphere is the distance from the Sun, and the mass/pressure of atmosphere.
*That they have multiple positions indicates that they have NO position.*
Remember that, always. It’s quotable.
*That they have multiple positions on how the GHE works indicates that they have NO position. And if there is no position on how the GHE works, then the GHE must not work.*
^That’s brilliant right there…lol.^
Thanks Joseph I just said that exact thing to someone yesterday. If you put forward a hypothesis supported by an argument,you can not keep changing the argument every time the last argument fails. As Einstein said it only takes one to prove me wrong.
Exactly Barry. That is exactly what they do.
@Joseph E Postma
“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”
“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”
“Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.”
-Sun Tzu
Yes boomie, I’m happy that you saw the connection, and what I was referring to.
It is the art of war in rhetoric, the art of war in debate, the art of war in propaganda, etc.
Thus you see that it is in fact a war. And like all wars, there is an intended victor, and an intended victim. It is easy to solve what the victory and loss conditions are: What happens to a planet and species who vilifies the source of life, the molecule upon which all life is based? What happens when the species calls sugar “carbon free”? Extrapolate. What happens when they are convinced to believe in the term “carbon zero”? Extrapolate. What happens when they are convinced to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere? Extrapolate. What happens when they genetically engineer a bacteria to sequester all gaseous carbon dioxide (as Israeli “scientists” have done/are working on)? Extrapolate.
Do this on a smaller scale. What if you convince a single person that fertilizer in their garden is a poison they should avoid for the sake of their garden? You see the analogy of course. If on the scale of a single person’s garden you result in destroying the garden and starving the person…then now scale this up to the entire planet, all countries, and a global operation, which is what it is. The same result, just at a much larger scale.
Now from here one can begin to consider the nature of the enemy: If on the small scale this occurs, then perhaps it is a neighbor who hates his neighbor. Whatever the particular reason is, it is clear that it is something occurring on the individual scale. If you succeed in destroying your neighbors garden and starving him to death, then the property becomes available and you can do with it as you please. Now scale up: if someone is doing this to an entire species (humans), and to an entire planet…then what is the nature of such an enemy.
The enemy might just be psychopathic control freaks all too human…but that they can clearly and easily be characterized as I have above (i.e. aliens?), then it puts an emphasis on how dangerous they are.
What happens when they are tricked into adopting flat Earth theory as their best science for political action? What happens when they are tricked into believing that the Sun doesn’t create the weather or sustain the climate or heat the planet?
Extrapolate.
LOL I really pissed Vander Weert off what a putz! This response has made up the worthless time I spent on him. He totally ignored my comments to him and chose only a word or phrase to cling to.
Me:
Not exactly what I said, nice job clinging to one remark and ignoring the others. Typical.
My points on various bulbs:
>The bulb gets its power from the voltage applied to the circuit from an actual power source. IR light (trapped or returning) from the bulb doesn’t increase the voltage or the current so it is not a heating source or an increased heating source
>”The power in a circuit with a resistor like a light-bulb filament is P = V2/R = I2*R. The energy is supplied from outside the circuit via the voltage which induces the current. Heat and light (light being the visible portion of the dissipated heat) is a dissapatory output of the circuit and can’t be used as further input.” the brief version From Joseph Postma, a physicist with a working and applied understanding of physics.
>I believe an object can’t heat itself up above its source energy. That is thermodynamics physics, period and that rule applies to everything. Turn the bulb off and it will not increase in temperature. Thus the source is the energy heating the bulb not IR
>Anyway, the convection stopping of the bulb should be obvious, it was described in the paper you sited. Material can prevent IR from escaping, thus allowing light to enter, allowing visible light to exit but preventing the infrared photons to exit
Again >sigh You are making a very feeble attempt at comparing an enclosed environment, 2900 Kelvin emission with trapped IR photons as being the same as an open atmosphere, no trapped photons, no heat increase and a potential temperature of 193.15 Kelvin a difference of 2,707 Kelvin
Now in conclusion (not your delusion).
The GHG is not about reflection, it is about absorption followed by re-emission.
Where the political science comes in is claiming that IR is returning to the surface and heating the surface up again which is not how particle physics works.
Back to the bogus bulb theory, the filament is reflecting IR by lowering its emissivity at IR wavelengths. The reflective IR mirror around the filament effectively prevents the filament itself from emitting at IR wavelengths.The coating is reflecting IR.
It is a marvelous feat of engineering but not the GHGE.
CO2 (the poster molecule for political science) is absorbing IR energy not reflecting it as is the filament. GHGs absorb and emit in all directions, inducing directly to outer space.
The energy emitted by the atmosphere is not the exact same energy emitted by the surface. With the IR mirror around the filament, the original energy from the filament is simply made to change directions, i.e. reverse, and with good engineering to mostly stay *contained at the filament*. It is the filament’s own original energy, its own frequencies, unchanged, effectively being prevented from leaving the filament, thus effectively lowering or adjusting the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths.
If you were to replace the IR mirror with instead an absorptive IR blocking filter, then the IR “mirror” would thermally absorb the IR and heat up. But now it re-emits it own thermal energy at its own respective, and lower, temperature, and thus at lower frequencies. It would be much easier to engineer this than an IR-selective mirror! But the IR mirror is used, not an IR absorber
Again. you are welcome and thank Joseph Postma when you see him next.
Wart:
“Are you seriously asking me to thank Joseph Postma for coming with a vastly inferior solution?
An IR absorber may be easier to manufacture, but would send 50% of the radiation out in the wrong direction. Moreover, it would lose energy by convection (and some conduction) to the outside, and it would need to heat the filament inside the bulb by a mixture of radiation and convection. Worse is that its effect would be time-dependent (the absorber does not heat up right away), and unless you design the system extremely carefully, the outside of the bulb may heat up so much that either the glass melts, or there is so much dirt burning up on the surface that it blackens and makes the lamp break down. All in a few minutes. Lamp life? Let’s not even go there.
And yes, you wrote a lot more, which all ignored the big elephant in the room:
adding an IR reflective coating allows one to get the same color temperature of the bulb (obviously excluding the IR range, it’s blocked) with less energy input.
But now you have found a new magical explanation: the filament stops emitting IR radiation, because the IR radiation it sent out comes back. Of course, in the real world the filament does not stop sending out IR photons, it continues to emit but now also absorbs the IR photons that are reflected by the coating – maybe you want to look up the definition of a blackbody. It thus gets more energy in than just the energy from the current, and thus heats up – or, alternatively, you could also say it does not emit as much energy as it gets in from the current – and thus has to heat up to emit extra energy at other wavelengths. But that would be a better description of what happens to the system (filament + bulb).
But even in your fantasy world of magic photons, you still cannot make it contradict the GHE: we have IR photons emitted from the surface, absorbed by GHGs, and subsequently emitted with the same energy by those GHGs, including back to the emitting surface. So, even in your hilarious alternative world physics, the effect is the same: the surface emitting less IR photons means it must emit more photons in other regions – and for that it needs to warm up.”
Oh, I know, you’ll get all huffy and puffy again that I don’t understand physics, and yet your guru proposed magical filaments that know when to stop emitting IR photons. Next you’ll tell me that the emitted and reflected IR photons extinguish each other…
The wolves, the sheep, and the sheep dogs.
The sheep dogs work for the shepherd.
And wolves are vile beast.
Instead of putting on sheep’s clothing, the wolves are pretending to be the shepherd.
And they hire other wolves as sheep dogs.
1984 made real.
To suggest that reflection and absorption are the same thing is both utter incompetence and blatant lying upon the definitions. What a quack. I mean OMG.
Reflection is not a process involved in thermodynamics. Reflection does not transfer heat, or induce temperature change, etc. And reflection is NOT now the GHE works in physics. With reflection engineered as such in this filament example, you do effectively reduce the emissivity of the filament thus requiring the filament to move to a warmer color temperature. It is not that the IR photons are re-absorbed back per-se, but that they are effectively not emitting at all. This is not the GHE and to present it as such is gross incompetence and sophistry.
As he explains himself(!) the GHE wouldn’t work, wouldn’t do what this filament IR reflector does! Thank you for the admission!
He admits that with the GHE the other material emits in both directions, but with the reflector it doesn’t. Well…what exists in our atmosphere that also *does not* emit at all? It’s non GHG’s! Whereas then when we add the GHG’s, they emit in both directions, thus giving a vector by which the atmosphere can directly lose energy.
He defeats himself! What a wonderful gift! Thank him for proving your point, and ask him to not be such a fraud. The Slayers will always identify them and expose them.
But you see, and must understand, that we will always be talking at cross-purposes, with terms and concepts which are inconsistent to each other. Because they set it up that way…because they created their paradigmatic box for their pseudoscience. Thus they will never acknowledge a simple fact as just discussed…that non-GHG’s do not emit and thus have low emissivity and thus are warming gases, whereas GHG’s do emit and thus provide a vector for the atmosphere to cool. They will always ignore this. Or then they say that the emission of GHG’s is what creates the lapse rate…but then we explain that the lapse rate is in fact from gravity and adiabatic processes, and in fact the lapse rate should be different from what is calculated if there were indeed an additional effect from GHG radiant emission. They will just deflect and ignore.
Go back to basic physics, and keep them there. Conflating reflection with absorption is just the type of sophistry they love. The underlying physics is not the same thing at all. One of the physics (reflection) isn’t even discussed in thermodynamics at all! Or if it is…it is in radiative thermodynamics and is related to reflective surfaces having low emissivity, and in this case the low emissivity of the reflective IR mirror transfers into a similar effect upon the filament. This is not about heat transfer processes and it is NOT how the GHE works, etc.
You know if the GHGE were true our eyes would melt. Someone guessed around 1*10^14 photons pass through our eyes a second.
If I made a mistake somewhere let me know or if I could improve (well that’s a given) and where.
minarchist (@3GHtweets)
If CO2 were emitting from a higher altitude, then it would be getting this energy to emit from a warmer source than the source from which it would be emitting, which would mean that the source below the new height (the old height) would now have to be warmer than before, but, as I understand it, the old height source is NOT warmer than before.
I don’t think the height would even change. Emission happens from the entire volume of the atmosphere, and if that volume increases, then that means more volume is emitting. And I think this volume would distribute proportionately around the same altitude, meaning the height would NOT change.
Even if you did consider only an abstract emission “surface”, then you’d realize that the area of emission increases. So, the temperature might be a bit lower, but the AREA of this lower-temp emission is GREATER, meaning more emission of lower temp from a greater surface area would seem to equal less emission of higher temp from a smaller surface area.
So, I think that there are several ways to dismantle the emission-height argument. There are some faulty hidden assumptions in the emission-height defense, which I’m trying to clear up in my own thinking. I’m still working on it.
Naive Fool-
It RETAINS the heat.
That’s why your thermos keeps your coffee warm even though the outside of the thermos is colder than the coffee!
What you’re doing here is looking at a thermos and say something like “The coffee cannot be made hotter by the thermos! Thermos’s can’t exist!” Yeah, no shit Sherlock. No one expects it to “heat up more” — we expect it to slow down the escape rate of the heat.
Boomie-
That is not the greenhouse effect.
Naive Fool-
It is! I can link you to literally dozens of videos describing the greenhouse effect. None of them involve doubling the heat or creating energy. That is a strawman that you’ve set up because you can’t argue with the actual science.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that energy that radiates back toward Earth from the atmosphere cannot magically disappear!
Boomie-
Projection. You are the one straw manning. You are the one violating conservation of energy. You are creating energy.
Who said it disappeared? Another strawman. Just because it doesn’t increase the plate’s temperature, doesn’t mean the energy “disappeared”. You calling strawman on me? ridiculous.
What I set up is the introduction to climate science, where cold adds to hot. The “strawman” you refer to IS. THE. GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Do you get it? The greenhouse effect is adding cold to hot. You cannot deny it.
There it is right there being taught in college. Do you deny that?
Do you deny that that model is the same model you are calling a “strawman”
This model
A thermus does not add cold to hot
a space blanket does not add cold to hot
C02 does not add cold to hot.
Nothing adds cold to hot.
Also, a thermos works by having a dead-air space in a solid wall, surrounding the coffee, which prevents convection. Earth’s atmosphere is neither solid, nor does it have dead-air space. The thermos analogy, then, is completely wrong.
Earth’s atmosphere is NOT like a thermos. A thermos is NOT the greenhouse effect. To argue such is a straw man. Three strikes — he’s out.
A thermos stops convective cooling. NOT the GHE!
Energy is not destroyed. It also cannot heat if it is not high enough frequency. This is why the two surfaces in the concrete example reach the same temperature.
Good graphic reference. Exactly. Their entire fake physics with no empirical support is the mechanics of flat earth theory.
Exactly Robert.
Naive Fool sent me this
He doesn’t see how he is creating energy.
My likely response
The energy cannot exceed 240w/m^2 at any point. In the model the frozen sun is the only source of energy. The back radiation from the atmosphere does not get added ON TOP OF the same energy source. the model is 1=2.
That’s also a very nice diagram which demonstrates the mechanics of flat earth theory! I mean hello!? Nice flat Earth there!
Nice freezing cold sunshine that cannot create the climate or weather there!
Nice mechanics to try to make flat earth theory work with flat earth theory’s cold sunshine there! lol
lol of course! made me think of this.
“Did I mention the flat earth? The entire surface area at once? lol. With frozen sunshine spread all across it? And it’s 15C in there? does that sound right to you buddy?”
This is absolutely nuts we have to argue this!
Naive Fool-
Flat earth is just dumb. This is a basic model. Do you have a problem with this too? Does that mean Newton was wrong?
I’m not sure what you mean by frozen sunshine. Again, this is just a basic model with a reasonable assumption for the incoming solar flux. Any real model is spherical and has many layers of the atmosphere and a full spectrum of solar flux.
15C seems fine. The average Earth temp is 14C. So what’s the problem?
So yeah, that all looks fine, buddy.
Boomie-
lol -18c is reasonable? O so this isn’t the real model now?
The problem is you got that 15C with pseudoscience were the only input comes from a -18c sun.
so no, its all garbage, pal.
he linked this. so relavant.
Flat earth with -18C solar is a reasonable model!!!!????
Bwahahahaha!!! There you have it! Nail him! Nailed him!
That so FN retarded! Does that diagram work for orbital mechanics!!?? Hahaha
You FN nailed him. Make him eat it.
Wasn’t that example of sophistry straight from my first book!!!??? I’d only encountered it once but it was so good I put it in the book: how they claim that since they can use a flat Earth to calculate the trajectory of a ball then there is nothing wrong with flat Earth for the entire Earth in climate science and solar input.
That diagram only works when the scale of the ground is *small* enough that the ground *ACTUALLY IS FLAT*. Such as a baseball diamond, etc.
But could you use that diagram above to derive orbital mechanics and launch a rocket into orbit!? It could never be done. There is a fundamental mathematics and mathematical physics, and philosophical logical, limit to that above diagram which makes it 100% forever *impossible* to use to derive anything that reflects what possibilities exist with a spherical Earth, such as orbital motion. Don’t people just know this!? I know you guys do…but my GOD these academics and climate people are just FN braindead! It’s astonishing how braindead and nonintellectual they are!
Likewise you cannot use flat Earth to derive anything relevant to the climate or energy exchanges in the climate, because these physically exist on a spherical Earth and follow the possibilities as such which only a spherical Earth can provide. Such as day & night, etc. You see this immediately when flat Earth says that solar input is freezing cold and cannot create the climate or weather or heat anything above -18C. You get the demonstration of the deep philosophy of mathematics IMMEDIATELY.
But these morons just go right on past and call it “reasonable”!!!
Naive Fool-
You do know the sun is really far away, right?
Are you saying the solar flux at Earth should be the same as the surface of the sun, champ?
Boomie-
“OMG. Dude, how hot does a blacktop road in Phoenix Arizona in summer get? You think 240w/m2 is doing that?
We get around 960w/m2 concentrated at the equator. 88C.
960/4=240
WOW.”
It’s like this guy lives in the computer and can only deal with the data he’s been fed. Does he know sunlight is hot? lol jfc.
What does the Sun being far away have to do with treating the Earth as flat!?
Boomie…you’ve got this NPC glitching out! Its algorithm is now randomly spitting out text…lol!
This is how dumb these people are. How is what you said having anything to do with the temperature of the surface of the Sun!?
That’s how dumb these people are, how disconnected from reality they are. That when you present to them simple facts about physical reality…they GLITCH OUT and begin saying random things…lol.
lol
I need my math checked, any takers?
163–178 mW cm−2=6.9 to 7.05 micron, which is an effective bb temperature of 137.88-146.85 Celsius/280.2-296.3.
Wasn’t sure how to approach mW cm-2 as I wasn’t even sure what it was, out of my element. But it appears that it’s just milawat/square centimeters, which is simply 1/10 W/m^2 so to convert you would just need to *10, so if I were to right out the equation t would be m/W^2*W/m^2 ??? Why does that feel wrong?
@boomie789 Sounds like your guy is tweak’n.
Sorry write out, not right out, right on man! Tired.
This isn’t making any sense at all:163-178 mW cm-2 is nothing in temperature is I am doing the math right our normal range of site has higher temperatures?
Abstract:
“Cataracts occur frequently among workers who deal with hot material such as molten glass or steel, as a result of exposure to intense infra-red radiation (i.r.) emitted from it. To investigate this hazard, a theoretical model of the human eye being exposed to i.r. was developed, and the temperature distributions within it were calculated. It is suggested that i.r. cataracts in the workplace result from the generation of heat by absorption of i.r. in the cornea and heat conduction to the lens. The threshold i.r. irradiances for cataract formation were determined from the relationship between the incident irradiance and the lens temperature, and were in the range 163-178 mW cm-2 for long-term exposures (greater than about 5 min) under normal conditions. However, these values may be reduced by 50% for workers who perform heavy work at a high ambient temperature. It may be possible to set i.r. exposure limits in the workplace based on these threshold data.”
Isn’t there something even more obviously wrong with the following image, or any image like it?:
Isn’t it wrong to divide fluxes, in such a way that they can be added together again? Don’t those numbers have meaning, associated with a surface area for which flux is defined?
So, not only does the above diagram create an extra amount of flux out of nowhere (or adding part of flux back to itself), but also, even more basically, it mistakenly treats flux as if it can be divided into parts that it cannot be divided into. It’s wrong to divide fluxes like this, and then this wrong is not even handled consistently with its own erroneous origination.
Is this correct?
Yes good diagram.
Joseph, do you agree that Feynman’s statistical mechanics supports our view that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is determined by mass and gravity ie. not radiative. Seems it does. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
So, my question has always been HOW are those partial fluxes in “energy budget” diagrams arrived at? — what surface area are each of those fluxes referring to?
@Robert Kernodle
The actual emmitance of earth is 240w/m^2.
After the 960w/m^2 is absorbed by the earth and reemitted.
They took the actual emittance of earth and added it on top of itself. By having the
atmosphere also emit 240w/m^2 and adding it to earth’s emittance, raising earth’s surface temperature.
Sooo..all the surface area, at once, it really makes no sense at all. Lol.
Is that what you are asking for?
Thanks, boomie789, I already get that.
What I am asking is how the individual W/m^2 quantities in energy-budget diagrams are derived:
Every. Single. One. … of those numbers in the above chart requires a surface area reference for which the respective W/m^2 is physically, mathematically defined. So, how do “scientists” figure ALL of those quantities? What is the procedure used to divide up solar flux into those individual quantities? THAT’s my query.
Along those lines of their stats why is the open window for IR 80% when ghgs are only 1% spread so thin it can’t act as a net. I’m guessing clouds and particles?, so how much IR is actually bounced off of clouds/particles to ghgs or the surface as opposed to non cloud “gas molecule” actually absorbing. We are talking one photon for one molecule, right? Can CO2/CH4/? even absorb a packet of photons?
So say (I’m just guessing) a trillion IR photons pass through a 2500 molecule area, only 0.04% are candidates for absorption but once that portion of the atmosphere is heated no absorption is available, just KE transferring. If IR is constantly emitting, how much relaxation time does the molecules in the atmosphere have to absorb? Seems 80% is too low off the cuff of my head unless it is just cloud scattering, something that would exist without other IR responsive gases.
Apparently, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like making the hole in a bucket smaller:
“If you have a bucket with water flowing in at the top and out through a hole at the bottom and make the hole smaller (aka provide resistance to the outflow), the water level in the bucket will rise until the pressure pushes the same flux through the smaller hole.”
From blankets to buckets. lol
Light does not behave like matter. Demonstrate this principle by shining a laser into a bucket if they think so…lol.
Naive fool-
“My god, man. It’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Just something used in education to get the concepts across.
[Here is a real model](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262951748_An_Overview_of_BCC_Climate_System_Model_Development_and_Application_for_Climate_Change_Studies). Do you want to discuss that?”
Boomie-
“Once again. That model has no basis in reality. Heat only flows one way.
That model is a de-learning tool that RUINED your ability to understand thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer.
O and this model isn’t the real one again? So is the model real or not?”
That “real model” he linked, the authors are all chinese! I thought the Chinese weren’t worried about C02 emissions. They sure don’t act like it at least.
We’re being played like a fiddle.
He hasn’t responded in hours now, maybe he stopped.
Naive Fool-
> Dude, how hot does a blacktop road in Phoenix Arizona in summer get?
[Like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkJxHpZIQ0s).
> We get around 960w/m2 concentrated at the equator. 88C.
The 88C is meaningless. Do you think the sun is colder than boiling water at 100C???
The sun radiates at several million degrees — we’re just far enough away that we only get a portion of it.
The average solar flux on the planet is going to be somewhere between 0 (at the poles) and 960 (at the equator). You can’t take the maximum as the average. A simple approximation is to take the energy received at a cross-section and distribute it over the entire sphere.
But you can do it with 960 if you want — you’ll just get a different factor for “f”. Go ahead and try. All you need to do is balance the numbers so that the Earth is at 15C.
If you understand the equations, it should take like 2 minutes.
Boomie-
“Guy, where on earth is -18C? You gotta go to Canada for those types of temperatures!
You really just dont get it.
What does the surface of the sun have to do with anything?
You cant take the maximum, the 960w/m^2 actually felt at the equator? So you take a solar flux only experienced near the poles?
You dont know that these numbers actually mean and how it actually works.
The average sunshine spread over the entire surface at once is USELESS.
I am talking to a guy who thinks the earth generates it’s own climate independent of the sun. Jfc.”
The exchange before the last I think, and that’s it.
This other guy on Potholer’s site is either mental or well, mental. He keeps commenting and arguing points he has made claiming I said it and keeps bringing up his comments and arguing them like I’m the one who said it.
I haven’t even responded to him for a while and he keeps adding his own obfuscation to a conversation I’m not even in at the moment.
So this is by far his most entertaining comment(s):
@vidfreak5
The work of the sun warms it initially. From thermal physics a warmed body also emits radiation. Convection is only ONE means by which heat transfers. Radiation is another. Which is what the surface emits towards the sky. LOL this is what causes arming.
Your first law of thermodynamics is thus a strawman.
“I absolutely never said energy doesn’t flow both ways. ”
Semantics. Call it what you want. Energy. Heat. Heat energy flows in the form of radiation from a cold body to a hot body. YOu’re a dumbfuck.
Yes thermal equilibrium is what causes the system to not go on forever.
You are entirely misguided and youre beliefs are wrong. Such is the nature of the denialist
Reflected back because of absorbtion and remission. Whatever semantic games you want to play isn’t really my problem.
Slow cooling is what keeps the surface warmer. LOL opaqueness? REALLY? Is that all you have? Oh you’re a fucking genius! A regular Fucking MCEXPERT! You read a wiki post about it and you’re a genius.
Look up what is called “False authority syndrome”.
Co2 isn’t just reflecting. Its absorbing and reemitting.
Energy is disperssed in all directions. Including back to earth. Which slows cooling.
Everyone does know this but you. Well… every real scientist anyways. LOL. You’re as deluded as they come.
@vidfreak56 This is getting too easy at this point. Ive owned you
@vidfreak56
Heat is energy, and can flow both ways. You said a cold object can’t heat up a warm object. Which, according to physics, is wrong. Adding energy in either direction “heats” the object. Even if that heat merely slows down cooling. You’re merely getting into semantic games here in order to attempt to confuse the topic at hand.
@vidfreak56
The topic here is that LWR gets partially reemitted and some of that goes back to earth and depending on the semantic games you want to play”
So I finally replied:
You are literally talking to yourself, making claims I’ve never said, contorting them in your head, and arguing with yourself as if I said it, at this point you are just my amusement. Please see a doctor and take ll (another commenter) with you. I’ve enjoyed reading your argument with yourself, and I am sure you “own yourself” a lot. As someone who is also familiar with physiology, you’d be a gold mine research project. I’m almost tempted to write a paper on you…Almost. Maybe give me some more material first, please continue arguing yourself. Who am I talking to now? vid5 or freak6?
the stuff under @vidfreak56 is vidfreak, right?
Are you using the @ symbol right or am I wrong? Makes me think those are statements AT vidfreak56.
@=AT
Besides that he’s mean. I bet he doesn’t call people dumbf#cks to their face. Especially a grown man.
@boomie789
“So I finally replied:” is from myself, the rest above my final statement at the bottom and initial at the top is me. He even mentioned Spencer which really gave me a laugh.
@vidfreak56 it does mean “at” but on YouTube it is also a tag and is commonly used as such to refer to identity or an identifier. Which is why we use it here like I did above. It’s used to reduce confusion as to who you are addressing and to who you are quoting.
For example, since this is Joseph’s site it’s really not needed, you just say, [Joseph,] as the header.
However someone might comment on here who is also a Joseph and that would become confusing unless they added Joseph12 or something, then you would use the “name tag” @Joseph12.
Is that clearer? (I hope)
“So I finally replied:” is from myself, the rest above my final statement at the bottom and initial at the top is me.”
“Is that clearer? (I hope)”
Joseph, Heads up on another Roy Spencer defense of the consensus “GlowBULL Warming” Greenhouse effect in rebuttal of Comments on Dr. Ollila’s Claims that Greenhouse Effect Calculations Violate Energy Conservation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/
@boomie789
I’ve been married over 20 years and that’s my response to the question, “are you any closer to understanding women?”
Oh and sorry the above statement “As someone who is also familiar with physiology” should have been psychology lol darn typos and auto correct, been doing that and I don’t see the wrong word choice ’till after I click it. Although physiology is kind of funny.
@Robert K
Regarding the Radiative Model diagram…
1. As I understand it, all the fluxes presented in diagrams of this type are averaged over the whole surface of the Earth, so the “W per m^2” is just a scaling. You could say that the chart effectively summarises power fluxes in Watts according to type. The actual temperature of a region of the surface relates via the SB Law (flux proportional to temp^4), to the actual W/m^2 flux absorbed/emitted (making simplifying assumptions about emissivity, black body spectral profiles, etc.). Thus, averaging fluxes is not the same as averaging temperatures, and it is not generally valid to work back from the fluxes shown to temperatures.
2. As noted elsewhere, treating the back radiation as a heat flow violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. Worse than this, the “back radiation” in the diagram also violates Newton’s Third Law – Conservation of Momentum, which states that: action and reaction are equal and opposite. The momentum from the surface IR flux absorbed by the atmosphere layer is radiated out of the top of the atmosphere, at the same frequencies and same momentum, so there is no problem there. But where is the equal and opposite reaction to the “back radiation” photons? In the model shown, the reaction to the “back radiation” would cause the atmosphere layer to accelerate away into space. This is perhaps why such “back radiation” does not appear elsewhere in physics.
Of course, the radiative model is simply wrong. It is incomplete and is missing important physics. The atmosphere does not float away because of gravity. And gravity not only keeps the atmosphere in place, but also causes atmospheric pressure, the adiabatic temperature gradient, and enables the convection that actually does the job of moving much of the heat around the atmosphere.(Helped by diurnal, meridional and seasonal variations in surface insolation, etc.).
One of the first steps in understanding atmospheric physics is to cross out the “back radiation”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/
Spencer says:
But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.
I say:
So, he says the atmosphere is not adding more energy, and yet the atmosphere is “merely returning a portion of atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back …” ? The atmosphere re-contains energy that is already there and adds that energy back to itself to add MORE energy. The atmosphere is re-using its own energy, which is even worse than just plain “adding” energy. This is exactly what ADDING MORE ENERGY MEANS. The added energy is the same energy recycled.
Spencer thinks that, by using different words, and adding more words describing the components of his “not-added-yet-recycled” energy, he is not “adding more energy”. Changing the way you describe a basic concept does NOT negate the basic concept you are describing.
Spencer is trying to talk around the very fact that he is only illustrating more precisely.
Exactly Robert.
Spence claims, “IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not.”
Is that true? I think not.
Well note that it doesn’t even matter, and he’s presenting that idea in such a way as to imply something false: the ability for something to adsorb does not equate to a cold thing being able to warm a warmer thing, etc.
“A body can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation at or below its own temperature. Thus the temperature of outgoing radiation can only be less than or equal to the temperature of incoming radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience a temperature already higher than that radiation’s temperature, thus that radiation will be reflected, not absorbed. Since gasses cannot really reflect radiation, for a gas the radiation would be scattered.” https://www.iceagenow.info/debunking-the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/
minarchist (@3GHtweets),
I recognize that long quote you highlighted — it’s from a person who has the handle LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks, who chooses to remain anonymous.
I searched for all his/her posts on the internet, copied and pasted them into a document with links to the specific websites where they appear, for my own use, since he seems to really know his stuff — it came out to about 90 pages.
The particular quote you gave, I’m suspecting might cause him/her some grief from those looking to demolish him/her, because the wording could probably be improved a bit, even though intelligent people know what he/she means.
Here would be my rewording:
A body can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation at the same energy or at an energy below its own temperature. Thus the energy of outgoing radiation can only be less than or equal to the energy of incoming radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience an energy already higher than that radiation’s energy, thus that radiation will be reflected, not absorbed. Since gasses cannot really reflect radiation, for a gas the radiation would be scattered.
That’s a great quote for sure!
Robert Kernodle
Nice!
Looking at the Spencer quote that I highlighted earlier, I just realized something about the following sentence from that quote:
It [the atmosphere] is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.
Not only is he saying that the atmosphere is returning a portion of infrared, but also he is saying that the atmosphere is returning a portion of solar AND a portion of “convective transport energy”.
Do you realize what he is saying there?! — BACK CONVECTION !!! We have joked about this before, but there it is … in a serious presentation.
BACK CONVECTION !!! [mandatory three exclamation points upon each typing]
So, we can now add Spencer’s belief in … BACK CONVECTION !!! … to the American Meteorological Society’s denial that the sun produces the climate.
Of course, Spencer would complain that he said nothing about “back convection”, but rather that he explained “convective transport energy back to the surface”. See? — all those other words in there somehow make him immune from the fallacy of the basic concept that he is verbalizing in more words.
What he also does is divorce himself further from the standard incarnation of the “greenhouse effect”, which purely focuses on radiation. His “greenhouse effect” is now something substantially different, including back radiation AND back convection. He looks even more ridiculous trying to pedal this latest …. “defense”.
You have to admit they are one stubborn bunch,at this point they seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. I have noticed that they now are all going in different directions spouting the flavour of the day as the last argument is overcome. I suppose should be no problem with back convection if we are now cooking with ice.
Dr. Spencer’s latest defense surely seems to support JP’s rants on how the greenhouse narrative intentionally sustains paradox as the norm.
Dr. Spencer seems to hold that it’s so complex that it’s impossible to explain in words, but the words flow out anyway, in contradictory fashion, disguised (in their sheer quantity) as a novel revelation, but which, in fact, present a more detailed explication of the paradox being sustained in the obscurity of the new verbose complexity.
In short, lots of words to cover up the blatant flaw. … adults who refuse to give up believing in Santa. … simple models that are okay in their “incompleteness” (the new word for what we used to call “flat-out wrong”), endorsed by deferring to more sophisticated models that are so complex that only the wizards who built them can have any hope of understanding them, and, even so, are a whole ‘nother plateau of “incompleteness” that require aborting debate on the “simple model”, in order to talk about THOSE higher-level flaws.
It’s like you are being bounced from an elementary faux pas to a grandiose faux pas, and the grandiose faux pas is supposed to be the basis for forgiving the elementary faux pas.
Sick and disturbing, isn’t it?
@Robert Kernodle
You are a blessing.
Sounds like that document could make a good post of some kind, maybe.
Ignore the arrows look at the values instead.
The diagram starts with a solar input of 340 W/m2.
This is divide by 4 sophistry in action.
I’m going “Postma” over here, you guys might like it:
I need help here. I’m in a conversation with someone who claims that a warmer object does absorb photons from a cooler object. I claim no that can’t happen. He asks where in the three laws of thermodynamics does it say that can’t happen. I looked up that question “can a warmer object absorb a photon from a cooler object”. This is one of the responses, from Dan Holmgren, PhD Experimental Physics, University Illinois-Urbana:
Can photons from a cooler surface heat a warmer surface?”
Yes, photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy (heat) a warmer surface. Don’t confuse temperature (average kinetic energy) with heat content. A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.
Someone please explain that to me!
George,
I think an important qualification is missing from the doc’s answer:
A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.
Also, see this:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html
NOTE THIS COMMENT there:
Yes the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body of the same energy. Reducing the rate of cooling does not equal warming.
GHGs only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a few milliseconds, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is reversed at night.
“Yes, photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy (heat) a warmer surface.”
No, the warmer surface does not absorb the lower energy.
“Don’t confuse temperature (average kinetic energy) with heat content. A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.”
Then he tells you not to do what he just did.
They go in-between adding lower energy’s to higher energy’s
Then saying you can’t do that it’s really slowed cooling.
Then go back to adding lower energy’s to higher energy’s right in front of your face.
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/foundation-of-climate-science.jpg
I’m not a doctor or scientist though.
here are relevant Postma Qoutes
They instead solve these problems not by setting heat flow equal to zero, or by referring to heat transfer at all, but by conserving energy indistinct of the heat flow equations. In this case you get the back-radiation back-adding scheme. But this conserves radiant energy as if it follows fermion statistics, whereas it actually follows boson statistics. Thermodynamics is mathematically called “statistical mechanics” for a reason, because what it reduces to is an analysis of how numbers behave depending upon certain axioms of the relevant energy and material phenomena. For example: matter cannot overlap and follows the Pauli Exclusion Principle, whereas light/radiant quanta can overlap and do not follow the Exclusion Principle. This of course has a huge, fundamental effect upon the statistical behavior of matter vs. that of radiation. They treat photon quanta as if they are matter, where back-radiation is equivalent to a pressure valve on a hose. Of course with matter going through a valve, when it is stopped up then the matter pushes upon itself and builds pressure. But shine a laser into a cavity and see if you can feel the “back pressure”.
-Joseph Postma
—
Look at the equations:
Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
Hmm… Heat transfer from hot to cool!
ANYTHING that they say about backradiaiton with acknowledgement of the above radiative equation can thus equally be applied to backconduction. There are Tcool terms in both of those equations, which means that the energy of Tcool should be affecting Thot in both cases as per their argument.”
-Joseph Postma
—
Guys…we should never forget that I formally disproved the greenhouse effect using Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, in my book “In the Cold Light of Day.” The mathematics of the scenario demonstrates a formal mathematical contradiction…full stop…where the solution indicates that 1 = 2. Literally, that’s the literal end of the analysis, of the solution. 1 = 2. On the other hand when you solve the scenario using the mathematics of heat flow and the heat equation as per thermodynamics, rather than their mathematics of energy flow indistinct of heat flow and therefore indistinct of thermodynamics (recall the reviewer telling me not to talk of heat, but only of energy…thus to abandon thermodynamics), then of course you find a consistent solution. Tell these fuckers that it is RIGHT IN THE BOOK, and they can go through the math themselves. I solved it exactly the way they ask for it to be solved, concerning only flows of energy without reference to heat equations, and you get the solution of 1 = 2 upon a simple analysis of the boundary states. It’s a formal mathematical proof. When you get a solution like that, it tells you that something is wrong about the way you solved the physics. What is wrong, of course, is not utilizing the heat flow equations and instead only creating energy flow equations indistinct of heat. Send them the book reference and quote the above appropriately. BTW my new paper on a brand new mathematical algorithm for solving a long-standing problem in astronomy has passed final review, and should thus be automatically accepted for publication. This is in the journal “Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific”, one of if not THE highest ranked astronomy journals in the world. And the solution/mathematical algorithm I’m presenting to astronomy has never been thought of before, or solved this way, etc. It reduces the time required to create a solution of a common astronomical problem by 5 orders of magnitude from existing solutions, using an entirely new, different, and novel approach no one has ever devised. That’s a 100,000 times reduction in solution time. It also solves the solution in cases where existing schemes cannot solve at all. Not sure if I posted that paper draft here…I think I did on FB though. Anyway, the point is, I FN know what I’m doing with math…  They want my credentials? I publish my astronomy science papers in PASP, and my next paper presents the solution to a problem which has never been accomplished before. So tell them to read my FN book, and face the math! 
Robert,
Thank you for the reply. So i take it I’m wrong about a warmer body absorbing the photon from a cooler body. It just doesn’t increase the heat content. I stand corrected. I must admit to the other poster I’m wrong.
Should have sent it as ‘George’. I don’t care for wordpress.
Read carefully the info I linked you to, George.
What were you originally claiming again?
I was saying that a photon from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one due to being at a lower frequency (less energy). Your link indicates that it does happen , if I’m reading it correctly.
from reddit lol.
George,
As I understand it, External work has to be applied, in order for the “cool” photon to move into the warm object, like with a heat pump. Generally, though, when CO2mageddonistas make the claim, they do NOT have this qualification in mind, and, generally, this special circumstance is not implied, let alone stated outright — they think photons from cool sources can enter warm sources to do something magical that the laws of thermodynamics forbid. So, in my opinion, given the generally understood context of the assertion, you are right and do not need to admit a wrong.
Robert,
Thank you for your responses. I appreciate it. The AGW/GHE crowd try hard to convince people that energy is moving from hot to cold (cooler atmosphere to warmer surface). It is also disappointing to see people like Dr. Roy Spencer supporting that garbage. The PhD that I cited seems to believe that as well. No wonder our fight to overcome this CO2 scam is a tough one!
I meant to say cold to hot!
Frank Mlinar says:
2020/03/14 at 6:06 PM (Edit)
“Flat Earth theory.”
I think you assign too much importance to a simplified drawing of the earth’s energy budget. Simplified diagrams are handy to use and easy to understand. Simplified diagrams are a snapshot in time. Your spherical diagram is a step up in complexity, and I find it relatively easy to understand (except the greenhouse assertions. There we part ways).
Your spherical drawing is what climate scientists use, although they take it a step further and integrate over the sphere. This means the input energy, output energy, latent heat, albedo, etc will be different for each square meter. Convection will be different. Cloud cover will be different. Temperature will be different.
Some comments on your spherical earth diagram.
1. The power flux from the sun is actually 1360.8 W/m^2. This is the latest measurement, and is a minor point.
2. On the sunward side of your sphere, the input power flux is 480 W/m^2. On the other side, the power flux is zero. The average is 240 W/m^2 which is equal to the power flux out.
3. Latent heat does not describe the temperature of the earth’s surface, and does not set the average adiabatic temperature. I would like to see links supporting your assertion.
4. You state, “Heat flows down temperature gradients from warm to cool…” More accurately, net heat flows from warm to cool. All bodies radiate energy regardless of the temperature of other bodies. The net flow is what is what you are talking about. Convection is not constrained as tightly to temperature gradients. There, air masses are moved around and a cool air mass can be forced to mix with a warm air mass. Hadley cells. Thunderstorms.
Otherwise, your model is reasonable accurate.
Flat earth theory does not need to be defended because it doesn’t exist. All there is is a simplified diagram…and that’s it.
Joseph E Postma says:
2020/03/14 at 6:21 PM (Edit)
I assign the importance to those diagrams which they engender of themselves: the basis of climate science, as taught at universities around the world, as used to derive the climate “greenhouse effect”, as the basis for how climate scientists think of earth’s energy budget.
As such, what they generate for “understanding” is that of the mechanics for flat Earth theory, for how flat Earth theory would have to work and to be developed into a science, because they are a flat line representing the entire surface of the Earth which is thus flat Earth theory. As such, the logical and scientific flaw of flat Earth theory when developed into physics is that it postulates that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create the Earth’s weather, which is what these diagrams show. They then show an ad-hoc scheme to correct for this mistake of feeble sunshine which they label with a misnomer as “the greenhouse effect”, which has no empirical or theoretical support in the real world.
Indeed, the energy flows are all local and must all be treated as such, which is what my diagram shows, and which is what the basis of climate science flat Earth diagrams do not show.
Yes, the average is 240 W/m^2 output…and this cannot be used as a physical input since it is not the physical input. My diagram demonstrates this.
I did not assert “latent heat describes the temperature of the Earth’s surface and sets the adiabatic temperature.” The sentence is non-nonsensical and thus you’ve created a straw man.
Heat is the difference between energy emissions. Energy emission itself is not heat. Heat is only the net difference between energy emissions, which means that energy emission is itself not heat.
Yes, of course cold air can move to warm air regions due to wind. This is not about the thermodynamic restrictions and definitions of heat flow.
A flat line representing the entire Earth IS FLAT EARTH THEORY.
Flat Earth theory is the basis of climate science.
Frank M:
“Flat Earth theory.”
I think you assign too much importance to a simplified drawing of the earth’s energy budget.
Robert K:
I think Frank assigns TOO LITTLE importance to the initial impact of simplified drawings on newly unshaped minds.
Frank M:
Simplified diagrams are handy to use and easy to understand. Simplified diagrams are a snapshot in time.
If “simplified diagrams” are simply wrong in representing the very basics of reality, then they simply fail at the outset. When simple diagrams simply fail, they are simply useless in conveying needed basic foundations for later, mature, advanced thought. They simply create a false foundation. So much for simplicity, then.
Frank M:
Your spherical diagram is a step up in complexity, and I find it relatively easy to understand (except the greenhouse assertions. There we part ways).
Robert K:
If you consider the basic layer of that complexity as the shape of a sphere, as opposed to the shape of a flat plane to represent Earth, then this first layer of complexity is the first requirement of a basic model. Students just have to model up (i.e., as in “man up”, “soldier up”, etc.) and spend the relatively minimal amount of time studying it repetitively to understand why a sphere is the absolute essential first step in representing the Earth/atmosphere system.
Frank M:
Your spherical drawing is what climate scientists use, although they take it a step further and integrate over the sphere. This means the input energy, output energy, latent heat, albedo, etc will be different for each square meter. Convection will be different. Cloud cover will be different. Temperature will be different.
Robert K:
Climate modelers, I assume, are who you refer to as “climate scientists” here. And yes, no doubt, they use a spherical model, as they should, and take things a step further with gridding, as they should, and figure in lots of details for each grid, as they should. This is NOT, however, Joe’s spherical drawing. Rather, Joe’s spherical drawing would be the most logical first step for those students wishing to progress to complex climate models later — these students would have the basic foundation in a real-world representation of the Earth/atmosphere system, not a dissonant transition from a flat-Earth “simple model” that failed, from the start of their education, to acknowledge the Earth as a sphere with sunshine entering on a hemisphere at a time.
Discussing those advanced models, in all their intricacy, is a whole other discussion, which is not what I see as the focus here. Even those higher-level models have problems, partially engendered by refusal to give up the basic flat-Earth model. Those higher models, in fact, have been proven to emulate the flat-Earth basic model. Look at the work of Pat Frank, for example, who has convincingly demonstrated that those model outputs can be arrived at with a simple greenhouse-effect formula that the flat-Earth “simple model” clearly advocates.
Frank M:
Some comments on your spherical earth diagram.
1. The power flux from the sun is actually 1360.8 W/m^2. This is the latest measurement, and is a minor point.
Robert K:
Yes, such a minor point that it suggests that the only reason you brought it up was to brandish your knowledge of this particular figure, which makes you look less bright than if you had said nothing about it, since the brunt of the discussion is about the overall integrity of the diagram.
Frank M:
2. On the sunward side of your sphere, the input power flux is 480 W/m^2. On the other side, the power flux is zero. The average is 240 W/m^2 which is equal to the power flux out.
Robert K:
What “average” are you referring to? In the context of the above statement, it seems that you are taking the average of 480 input on the lit hemisphere and 0 input on the unlit hemisphere, to call this an average input, which is the very thing that is wrong to imply. There is NOT an average flux INPUT over the whole sphere. The 240 is the OUTPUT, and THIS average makes sense, because it occurs as a result of energy transformation throughout the whole sphere that results in an output over the whole sphere.
Frank M:
3. Latent heat does not describe the temperature of the earth’s surface, and does not set the average adiabatic temperature. I would like to see links supporting your assertion.
Robert K:
I do not see any indication whatsoever that this is being asserted in the diagram.
Frank M:
4. You state, “Heat flows down temperature gradients from warm to cool…” More accurately, net heat flows from warm to cool. All bodies radiate energy regardless of the temperature of other bodies. The net flow is what is what you are talking about.
Robert K:
“Net heat”? — my understanding is that “net heat” is an unreal idea, if you define “heat” properly. … There is no “net heat” — there is simply heat.
All bodies radiate ENERGY, yes. But NOT heat. All energy is NOT heat. The net flow of energy is heat, ONLY if it transitions from a warmer body to a cooler body. Failing to make this critical distinction condemns otherwise well-thinking minds to the abyss of falsehoods.
Frank M:
Convection is not constrained as tightly to temperature gradients. There, air masses are moved around and a cool air mass can be forced to mix with a warm air mass. Hadley cells. Thunderstorms.
Robert K:
Again, I do not see any indication whatsoever that the diagram suggests constraining convection alone to temperature gradients. Rather, convection is part of the system of processes that contributes to organizing and sustaining a temperature gradient.
Frank M:
Otherwise, your model is reasonable accurate.
Robert K:
“Otherwise”? — Otherwise, given that some of your misunderstandings might have been cleared up, his model is a reasonable alternative to what clearly is a flat-Earth representation of the Earth-atmosphere system of “basic-model” climate “science”.
Frank M:
Flat earth theory does not need to be defended because it doesn’t exist. All there is is a simplified diagram…and that’s it.
Robert K:
Flat Earth climate theory most assuredly exists and most assuredly is being defended to this day:
As I stated early, the … “simplified diagram” … is simply wrong, because it is simply unreal and, therefore, simply unfit for purpose in the field of climate science.
I have noticed an increase in troll traffic trying to mix the simple thermodynamics of hot to cold with macro and micro, claiming “that only means on a macro level not a micro level where heat-energy goes both ways.”
I’ve come across something like that several times.
George, the clowns continually try the “photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy to a warmer surface.” They will try that over and over. They must, to support their bogus GHE nonsense.
If a 1000 marbles were released on top of a hill, they would all roll downhill. Some might hit an object and bounce a little back uphill, before starting to roll downhill again. Clowns would use such an example to claim marbles roll uphill! That’s what you are fighting–people that will attempt any trick, ruse, corruption to advance their agenda.
Whenever you encounter such fanaticism, challenge them to bake a turkey with ice cubes.
Good read about techniques alarmist for gaslighting.
Good for recognizing any gaslighter though
So Van Weert has pulled out the “seat of authority” card so how dare I question him. Now this is after I tried to point out the error in the NASA Giss Spectrum graph.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
So this was his reply:
“Oh, and hilariously your “three strikes” against that measured emission spectrum merely reinforce that you suffer from a confirmation bias, meaning anything that does not fit your narrative must be wrong.
Let me first remind you that the one graph you link to is just one of several, and I repeat, MEASURED emission spectra.
So, to go through your three strikes:
1. Whether you plot the emission spectrum with the wavelength or the wavenumber on the x-axis DOES NOT MATTER for the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter. Many physicists actually prefer this way of showing the data, as it is all about energy of the radiation, and that’s highly nonlinear in the wavelength scale. Oh, and if you like MODTRAN so much…it uses the same scale as starting point. Changing it to wavelength doesn’t change anything
2. There you go again, making stuff up. The peak emission of a blackbody emitter at 294 K is at ca. 580 cm-1. If the peak emission would be at ca. 666 cm-1, it would be 340 K. 666 cm-1 is where CO2 absorbs (15 micron). Stop doing this stupid calculation of a temperature of a photon!
3. This is actually the same problem you have as point 1 – not realizing that the wavelength scale is VERY nonlinear compared to energy.
Your complaint is thus all based on your inability to understand the difference between an energy scale and a wavelength scale. You will be unable to give an objective argument that one is better than the other. If Peter would look at it, he would run into the same problem: there is no objective reason to use one or the other scale.
Oh, and before you go tell me again I don’t know what I am talking about: I have quite some expertise in spectroscopic methods, and thus juggle almost on a daily basis with wavelength scales (primary UV-VIS absorbance and fluorescence) and wavenumber scales (infrared spectroscopy). I’ve advocated the use of energy scales also for UV-VIS and fluorescence, primarily because the absorbance and emission bands, respectively, are expected to be near-Guassian or Lorentzian in an energy scale. It thus is much easier to see whether a band is really one band, or actually multiple bands.
Naive Fool-
> In the diagram, the -18C is in space, not on Earth. And that’s something Postma added. It doesn’t make sense. He’s treating the solar flux as a blackbody, which is stupid.
I said -18C doesn’t make sense. You just didn’t understand the explanation. Probably because you don’t know what a blackbody is.
But keep fighting that strawman. You’re doing great!
Boomie-
“Lol no, over 1300w/m^2 is in space. How do you think the sunny side of the moon is 127C?
I thought you knew what you were talking about?”
The last two days he has just been badgering me for not answering his thermodynamics questions.
I’ve just been repeating in different ways that he adds cold to hot and is cooking with ice.
I’ve never argued with someone for so long lol.
Joseph, back to the FLIR and back radiation for a second.
The argument is made that the detection of IR by a FLIR is proof that heat is being transferred from a colder object, whether an ice cube or the atmosphere, to the warmer camera. If the detector is not absorbing IR then how can that colder IR be detected? If IR is absorbed does that not heat the detector? Or does absorption not necessarily mean heating?
Detection of IR does not mean it is by heat transfer. They just interpret it this way but it is a total lie. In some cases the detection is done by the photoelectric effect, in others it’s by balance where the detector measures its own heat loss to the cooler objects. Any statement that heat flows cold to hot is an utter lie…simply call them out as liars and make fun of them. Use the quotes about heat I’ve provided etc.
2015 Bill Gates presentation about viruses. Listen very carefully…
Boomie avoid getting into too much minutia – just show them they’re flat earthers and there is no possible way to justify it. His -18C in space comment is ridiculous! Lol
TLDR? MP.
CM,
Van Weert needs Rosco-izing. (^_^)
Buy, in lieu of that, here would be my go at it:
VW
1. Whether you plot the emission spectrum with the wavelength or the wavenumber on the x-axis DOES NOT MATTER for the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter.
RK
Let’s take another look, shall we?
Now, while the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter, it is NOT related to the peak emission of much of the rest of the atmosphere, which is what the wave-number-x-axis graph leads viewers to believe CO2 takes a bite out of. This choice of graphing is often presented as proof that CO2 is removing something that should otherwise be there.
VW
Many physicists actually prefer this way of showing the data, as it is all about energy of the radiation, and that’s highly nonlinear in the wavelength scale.
RK
So, a person must ask, “Why do so many popular presentations of this data choose the method NOT preferred by many physicits?” — The reason, I suspect, is because the the physicist-preferred method does NOT give the illusion of a big bite being taken out.
VW
Oh, and if you like MODTRAN so much…it uses the same scale as starting point. Changing it to wavelength doesn’t change anything.
RK
Changing to wavelength removes the illusion of the big bite, which would change an important talking point of the CO2-alarmist narrative. That’s a big change.
VW
You will be unable to give an objective argument that one is better than the other. If Peter would look at it, he would run into the same problem: there is no objective reason to use one or the other scale.
RK
In principle, I agree — there is no objective argument, from the standpoint of science, but the objective of alarmism has drifted far from scientific objectives. Consequently, alarmism chooses what elicits non-objective responses, which, in this case, would be an emotional reaction to the visual impression of a bite being taken out of Earth’s total emissions. And so there IS a political objective to use the wave-number-x-axis scale.
VW
Oh, and before you go tell me again I don’t know what I am talking about: I have quite some expertise in spectroscopic methods, and thus juggle almost on a daily basis with wavelength scales (primary UV-VIS absorbance and fluorescence) and wavenumber scales (infrared spectroscopy). …
RK
You might well know what you are talking about, but do you understand what the alarmist argument claims the scales mean? My understanding is that those scales do NOT mean that energy is being taken out of some band or trapped out of some band. Rather, my understanding is that energy is being scattered in those bands, so that a detector is seeing a scatter, NOT a removal.
@ Joseph E Postma
He talks about a possible fast spreading virus in the future because of the possibility to spread while people are not sick yet. …Like covid-19
And he talks about desired virus wargames worldwide, to prepare for very deadly and fast spreading viruses
After the virus war game Bill Gates wants a transfer of the WHO from an advice organisation to a central power organisation, with mandated vaccinations and control over armies/geneals in countries if there is an health risk.
….Bill Gates is in the committee of 300, what effectively controls the WHO, UN, etc.
Anything these freaks can do to consolidate power. Gates is a big climate freak too. What pathetic “people.”
Thanks Robert that’s helpful I’m going to prepare a reply to him eventually but my pc crashed and died Friday so I had to start over from scratch after tearing my pc up and test my HDs to make sure they weren’t dead. Then after 3 more crashes I found out my internet adapter was causing the crash. So finally I got windows back up and had to do a clean install.
I have mixed feelings about Windows 10 it crashes for no known reason often after a huge update. This is the 3rd time it crashed on me. Since I don’t have the W10 disk I have to start from W7 and build back up to W10.
Equilibrium temperature for a blackbody plate, one square meter each side, receiving 960 W/m^2 from one side, is 303.3 K
Divide the plate into 4 equal sections and divide the flux by 4 (240 to each plate section) gives an equilibrium temperature of 214.5 K, for each of the 4 plates.
Notice the 89 K difference in temperature, proving that dividing by 4 causes “global warming”!
The comedy continues.
Got this response from flat earther after continuously staying on song and not diverting
“I guess architects are all idiots too, ‘cos they assume the ground is flat when they start building a house, right?”
Where do we start with such an invitation. Too many to think of
Amazing morons. Good on you to get that out of them! The ground IS flat on the scale of a house. It is not for the entire earth. Amazing frauds to not be able to acknowledge even this basic fact!
mmm Geran slightly to the left of where you were going. 303.5 / 214.5 = 1.414 or sqrt of 2. Significance of this. I dont know but what a coincidence.
JP I was more of the lines
“You have just tried to build a house on a slightly sloping convex shaped hill.
You start of assuming crap you will get crap”
Yes exactly, good one!
I don’t know that architects assume that the ground is flat. Rather, they assume that they will have to make the ground level, and they do so. That’s what the foundation establishes — a level starting surface.
This, by the way, has Jack shit to do with flat-Earth physics, but idiots think that any flat comparison is a valid comparison, just as they think any small-quantity comparison is a valid comparison.
… a definite display of an intelligence-challenged individual there, Jopo.
“Significance of this. I dont know but what a coincidence.”
JoPo, it’s not coincidence, it’s algebra.
x^.25/(x/4)^.25 = 4^.25 = 1.414
The house of climate science, built on a foundation of lies.
Cheers geran. clearly some work for me yet.
Oh Boomie that is GOLD
I am pinching that LOL
I haven’t visited for a while and I haven’t followed the discussion but hasn’t anyone noticed the claim of
“What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”
This is even more absurd than Trenberth’s extra 0.9 W/m2 from their 2009 Energy Budget.
John Christie debunked this “energy trapping” way back in 2007/08.
Here’s my take on it using 1.68 W/m2 as an input and Q=mass x C_p x δT
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fpauafx4f2g7z5/Calculating%20temperature%20change%20based%20on%20radiation%20anomalies.docx?dl=0
1.68 W/m2 equates to a temperature change of ~5.235°C per annum – RIDICULOUS !!!
Here’s the other take on energy trapping – there isn’t any according to the Nimbus satellites :-
Boomie789 these people are stupid beyond belief !
Look at this bullshit about the International Space Station:-
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/is-it-hot-or-cold-at-the-international-space-station.html
“Orbiting the planet at an altitude of 330-435 kilometers above the surface of Earth, the International Space Station experiences a wide range of temperatures. Since it continuously revolves around the planet, sometimes it’s on the sunlit side of the Earth, while at other times, it’s on the dark side.
When the ISS faces the sun, the (external) temperature it experiences is around 250 degrees Fahrenheit (121 Degrees Celsius). On the other hand, when it’s on the side when our planet completely blocks out the sun, the thermometers plummet to minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit (-157 degrees Celsius).”
They got the basics from NASA at https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1
But it is entirely nonsense – the ISS orbits Earth every ninety two minutes and supposedly changes from + 121°C to minus 157°C in that time.
The metal fatigue from such stressing every ninety two minutes would have seen it disintegrate long ago.
Besides at an average height of 408 km above Earth’s surfaces using the inverse square law and emissions of ~239 W/m2 says the temperature of the space in Earth’s shadow at 408 km is about minus 25°C and not minus 157°C.
This places the temperature in the ranges experienced by aircraft and well known engineering parameters – not the unbelievable bullshit sprouted by idiots !!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zhxtibqspzo9zj/The%20inverse%20square%20law%20and%20the%20ISS%20temperatures.docx?dl=0
Rosco,
Isn’t the ISS in the Thermosphere? Which means temps are more irrelevant up there, wider molecule spacing, less kinetic energy?
Checking…
“Although the exosphere is technically part of Earth’s atmosphere, in many ways it is part of outer space. Many satellites, including the International Space Station (ISS), orbit within the exosphere or below. For example, the average altitude of the ISS is about 330 km (205 miles), placing it in the thermosphere below the exosphere! Although the atmosphere is very, very thin in the thermosphere and exosphere, there is still enough air to cause a slight amount of drag force on satellites that orbit within these layers. This drag force gradually slows the spacecraft in their orbits, so that they eventually would fall out of orbit and burn up as they re-entered the atmosphere unless something is done to boost them back upwards. The ISS loses about 2 km (1.2 miles) in altitude each month to such “orbital decay”, and must periodically be given an upward boost by rocket engines to keep it in orbit…”
“Temperatures climb sharply in the lower thermosphere (below 200 to 300 km altitude), then level off and hold fairly steady with increasing altitude above that height. Solar activity strongly influences temperature in the thermosphere. The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.” -NASA
Fact checking NASA with NASA seems kind of pointless. However the biggest problem with the ISS is heat dispersion, because heat can’t radiate effectively at that level and which is why I also have issues with movies portraying death in outer space. I haven’t seen one that was accurate. Death in space would be the most excruciating death imaginable,
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/08/how-would-you-die-in-outer-space.html
“First off, the gas in your lungs and digestive tract would rapidly expand, inducing swelling. If you choose this inopportune chance to hold your breath, your lungs would likely burst and you’d be a goner.
Any water directly exposed to the environment, such as the liquid on your eyes or tongue would boil off in a matter of seconds. About ten seconds into the ordeal, you would lose vision. Moments later, you would likely lose consciousness, a result of gas exchange working in reverse and oxygen being dumped from your blood. Your skin would discolor to a pallid shade of blue. After about one minute, circulation would stop altogether. After another minute, you’d be dead by asphyxiation. ”
Reality sucks!
CD
“Since I don’t have the W10 disk I have to start from W7 and build back up to W10.”
Please forgive me, if you already know this.
In W10 or W7, if you go to “Backup and Restore” from Control Panel (type control in the search box), you can make a disk image of your “C” drive and a boot CD. Wait till the PC is stable though. Choose as the target a second disk drive (int or ext) that can hold at least 2 images (never destroy a backup making a backup).
Mark S,
I did better, I put in a drive this time as a clone backup, hopefully that’ll fix it once and for all. Unless the unfortunate odds happen that both drives die. I might do yours as a backup to my backup. In the past “backups” have not worked worth crap for me which is why I gave up on them. Plus I have a second drive where all my vital files are kept off the main drive but they are so many I don’t have a second drive to clone them (yet).
Thanks for the tip 🙂
Anyone wants to know were this sudden pandemic panic originated:
It was already mapped out in October 2019 in the “Event 201” meeting of the globalists
Sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Bill stepped down from Microsoft within a couple of hours of POTUS saying “we all know where this came from” in last Fridays presser:
Watching now…forgot that one came up on my notifications. She’s really great.
I swear that these people aren’t human. Gates is also a big climate change alarmist, who has talked about depopulation extensively.
They want us to hate the life molecule. They are obsessed with viral outbreaks, etc.
Oh of course they want more “social distancing”. We’ve already all been distanced socially from each other due to these people’s technologies! We’re all atomized, staring at screens and not each other, living in multi-cultural low-trust societies of no social cohesion, going to the screen for sex instead of finding partners, etc. So this now makes perfect sense. Of course they want to use this virus to now make us afraid to even be in each other’s presence. Completely anomic and atomized.
Do you not see how this is a war? It is a war to divide and then destroy…when the enemy forces come, we’ll all be staring at our screens, too afraid to even be in each other’s presence let alone form closely together to present a united front to defend ourselves. Every man for himself, and every man with zero allies against a united enemy.
Heads up my wife is getting supplies for a couple of weeks, she works for outreaches world wide, and something must have come down the grapevine. Different approcahces for different nations but it sounds like people are going to panic and that means no supplies, stores shut down, gas shut down and looters. Better to be prepared than found wanting. The left might even pay looters for all we know never let a good crisis go to waste. Think of it as a 3 week storm and you’ll be shut in.
Keep enough supplies for at least 3 weeks (her words).
This is just a worse case scenario. 63 dead in the US which is bad yes, but that’s not time to panic, I means its not 63,000 then yes I’d be concerned. Any life lost is tragic but most of these viruses are usually being made in a lab.
Population reduction? Who knows.
Found this post with quote below which explains how quantum mechanics supports the 2nd law as it applies to back radiation. https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=planck%27s+quantum
Why the Pauli Exclusion Principle of quantum mechanics forbids CO2 photons from warming the Earth surface…exerpt:
“If a lower-quantum-energy photon is “absorbed” by the completely saturated low-energy microstates (eg vibrational, translational, rotational, chemical bonds) & molecular or atomic orbitals of a higher-energy body, the hot body must simultaneously eject a photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy as that absorbed, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory. Thus there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source with simultaneous emission of an identical photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy (some instead refer to this as “reflection” of the lower-energy photon). This explains the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a quantum basis, thus why low frequency/energy photons from a cold emitter cannot warm a warmer blackbody at a higher frequency/temperature/energy.
Since the emitting temperature of ~15um photons from atmospheric CO2 is -80C by Wein’s & Planck’s Laws (also explained in the reference below), these photons cannot possibly be thermalized/increase the energy or temperature of the much warmer Earth surface at +15C.”
Oh wow that’s really good. Yes of course the PEP applies to matter and it is the PEP which has set up all populated microstates. So to try to insert an already-populated state means that the existing state has to “pop out” to make a hole for its own replacement, and this pop out is energy emitted as a photon. This is why two parallel plates reach the same temperature between their gap, etc.
That totally destroys their claim thermodynamics is only applicable on a macro level. Which made no sense anyway, what is micro but an extension of the macro?
Holy macro, I say.
Guys did you know the spanish figured out how to generate solar energy at night?
You wouldn’t believe how they did it. When the sun sets, you turn on the flood lights powered by diesel generators pointed at the panels! Brilliant!
Lol had to share that laugh!
“We wonder how Spain went broke.”lol.
Here at 13:20, the entire presentation is very interesting though.
minarchist (@3GHtweets),
I also recognize that quote. It’s from here:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html
I just rand out of gas to power the generators that power the flood lights that power my solar panels.
I have a great solution for wind turbines, when the wind does not blow: Just power up some generators to power some big fans that power the windless turbines. Brilliant, isn’t it?
I just saved fifty dollars by not spending fifty dollars. That means I now have $100, right?
Robert, don’t forget the +33 dollars the atmosphere made for you. Wind turbines are good for one thing, homes for stray cats and a daily supply of fresh food.
Get to the stores and get supplies ya might need them. You never know when you might get a chance again. If this goes viral they can declare ML…and you just never know how many days or hours you have left until that could happen, even minutes. Maybe even midnight as such…you never know what is being planned and if known not allowed to be spoken. Times like this rumors fly but sometimes those rumors can be true.
Always good to be safe in these uncertain times and be prepared.
National Guard could be rolling down the streets and doing a street to street ban. Wouldn’t that be something to wake up to?
You know as baseless rumors fly that is.
Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility. It’s that simple. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons, since photons have integer spin (bosons)
Or, in a way everyone can easily understand, “You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes”
You know warmists are now quoting Spencer about cold moving to hot.
So in the US the CDC is wanting a two week shutdown and Trump is urging for calmer measures, the fact that this shutdown would “just” happen to coincide with elections I’m sure has nothing to with it.
Lol @ Robert and CD
I think we could work something out with sterling engines and refrigerators.
Lol.
Good luck with the kung flu guys!
In my mind, the year 2020 will be the year that isopropyl alcohol disappeared from existence, either in stores or online. WTF
… nowhere to be found. I’m not wanting to hoard it or stock up on it. I just-the-hell want to buy my usual bottle or so to continue in my usual habits. It’s a friggin’ alcoholmageddon !
So, the hoarding fu@#s are gonna wait for a viral outbreak to start practicing good habits?!!
Oh, an Earth-killing comet is about to strike — guess I’ll start believing in the power of Jesus now.
Oh, they’re predicting more flooding near the lake where I live — guess I’ll learn to swim now.
Oh, I’ve got lung cancer — guess I’ll stop smoking now, after twenty years of three-packs-a-day-Camel-unfilterered.
Sometimes, I’m not proud to be an American, I hate to say, with mass hysteria like this going on.
CD Marshall asked
“Rosco,
Isn’t the ISS in the Thermosphere? Which means temps are more irrelevant up there, wider molecule spacing, less kinetic energy?”
The ISS is in an almost vacuum and the concept of an ambient temperature is such an environment is meaningless except for the radiation levels passing through such a volume.
On the sunny side of Earth this is the solar radiation but you wouldn’t say there was a hot temperature in the volume – only that an object absorbing significant quantities of the radiation would become hot.
Similarly in Earth’s shadow the only significant radiation would be Earth’s emissions plus the amount of the solar radiation refracted by Earth’s atmosphere as the wave front passed Earth.
Alarmists and luke warmers continually say near Earth orbit space is cold but this is stupid beyond belief.
Every bit of the huge “sphere” mapped by Earth’s orbital radius is irradiated by ~1368 W/m2 and any object absorbing that will not be cold !
The only place to avoid this is in the shadow of a planet but this volume is so trivial.
And you’re right about death in space being horrible.
The lack of air pressure means that our body temperature is sufficient to boil the water in our mucous membranes without any input from the Solar radiation.
However, most astronauts agree that Dave could have survived the exposure to a vacuum for the time it took him to get back in after HAL locked him out of the airlock – perhaps more than a minute – of course that was in deep space remote from a star.
The thing I find really funny is the alarmists belief that body temperature urine would freeze in near Earth orbit pace whilst I firmly believe that urine with it absorption properties would instantly boil and dissipate.
Rosco,
Urine would boil, … not because of the sun, but rather because of back urination, which would cause it to be hotter than it otherwise would be.
Seriously, though, on a slightly different path, the next time somebody says that the gap in the emission spectrum proves heat “trapping”, point out that absorption and the resultant, virtually-instantaneous emission is NOT” trapping”. Nothing is trapped. Nothing is subtracted.
Instead, the energy of that particular wavelength is the energy that pushes the molecule to the next higher energy level, and so that particular part looks “empty”. As the molecule falls back to its lower energy level, it emits in all directions, which sort of acts to disperse or destructively interfere with the light at that wavelength, as I have come to understand it. [I think I sort of got this right.]
Robert,
You are exactly right. Someone on here explained that a while ago…which one I don’t recall. It makes perfect sense, like a stream interrupted by a a large rock, it splits the energy flow around it into smaller currents but the same energy is still flowing. However warmists would claim the rock is “trapping” the water current and until water forcing builds up enough it can’t go around the rock and then when it does “back rock pressure” adds +33% more water to the front of the rock than would have been if the rock wasn’t there in the first place.
You guys want to hear something interesting about youtube censorship?
YouTube is claiming because of the kung flu, they don’t have enough bodies to manually review videos.
Think about that, that make sense to you?
Seems pretty obvious to me that manually reviewing videos is easily done from home, right? Of course.
But you know what’s even weirder? THE MANUAL REVIEWERS ALREADY WORK FROM HOME.
They are making up an excuse to ramp up censorship before the election. They can blame videos being removed on their algorithms. It’ll just be another “mistake” like when the last youtube purge happened.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste”
A world of lies and I’m so sick of it.
There’s nothing like fear for establishing a good foundation for false trust.
Now that you are all scared as hell, I’ll make you unafraid, if you elect me president.
My brother went to several gun shops this week looking for ammo and the places are nearly cleared out of everything. People aren’t FN around with looters this time.
My arsenal isn’t “horde certified” but my brother could keep them at bay, if need be. Nothing is more horde ready than an Auto 12 gauge magnum with flechette rounds, if you got one or a good AR/30 round mag.
Tear gas would work too.
Seriously, if it ever came down to total anarchy cities and towns are death zones. In those times the “Doomsday Prepper” will become god.
Nothing like a secret bunker and 10 year supplies to wear out a good holocaust.
End rant.
I was wondering if anyone would ever bring up their arsenal.
Lol
This:
is … NOT CO2 “trapping” or “blocking” or “slowing”.
Rather, it is CO2 absorbing and emitting in all directions, over a fraction of a second:
boomie789,
I’m not as keen as my bro but if I had to guess from top to bottom,
> .223 Carbine Rifle
>.308 single shot bolt action
>12 gauge 3 1/2″
>.22 LR 50 round mag 25/25 double stacked
>20 gauge single shot 2 3/4″
> Both 9mm pistols 15R staggered and 7 round single.
So how did I do?
That round at the bottom is throwing me off, it looks like a .38 but the rim looks wider from the picture angle, at first I thought it was a 9mm but it looks too long. Is it a rifle round, one of those odd out ones which would make the last rifle NOT a 20 gauge.
So how did I do?
RK,
15 Micron gets broken down usually to 10 and 7 (So I’ve heard???) 10 goes right out the open window and 7? Don’t know.
@CD Marshal
5.56x45mm Colt Ar-15A3 HBAR Carbine. (You can shoot .223 in it) .223 isn’t really the same as 5.56. You can shoot .223 in a 5.56 barrel, but you shouldn’t shoot 5.56 in a .223 barrel. It will break the gun, generally.
.35 whelen crack barrel single shot pro hunter, this is the most expensive gun in the picture by a lot. You’ve probably heard of a 30-06, this is the same cartridge but instead of a .30 cal bullet it’s a .35. I’ve killed a 9 point buck with that rifle. Not really much of a deer hunter though.
Remington 870 Wingmaster, 12 gauge 3in magnum. Squirrel gun, but with buckshot it is devastating. This thing is a squirrel slayer.
Ruger 10/22 .22lr. Thats a 25 round mag. I have a scope for it but I took it off. I prefer iron sights.
That was my first real gun. .22lr single shot Crack barrell, made in Brazil, Braztech…. Had it since I was around 12. Great little rifle really, what I learned to shoot with.
Sig Sauer M11-A1 9mm 15rd. Most recent acquisition. Haven’t shot it much.
Sig Sauer P238 .380 ACP I carry this everyday, my personal favorite. I shoot this pistol better than any other pistol.
That is either a .380 or a 9mm I took out of the chamber of one of the pistols. I think it’s a 9mm.
I’m low on .380 ACP Hollowpoints but plenty for everything else, especially 5.56.
Ah the .35mm threw me off, not familiar with that one.
My wife carries a .38 S&W Airweight with Hornandy +P rounds, I have a S&W 9mm M&P Shield with Hornandy +p rounds, and we have an old one shot 3″ 20 gauge. My brother has a literal arsenal of weapons that he is constantly buying and selling, hard to keep up with what he has. He modifies/customs guns and sells them.
@CD Marshall
Sounds like my kind of people. I also prefer Hornady Ammunition, for my self defense rounds at least.
Let me correct myself and say the Thompson encore pro hunter(.35 whelen) is the most expensive WITH the scope. That is Zeiss scope and it cost more than the rifle.
S&W is always a solid choice.
My brother actually bought it for me, lol, wanted his little brother to have the best protection (the ammo) actually he bought the gun too come to think of it.
He’s more into Glocks these days as his carry.
Anyway, back to science. At least with the virus the trolls have been quiet. I wonder who is kicking themselves that they let out this came from China and not permafrost melting from global warming.
You know what they call Bats?
The chicken of the cave.
So I ran 15 micron through a spectral calculator at 294 Kelvin with a lower 14.5/upper 15.5 (I converted it to CM-1)
and this is what I got…https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Blackbody Properties:
Radiant emittance:
423.655 W/m2
Radiance:
134.854 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance:
0.144452 W/m2/sr/cm-1
Wavenumber of peak:
576.537 cm-1
Spectral Radiance:
0.140514 W/m2/sr/cm-1
Anyone want to walk me through this against this:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
and in regards to this…
https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle/
and this…
https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle-part-2/
CDM,
In my opinion, nobody needs to walk you, but rather everybody needs to RUN away from that “big-bite” graph, screaming, Absorbing AND emitting in a micro-fraction of a second is NOT trapping, no matter how you draw it!!
That graph just shows a molecule reacting. Whatever is absorbed is emitted. Simple as that. Absorb. Emit. Absorb. Emit. It’s just an action/reaction sort of thing at a particular wavelength.
The greenhouse catastrophistas just leave out the “emit” part, and pretend like only the absorb part is the only thing going on, or they think that the quantity of emissions from the quantity of absorptions causes a radiation back up that “slows cooling”. But there is NO SUCH BACK UP.
There is NO SUCH SLOWING. At most, even with all the emissions, there is a mere micro-second of delay for ALL CO2 EMISSIONS TOGETHER.
And it seems to be more involved than that, because nitrogen is also energizing CO2 in a way that green brains do not comprehend. I’m still in the process of trying to understand this aspect of it.
“A new idea is accepted only temporarily in the scientific method, in the form of a hypothesis. It is then subjected to rigorous testing, in carefully controlled experiments. A hypothesis is elevated to a scientific law only after it has survived many such tests. A scientific law must be predictive, in addition to being explanatory; failure to accurately predict the results of a new experiment is sufficient to invalidate a scientific law. Concepts or ideas that have earned the status of scientific laws by direct and repeated testing then can be applied with confidence in new environments.”
That does not sound like the Greenhouse Gas Effect at all.
Is no one on here because we can’t be in groups anymore? Hope everyone is doing well. I’ve heard some disturbing things through my brother of some nations taking advantage of this outbreak for political gain.
If anyone is not in their bunker, does anyone know how trustworthy the HADCRUT4 data temps are?
No, it does NOT sound like the Greenhouse Gas Effect, which would be characterized as follows:
A sacred idea is accepted permanently in the pseudo-scientific method, in the form of a narrative. It is then never subjected to rigorous testing, in carefully controlled experiments. A sacred idea is elevated to a religious doctrine only after it has survived all attempts at rational displacement. A sacred idea must never be questioned, in addition to never being subjected to sound logic; failure to accurately predict the results of a new experiment has nothing to do with validating a religious doctrine. Beliefs or fears that have earned the status of religious doctrines by faith and repeated errors then can be applied with confidence in new environments.
We are practicing, … (wait for it) … social distancing.
This is actually not a bad idea, when stupid has reached pandemic levels, as it seems to have done.
Fewer stupid babies will be conceived with “social distancing” designed to discourage birthing the sorts of people who propagate climate alarm
Robert,
Excellent interpretation. Let’s call it the Gaia Greenhouse Gas Mythos, or something more suited to its actual meta physical idealogy or maybe Idology?
“Heat content within an ice sheet raises the temperature, and therefore lowers viscosity” of the ice at the base of the glacier, said Erik Ivins, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
The result: lubrication of the glacier’s movement.
“It’s capable of expelling ice mass through faster flow,” Ivins said.
A dramatic example is found in Greenland, where a long “thermal track” was recently revealed beneath the miles-thick ice sheet that covers the giant island.
u/mylankovic
^Neat stuff
Now for some bad news – it appears the COP26 in Glasgow in November is likely to be postponed.
I think we all should petition them to keep the meeting going at all costs.
Just imagine 30,000 of ’em indoors in Scotland in winter with COVID 19 as the host !!
Climate Change news is at a crawl. Everyone to distracted by the kung flu.
Gun Sales have broken records people say will never be broken again.
There is something about greenland melting, but no one really cares.
The scam continues though. The hobgoblins that profit from the fear of human caused climate change, can easily switch lanes to “helping” us with the Kung Flu.
Give us money so we can test our drugs on you. Like we do Africans and the New York Homless population. They need money so they can develop the program to track vaccinated people, like cattle.
This lady is great. Thx Postma.
Rosco says, “On the sunny side of Earth this is the solar radiation but you wouldn’t say there was a hot temperature in the volume – only that an object absorbing significant quantities of the radiation would become hot”
Another stupid question, conduction is contact with a heated object, what is the exact term in physics for the heating of an object? The sun heats the surface of the Earth or the ISS, heating seems to simple of a term.
I’m dealing with a guy who is stealing my IQ, (I feel dumber each time I read his comments). For example, “Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…”
After a hundred comments of (myself) directly quoting thermodynamic manuals, he gives me this and claims he has an understanding of thermodynamics.
Sunlight (photons) has potential energy (if I’m thinking right) but until work is being done, (striking an object that can transfer that potential energy to work) it has no heat or kinetic energy.
Does a photon carry kinetic energy? I’m just curious for myself on this one. I’m thinking no right? No mass no KE. So it does carry Potential Energy?
A cup of coffee has internal energy and kinetic energy it does not have potential energy.
ANYONE
Does anyone have input on this paper https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
which was used to refute this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
From the abstract: “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”
This is where they’re saying that heat flows in both directions, but the flow from hotter to cooler is larger, and therefore there is allowed in thermodynamics. They entirely invented a new definition of heat flow, where it flows both ways, and the only thing which is important about it is that more flows from hot to cold. This is where they gloss over the distinction between energy (which is two way) and heat (which is actually one-way in reality).
It’s a complete lie and they know it of course. Nowhere is heat defined as a two-way process in ANY of its modes. This definition or description doesn’t exist anywhere…aside from climate science. In thermodynamics textbooks it doesn’t exist. And I’ve shown you all numerous quotation examples of that. They have no example, no quotations, from source material outside of their own field. Their own field is of course separate from thermodynamics, because they’ve invented new pseudo-thermodynamics.
So they just invented this idea that heat is two way.
CD the guy who said this -“For example, “Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…” is basically clueless:-
“Heat” is strictly defined as a natural transfer of energy from hot objects to cooler objects – anyone who says anything contains “heat” is clueless !
Only applied work can change the natural tendency for heat transfer such as in the refrigeration cycle.
Radiation is capable of increasing the energy of objects capable of absorbing it. The solar radiation is entirely different to any IR generated by objects on Earth – it carries the “signature” of the emission temperature and is attenuated by the inverse square law.
However the solar radiation can be “concentrated” to restore some of the temperature potential of the original emission – solar collectors, solar ovens and magnifying glasses attest to this. If we had the technology to do this effectively our energy needs would be solved permanently – unfortunately we don’t.
The IR emitted by ambient Earth temperatures could only ever recreate their emission temperature if this was possible to do so which is why the greenhouse effect model is stupid beyond belief.
2 objects at differing temperatures radiating against each other in the absence of all other energy is most decidedly NOT a 2 way transfer of heat – such an absurd claim defies the scientific definition of heat and is easily provable as totally false by considering Planck’s law.
Only climate science uses such absurd claims !
Yes you are exactly right and you explained it perfectly.
Er, both of you.
Thanks Joe and Rosco.
From your source, CD: From the abstract: “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”
Their deception comes in two stages. Stage 1 is to get you to accept that it is okay for a warmer object to absorb photons from a colder object because the warmer object is emitting more. Once you swallow that, Stage 2 is to then claim that since the warmer object has absorbed energy, it must increase in temperature.
Stage 1 is wrong, as Joseph and Rosco have explained.
And Stage 2 is wrong due to the fact that if the hotter object were somehow able to absorb the “colder” photons, its temperature would decrease, as the average energy of the “cold” photons would be less than the “hot” photons.
And the fact that you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes debunks both Stages.
That second was subtle, wasn’t it? I didn’t catch that.
So does hot coffee have potential energy? My understanding is no, unless work is being done?
CD,
Gerlich & Tscheuschner answered those critics quite decisively here:
Click to access gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
So, in my judgment, they refuted their critics convincingly.
Also, coffee does NOT … “have heat in it”. Heat is not something that is containable — it is a transition at a boundary, where energy moves from hot to cold. That energy in transition is “heat”.
No transition, no heat. Heat is NOT a static quantity — it does not just sit there — it would not be “heat”, if it did.
Robert,
Thanks for the link. I agree totally about the heat. The potential energy however, say if you stick your finger in hot coffee heat transfers to your finger, so would PE come to play anywhere in that?
My thoughts on PE is something that is work, like air descending down a column of the atmosphere. Energy is created by auto compression and the work is gravity. Is that right?
That’s just heat. Potential energy doesn’t really relate.
Coffee has higher energy than your finger.
Your finger has lower energy than the coffee.
Stick lower-energy finger in higher-energy coffee, and higher energy flows to source with lower energy. That amount of energy flow is heat.
Can you contain running? Can you contain seeing? Can you contain thinking?
You cannot contain work or heat.
Potholer’s Potrollers are the dumbest things I have ever encountered in my life. Well over 200 comments over there to gain absolutely nothing but liars who are so stuck in their lies they can’t truth themselves out of it if they wanted to.
Climate Science is modern day Astrology. I’ll call it Climatolgy.
Climatology is a pseudoscience that claims that cold can make warmer hotter still by use of divining science into paradigms of a faith belief cult where humans must atone for their sins to Gaia. This Idology is based on CO2 manipulating terrestrial events and those who study these movements of the magic gas, CO2 (who some prophets of this faith claim they can see CO2 in visions) and relating the placement of this magical substance in the celestial body, they can predict backbody radiation, a diving power used by the prophets to make cold +33 degrees warmer.
The enemy of this cult, known in mythologies as the Great Evil, the Devourer, is Big Oil whose transgression was to make life for humanity a little better, this could not be tolerated by the prophets of Gaia who declared a holy war upon the Big Oil and would not rest until the power of Big Oil, the magic CO2, was driven deep into the ground from where it came, ideally killing most life on Earth in the process.
To the Death Cult of Gaia, the loss of life was a price they were willing for others to pay, for to them the sacrifice of others should always outweigh the sacrifice of the prophets, thus let it be peer reviewed and thus let it be done!
This guy needs a KO.
PH54 I mean.
@1hr40m
Remember when you debated this guy?
Truth relativist, moral relativist, you can’t reason with these type of people. Nothing is true or real to them. If you wanted to have control/influence over people this is the best state of mind to have them in. Nihilism/Solipsism.
Ill save you a bunch of time, don’t bother with the first 1hr30min of the debate, it’s brutal. The Video should skip to the end were it gets to the good part. I think Molyneux excellently brings the contractions to the surface. Only need to watch for about 10mins, if you want to see JF squirm.
Particularly around 1hr46m.
I propose JF is intellectually dishonest.
Yah he seems controlled.
LOL, Remember this guy, ““Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…”
Well I actually gave him links to Hyperphsics explaining potential and internal energy and this is his reply…
“Internal energy means potential energy and kinetic energy. You have no idea what you’re talking about here and are in dire need of a lesson in how physics works. “Thermal potential energy is the potential energy at the atomic and molecular levels that has the potential of becoming thermal kinetic energy or related forms of energy. … Common types of thermal potential energy are chemical bonds, electrostatic or intermolecular forces, and nuclear bonds”
Not even saying anything relevant.
Yeah and then he told me to talk to a physicist. LOL. I just did, again. That was the only good advice he gave me.
JF has that “weasel” way about him, he’s shifty. You can tell just by looking at him. He has evasive posturing.
JF isn’t a real intellectual…he’s an academic at best.
Stefan is pretty brilliant. Don’t know or care on his beliefs, I like his way of handling the subject matter and forcing him back on the point.
He literally just copied that from a search engine…Remember this subject was a hot cup of coffee, not energy in and out of a system.
“Internal energy of a system is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy of that system. Potential energy is the stored energy and kinetic energy is the energy generated due to the motion of molecules. The internal energy is given by the symbol U and the change in the internal energy is given as ∆U.”
“Thermal potential energy is potential energy at the atomic and molecular levels, where it has the potential of becoming kinetic energy or related forms of energy. Common types of thermal potential energy are chemical bonds, electrostatic or intermolecular forces, and nuclear bonds.”
These people are sick.
This is the full source for both comments.
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-enthalpy-and-internal-energy/
https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/thermal_potential_energy.htm#.XnZDk0BFx9A
If some one actually admits to you they are a nihilist or solipsist, run. They are mentally ill and a destructive force. Narcissism, hedonism, and sociopathy.
One of the key test to diagnosing a sociopath is if they recognize a universal right or wrong.
I think Molyneux is correct in his accusation that JF is trying to intellectually justify his hedonism.
He’s too Darwinistic, I hate when people think of us as no more than animals. If you think we are mere beast, we will become beast. We are something more than animals, now.
The choice that we can become more than animals by it’s very concept makes us more than just an animal. However, the animal nature is an excuse many use to justify actions that they have no excuse for.
We have choices something an animal does not, ultimately driven by instinct just to survive. A human should not only survive, we should grow and become more as we grow individually and as a species. These “animals” trying to control everything is why we fight this crap everyday and why as a species we are not growing as we should be.
I came in late for work one day and it was rare, I never came in late.
My boss said, “K lets hear your excuse.” As he had heard them all.
At first I was going to give him one for I really did feel ashamed I was late, I hated being late for anything. Then I shrugged and said, “You know what I don’t have an excuse, I screwed up and was late for it. It was stupid and irresponsible and I’ll try not to do it again and I’ll pay the price for it.”
He was so thrown back by my choice of being honest he didn’t even ding me.
We all have choices, some are much harder than others and some have to go through more to make the right choices. We should all want to choose to be a better version of ourselves. Heck many animals have more love for their children than humans so in a sense, some are less than an animal and some far less than an animal.
@CD Marshall
Does sasquatch get human rights? I say sure, why not.
Lol. We would atleast treat them like panda bears, I geuss it depends on the context.
At least* atleast isn’t a word at all.
Some people don’t deserve human rights so why not? You know someone argued to congress I think a few years back (maybe quite a few years back) that she wanted the name of Fish to be changed, because we weren’t treating them as individuals, and by calling them “fish” we have taken their personal identity.
Yes, that happened.
So anyone want to tell me what this word salad, “Thermal potential energy” is suppose to be? I never heard it in any thermodynamics text books that I recall. Is it made up?
Totally made up. Totally.
I think all energy could be classified as .. “thermal potential energy”.
Thus, it is a word of no distinction — a non-concept.
I used potential expertise in the crafting of this response..
Well besides the “School for Champions” where he got it from. “Intermolecular potential energy
Molecules in a liquid or solid are held together by electrostatic or intermolecular forces. Heating the substance—or transferring thermal energy—can overcome those forces, allowing the material to change its phase or state (liquid to gas or solid to liquid). and thus creating thermal kinetic energy. Intermolecular potential energy can also be considered latent potential energy.”
All steak is potentially cooked.
All people are potentially dead.
All seeds are potentially plants.
All days are potentially nights.
All ground is potentially wet.
The use of the word, “potential”, is potentially stupid.
Ron Kurtis
http://www.ronkurtus.com/ron.htm
It sounds like he is mixing Thermodynamic Potentials and Enthalpy into a giant bowl of nonsense, “He then worked as an Electro-Optical engineer at McDonnell Aircraft in St. Louis, MO, where he was involved in the early space program. Later Ron worked at Ford Aerospace in Newport Beach, CA and at the Santa Barbara Research Center, where he assisted in developing the infrared radiometer used in the Mariner Mars space probe.”
So hot coffee does not have potential energy but the mug holding the coffee does and that has nothing to do with the contents.
@CD Marshall & Robert Kernodle
You’re hilarious Robert
This illustrates black body radiation between 2 objects – 1 at 255 K and the other at 303 K.
The shaded area – P(net) is the one way heat exchange between the two objects due to radiation transfer – one way from the 303 K object to the 255 K object !
It is obviously impossible for the emissions from the 255 K object to cause an increase in temperature of the 303 k object – anyone who believes this is stupid beyond belief !
In the absence of other influences both would come to a temperature between the two temperatures and their Planck curves would be the same – remember this is blackbody.
Rosco,
How is the warmer emissions on top? Is that from TOA and solar radiation from the actual Sun? The TOA never made much sense to me (little does) they are reading IR which has to be coming from the Earth not the Sun (I’m assuming) so how is the top warmer than the bottom IF it is all coming from the Earth. The only other logical explanation that I can think of is some of that warming has nothing to do with the Earth’s radiation.
CDM,
The y-axis, of course, represents the quantity of power, and, as you probably know, the convention in graphs, is to have the values of the y-axis progress from smaller values to larger values, going from bottom to top. The progression of increasing values has nothing to do with the direction from which the radiation comes. The graph just represents the values, not directions, and I think you know this, but are caught in some sort of brain twist. (^_^)
Greater power values are going to be higher up (towards the top) on the y axis. Lower power values are going to be lower down (towards the bottom) of the y axis.
Roughly and simply, sun energy comes in from the top of the atmosphere (energy moves from top to bottom). This heats Earth’s surface. Earth’s surface then heats the atmosphere (energy moves from bottom to top).
Remember the basic conventions of the Cartesian coordinate system. Graphs on the Cartesian coordinate system just represent quantities, no matter where those quantities happen or how they happen.
The the effect of earth’s emittance is seen at the poles, the most removed from sunlight.
Any temperature hotter than the poles, is all due to the sun. Does the south pole’s below freezing temperatures make Australia hotter?
So you’re right, earth’s radiation has virtually nothing to do with the climate.
My way of putting it in layman terms.
Ridiculous having to argue the climate is due to the sun.
… earth’s radiation has virtually nothing to do with the climate.
You mean Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC radiation, right? And even then, I think the statement is wrong.
Are you implying that the sun heats the atmosphere entirely, DIRECTLY? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
The 240w/m^2 total earth emmitance/radiation, has nothing to do with the climate.
Water vapor in the air would be absorbing the sunlight directly, yes. Why wouldn’t the sun heat the atmosphere directly?
The nighttime side gets the indirect stuff.
feel free to correct me, I can take it.
The daytime hemisphere water vapor/atmosphere is directly heated by the sun. The heat propagates to the nighttime side largely through water vapor, indirectly heated by the sun.
The 240w/m^2 emmitance/radiation is still less than the indirect heat on the night side, having no effect.
Which the 240w is itself indirect heat from the sun.
That make sense?
Actually, Robert, I didn’t know how “climate science” was portraying these graphs, I wasn’t aware they were following real Algebra rules. I mean, really, never occurred to me they were being honest.
However, they may have been doing it for just the reason I had, to manipulate data visually, which as you have pointed out many times, is a popular their trick. Manipulation of statistics and visuals.
…is a popular trick.
Does anyone know if the
“The Schwarzschild Equation and Radiative Transfer” is valid or junk. Not going to waste my time studying it if its junk.
Yeah never mind its junk science. Red flags: Radiative forcing, trapping.
It is amazing how they put in real valid science and then “slip” the junk science in it.
Junk Science:
“For instance, if the estimate of t = 235/390 = 0.603 [from the K/T budget], using the above figures gives:Tsurface = 291.9 K
If a forcing of 3.7 W m-2 is caused by a doubling of CO2 concentration then t = 231.3/390 = 0.593 and this gives Tsurface = 293.2 K, an increase of 1.3 K.”
Tabsorption is the temperature of the slab where absorption occurs and Temission is the temperature where emission from the slab occurs. The different densities at the two altitudes are also indicated. To get an accurate answer requires more mathematics and computation, but that can be done and is done by programmes such as MODTRAN and in much more detail in General Circulation Models.
At some frequencies the absorption of radiation by some of the greenhouse gases is so great to allow the absorption to be ‘saturated’. This means that any further addition of the gas will not change the amount of absorption and will not contribute further to warming of the atmosphere. For real saturation to occur the product kpz has to be large enough to make the factor exp(-kpz) equal to zero. In absolute terms this can only be achieved if kpz has the value of infinity. So, saturation can never be achieved, but for practical purposes may be regarded as being achieved if the factor exp(-kpz) has a value of ~0.999, i.e., only a tenth of a percent of the terrestrial radiation escapes to space…”
boomie789
Water vapor in all of its forms is to reduce temperature, never to increase temperature. The trick is water vapor “maintains a reduced temperature longer” which is why humid areas remain warmer at night over arid regions.
“Atmospheric water vapor reflects sunlight and as far as I understand it, that’s about all it does with direct sunlight…
The cooling effect of water vapor, of course, is not limited to just the fact that its presence decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface during daylight hours. When water is present within a climate system all of the following happen:
1) the surface is cooled by evaporation when water vapor is formed
2) water vapor increases the net, up-going, intra-atmospheric radiation heat loss rate, which moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
3) latent heat transfer also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
4) when the humidity is very high the conditions for “moist convection” exist which creates powerful updrafts, which also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
5) when water vapor condenses into clouds it increases the atmospheres albedo and shades the ground
6) when these clouds form water droplets and it starts to rain, snow or hail, this precipitation is nearly always cooler than surface temperatures, which cools the surface even further.
When you combine all of these effects, one observes within weather balloon soundings the predictable, well documented decrease in the troposphere’s temperature lapse rate and this in turn drops ground level air temperatures.”
-JP
CD
“Rosco,
How is the warmer emissions on top? ”
The graph is simply a plot of Planck’s law for black body emission for temperature.
Both of the plots are for IR emission from 303 K (~30°C) and 255 K (~minus 18°C).
Now if you want to see a graph of the Sun’s radiation versus IR at Earth’s ambient temperatures look at this :-
In this graph I used Planck’s law to plot the radiative emissions from the Sun at 5776 K. I then scaled the graph by the inverse square law such that the TOA plot represented 1361 W/m2 as quoted by NASA.
I then scaled the graph such that the plot represents the Sun’s radiation as 239.7 W/m2 as quoted in the ridiculous “greenhouse effect” model.
The Sun’s radiation is the red line. The blue line represents emissions from minus 18°C – 255 K at 239.7 W/m2 and the green line represents emissions from 30°C – 303 K at 479.4 W/m2.
This illustrates 2 important things :-
1. Even though the red curve and the blue curve represent emissions of the same total power the red curve is obviously significantly more energetic and to compare Earth’s IR emissions to the solar radiation is stupid beyond belief – and yet climate PhD’s do this all the time !
2. The sun’s radiation is ~50% infra red and this is far more energetic than Earth’s emissions and again to compare Earth’s IR emissions to the solar radiation is stupid beyond belief – and yet climate PhD’s do this all the time !
Here is a link to Planck’s equation https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8br2tth4mubxgk/Planck.pdf?dl=0 with the same graph in better resolution.
The area under any Planck curve multiplied by Pi gives the Stefan Boltzmann equation for total emissive power for a blackbody – P = sigma x T^4.
However the Stefan Boltzmann equation gives zero clue to the nature of the emissions and as is clearly shown in the graph assigns the same value to 2 completely different types of emissions and stupidly calls them equal !
Sorry messed that up somehow. Most of that is JP some is mine which I;m pretty sire I gleaned from JP anyway.
I cannot type today at all!!!
Rosco’s uploaded graph got the right side cut off, because it’s too big to fit in the dialogue box. I copied and shrunk it down a bit to fit, … to show the very important margin, where the descriptions of the colored lines appear right there on the chart, which is very important to seal understanding of what he shows, which is very important.
The red curve shows that the energy there is concentrated, in greater quantities, at shorter (higher-energy) wavelengths than in the blue curve.
… “more bigger” vs more spread-out over smaller but more (lower-energy) wavelengths.
HOW the power is DISTRIBUTED is what SB does NOT reveal. And the “how” makes all the difference in the effect.
@CD Marshall
So water vapor does not get energized directly by the sun, but it is still largely water that propagates heat to the night side of earth. Through the water cycle.
Water vapor is largely responsible for narrowing the temperature spectrum on earth.
Right?
Yes that is a good point Rosco makes that the SB Law doesn’t tell you how the energy is distributed, and that is because it is an integration of the Planck curve. The SB Law though does relate directly to temperature though and temperature is what determines the distribution in the Planck curve, and so of course the distribution is embedded in the SB Law as the Planck curve’s integration.
But the distribution is what is really important, because the distribution shows you what frequency micro-states are activated. It is actually a measure of the information-content of the curve. The higher temperature curve has more information than the lower temperature curve. The lower temperature curve has no information to give to the higher temperature curve, i.e., it has no higher-frequency microstates activated that the higher temperature distribution doesn’t already have. In order to be able to increase temperature, you have to be able to provide an object some higher frequency states that it doesn’t already have. You can do this with an even higher temperature object which then shares those higher-frequency states via heat, which is the transfer of those states or that information from the object that has those states to the one which doesn’t (hotter to cooler). Obviously it makes no sense to even speak of this occurring in reverse, since the object without the states to share obviously cannot thus share the states it does not have. And then of course you can do it by work too.
What Joe has written above is verified by Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect.
Einstein showed that the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light failed all experimental data and therefore must be wrong in some aspects.
“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,…”
“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. ”
“Einstein’s postulate therefore explains why the photoelectric effect occurs only for frequencies greater than a minimum threshold frequency. This postulate is also consistent with the observation that greater intensity causes a greater photocurrent (Fig. 38.4). Greater intensity at a particular frequency means a greater number of photons per second absorbed, and thus a greater number of electrons emitted per second and a greater photocurrent…”
The key here is the “frequencies greater than a minimum threshold frequency” – it doesn’t matter how many photons are incident if they are below the minimum threshold frequency – there is no photoelectric effect.
Clearly in the graph above the 255 K curve never approaches the minimum threshold frequency capable of inducing an increase in temperature of the 303 K object. Higher frequency corresponds to shorter wavelength and at ~3 micron the red curve is emitting energy while the green curve is emitting basically zero – all the energy from the green curve is not energetic enough to exceed the minimum threshold frequency and therefore is incapable of inducing a higher temperature – only a Planck curve and Einstein can demonstrate why the greenhouse effect is ludicrous.
That is my best explanation – if the minimum threshold frequency is significant in the photoelectric effect and widely accepted as correct why wouldn’t similar properties hold in other electromagnetic radiation ? That is merely offering an explanation for something every realistic scientist knows already anyway – the radiation from a cold object does not have the energy signature necessary to cause a hotter object to increase in temperature.
I choose Einstein over Spencer, Mann, Trenberth or any of the others anyone cares to name.
Boomie,
Don’t forget oceans, the largest solar batteries on Earth and excellent transporters of energy day and night. Oceans (fueled by solar power) in turn feed the atmospheric cells worldwide that create climate. Latent heat from water vapor is only one means of influencing regional temperatures, conduction & convection leads to advection (moving warm air laterally in the atmosphere even to the night side), jet streams, polar vortex, all of these things move cold or warm air around our planet. IR radiating from the surface (even at night) also warms especially if water vapor is present.
The Equator moves warm air to the Poles and cold air moves from the Poles to the Equator.
Its more complex than even that, but that is a start. Anymore than this and my brain starts hurting.
Rosco says: “I choose Einstein over Spencer, Mann, Trenberth or any of the others anyone cares to name.”
Exactly, if you’re talking about science, Spencer, Mann, Trenberth, et al., are at the bottom of the list. But, it you’re wanting climate clowns, Spencer, Mann, Trenberth, et al., are near the TOP of the list!
And just so there is no confusion, the “photoelectric effect” is not the same as “absorption”. The photoelectric effect refers to the phenomena of free electrons being ejected from a surface by high energy photons. There is energy transfer, but no heat involved. The photons must have a minimum energy, well above infrared. Infrared photons do not produce the photoelectric effect.
This is another mistake the clowns make. They believe that all energy is the same. As Joseph mentioned, it’s the “information” in the energy. An ice cube cannot bake a turkey. Even adding a billion ice cubes, the turkey will not bake. The photons from ice do not have the correct “information”. Low energy photons from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of Earth’s surface. Adding more CO2 still cannot raise the temperature of the surface.
More from Vidfreak who is starting to act more sane(er):
” A hot cup of coffee by virtue of its temperature does have potential energy to put off heat. This is the same idea that a ball by virtue of its height you throw it has the same. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how physics works because you’re playing semantic games here.
“Potential energy is energy which results from position or configuration”
This definition IN NO WAY disproves that. By virtue of the position of the particles vibrations we can calculate the potential of the mug to put off heat.
Any system that has energy has potential.
You’ve been schooled. YOu need to go talk to a physicist as i said.
Cutnell & Johnson Physics Fifth edition
“WE have seen that kinetic energy can be converted into gravitational potential energy and vice versa. In general, energy of all types can be converted from one form to another. Part of the chemical energy stored in food is transformed into the kinetic energy of walking and into the thermal energy needed to keep our bodies at a temperature near 98.6. Similarly, in a moving car the chemical energy of gasoline is converted into kinetic energy, as well as electrical energy, and heat.”
*****
Now I’m not seeing anything wrong in that statement per se, but again like Robert mentioned, it is generalizing physics with a very broad stroke of the brush.
“WE have seen that kinetic energy can be converted into gravitational potential energy…” Obviously its called bouncing a ball, or putting something up and knocking it back down as in bowling pins and so on. However all of those involve work which is the essential element to converting PE to KE if I am following this correctly.
The body does the work converting the food from PE to KE. The food,by itself, possesses none of these characteristics “internally.”
I see no argument in the statement other than they are trying to connect two different energy processes together that are irrelevant.
You see how these people work!? This is just sophistry to create obfuscation. We don’t call thermal energy “potential energy with regards to being able to heat something”. We just call it warmer or cooler, and we call it heat transfer when it can happen. HE is playing semantic games. Never forget…they always project what they themselves are doing.
Text below the link is a very slight re-wording/re-organization/emphasis of the original wording, to improve clarity:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html
If a lower-quantum-energy photon is “absorbed” by the completely saturated low-energy micro-states and molecular or atomic orbitals of a higher-energy body, then the hot body MUST simultaneously eject a photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy as that absorbed, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory.
Consequently, there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source, with simultaneous emission of an IDENTICAL photon of the EXACT SAME wavelength/frequency/energy by the hotter source.
This “absorption”, with simultaneous emission of an identical photon by the hot body, is sometimes called “reflection”, or, more properly, as I have come to understand it, “scattering”.
This explains the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a quantum basis, thus why low-frequency/low-energy photons from a cold emitter cannot warm a warmer body at a higher frequency/temperature/energy.
Yes, the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body by a photon of the same energy.
Reducing the rate of cooling does not equal warming.
“Green House Gases” only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a FEW MILLISECONDS, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is REVERSED AT NIGHT.
And maybe I lack perspective of the entire exchange between CD and VidFreak (^_^), but I don’t see what all the talk about potential energy has to do with this.
Robert, the original argument was over a hot cup of coffee having PE. However, he is also trying to claim cold can warm hot in Spencer fashion. So I am guessing he’s trying to use PE as an example of how energy can warm the surface. How? I’m still curious to see that part.
Robert, I addressed this upthread: “Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility. It’s that simple. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons, since photons have integer spin (bosons).”
I appreciate that your source is trying to attack the GHE nonsense, but we don’t have to alter science to defeat pseudoscience. Let science defeat pseudoscience.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle has NOTHING to do with photons. It has to do with electron configuration, and the associated quantum mechanics. Your source has apparently found something that he believes fits, but it doesn’t. Following such nonsense will lead you astray, as in your statement: ”Yes, the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body by a photon of the same energy.”
Ice cubes will not bake a turkey, and they will NOT “reduce the rate of cooling” of a baked turkey.
geran,
I did not take it that the reference was referring to photons directly, in reference to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but rather to the energy of atoms caused by photons.
If an atom has an electron configuration associated with a given energy, then a photon that bumps another electron up to that energy level cannot enable the electron to occupy the same orbital that might already be at its quota, right, and so an exact same photon has to be emitted to keep the electron within the bounds dictated by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Also, read exactly all that I wrote. You stopped your quotation of me short of the most important point, namely, Green House Gases” only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a FEW MILLISECONDS, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is REVERSED AT NIGHT.
Admit the … “slowing”, … but qualify it by saying that it is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
A FEW MILLISECONDS !
REVERSED AT NIGHT !
Robert, if you cling to “slowing” by admitting it is “so insignificant as to be irrelevant”, then why even cling to it? Ice cubes can not “slow the cooling” of a freshly baked turkey. Period. That’s the reality.
I’ve seen people claim Earth is warming the Sun, but it’s “so insignificant as to be irrelevant”. Their mission was to further the pseudoscience that “cold” can warm “hot”. I don’t think that is your mission so that’s why I’m alerting you. `
The science is on our side. We don’t have to negotiate with the clowns. We don’t have to accept any of their nonsense. All pseudoscience belongs in the trash bin.
“Slowing cooling” is NOT warming. [NOTE: Read exactly as written]
Saying that Earth is warming the sun is NOT the same as saying that CO2 “slows cooling” by a FEW MILLISECONDS, made up for at night.
Admit the truth, but admit the irrelevance of the DEGREE of truth. It’s an important exercise in teaching critical thinking skills.
I cut my face, yes, but a micro-cut with a razor, in the ordinary task of shaving, which I cannot even detect.
Truth has levels. It is the LEVEL of truth that counts.
The level of truth here is that a FEW MILLISECONDS of “slowing”, made up for at night, is NOT an absolute slowing, but a TINY slowing that, then, is made up for, which, in effect, eliminates the effect of even the MILLISECONDS.
Alarmists, blow up truth out of all proportion. That’s why they use a y axis with an inch per tenth of a degree, where the x axis is an inch per 365 days.
I could draw an x axis with an inch representing a millisecond. I do not deny the millisecond — I merely point how how badly it is misrepresented in the scheme of reality that matters within the realm of human experience.
“Truth has levels.”
Now you’re trying to intellectualize. That’s what Monckton does. He can spin “wrong” into “right” before most people can type their names. “Truth” doesn’t have “levels”. Something is true or it’s not.
An intellectual can write pages and pages touting how “cold” can warm “hot”, or how “cold” can “slow the cooling”, but an old, uneducated, hillbilly grampa just says “You cain’t bake no turkey with ‘em ice cubes, sonny!”
I’ll take truth over intellectualism any day.
Just to clear up a point.
The photoelectric effect IS exactly the same as “absorption” – it is people’s understanding of “absorption” that is flawed.
To again quote Einstein – “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. ”
The photoelectric effect is only possible when high frequency “photons” are “absorbed” by an object capable of having an electric current result from the “absorption” of the photons energy by the electrons of the object. Below the threshold frequency it doesn’t matter how many photons impact there is zero photoelectric effect. Above the threshold frequency a stronger effect requires more incident photons.
The statement – “There is energy transfer, but no heat involved.” – is nonsense.
Firstly, any incident radiation capable of inducing the ejection of electrons from any chemical bond – covalent or ionic – is indisputably full spectrum radiation and by nature of the knowledge we have of radiation includes near infra red of far higher energy states than the radiation emitted at Earth’s ambient temperature so there will inevitably be all sorts of thermodynamic effects as well as the photoelectric effects.
It is pointless to argue that the photoelectric effect isn’t thermodynamic.
Secondly, ANY energy transfer from higher intensity electromagnetic radiation (the emission and characteristics of which is associated with higher temperatures in a natural situation – not created by a machine) IS the VERY DEFINITION of HEAT.
“Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.
The effect of this transfer of energy usually, but not always, is an increase in the temperature of the colder body and a decrease in the temperature of the hotter body.”
The fact that climate scientists always argue that an increase in temperature is inevitable is why they are basically clueless – phase changes and viscosity are just a few examples of where significant amounts of heat are transferred with no change in temperature.
Having said this why is it inconceivable to believe the concept of threshold energy is universally applicable across all of radiative thermodynamics – ie cold cannot heat hot because it cannot exceed the threshold ?
Surely the evidence of the absorption spectrum of the Devil’s gas (strong absorption at wavenumber 666) supports Einstein’s hypothesis “the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. ”
Look – this absorption spectrum IS absolutely frequency dependent.
We agree Rosco, it is people’s understanding of “absorption” that is flawed.
Your Einstein quote, with my emphasis: “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.”
As I indicated, the photoelectric effect “is energy transfer, but no heat involved”. All of the photon energy is transferred to the ejected electron, with nothing left over, i.e., zero thermalization.
CO2 delays photon emission to space by a few microseconds if absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or any other “IR Responsive” (yes my word) gas.
It takes (JPs math) roughly 66-67 microseconds for a photon to emit from surface to space unmolested. CO2 interception simply increases that by around 3 microseconds.
I extrapolated (with my very poor math skills),that a photon can be re-emitted, absorbed and re-emitted, in one second this can happen 14,285.71 times. Which I just see that a photon will be long gone in just a second either out to space or absorbed by something else.
“…milliseconds, compared to 10 days of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the atmosphere, compared to 121 years of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the oceans.” -JP
Sorry, geran, I disagree — you are trying to absolutize truth, and this is not the case. You know this, I think. Admitting “slowed cooling”, and qualifying the limits of this description is intellectually mature and rationally sound.
I give the alarmists nothing but good form in doing this. I show them to be the shallow incompetents that they are.
I do nothing like Monckton. (^_^) He is very creative, for sure, but he operates on non-truths, in doing so. I try not to do that, I assure you.
Which I admit I thought “latent heat” was only around 3 days for some reason?
So it would take 10 days for the surface at the equator to completely freeze.
If the sun turned off.
I live pretty close to the equator at sea level so I would get most of those 10 days. You Canada boys will be icicles by day 2.
10 days isn’t enough lead time though, we’d probably still be goners. Maybe I could find some hot springs and try and get something going.
For those who might not know, a microsecond is a millionTH of a second.
Robert, I’m not the one “absolutizing truth”. Nature does that for us. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are the truth we must live with.
But you certainly have a right to disagree.
“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…” -JP
A microsecond is an SI unit of time equal to one millionth (0.000001 or 10⁻⁶ or ¹⁄1,000,000) of a second. Its symbol is μs, sometimes simplified to us when Unicode is not available. A microsecond is equal to 1000 nanoseconds or ¹⁄1,000 of a millisecond. Because the next SI prefix is 1000 times larger, measurements of 10⁻⁵ and 10⁻⁴ seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of microseconds. Symbol=us
A millisecond (from milli- and second; symbol: ms) is a thousandth (0.001 or 10⁻³ or ¹/₁₀₀₀) of a second. A unit of 10 milliseconds may be called a centisecond, and one of 100 milliseconds a decisecond, but these names are rarely used.=Symbol ms
Nature does not absolutize truth — that operation is a totally human endeavor. (^_^)
It’s good to know where one stands between the poles that tug at our reality.
Alarmists might see themselves standing near one pole exclusively, without any regard for the other pole, whereas rationalists know that there is always a range of intervals between truth and falsehood.
It is true that the Earth warms and cools. But it is uncertain as to whether humans cause Earth to warm and cool.
It is true that smoking most likely will kill you. But it is uncertain whether smoking will always kill you.
The standard model of particle physics appears to be true. But it is uncertain whether it is the only model that will work, or work the best.
The standard model of the sun appears to be true. Yadah, yadah, yadah …
“Slowed cooling” is true, and it seems certain that this truth is NOT of a magnitude that it makes one iota of real difference, as far as climate change goes.
Properly qualified truth is the real truth, in other words.
Anyone, how would your reply to this nonsense claiming that AGW proponents are not using a Flat Earth model?
“You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.
The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter. The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.”
AGW proponents begin by using the energy intercepted by the disk and equating that to the sphere as the energy loss required for thermal equilibrium. They factor in albedo and arrive at ~239.7 W/m2 as the output required to balance the input and calculate the temperature – I’m sure everyone reading this knows that.
But the input is clearly NOT an average of 239.7 W/m2 over the whole surface area of the sphere – that is the output !
The input is an average of double that over half the area all the time and that significantly higher energy input is capable of creating much higher temperatures.
This reality alone reduces their model to gibberish and they are most certainly using a flat earth model.
Look at the gibberish from the email quoted :-
“But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average. What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.”
So there has been never been more than 0.4°C in 12,000 years ? Sure, in cloud cuckoo land !
There is “a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter” ?
This just shows how ridiculous the whole thing is – 1.67 W/m2 anomaly would cause several degrees C warming every year.
My favourite is that 239.7 W/m2 for ten hours (in the absence of anything else) results in 2,390 Watt hours with a resulting temperature of ~minus 18°C.
The same 2,390 watt hours delivered in one hour results in a temperature of ~180°C.
Only an idiot or AGW proponent would try to argue these are the same thing.
TEWS, Rosco beat me to it, but here’s an additional thought:
The “flat earth” comes from the fact that they spread solar flux over the entire surface. (Think of a world map, spread out on a table.)
You can’t divide flux because it greatly reduces the temperature. The temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So if you divide the flux by 4, you end up with a temperature 71% of what it should be. Their purpose is to make it appear solar is unable to warm Earth to it’s average temperature.
Robert, let’s try a real-world example on you.
Let’s say that a baked turkey, just out of the oven, has a surface temperature of 300 ºF. Let’s say it normally takes 30 minutes for the surface to cool to 100 ºF.
Instead of letting the turkey cool by itself, suppose you had positioned a large block of ice on either side of the 300º turkey. The hot turkey is being irradiated from both sides by 300 W/m^2.
So, how much will the extra “warming” from the ice “slow the cooling” of the turkey? How much longer will the turkey need to get to 100 ºF?
Just rough numbers are fine—seconds, minutes, days, weeks?
Or is this where you will resort to “a range of intervals between truth and falsehood”?
“You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.
The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter. The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.”
This reply says nothing. We know that it is a disk-intercept. But it is what is being done with that intercept. That intercept is being spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once, which is impossible, and which can only work in flat Earth theory, and this is WHY their diagrams are of a flat Earth.
A diagram of a flat Earth (which is impossible) with sunlight falling over the entire flat surface at once (which is also impossible with the real Earth) *is* flat Earth theory.
The two impossible things go together: the only way to have the intercepted sunlight spread over the entire surface at once as an input – *instantaneous, average, or otherwise* – is if the Earth was flat.
Climate alarm is flat Earth theory. QED.
Thank you all for your clear explanations. One of the commenters I have been exchanging comments with at CFACT.org who genuinely seems interested but who has bought the AGW junk science hook, line, and sinker may be salvageable. The other one has the commenting style and arrogance and condescending approach of “Grant Foster,” aka, “Tamino,” using one of his many profiles…in this case, he is calling himself “waxliberty.” Exchanging any further comments with him is a complete exercise in futility and a fool’s errand.
geran,
I don’t know why you are being so dense about this.
What I have said has nothing to do with believing that ice cubes can cook a turkey or slow the rate at which the turkey cooks. Ice cubes, OF COURSE, have zero effect on the cooking time of the turkey.
You seem so repulsed by the idea of admitting a simple truth at an insignificant level that you cannot see how insignificant any slowing argument is. Acknowledge the argument, and then point out how utterly insignificant the argument is, because of the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny scale of the truth being put forth by alarmists in an irrational way.
We are on the same page, I assure you. If you can acknowledge the truth, and then reduce it to its true value of insignificance, then you have totally defeated the “slowing cooling argument” at the most fundamental level.
EXAMPLE: Water can kill you, so we should never drink water.
How stupid is this? ANSWER: It conflates the gradation of truth into one absolute pole — the negative. It ignores the positive pole in the gradation from negative to positive. … Water CAN kill you, but this statement has to be further qualified, by quantity and circumstance. Water is essential to life too — that’s the other pole in the gradation from life to death truth, as it relates to water.
Similarly, CO2 slows cooling, so we should never emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Stupid, right?
Why? — Conflation into one pole — the negative, where the implication is that “slowed cooling” is of a significant quantity, or all slowed cooling is of a significant quantity (it is NOT). … In the context of warming the atmosphere or maintaining the warmth of the atmosphere, the so called “slowed cooling”, while true, is so minutely, almost-non-existently, insignificant that it is indistinguishable from zero — it requires a purely conceptual argument at an abstract level to even conjure up the amount — it is not even measurable — so, practically, not even provable, using instrumentation — only via calculation can we put a number on it, whereas the alarmists do not calculate, but merely postulate based on qualitative, mistaken thinking that has no theoretical foundation.
When we get down to this level of conceptualization, I think we start to run into difficulties with the standard model of particle physics itself. We try to talk about photons — things with no mass, but energy — things that exist, but do not exist — things that are particles, but wait, no, waves, no, fields, in no time, in no space, no, wait, all time, all space … things that probably different people understand and misunderstand how to talk about at different levels [I surely don’t understand them, really].
You think there’s misunderstanding and disagreement about “energy”, “heat”, “temperature”, … well, I dare say there’s misunderstanding and disagreement about massless, timeless, spaceless particles/waves/fields/?
Practically speaking, then, there is no “slowed cooling”. Let’s agree on that, … practically.
TEWS P,
You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.
That’s not my understanding. Rather, the WHOLE globe is loosing energy all the time. The night side looses it faster than the day side.
What does “yearly average” really mean here? Yearly average of energy? Average of what?
The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter.
Clearly, it is NOT. Where’s the sphere? Where’s the spin? ANSWER: Non-existent in the “simple model”. There is no “intersection”. The sphere, even conceptually, does NOT intersect a flat plane. The sphere rotates beneath the PROJECTION of a flat plane.
The simple model, then, equates ROTATING a sphere beneath the PROJECTION of a flat plane as though that rotating motion traces out a thinning flux over the whole globe, which is the equivalent of flattening out the globe and diluting sunshine over the entire area at once to one-fourth power. The simple model is static — it stops the Earth from rotating, after the sunshine has been sprayed onto that sphere, thus flattening it.
Look at the diagram — that’s what the diagram visually, physically represents!
The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.
And using this fact incorrectly to spread sunshine over the whole Earth at once at one-fourth power is a blatant misuse of this fact.
You’re moving in the right direction, Robert. The 300 W/m^2 can NOT “slow the cooling” of the hot turkey.
Sorry to have to use such an un-intellectual example to make my point, but often that’s all us “being-dense” folks know….
Also a reminder Potholer said he is coming out with a “debunk” video on the top 10 arguments against climate change (that should be fun). He has not, as of yet, openly addressed you Joe but his trolls have been trashing you with the same ole rhetoric, nothing new you haven’t heard before. Questing if you are an actual physicist, never wrote anything in climate science, are not qualified and the same old crap. PH has not mentioned you and I have tried many times. PH has trashed other astrophysicists but has not said anything against you personally. PH trashed Ball & Heller but so far not you.
Before I respond again to this Bozo I am still pointlessly talking to (on Potholer’s site) I think Joe mentioned on this thread something about insulation so I’ll be looking for it again. Comment as you like in the meantime. Thank you.
He made this reply to the constant argument that cold cannot warm up hot. He just keeps twisting and twisting the definitions to fit his desired version of science.
“But clearly it can. AS radiated energy can change the temperature if the bodies are radiating close together.
KEYWORD: RADIATED ENGERY!
Every example you use is conduction and convection.
Can transfer w/o change in temperature doesnt mean IT DOES ALWAYS.
Cold does not heat up hot? Semantics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, but it can prevent hot from cooling by insulating it. Is that better? Does that help your feeble mind comprehend this?
Bathtubs dont gain heat primarily through radiation. Were talking about radiation here
“Radiation is different from convection and conduction. When you put two radiating bodies next to eachother, the less warm (colder) body prevents the warmer (hotter) body from cooling. It acts like an insulator.”
Again analogizing to insulation. WHY!? We know what the ghe is…in my diagram a few comments back. It is about heat transfer from cold to hot. Don’t let them change goal posts.
Are they saying an already chilled beer bottle in a Esky / Ice cooler without ice will cool faster than one in an esky full of radiating energy (ice)?
This is just gets all twisted.
Cold does not heat up hot? Semantics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, but it can prevent hot from cooling by insulating it. Is that better? Does that help your feeble mind comprehend this?
Okay, to prove this, let’s do an experiment: Strip naked and stand inside of a shed built out of blocks of ice. Toasty in there?
NO. Why, because your body-heat is moving towards the ice, eventually making the ice melt faster, NOT the ice making your body cool more slowly. My feeble mind, thus, tells me NOT to get my naked self trapped in an ice-block shed. Congratulations, if you’ve figured out how to reverse the laws of heat flow, to make ice keep your ass warmer. I will look for your name on the Nobel Prize list any day now.
I think igloo’s only make sense if have to get out of freezing cold wind, and all there is, is snow.
But of course insulation does not add cold to hot. Insulation is not the GHE.
Don’t let your children see my grammar lol.
Now if I built a fire inside an ice-block shed, naked, then I’d probably stay a bit warmer, because, yeah, the air near me would be warm from the fire, and the ice-block enclosure would prevent that warm air from convecting away.
But here we are talking about AIR, … MOLECULES, … AIR MOVEMENT.
The ice-block enclosure does NOT slow the radiation of my body or the fire. The fire still radiates to the AIR inside the ice-block enclosure.
Greenhouse fans constantly confuse warm air for radiation. They confuse MOLECULAR dynamics for atomic dynamics. Air is not photons. Air is MOLECULAR. Photons are SUB-ATOMIC.
I am dealing with a total hard head AGW Alarmist who refuses to accept reality and is completely indoctrinated in the conventional Flat Earth junk science. His position is this:
“Energy in equals energy out. It is a simple balance equation. The input and output are the same, or the planetary energy balance is changing.”
How do I explain his error of using the output as the input and not seeing how ridiculous that is?
TEWS, you can’t explain physics to clowns that have no interest in learning. Most of them believe they “know it all”. You can see examples even here of folks that believe in “slowing the cooling”.
Ask your fish to produce the “simple balance equation”.
They don’t like facts…
You have to do energy in = energy out in the correct way, or else nothing makes sense at all. And of course, they do it in a way that doesn’t make any sense at all. See my previous post:
and the diagrams therein.
“Energy in equals energy out. It is a simple balance equation. The input and output are the same, or the planetary energy balance is changing.”
ENERGY, yes. NOT flux.
Energy comes in by way of flux. Energy is joules. A watt is a joule per second. Energy, thus, comes IN over a surface area that is half a sphere, at a rate of joules per second. Flux is, thus, joules per second per meter squared.
Energy goes OUT over a surface area that is the whole sphere.
Energy coming in at a greater intensity over a smaller surface area (half sphere) equals energy going out at a less intensity over a larger surface area (whole sphere).
BIG-joules/sec x half-sphere-area = SMALLER-joules/sec x whole-sphere-area
Dividing the intensity of the INCOMING flux by four, then, is the wrong move. It is mathematically wrong, conceptually wrong, physically wrong. The correct move is to assign the proper BIG intensity flux to its defined surface area (the half sphere), and assign the proper SMALLER-intensity flux to ITS defined surface area (the whole sphere). Otherwise, you are equating the output FLUX to the INPUT FLUX, which is mathematically, conceptually, physically WRONG.
I think I gave Vidfreak 3 months worth of free physics lessons and he learned not one thing. I went over and read my comments again and all he did was attack the same subject in different ways over and over again. Filthy, disgusting, dishonest troll.
Ain’t nobody got time for Global Warming.
Well then, boomie789, let’s talk about “back infection” or “slowed recovery”.
No pseudo science needed here. Just good old fashioned scare tactics. Although the whole open borders thing became a much harder sell. Immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st is counter intuitive to lowering carbon emissions as well, so nothing new I guess.
At least there actually is a mildly dangerous virus about. As opposed to the Non-threat of C02.
Someone critique this simpleton statement of the GHE: “During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy! If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.” It’s really the hole in the bucket thing again. My head is spinning.
“During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy! If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.”
The sun is a thermodynamic energy source. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic energy source.
The sun can raise system temperature. CO2 can NOT raise system temperature.
Well that’s a good example of how the GHE means anything they want it to. Hold them to fact: their GHE is where the Sun cannot create the weather or climate, because the sun DOES NOT supply the radiant power necessary to create the climate. They’re just making something else up entirely.
The only energy in is from the Sun, and it creates the climate directly. The only way to stop energy out would be by lowering emissivity…but the greenhouse effect is NOT about lowering emissivity.
Make fun of them for being so scientifically incompetent. That’s the only language they know.
“During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy!
Really tune into what you say here — you say “ALL radiant energy”.
If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.”
A little more what? — energy? You just said that the sun supplies ALL energy, and so where is the MORE (than the sun provides) coming from, if the sun provides ALL. You contradict yourself by implying that there is another source BESIDES the sun that you just said provides ALL energy.
The sun cannot provide ALL, and GHE provides more. More in addition to all is absurd. More from where? You said the sun provides ALL, and so there is nowhere else that MORE could come from.
Exactly. Self contradiction embedded in the very statement.
Lukewarmist claim: A space blanket will keep you warmer than a clear sheet of mylar because of back radiation. This is no different than the claim that a lightbulb will get brighter in front of a mirror.
My answer: All blankets work as barriers to convection.
Exactly.
Also, space blankets are highly REFLECTIVE. Gases do NOT reflect radiation, and so I’d ask, “What the heck does a space blanket have to do with Earth’s atmosphere?” Is he now proposing the “Space Blanket Effect” in place of the “Greenhouse Effect”?
Just in case Postma doesn’t know. I’m just starting to watch it.
This should be good.
I’m getting bored of YT they aren’t challenging me much anymore. I think I need to move on. Any suggestions? I mean if you’re going to lie to me at least use science I don’t understand yet. Claiming cold can warm up hot and saying it a thousand different ways doesn’t change the laws that it can’t.
Seriously you have any idea how much nuclear power plants would love if that were true? Replace all plants with CO2 power and have +33% more power out than in. CO2 engines, CO2 heaters, CO2 motors. The list of nearly free energy would be unlimited.
“N2 and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR radiation directly from the Sun and other matter. With these findings, greenhouse theory as it stands is misconceived…”
Click to access PROM-Macdonald-Quantum-Raman-Atmosphere.pdf
What IR is absorbed directly in the atmosphere from the Sun? Wouldn’t this be a contradiction of scattering theory? The fact that the IR would be so much hotter than the gases “absorbing” wouldn’t it most likely send that IR directly back into space?
CDM,
I’ve encountered that publication before (invoking Raman spectroscopy), and I’m torn, because my former understanding about N2 is that it’s molecular configuration forbids it from “absorbing” IR or interacting with IR in the way that we describe it as “absorbed”.
I’m not sure whether IR can excite N2 or not. Maybe a different range of wavelengths, though? [Again, not sure]
Yeah or the terms for “agitated” and “absorbed” need more distinction in climate science. In reading more unless I missed something it stated in test results N2 was agitated or manipulated into emitting some IR. Which is not abnormal, once agitated a molecule emits EM. However no dipole means no dipole, it can’t absorb in the proper terms (as I understand it) but it can be agitated into emitting.
The distinctive “climate science” is it cannot be directly agitated by IR but needs a catalyst such as collision or agitation but what if that part isn’t true?
Meaning in my limited scattering theory conception, a molecule can be agitated in direct IR w/o absorbing, a dipole molecule absorbs and then re-radiates even if the IR is gone it still “absorbed” no matter how quickly from absorption to re-emission, what if a non dipole molecule “acts” almost the same in a direct constant contact (with compatible spectrum emissions) but immediately stops when the contact is broken.
What if it’s not “absorption” or “reflection” in the truest sense but maybe a little of both?
In studying a real energy budget it’s obvious not all solar energy is converted to instant thermal heat, maybe only half of it at best even a third , that “other” needs to go somewhere: Oceans, surface, plant life, partial absorption/reflection and of course just scattering.
So would it be Relay Scattering?
The distinction that I have been guided to make is the distinction between the terms, “excited” and “absorbed”.
“Agitated” = “excited”, as you use it, I suppose.
I’m definitely not up to speed on this.
You don’t need to understand Raman spectroscopy to understand why the GHE is nonsense.
In simple terms, the important concepts to know about photon absorption are:
1) Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility.
2) You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes.
If you understand both concepts, then you understand more than the PhD clowns that dominate the GHE pseudoscience with their persistent sophistry. And, that includes organizations such as the AMS, where the clowns don’t even understand that solar flux can NOT be averaged as if Earth were a flat surface (Joseph’s descriptive “Flat Earth”). Or, as if Sun were twice as far away as it actually is (Joseph’s descriptive “Cold Sun”).
So I found an error. A 15 micron photon cannot be absorbed and re-radiated in lower frequencies (which would be hotter) it would have to be in higher (weaker) frequencies.
This statement:
“Co2 absorbs a narrow wavelength range (around 15μ/ micron) and re-emits a wider wavelength range (7-10-15) , including emitting some in the wavelength range that can’t be absorbed by GHG’s (around 10μ/microns).”
Is incorrect.
Wein’s Law:
15 Micron = -79.97C
10 Micron= 16.627C
7 Micron= 140.82C
So when CO2 absorbs and re-emits in all directions, what is it emitting as?
Does the law of increasing energy apply in reverse in regards to radiating above its spectrum?
Obviously no. Energy can split and decrease, never split and increase (law of conversation).
So what spectrum of photons is re-emitted by a 15 micron aborbed photon from CO2?
Its not as simple as splitting eV up?
So is the Bohr Model able to determine this or am I way off course here?
“When the final energy level is smaller than the initial energy level, the energy difference ΔE > 0 and thus electron will emit the electromagnetic wave. Otherwise, when ΔE < 0 electron needs to absorb the electromagnetic wave. Remember that energy levels of the electrons bounded to the atom are negative!"
CD, you started off your last comment with ”So I found an error.”
There are more than just one.
🙂
Lower frequencies are “colder”, not “hotter”. Low frequencies mean low energy, high frequencies mean high energy. And since wavelengths are inversely proportional, then long wavelengths are low energy, and short wavelengths are high energy.
And Wien’s Law (“i” before “e”) applies to the spectrum of a black body, not a gas. A surface typically has a full spectrum, while a gas has only a line spectrum.
I’ve never heard of the “law of increasing energy”! What did you mean?
And the Bohr Model has no relevance to photon IR emission from a CO2 molecule. If you’re referring to electron energy level transitions, that is usually above IR range, typically NIR, or even visible. But, I’m only guessing at what you are referring to.
Remember ”Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility.” If a photon’s wavelength matches the wavelength required for an electron to transition to a higher orbital, then the photon will be absorbed by the atom, as opposed to the molecule. If the photon’s wavelength matches a vibrational mode of the molecule, then it will be absorbed by the molecule, as opposed to an individual atom. If the photon’s wavelength does not match anything within the molecule, or the atoms of the molecule, it will not be absorbed. All photons are NOT always absorbed.
Is Radiative forcing real? I used ctrl f and see CD Marshall mentioned it’s junk science.
from this
https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html
2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour. The planet’s average surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse. In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is on average 1% (source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and pound for pound, it also has a far greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs IR-energy over a much greater spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing more than 6 W/m2 (4%) to the greenhouse effect of 153 W/m2 whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m2 (96%).
^ flat earth science
https://infogalactic.com/info/Radiative_forcing
Geran,
So 7 and 10 are warmer than 15 (microns)? Right. So a 15 micron absorbed is not emitting 7 and 10. Sorry for the confusions late night. Yeah I just meant no law exists that increases energy or decreases energy absorbed from a CO2 molecule is emitted always as the same energy either as a clone photon or dispersed in several directions as weaker photons, so the question is what are the wavelengths of those dispersed photons and what laws apply to determining that.
So when a photon is absorbed from (in this case we are still referring to the CO2) and re-emitted back to the surface (which is now considered a black body?) the energy of the 15 micron absorbed is equal to -80C of a black body (does this need a temperature as well for the bb)? According to Wien’s Law (“i” before “e”) which is based on a bb am I right s far? Or am I mixing the laws up?
However, seldom (in statistical averages) does a 15 micron photon (from CO2) get absorbed back to the surface. Usually it is “dispersed” as (lower frequencies) photons. What are those lower frequency photons and how is that determined?
Now did I get that right and did I miss anything?
Thank you as always for your input.
Boomie,
Joseph has so much on here about water vapor.
https://climateofsophistry.com/?s=water+vapor
Now I might be wrong but CO2 and WV doesn’t mix to increase temps, WV supersedes CO2 and controls the temps where WV is present. Now only close to the surface would CO2 make any contribution anyway and in greater mass, where that exists is tropical regions thus WP will always supersede those concentrations.
The only other variation would be a random leak of CO2 in massive quantities coming from the subsurface, never associated with atmospheric CO2 which will always be too weak and spread out to make any impact.
WV not WP I’ve been out of it for well over 3 weeks, sorry for the confusions. I’ve been on a low Ph diet (medical reasons) and losing weight (medical reasons) so it’s REALLY screwing up my focus and concentration.
I’d like to get to a flat 200lbs which I’ve not seen in over 14 years. Ironic since my brother last saw 200 lbs when he was 14.
Does anyone want to explain how a microwave works and why climate clowns are using that as a reference to global warming?
I can’t get anything right pH not Ph, my brain is backwording everything. Micron not microns. I’m glad you can edit YT comments.
A climate clown gave me this as evidence of detecting IR and global warming.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
To read the pdf…
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DCF54CB4AFC0D8FE60051DB807CF0A85?doi=10.1.1.173.1987&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Since I can’t trust my brain right now I’d appreciate some help. Not surprising its from an IPCC conference.
CD, I’m have trouble understanding your questions. Let me provide an example and see if that helps.
A photon from Earth is absorbed by a CO2 molecule. At that point, the photon no longer exists. The energy from the photon was transferred to the molecule, but the photon is no more. Now the molecule is vibrating from the added energy. If it bumps into another molecule, an additional energy transfer occurs. Let’s say the first molecule had a higher vibrational frequency, so energy went from it to the second molecule. That means the first molecule is now vibrating at a slower frequency, or moving at a slower rate, or both, since translational energy is not quantized.
Or, instead of a collision, the first molecule could reemit a photon of the same energy as it absorbed, creating a new photon. Or, if it lost energy from a collision, it might have to emit a photon at a lower frequency (longer wavelength).
I’m not sure if that answers your questions or not.
From the link CD:
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ”
Thus, it starts with the premise that the Sun doesn’t create the climate, but the atmosphere does by heating itself. Then they reference a model which they program based on this to simulate the warming since the little ice age, which they then claim is proof that their position in valid.
The dumbest shit possible. As if we have people doing this thinking that they’re doing science, and that they’re scientists. Idiots.
CD, I don’t know the context the “microwave oven” was taken out of, but I suspect the clowns were attempting to use it to claim “cold” can warm “hot”. At least, I’ve seen them try that before. They must “disprove” the Second Law to make their nonsense work.
Spencer tries the same kind of scam when he claims that putting on a coat is an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
They’re con-artists, scoundrels, and shysters, not scientists.
Found this channel.
Trust and honesty is the key to the highest form of society. In the in group at least, for everyone else, reciprocity will be abided.
I like his breakdown into three groups.
Three natural reproductive strategies in the tribe.
The Feminine instinct(progressive)
The young male instinct
Young male(libertarian)
And the conservative instinct. (Mature male)
Majority rule is Feminine instinct rule.
*on phone, didn’t finish comment
“Women rally the betas to control the Alphas”
So true, it’s all power play with the means available to that class.
A microwave takes electrical energy into the magnetron which produces microwaves of high energy intensity. These microwaves react strongly with the bonds in water to produce high energy states at high temperatures.
This has absolutely nothing to do with black body radiation and thermal energy transfer – it is as others have said their proof of cold heating hot and their belief this proves any of their bullshit is stupid beyond belief.
If they believe this then why do most microwave machines have a “cool down” cycle built into them ?
Anyone who says this proves cold heats hot is an idiot of unbelievable stupidity and believe me I’ve met a shitload of them.
Roy Spencer once constructed a spreadsheet to prove the steel greenhouse effect but the expressions he used weren’t even equations – they were dimensionally incorrect and they broke all the rules of thermodynamics !
Anyone who thinks CO2 controls the climate is an idiot – CO2 absorbs a small percentage of the spectrum emitted by Earth’s ambient temperatures and has no interaction with the majority of the emissions.
Speaking of stupid, and off the topic of climate sophistry, is this the stupidest article ever:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/italys-coronavirus-death-toll-is-far-higher-than-reported/ar-BB122vvc?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
… or am I missing something?
People in a nursing home dying, who were UNTESTED for COVID-19 are invoked to support the claim that coronovirus deaths in Italy are underestimated. The unfortunate people were NOT tested. They died during the coronovirus scare. They are presumed to have died from coronovirus. Stupid!
It’s the inversion from what should be stated, which is untold numbers of people who have the virus with no symptoms have been underestimated.
Inversion of reality. Inversion of truth. Sound familiar?
Have these reporters been studying the notes of climate alarmists?
Wuhan Brain Degeneration Syndrome (WBDS)
WBDS = WTF= CO2 controls the climate = sunshine spread over the entire Earth at once = collapse of intelligence as we know it
There is an interesting bruhaha over on PSI. The article is why I disagree with Roy Spencer…..
The comments are something! That McGinn character sure is full of himself. A person like that can never be reasoned with.
geran, squidly, good job!
Where?
BTW, that ‘Norman’ fellow is an arrogant ass. I am having trouble determining who is more arrogant, ‘McGinn’ or ‘Norman’. LOL
Joe, on PSI. This article :
https://principia-scientific.org/why-i-disagree-with-roy-spencer-on-the-so-called-re-radiation-issue/#comments
They really are narcissistic psychopaths. What is it with this issue which invites, generates, and is sustained by psychopathy?
Hey, guys, I just tossed this stink bomb into the lap of the “self-proclaimed genius” James McGinn to see if he or anyone else will take the bait.
“The temperature of the surroundings should only affect the TIME it takes the water to reach its maximum temperature even if the surroundings are cooler, not the actual temperature it will eventually reach in a steady state condition. Would placing a container of liquid nitrogen over the heated water prevent it from boiling (assuming the heat source is capable of providing sufficient energy to boil water) but the dry ice would not prevent it from boiling?”
I also ventured into the sandbox to play over at PSI, but I didn’t stay for the whole party.
Wow. Just wow.
The PSI article was written by “Dr.” Antero Ollila, who appears to be some kind of Finnish management consultant in fields like industrial safety. Like Spencer, he apparently has no background in thermodynamics, heat transfer, or quantum physics. And, like Spencer, he believes in the GHE nonsense, but unlike Spencer, he tries to deny he believes in it?
Yeah, I don’t understand such clowns either, but they are hilarious.
What is encouraging is that there are more and more people speaking out against the nonsense. And, many even understand the relevant physics. Even those that don’t have a strong physics background are starting to figure it out, just using their common sense. The hoax is going away, and the frauds that supported it are being revealed, more and more.
Reality is on our side.
I just did a quick scan of the article by Dr. Antero Ollila, so I will need to study it to understand how he is disagreeing with Roy Spencer since they both think a COLD body can transfer energy to a WARMER body.
One of my Thermodynamics professors from college years ago used a simple model to explain it. Two bodies are like apartment houses, with rooms at higher and higher levels from the ground to the top floor (energy shells). Each floor fills up as the temperature rises. A warm body is taller than a cold body, and all the apartments from the ground to the height of the COLD body are filled. If someone in the COLD apartment house tries to move to the HOT apartment house (radiates a photon), it can only reach all the already-filled lower apartments, it does not have enough energy to reach one of the higher apartments (higher energy shells), so it cannot get in, thus that photon is NOT absorbed by the HOTTER body. It must go to an apartment house that is SHORTER (cooler body). Anyway, that is my off-the-cuff recollection with the rough edges not smoothed off.
@Postma
I forgot I asked that guy about you.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Response-to-Brendon-regarding-greenhouse-effect–convection-model-of-storms–and-Postma-eaj9cj
Just started listening to it.
Mcginn
He disagrees with you on “flow of…” and “The direction of…” but I don’t think he actually says it. I’m guessing heat.
Weird because he says you are right and he does agree with you.
Why didn’t he say the word? Lol.
How could he agree with you but not that cold adds to hot?
Want me to sent a follow up question?
I forgot I sent him that question a couple of months ago.
For anyone interested here is Jim McGinn’s seminal work on “Solving Tornadoes”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pg6qnqbrzjzop1t/VortexPhaseFromParanoiatoBreakthrough.docx?dl=0
I’m not sure what he was smoking at the time he sent this to me – I read till I couldn’t take it anymore.
Sounds like he is a truth relativist.
I think he is saying that it’s okay for climatology and meteorology to not be empirical.
I don’t like that.
If he agrees so much I don’t know why he is so abrasive to us “slayers”.
Because we’re not paying attention to your water theory?
He thinks the Alarmist are doing good for mankind.
No Sir.
He must want population control or equity or something.
He admits C02 doesn’t matter to the climate, so why is it ok limit it?
That might be what I ask. What GOOD are the alarmist doing with their lies?
Rosco, you should send Jim McGinn’s seminal work on “Solving Tornadoes” to Marc Morano or Joe Bastardi at CFACT.org. See what meteorologists think of it.
I’ve been referred to another GHE video. “It’s just like a blanket”. lol
RK
Can I ask if you have a better quality graphic from your post on 2020/03/15 at 9:25 AM – the one with the 2 emissions from Earth in terms of wavenumber and wavelength.
If you do send it to me at roscomac at outlook.com.au please.
Thanks.
By the way the idiot arguing that “Whether you plot the emission spectrum with the wavelength or the wavenumber on the x-axis DOES NOT MATTER for the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter.” is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!!
He is wrong because “the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter” is ONLY applicable for the WAVENUMBER plot !!!
In the WAVELENGTH plot the emissions from CO2 are significantly REMOVED from the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter – ANY IDIOT can see that in the right hand graph – The CO2 emission is exactly where it should be at ~15 micron or 666 wavenumber (exactly the same in both graphs) but the the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter SHIFTS from ~ 15 Micron in the Wavenumber domain to ~ 9.8 Micron in the Wavelength domain !!
It takes a different value in a frequency plot.
Statements made by this idiot as quoted are meaningless and display a total lack of knowledge about the subject the idiot professes expertise in !
Amongst those who actually do know what they are talking about (clearly not the VW idiot) there has been much discussion over this very point for decades –
Where is the true Wein’s law peak emissions point ?
The consensus is that it is irrelevant because there is no single wavelength for peak emissions when one changes the domain of the variable used to plot Planck curves as is evident from the diagram RK shows.
This is because Planck’s law has a different formulation for different variables such as wavelength, wavenumber and frequency and the relationship is not a straight algebraic one but a differential one.
Despite the apparent differences in the emissions in each plot the values are exactly the same in each.
VW’s argument is nonsense and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the laws of black body radiation.
However it demonstrates just how dishonest all climate scientists are because they always cite the WAVENUMBER plot with the coincidence of CO2 emissions with the peak thus fooling gullible idiots into thinking they are clever.
Climate scientists couldn’t lie straight in bed.
The take home point in this is the peak in emissions for any temperature in the Wavenumber domain is at a different wavelength to the peak in emissions for any temperature in the Wavelength domain and both are absolutely meaningless if one doesn’t understand why – the peak emissions for CO2 at 666 peaks per centimetre DOES NOT prove anything at all – it is just coincidence !
To better explain my point above and possibly give some enlightenment I will relate just how I came to seeing the fraud of claiming that the coincidence of “peak” emissions with the CO2 absorption band in a wavenumber plot is meaningless, and I hope you all can see that the wavelength plot gives an entirely different value for the peak – ~15 micron in wavenumber and ~9.8 micron in wavenumber.
I was sort of wandering about the net after seeing Spencer make this same assertion many many years ago and I found references to the Nimbus graph in wavenumber cited by Petty in his book on atmospheric radiation.
I searched for more information and discovered SpectralCalc and began plotting Planck curves and incorporated the information in a revised write up of my little spotlight experiment.
But I still didn’t fully get it – the shift in peak emissions.
Then I stumbled on the proceedings of a conference entitled something like “Where is the true Wein’s law peak emissions point ?”
For decades the explanation for why our eyes function as they do has been the claim that they are attuned to the peak emission wavelength from the Sun.
From the School of Physics at Sydney University – “the peak wavelength in the radiation emitted by the Sun is 0.5 μm.”
OK then, that is why our eyes function as they do – BUT ????.
Using Wien’s law and Wavelength –
the peak occurs at ~2897.75/T µm. For 5772 K – λpeak = ~0.502 µm.
BUT if we use Wien’s law and Wavenumber instead of wavelength the peak occurs at –
~1.96101*T cm-1. For 5772 K – σpeak = ~0.884 µm.
So which is right ? After all 0.884 is 176% larger than 0.502 and is of major significance.
You should appreciate both are right and to claim the fact that CO2 absorption occurs at peak emissions in Wavenumber is meaningful because it coincides with peak emissions in this domain is simply wrong and meaningless because it is NOT true in the Wavelength domain !
Anyone who says it is significant is ignorant of the reality of Planck’s law and therefore completely wrong – it is meaningless.
I found the “eye coincidence with peak emissions” discussion illuminating.
I looked at the PSI references and Geraint Hughes is totally clueless !
This is typical of PSI – they write some nonsense and claim NASA or someone else has faked a graph !
The NASA graph is completely valid !!!!!!
The conclusion drawn that because the peak emissions in the wavenumber domain coincide with the CO2 absorption band are completely valid !!
However the stupid assertion that this means CO2 absorbs at peak emissions means it absorbs more energy than if it absorbed at a point away from peak emissions is meaningless gobbledygook as shown !!
But PSI does itself a great disservice by publishing rubbish like the nonsense written by Geraint Hughes – his article implying NASA is lying and their graph is a fake is among the stupidest articles they unfortunately routinely publish.
Yes ther is reason to criticise the reliance on Wavenumber graphs because they suit the alarmist narrative but to claim the graph is fake and NASA is lying is stupid beyond belief and demonstrates the crew there have even less knowledge that the alarmists they like to ridicule and insult !
Again the graph is not fake, the emissions DO peak at ~15 micron when the data is plotted in the Wavenumber domain and Hughes shows no evidence he understands the relevance of using a different variable in Planck curves and how one translates from one to the other.
If he had any clue at all he wouldn’t make himself appear totally clueless by claiming the graph is a fake – it isn’t. And neither is the Wavelength graph which shows the CO2 absorption band well away from peak emissions a fake either.
Both are RIGHT and if anyone at PSI had a skerrick of the knowledge they continually display they think they have, but don’t, then they would have realised this, not published this bullshit and saved themselves the embarrassment of displaying just how clueless they can be yet again !
This is why I don’t bother reading their nonsense – it is either plagiarized or nonsense such as the anti vaccine BS I see there – and I know from ~25 years as an Environmental Heath Officer that anti-vaxers are stupid beyond belief !
Normally I don’t criticise the GWPF site but this https://www.thegwpf.com/why-cows-are-not-responsible-for-climate-change/ is wrong on so many scientific levels yet the idea is OK.
One should be cautious about the understanding the lecturer has when he starts confusing wavenumber, peaks per centimetre, with frequency.
He is completely wrong in his beginning therefore anything else is completely suspect.
Wavenumber is basically the inverse of wavelength with a factor of 10,000 to adjust for centimetres and microns.
This is most decidedly NOT frequency which involves the speed of light to give units of Hz.
Interestingly enough frequency graphs and wavenumber graphs have a similar structure but no lay person gains any insight from frequency plots.
Joe,
Here’s another little, light argument for you to peruse… CFACT have got rid of the Closed Mind, Foster troll, but the vacuum was quickly filled by other trolls. Start here with TEWS pilot….
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/13/greta-preaches-many-of-the-first-earth-days-failed-predictions/#comment-4834766342
Enjoy.
(Sorry, clicking on the link gives a mess of conversation…..just refresh page and scroll down the comments until my name appears )
Rosco, the NASA graph Geraint presented confused many. Geraint was correct, the graph is messed up.
What confused people is the differing representations of Wien’s Distribution Law. Adding to the confusion, as you mentioned, is the conversion to “wavenumber”. Different formulas, different solutions, different conversions, it all gets messy, quickly.
The easy answer is just stay with “microns” for infrared, with the peak wavelength then:
λ = 2898/T, where T is in Kelvins.
Example: An ice cube at 300K emits a 9.66 μ photon at the peak of its spectrum.
Okay, that was stupid! Ice would not be at 300 K!
Not enough coffee when I made that comment.
Correction: An ice cube at 270 K emits a 10.73 μ photon at the peak of its spectrum.
Sorry for the confusion. Coffee is good….
Mack, your smackdown of the Trolls begins here:
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/13/greta-preaches-many-of-the-first-earth-days-failed-predictions/#comment-4834906678
They eventually attack me using the “You are a young earth creationist” Ad Hom, so I play along and start asking them questions about Origins that nobody can answer just to wind them around the axle….they need to stick to the actual topic and leave the other stuff for the proper venue.
RK
Can I ask if you have a better quality graphic from your post on 2020/03/15 at 9:25 AM – the one with the 2 emissions from Earth in terms of wavenumber and wavelength.
If you do send it to me at roscomac at outlook.com.au please.
Is the one in that post too small, pixel-wise? I could remake it at a larger size, but the two panels are only about 750 pixels wide each, and so the max size I could get you would be around 1500 pixels wide. If okay, then just let me know in this thread, and I’ll put it together.
Robert can you tell me where you got the wavelength plot – I’ve had difficulty getting a decent resolution wavelength plot – the wavenumber plot is easy to find.
I’m sorry geran but Geraint Hughes is completely clueless.
The graph he called a fake is 100% scientifically accurate – there is no denying this.
The facts he claims are lies are not lies they are factual but the coincidence is meaningless.
His “explanation” is completely clueless and nearly all of the commentators were equally clueless.
I repeat there is nothing fake about the graph other than the claim the the coincidence of the peak with the CO2 absorption band means we’re all doomed – that is typical misdirection but not a lie.
Wavenumber has always been the chosen independent variable for NASA satellite monitoring AND for all of the textbooks on atmospheric radiation. Some other satellite agencies choose wavelength.
Frequency was always the chosen independent variable for teaching the physics of the radiation laws but Wien’s law was taught in wavelength when I went to high school.
There is no doubt climate alarmists have chosen the wavenumber graph because of the coincidence of the peak emissions and the CO2 absorption band BUT to argue they are fake is simply stupid beyond belief.
It is sufficient to establish that the band where peak emissions occurs is totally dependent on the variable chosen and is only meaningful for estimating the possible emission temperature though a wider spectrum is more significant. Anyone who argues anything more is either a charlatan or an idiot.
People who know look at articles like the ones on PSI and laugh at the incompetence of someone who could write such nonsense and the sheer stupidity of the people who allow such stuff to appear on their site and then wonder why their site is ridiculed far and wide.
If any of the PSI people had any real mathematical talent they would derive the Wien’s law equation for the various variables as I did and write the equations as I did above for wavenumber and wavelength.
No-one even mentioned the Photon Flux relationships.
geran – not meaning to nitpick but when you wrote above –
“MP, 0.85 X 737 = 626 K = 353 ºC = 667 ºF ???
Mucho problema, señor.
No way, Jose.”
you used the SURFACE temperature of Venus – 737 K at ~9322 kPa.
You missed the crucial phrase –
“The fourth-root of the TSI difference times the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1atm = Earth’s temperature!”
At one Earth’s surface atmospheric pressure (101.325 kPa) on Venus you are situated at about 60 kilometres up in the atmosphere well above the layer of sulphuric acid clouds responsible for reflecting ~80% of the Sun’s radiation back into space.
Venus’ temperature at this pressure is ~ 66°C – 339 K.
So 0.85 x 339 K = 288 K !
0.85 is the fourth root of 0.523. The 0.523 is calculated from the inverse square law of the mean orbits of Earth and Venus.
So MP’s cited equation is correct but 1000Frolly is NOT the original source of this assessment – this guy, and even though he may be a little freaky (there is nothing wrong with his physics or logic though), is
From 2010 when I first found it – I always acknowledge non original citations – everyone should.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency. This is a graph used in special applications that are not related to climate, or things that we normally deal with. For example, if you try to calculate the wavelength at the spectrum peak you will get an incorrect value. The correct way to represent solar spectrum is with the calculation from the Planck/wavelength. That corresponds to the spectrum we actually see. (This holds even for lower frequencies like radio and TV.)
The easy way to recognize such an incorrect graph is by the abscissa. The sharp drop from the spectrum peak should coincide with short wavelengths/high frequencies/high wavenumbers. The NASA graph has low wavenumbers corresponding with the sharp drop.
The problem with the Venus/Earth temp comparison at 1 atm, is that there is no physical basis. It’s all coincidence without a basis. Especially since the comparison is not based on surface, but some possibly serendipitous finding. We want it to be meaningful, but unfortunately it’s pseudoscience.
It’s best to beat the GHE nonsense with actual science. Physics does that for us.
That’s just my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.
“Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.”
This is completely false.
Here is the graph from NASA.
The independent variable axis is clearly Wavenumber NOT frequency !
Here is the graph from the Nimbus satellites (NASA) cited by Petty and provided by Robert:-
The Planck curves for these 2 graphs are exactly the same. (Actually there is a difference between the two but Ill leave it to someone to explain it.)
“This is a graph used in special applications that are not related to climate”
This is completely false. Obviously you have never read any textbook on atmospheric radiation or any of the papers on satellite sensing. They use wavenumber predominantly.
Wavelength and Wavenumber have a simple reciprocal relationship involving the number 10,000.
For example, a Wavenumber of 1000 means 1000 peaks in one centimetre. This equates to 100,000 peaks per metre which equates to 10 micron between peaks.
This is totally different to frequency where the unit is Hz and is related to wavelength by the speed of light.
Here is an image from SpectralCalc for Frequency:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x52zl7e6qlsvz3e/Frequency.tif?dl=0
Here is an image from SpectralCalc for Wavenumber:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tob8oye71xwwd6h/Wavenumber.tif?dl=0
These 2 graphs yield exactly the same values of W/m^2 for the corresponding values of frequency or wavenumber.
Here is an image from SpectralCalc for Wavelength:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbcvqqt0aefgbt0/Wavelength.tif?dl=0
It is entirely different but the mathematical equilavence for all corresponding values of the independent variable and the calculated flux are the same.
“The problem with the Venus/Earth temp comparison at 1 atm, is that there is no physical basis.”
Again you are totally incorrect on this – the comparison is simply the ratio of the respective top of atmosphere solar radiation power – this is absolutely a correct application of the physics of the black body radiation laws.
The reference quoted by MP is 100% relevant and accurate according to the laws of physics.
And no matter which graph you look at, my understanding is that the bigger issue revolves around what the gap means.
The gap does NOT mean that something is being subtracted or taken away. As I am understanding it, the gap means that something is being absorbed and REDIRECTED in all directions. This absorption/redirection takes mere, mere, mere fractions of a second.
So, … NO “trapping”, and … NO real “slowing” to speak of.
The detector cannot detect in all directions, and so it “sees” a gap in the one direction where it can “see”.
Observe a stream of water coming at you head on. You see a big rock moving in the stream coming straight at you. Now put an anvil in the stream. When that big rock hits the anvil, the big rock splits into many smaller pieces and goes in all directions, and so you no longer see the big rock, but you see the gap around which all the broken pieces of the big rock now travel.
Rosco, nearly everything you stated is incorrect. You were obviously unable to understand my comment. That was probably my fault. I didn’t realize you had never studied quantum physics.
When I stated “Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency”, I was referring to the calculation of the Planck equation used for “per unit frequency”, as described in first paragraph under “The law“:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
geran if you agree with Geraint Hughes articles on PSI then you are as clueless as he is.
The NASA graph is plotted using Wavenumber as the independent variable NOT Frequency.
Planck’s equation is routinely expressed in three variables, Frequency, Wavelength and Wavenumber.
From your reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law we have these 2 expressions for Planck’s law :-
Frequency:-
Wavelength:-
Tell me the mathematical transformations to convert from one variable to the other.
Here’s another challenge for you – plot some Planck curves in all three domains and post them on Dropbox.
Here’s a reference to where I have plotted some Planck curves
Click to access Ross-GHE-Experiment.pdf
Wavelength and Frequency plots and all original based on the data I collected over many days of experimenting.
And I notice you seem unable to explain the difference between the NASA graph (the blue one)
and the Petty graph provided originally by Robert !
And I’ll say again – both are expressed in units of Wavenumber NOT Frequency !
I plot one in Frequency (Figure 8) to confirm the relationship between the plots in Wavelength (Figure 7) and Frequency – although the curves are obviously completely different each shows the argument I was demonstrating.
Adding the net fluxes to the ambient temperature curve very closely approximates the curve for the final temperature in each graph. The small discrepancies are due to the very small numbers at short wavelengths which test the spreadsheets
All
My question is as RK said, “is being absorbed and REDIRECTED in all directions”
exactly my point. If CO2 is not “cloning” as a 15 micron photon, then when it is emitting energy in all directions, what level of photons are being emitted in all directions? Clearly it’s not 15 microns, which is the ‘base’ energy absorbed. So WHAT is being emitted in all directions? It’s not like GHG math where you just divide the energy by “four” and think that solves the energy distribution problem.
So my question is two fold:
1. What is the range of photons being emitted “in all directions”,
2. What law, math or calculations determines that? Is that part of Scattering Theory, particle physics, molecular chemistry or all of the above?
NOW if that CO2 collides or bumps into others creating, absorbing and/or exchanging EM energy how does that work? Can it absorb if it is already emitting or does it have to cool off first? Can it absorb higher energy but not lesser energy that the energy it is carrying?
A 15 micron photon can’t heat anything up more, obviously. However, a CO2 molecule like all molecules can absorb more energy via collision and KE which would make it hotter (the atmosphere). Now if I have this right, since the original energy starting all the chain reactions in the atmosphere came from the surface emitting thermal energy, it can by no means exceed the original temperature from the surface.
Which the higher atmosphere can never do because it is cooler by auto compression and lapse rate. This is where I am thinking they “muddy the waters”. The original GHG theory is that greenhouse gases redirect and hold IR to warm the planet up more and that energy is impossible to do so.
As always, thank you for your replies.
Geran and ALL. The Microwave analogy is used to prove that IR “reflected” is being “redirected” back to the surface as “warming.” Being a cooler photon can be used (yes you guessed it) to make something hotter. Troll replied:
From Cuttnell and Johnson Physics 5th edition
Page 391 Section The Transfer of Heat – RADIATION
Example 6 A Wood-Burning Stove
“A wood-burning stove standsd unused in a room where the temperature is 18 C (291k). A fire is started inside the stove. Eventually, the temperature of the stove surface reaches a constant 198 C (471K), and the room warms to a constant 29 C (302K). The stove has an emissivity of 0.900 and the surface area of 3.50 m^2. Determine the NET RADIANT power generated by the stove when the stove (a) is unheated and has a temperature equal to room temperature and (b) has a temperature of 198 C. ”
“Reasoning The stove emits more radiant power when heated than when unheated. In both cases, however, the Stefan-Boltzmann law can be used to determine the amount of power emitted. Power is energy per unit time or Q/T. But in this problem we need to find the NET POWER produced by the stove. The net power is the power the stove emits minus the power the stove absorbs. The power the stove absorbs comes from the walls, ceiling, and floor of the room, all of which emit radiation”.
NOTE KEY IDEAS: That radiation is absorbed by the HOTTER OBJECT (stove) when its transmitted by the COOLER ONE (surroundings)! And that its NET TRANSFER that matters here when talking about radiation transfer. Which is always HOT TO COLD!
Now does this say it heats the stove? No. This is a matter of power generation, not internal energy state. However one could easily imagine that the temperature would be different if the stove HAD NO SURROUNDINGS! This is the FUCKING POINT! With the surroundings the temperature would be COOLER!
geran the article you cite says:-
“Every physical body spontaneously and continuously emits electromagnetic radiation and the spectral radiance of a body, B, describes the amount of energy it emits at different radiation frequencies. It is the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle of emission, per unit frequency. Planck showed that the spectral radiance of a body for frequency ν at absolute temperature T is given by”
“The spectral radiance CAN ALSO BE expressed per unit wavelength λ instead of per unit frequency.”
I’ll say it again – there is nothing wrong with the NASA graph – the blue one !
It is essentially the same graph as the one by Petty as provided by Robert !
Both have units of wavenumber as the independent variable – the “x” axis if you like.
However please tell me what the difference between the 2 is and demonstrate my incorrectness.
Rosco, I appreciate the energy you have spent on this issue, but it’s time to slow down, take a deep breath, and put on our thinking caps.
We haven’t made much progress. We’re still working on my very first sentence: Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.
That sentence did not help you, so I added I was referring to the calculation of the Planck equation used for “per unit frequency”, as described in first paragraph under “The law“, and I included a helpful link.
You were able to find the link, but you still were unable to understand the issue. That’s where we now start.
The two Planck equations can be correctly identified as “frequency” and “wavelength”. That does not refer to the labels on the graph axes, it refers to the derivation of each equation. The derivations are complicated, involving both partial differential equations and time domain. The equations are DIFFERENT. And that translates to the two equations having two different graphs.
So, for the exact same temperature, the “wavelength” equation will yield a different graph than the “frequency” equation. That’s the point you seem to be missing. The issue is NOT about labeling the axes, “frequency”, “wavelength”, or “wavenumber”, it is about how the equations were derived.
And, as I mentioned before, the “wavelength” equation is the only one we use in the “real world”. It gives the correct spectrum for all emitted electromagnetic energy.
We don’t know why NASA used the wrong graph. It might just be incompetence, or something more devious. It doesn’t matter, the graph is wrong, for “real world” use. Geraint was correct in pointing that out.
If you can now understand this, then go back and study the rest of my comments. It should all fit together for you. Hopefully this third attempt to explain the issue will make you happy. If not, you can get a full refund of your tuition.
🙂
geran you haven’t a clue about this aspect of black body radiation or remote sensing.
I haven’t put any energy into this – I know this stuff !
There is no reason to study your comments because they are arrant nonsense. They are nothing more than your opinion and have zero scientific credibility.
You seem to believe you are demolishing alarmists with the science of physics when all you are demolishing is science itself and giving the alarmists a good laugh at your outlandish claims of credibility – really they would be rolling on the floor laughing at your total lack of expertise.
Seriously, why would I go back to re-read gobbledygook ?
You are arguing the equivalent of claiming your car’s speedo uses miles per hour and because mine uses kilometres per hour it is a fake.
Just how stupid can you be to continually claim “Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.” ???
It isn’t based on Frequency, it is based on Wavenumber – how can I be more plain than that ?
But so what – first you claim a plot based on frequency (which it isn’t anyway) is WRONG and FAKE and then you cite those grand masters of everything WIKIPEDIA wherein the “LAW” states that Planck’s law is derived in Frequency terms so the plot must be right ??
But apparently you can’t read more than a few lines
You are completely wrong on this and the other claims you make.
You display your total lack of understanding by missing some very obvious points in the graphs shown.
The first is that none of them are a frequency graph – NONE. Planck’s law in terms of Frequency has units of Hz – I can’t see those units anywhere.
The second is there are some glaringly obvious differences between the 2 graphs in the Wavenumber domain and you do not know what they are.
Thirdly you are completely wrong about this claim :-
“And, as I mentioned before, the “wavelength” equation is the only one we use in the “real world”. It gives the correct spectrum for all emitted electromagnetic energy.”
Absolute bullshit AND you cannot understand that no matter which variable is used all the graphs give the exact same information. The only thing that changes is the position of the peak emissions for each variable used.
Wien’s Law is a simple empirical expression derived from the cavity oven experiments data. It expresses a very important reality that the wavelength at which peak emissions occur changes with temperature.
Most of the time this expression is based in the Wavelength domain and is commonly seen expressed as λpeak = ~2897.75/T µm.
But it is equally valid to write Wien’s Law in terms of Wavenumber as σpeak = 1.96101 T cm-1, or in terms of frequency as νpeak = 5.87896 X 10^10 T Hz.
Do you even know how the values for these expressions have been defined more accurately calculated since the early 1900’s ?
I’ll tell you – Wien’s Law is now defined in theoretical terms as the derivative of Planck’s Law where the slope of the resulting curve (which is what a derivative gives) is set to zero – for you that means the peak of the curve.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is now defined in theoretical terms as Pi times the integral of Planck’s Law.
These derivations can be undertaken using any variable of the many routinely chosen for plotting Planck’s Law.
This statement of yours – “So, for the exact same temperature, the “wavelength” equation will yield a different graph than the “frequency” equation. That’s the point you seem to be missing. The issue is NOT about labeling the axes, “frequency”, “wavelength”, or “wavenumber”, it is about how the equations were derived.” – is absolute rubbish.
This absurd ranting is simply to support your notion that NASA uses FAKE data and graphs and that belief is certifiable.
If you understood any of this you would know the data in each variation of Planck’s Law gives the same numerical result no matter what variable is chosen provided you are competent enough to correctly account for the differences.
For example a plot for a temperature of 394 Kelvin in terms of Wavelength gives a value of 31.7 W/m2 sr micron^-1 at 10 microns.
In a Wavenumber plot the value is 0.317 W/m2 sr cm^-1 for 1000 cm^-1.
I could supply the proof in the form of Excel Spreadsheets calculating the values and graphing them if I though you could understand them ! And, by the way do you even understand what the units actually mean ?
Note the numbers are exactly the same but differ by a factor of 100 only. This is because 10 microns is equivalent to 1000 cm^-1 as I have explained before and it is this that explains the factor of 100. ( I guess I’ll have to explain that one as well – 100 times 10,000 = 1,000,000 or 10^6 microns in a metre or 10,000 microns in a centimetre)
You are completely wrong in all of your ranting – none of it has any basis in real science !
You need to read https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/CalculatingBlackbodyRadianceV2.pdf before you and Geraint Hughes run around sprouting pseudoscience and making stupid claims such as the NASA graph – the blue shaded one – is a fake.
Wavelength is NOT the preferred choice for plotting Planck curves in remote sensing –
“There are many choices of units when dealing with radiometric quantities, and each
discipline has its preferred units. Spectroscopists traditionally prefer wavenumber,
infrared engineers use wavelength, and physicists typically deal with frequency.” – from SpectralCalc.
But back to the salient point of what is different in the graphs and I guess I’m going to have to explain that to you because it seems you have been too busy feeding you ego to really even try to understand.
So here we go.
The Petty graph Robert provided first at 2020/03/15 at 9:25 AM shows the Wavenumber “Petty” plot in the Red LHS and the equivalent Wavelength plot in the blue RHS.
Robert’s image correctly shows the peak for emissions shifts when you change variables BUT this really is irrelevant except for propaganda used by alarmists and to argue against it you need to know what you’re talking about.
But did you notice the change in the units ?
Obviously not.
The Red graph has units of milliWatts while the Blue graph has units of Watts.
Did you even notice the NASA graph has units of milliWatts/m2/cm^-1 and calls this FLUX ?
Why ?
What happened to the sr from the other graphs and why weren’t they titled “FLUX” ?
Let me know !
Rosco, do you feel better now?
geran do you still believe you know anything at all about this subject ?
I’ll ask it again
What happened to the “sr” term from the other graphs and why weren’t they titled “FLUX” ?
I’m waiting for enlightenment !
That comment was only about 50 words, Rosco.
Is your keyboard running out of energy?
A low-energy keyboard is dangerous for someone trying to sling insults and diversions to cover up for their deficiencies in physics.
“deficiencies in physics” — funny.
What I notice in the two graphs is that the shapes of the black body curves are different, depending on what domain you are in.
Look at that — the shapes are different.
The shape of the black body curve conforms to the chosen domain, and that’s why both graphs are correct.
What happens at a peak in one graph, thus, need not appear as a peak in the other graph. The peak, thus, seems not to be the big deal. Rather, the entire mathematical relationships within the particular domain are what seem to matter.
I wish I could come up with a good analogy, but I can’t at the moment.
Shouldn’t WL and WN be an exact mirror opposite?
@CD Marshall
They do look like mirror opposites.
There appears to still be some confusion about this issue. Let’s see how confused everyone is.
Robert has provided two side-by-side graphs. The one on the left has a red border. The one on the right has a blue border. (Thanks, Robert.)
Question: Were both graphs generated from the same Planck equation?
(The answer is either a simple “yes” or “no”.)
(quiz show music playing.)
.
.
The correct answer is “no”. The graphs were generated from different Planck equations. The “red” graph was generated from the Planck-frequency equation. The “blue” graph was generated from the Planck-wavelength equation. The equations are DIFFERENT, consequently the graphs are DIFFERENT.
Some people are unable to understand that the graphs are different. That makes them frustrated and angry, it appears.
I still just don’t get the sophistry with CO2. Clearly it is nowhere near the peak emissions of the 80% IR already leaving space unhindered which means it is part of the 20% of IR already being intercepted and it makes no frigg’n difference which part of the gases are intercepting because the 20% is already intercepted no matter the CO2 content which means no difference in distribution of that IR or any outcome from that interception.
Is this right or does it need correction/better explanation or is it flat out wrong?
Temperature is the difference between two or more systems.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 micron. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV when it is transferred. That energy radiates at its spectrum against an effective black body (Earth) at -80C.
geran deserves to be nominated for a Nobel Prize for his discovery !
More than 50 years of satellite monitoring by several Space Agencies world wide producing data mostly using wavenumber units and they are now revealed by geniuses like Geraint Hughes and geran as COMPLETE FAKES !!
Wow !
And then some of them have the absolute gall to think they can use actual correct mathematics to shift the goalposts and produce data in terms of wavelength ?
Notice that geran doesn’t even know HOW to answer the 2 simple questions I asked !
Instead he uses the usual trick of the Snake Oil Salesman by obfuscating some arrant nonsense that reveals his total lack of knowledge.
geran doesn’t even understand that these points
1. The RED graph is NOT generated by the Planck frequency function – that is indisputable fact !
2. The RED graph IS generated by Planck Wavelength function – that is indisputable fact !
3. The data generated by the different equations have mathematical equivalence at the point where the independent variables have the same value.
The term “sr” is for Steradian. A Steradian is a solid angle where the surface area mapped on the surface of a sphere equals the radius of the sphere squared. Hence there are 4*Pi Steradians in the surface area of a sphere.
There are 2*Pi Steradians in the hemisphere that a plane radiates into but for some reason these absolute dummies who think that Wavenumber graphs aren’t FAKE seem to use a factor of only one.
I guess that is another fail for more than half a century of well researched science and therefore we should reject all satellite data and remote sensing because geran says it is wrong !
I’ll answer CD’s question
“Shouldn’t WL and WN be an exact mirror opposite?”
Download this https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/CalculatingBlackbodyRadianceV2.pdf
Read it.
But WN graphs have the energy states of the relevant wavenumber photons INCREASING from left to right along the x axis.
WL graphs have the highest energy states of the relevant wavelength photons DECREASING from left to right along the x axis.
We can all agree that shorter wavelengths equals higher energy states so to this extent WL and WN are mirror opposite.
What geran doesn’t get is that while the graphs look different and are produced by different equations the energy emission data for each equivalent point on the curves is exactly the same – it has to be because a correct mathematical transformation has been performed !!
I can transform units of miles per hour to kilometres per hour and still retain mathematical equivalence even though graphs would look different.
I said earlier
“For example a plot for a temperature of 394 Kelvin in terms of Wavelength gives a value of 31.7 W/m2 sr micron^-1 at 10 microns.
In a Wavenumber plot the value is 0.317 W/m2 sr cm^-1 for 1000 cm^-1.”
10 micron wavelength has exactly 1000 crests per centimetre (wavenumber) – agreed ?
The emission data in a Wavelength plot Wavelength gives a value of 31.7 W/m2 sr microns^-1 for 10 micron !
Forget the units and concentrate on 31.7 for Wavelength.
The emission data in a Wavenumber gives a value of 0.317 W/m2 sr cm^-1 for 1000 cm^-1.” And 1000 Wavenumber is the same as 10 micron – look at the graphs Robert posted – in the Red one 1000 Wavenumber on the bottom axis is directly below 10 microns in the top. This is reversed in the Blue one – 10 micron on the bottom axis is 1000 Wavenumber in the top.
Again forget the units and concentrate on the number 0.317 for Wavenumber.
If, as geran says, the equations are completely different equations how is it possible that they BOTH calculate the exact same data for EVERY comparable Wavelength and Wavenumber once you account for the difference in the value for the data ??
Obviously the difference in the data is a factor of 100 because the plotted data is in terms of metre while the independent variables are expressed in different lengths – per centimetre versus microns.
The mathematical transformation between the various forms of Planck’s Law accounts for these differences.
Thus although the graphs look different there is an exact equivalence between all of the data points in terms of emissions at all equivalent points !
If people don’t get this I’m guessing they never will.
This is just a fact of life with the black body laws for radiative emission.
I’ll answer CD’s other question “Is this right or does it need correction/better explanation or is it flat out wrong?”
This highlights the mistake many people make by thinking the peak emissions value has any real significance – it doesn’t have any real application other than to show the peak shifts as the temperature increases.
Using Wien’s law in Wavelength we have :-
λpeak = 106*(h*c)/(a5*k*T) = ~2897.75/T µm.
For 15 micron T =2897.75/15 = ~193 K = minus 80°C as CD calculated.
But look at any of the graphs and see that an object at ambient Earth temperatures emits a shedload of energy at 15 microns and that is all that matters – not the peak emissions value !
This graph usually cited as by Petty’s completely acknowledged as one of the best textbooks on atmospheric radiation shows various Planck curves for various temperatures – the dotted lines.
At all temperatures there is significant emissions at 15 microns.
15 microns may be equivalent to 666 Wavenumber and 666 may be regarded as the Devil’s number but don’t be fooled by the Voodoo practitioners into believing geran knows what he is talking about !
Poor Rosco. Now he’s down to arguing with himself! The more he types, the more tangled up he gets.
“What geran doesn’t get is that while the graphs look different and are produced by different equations…”
Of course I get it. In fact, I explained it to Rosco, more than once! Now he’s finally admitting the graphs are different, but claiming I’m the one that doesn’t understand! Hilarious.
He’s fun to watch.
The really funny thing is watching someone who completely fails to understand even the most basic fundamentals of black body radiation talking as though he can explain anything about the subject.
Frequency units in Hz are the same as units of peaks per centimetre ?
Sure – in cloud cuckoo pseudoscience bizzaro land.
Prove you know anything at all by showing us your plots for Planck’s law in the 3 variables !
If you can’t put up you are incompetent !
Robert was able to understand my explanations. And possibly others were also.
That just leaves poor Rosco, frustrated and confused. He never even got past the very first sentence: Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.”
I’m done with this topic, unless others have questions.
On the red-framed graph, notice that, as wavenumber increases, wavelength decreases.
On the blue-framed graph, notice that, as wavelength increases, wavenumber decreases.
This makes sense, because, in order to have more waves per given length, you have to have shorter wavelengths per wave. In order to have more length per given wave, you have to have fewer waves per length.
The black-body curves simply shift to reflect this relationship, depending on which variable is used.
The peak, thus, depends on how you graph it, and has nothing to do with taking anything away from a given blackbody curve (“trapping”, “slowing”, “delaying” of any consequence). The peak, thus, means nothing with regard to how energy is being transformed.
Robert, to make it even clearer, you might want to label your red graph “Planck-Frequency”, indicating it is the graph from the Planck equation for “per unit frequency”. And label your blue graph “Planck-Wavelength”, indicating it is the graph from the Planck equation for “per unit wavelength”.
Where Planck-Frequency comes from B(ν,T), and Planck-Wavelength comes from B(λ,T).
Just in case there are still some that can’t understand.
More details, under subtopic “The law”, found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
geran,
I am not seeing an issue with labeling the graphs as such, given this:
There do appear to be two equations in play here, but this does not make the visualization of one a fake with respect to the other. The problem seems to arise in conceptualizing what the shapes and the gaps in the respective places of the shapes mean. As I have said, I do not think the gaps say anything about how energy is transformed — they merely show how a molecule (CO2) absorbs AND emits at a particular frequency or wavelength.
There is no problem now, in my mind, with that gap appearing at one place on a wavenumber graph and at another place on a wavelength graph, given the relationship between wavenumber and wavelength. Where the gap occurs in relation to the hump is just a consequence of which domain you are in — wavenumber or wavelength.
Rosco has made this point numerous times. This reveals the magic of one of the alarmists greatest illusions in their box of tricks to make you believe that CO2 Satan is taking a bite out of Earth’s atmosphere, rendering it closer to the devil’s hell. (^_^)
Robert, go back to where I first started helping Rosco, my very first sentence: “Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.” I never used the word “fake”. The Planck-Frequency graph is not a fake, but it is not suited to studying solar and surface emissions because it requires extra interpretation. It can be confusing, as you and Rosco are demonstrating.
Go back and read my comments to fully understand where Rosco is wrong. You’re getting some of it right, but not all of it.
Your red graph correlates with the Planck-Frequency equation. Your blue graph correlates with the Planck-Wavelength equation. There are DEFINITELY “two equations in play here”. Those are the facts. Twisting and spinning, distracting and insulting, won’t change the facts.
geran,
You wrote: The Planck-Frequency graph is not a fake, but it is not suited to studying solar and surface emissions because it requires extra interpretation.
You did say that the graph was “incorrect”. I do not see that this is the case — it is correct, for what it represents. And now I’m thinking that calling the red-framed graph a “frequency graph” is not quite correct. … Not quite, if you tune into what “frequency” actually means, which has to do with time, and there is NO time unit in wavenumbers. On the other hand, wavenumber is proportional to frequency, and so there still might be a degree of correctness in relating it to frequency.
I don’t know whether my added labels, as you suggested, are appropriate or not now.
What I’m not quite getting yet is the difference between the units on the y-axes of the three graphs.
Why isn’t there one standard for how this y-axis is represented? This just adds to the confusion.
Do graphs exist of wavenumber and wavelength, where the y axis has the same exact units? [I don’t know — I think I tried to find this once].
Robert, the “frequency graph” is based on “frequency”, not “wavenumber”. So the “frequency graph” DEFINITELY has “to do with time”.
“I don’t know whether my added labels, as you suggested, are appropriate or not now.”
When you don’t understand, it’s best to admit you “don’t know”. Good job.
Wavenumber is directly proportional to frequency…basically synonymous. The shape of a wavenumber plot would look the *same* as a frequency plot, where wavenumber can be converted to frequency simply by multiplying by c (light speed).
Okay, I think I’m seeing the subtle problem in understanding here.
I checked out a primer on remote sensing and found this:
NOTE how this reference defines the “v” variable for “frequency” as wave crests per centimeter, … unlike geran’s wiki ref, which defines the “v” variable for “frequency” as wave crests per second.
I traced it down, and, apparently, if I understand correctly, there are two views of frequency — (1) TEMPORAL frequency (wave crests per second), which is what Wiki uses, and (2) SPATIAL frequency (wave crests per centimeter), which is what the Allen Huang reference uses.
Now my question would be, “Which version does the Planck equation properly use?” or “Can the Planck equation properly use either?”
Contest jingle playing ………….. (^_^)
In-depth understanding is a bitch, isn’t it?
In that same reference, there are wavelength and wavenumber plots, but the exact same units of measure still do not appear on the y-axis …. ALMOST exact, but one plot uses milliwatts in the “radiance”, while the other uses “watts”. Looks like there might be a problem of scale overtaking the printed page, if exact same units are used, or maybe not — I can’t tell.
No friggin’ wonder confusion happens in this area. Slight differences in definitions of “frequency”. Slight differences in choices of units. All piled on top of confusion about what emission spectra mean.
geran is still completely wrong !
The NASA graph is NOT a frequency graph – it is obviously ( to everyone but geran) based on Wavenumber.
Just to clarify the situation because geran doesn’t seem to think that Wavenumber constitutes a real variable in spectroscopy here are the three forms pf Planck’s equation in the three variables. There are many more different variables used for Planck’s law as well.
The shape of a frequency plot looks similar to a Wavenumber plot but to say they are the same thing as geran says repeatedly is wrong.
The relationship between Frequency and Wavelength is the speed of light – c = frequency times wavelength or Frequency = c/wavelength.
The relationship between Wavenumber (Wn) and Wavelength (Wl) is Wl (in microns) = 10,000/Wn (in cm^-1).
For example 1000 wavenumber calculates to a wavelength as 10,000/1000 = 10 micron.
Therefore the relationship between Frequency and Wavelength – Frequency = c/wavelength becomes, for wavenumber, – Frequency = c/wavelength = c times wavenumber/10,000 ( where Wn is expressed as centimetre^-1).
We shouldn’t let pseudoscience stand and the assertion that NASA’S graph by Schmidt is FAKE or that it is a frequency Plot of Planck’s law is nothing but pseudoscience.
You guys are hilarious!
Robert finds a source he can’t understand, so he assumes everyone is as confused as he is. (Robert, the answer is just a matter of working the algebra, using λ = c/ν. But then you’d just find another source to confuse you, wouldn’t you?)
Then Rosco reposts the two Planck equations that prove me right, after claiming I am “completely wrong”!
Great entertainment. Just the thing we need for times like this.
More please.
OK, let me see if I have it correct….no equations, just the basic concept:
A flea and a fly in a flue
Didn’t know what to do.
Said the flea, “Let us fly,”
Said the fly, “Let us flee,”
So the flew through a flaw in the flue.
Where’s my Nobel Prize?
But Pilot, Rosco promised me a Nobel!
Seeing as how I’ve already got 7, you can have this one.
🙂
Since Rosco is willing to entertain us with his sophistry, here’s another area where he gets the science wrong. He tried to “verify” this equation in his lightbulb “experiment”:
q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)
It is called the “radiative heat transfer” equation. It is usually mentioned in support of the GHE. It is NOT a valid equation, it is pseudoscience. The equation is used to support nonsense such as the “steel greenhouse” and the “blue/green plates”. It fools many.
Like the equally bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation, the “radiative heat transfer” equation has no mathematical derivation. And, also like the Arrhenius equation, it violates the laws of physics.
But clowns are not hindered by the laws of physics. They persist in their pseudoscience.
There you go, Rosco. Let’s see how you can support your own pseudoscience. I claim the equation is bogus. Do you still disagree?
geran is completely wrong in basically everything he says.
“Robert, the “frequency graph” is based on “frequency”, not “wavenumber”. So the “frequency graph” DEFINITELY has “to do with time”.”
Just what does he think is the “frequency” graph – I assume he is referring to the Red graph in Robert’s image even though it is clearly labelled WAVENUMBER ????
Is he even intelligent enough that there are many examples of wave crests that have no relationship to time or velocity.
One simple example is a sine curve – it has crests and troughs but nothing to do with time or velocity.
And the other graph shown from Petty’s Atmospheric Radiation textbook is also listed as Wavenumber but apparently one of the most respected authors in the world is also completely wrong – it is a frequency graph according to the wisdom of geran ?
Funny how a truly competent person can be so misinformed ! LOL !!!
He tries to hide his incompetence behind ridicule but he is still completely wrong.
Here’s more evidence :-
“Robert, go back to where I first started helping Rosco, my very first sentence: “Rosco, the problem with the NASA graph is that it shows the plot from the calculation based on frequency.” I never used the word “fake”. ”
OK lets see if that is true – from PSI where the word “FAKE” IS the headline
“Geran
February 1, 2020 at 8:03 pm | #
Keep it coming, Geraint!
A couple here still don’t get it.”
Geraint Hughes says the NASA graph is FAKE and geran agrees completely !!!
Another exchange between geran and Zoe Phine -who is completely right by the way !
“Geran
January 29, 2020 at 12:31 pm | #
Zoe, the graph is seriously WRONG. You agreed, at first. Then you disagreed. You flip-flopped!
I’m waiting to see how many times you will flip-flop, before I explain it to you in words even you might understand.”
See no knowledge, no facts just a pathetic attempt at ridicule.
Here you see Zoe Phin gets it exactly right whilst geran makes meaningless pseudocience insults and agrees AGAIN with Geraint Hughes the graph is wrong – therefore FAKE !
“Zoe Phin
January 29, 2020 at 2:42 pm | #
To Geran,
The truth is that:
Peak in Wavenumber will have a different peak than 10000/micron-peak, BECAUSE
Planck’s equation for wavenumber is different from microns.
PERIOD.
Geran
January 29, 2020 at 2:57 pm | #
Irrelevant.
The truth is the NASA graph is WRONG, as Geraint pointed out. ”
He is clearly agreeing that NASA’s graph is not only wrong but FAKE !!!
On January 29 he says it is “Irrelevant” that the 2 graphs are expressed in different format yet now he claims he is a genius ??
Come on – pull the other one. Completely clueless and totally incompetent.
Make no mistake – Zoe Phin was exactly right and geran is still completely wrong !!
geran has not demonstrated that he has any actual knowledge or understanding of black body radiation other than a pathetic reference to a Wikipedia page and some childish insult and referring to himself as a genius by explaining how other peoople who are completely right are actually according to his intellect wrong !
This would be funny if it wasn’t sad.
geran can redeem himself if he can answer any of the questions I have asked him previously – I’ll bet you he can’t !
And if he doesn’t you have to ask why – probably because he doesn’t even understand.
I’ll give him some clues :-
Honestly guys…enough. God sakes. Arguing irrelevant minutia to the point you hate each other and split up a movement which is based on such trivial facts that these other minutia should take no part of the discussion at all. WTF is wrong with you guys.
The GHE people *do not* use the radiative heat transfer equation. They ignore it entirely. Willis’ argument with the steel greenhouse is predicated *entirely* upon NEVER referencing the heat flow equation, which allows him and the others to lie as they do. When you do use the equation, it works out fine and no GHE.
But anyway…stop with the BS. Don’t reply. Just stop. Talk about more relevant things. Spread my videos, etc.
Thanks Joseph. Your intervention was needed.
I was enjoying it too much!
🙂
It seems some of my comments disappear after I submit them ? – no matter.
geran says “q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)
It is called the “radiative heat transfer” equation. It is usually mentioned in support of the GHE. It is NOT a valid equation, it is pseudoscience.”
Firstly my experiment is primarily about showing that the addition of flux and calculating temperature doesn’t work. Secondly it is about showing how much power needs to be supplied to raise ambient temperature – a couple of thousand watts per square metre combine to cause a 28°C increase in temperature while alarmists assert it merely takes 239.7 + 239.7 to cause a 33°C increase.
I think it is time to stop pretending this guy has any clue at all.
Even Joe agrees that “q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)” is a valid equation. He does not support the way alarmists use it but that does not mean the equation is pseudoscience. (https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/ – The Correct Treatment – 1b) Psp = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) )).
The fact that real data correctly applied actually gives real results and agrees with well established science is pseudoscience ??
Seriously that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard you say and you have excelled at that!
And it proves you lack competence -you just throw up strawman after strawman instead of demonstarting your competence – you are worse than all of the alarmists – they have some competence !
Visit these links and see that geran actually does say that the NASA graph is wrong and FAKE.
https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle-part-2/
Look at his discussion with Zoe Phin who is completely right and look at the comments by “Nate” who has more competence than either Geraint Hughes or geran.
It seems some of my comments disappear after I submit them ? – no matter.
geran says “q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)
It is called the “radiative heat transfer” equation. It is usually mentioned in support of the GHE. It is NOT a valid equation, it is pseudoscience.”
Firstly my experiment is primarily about showing that the addition of flux and calculating temperature doesn’t work. Secondly it is about showing how much power needs to be supplied to raise ambient temperature – a couple of thousand watts per square metre combine to cause a 28°C increase in temperature while alarmists assert it merely takes 239.7 + 239.7 to cause a 33°C increase.
I think it is time to stop pretending this guy has any clue at all.
Even Joe agrees that “q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)” is a valid equation. He does not support the way alarmists use it but that does not mean the equation is pseudoscience. (https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/ – The Correct Treatment – 1b) Psp = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) )).
The fact that real data correctly applied actually gives real results and agrees with well established science is pseudoscience ??
Seriously that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard you say and you have excelled at that!
And it proves you lack competence -you just throw up strawman after strawman instead of demonstarting your competence – you are worse than all of the alarmists – they have some competence !
Visit these links and see that geran actually does say that the NASA graph is wrong and FAKE.
https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle-part-2/
Look at his discussion with Zoe Phin who is completely right and look at the comments by “Nate” who has more competence than either Geraint Hughes or geran.
Joe – is Rosco now not allowed to defend himself against pseudoscience and since when do you defend people who have no clue ?
I’m not defending anyone. Seems to me that Geran has been a little on the hostile side.You have too. I haven’t been paying attention to details because it just looks like irrelevant minutia about nothing important.
Do you agree geran is right about q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4) and if so why have you repeatedly cited the equation correctly like this example :-
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/ in the section The Correct Treatment point – 1b) Psp = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) ?
If you won’t repudite most of the gobbledygook geran writes because it is nonsense then your site isn’t worth hosting.
I don’t expect this to be posted.
I thought I addressed the heat flow equation already above. Yes I like heat flow equations.
Joseph I think you addressed several “heat flow equations” in hubris and in actual math on this thread. I seriously don’t understand why a conversational about science (or anything) with varying opinions or just simple misunderstanding has to become hostile or insulting.
Save the hostility for the trolls, I say and let “cooler heads prevail”.
But geran says the heat flow equations are pseudoscience or sophistry.
The whole point of your site is exposing pseudoscience and I have always supported you in that for more than 7 years.
I don’t support criticising alarmists by calling their work fake when it clearly isn’t any such thing.
If exposing it involves some messy explanations and disagreements then so be it but claiming most of the points geran makes have any validity risks trolls inciting ridicule.
No more from me.
Rosco you’ve been with the Slayers for a very long time and I hold you in the highest esteem. It is incorrect to dismiss the heat flow equations. Geran also takes the opinion that the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis. Otherwise he’s been decent.
In any case, there are more obvious facts available to debunk alarmism and the GHE, than arguing about abscissa units…lol.
Thanks for your kind words – my opinion of you is obvious over the years – Cheers.
*Geran reading Postma’s comment*
I think all you guys are cool.
God Boomie you’re so good at that!!! hahahahah
That is such a talent 🙂
I don’t like my attempts at trying to understand minutia to be called “being confused”, as geran characterized it.
I am not confused. I am seeking clarification, and to call this “being confused” is to demean my efforts. Rather than engage with my attempt to clarify, geran jokingly mocks my earnest attempts.
No points there, I’m afraid.
I find the two graphs that are the pinnacle of an alarmist mind-magic trick fascinating, and I want to know the minutia of why it is a trick and what points of that minutia cause friction here.
I pointed out that “frequency” has two conceptualizations — spatial and temporal, and I asked which of those was appropriate for the Planck equations. Geran mocked me as confused. I will not type what my ordinary response to that would be, nor will I demean geran equally. Let’s just say it wouldn’t come across too nice.
I coould still pursue this minutia fest in a civil way. But I guess I’ll have to figure it out for myself, and move on.
How about those Yankees?
Or how about that stupid flip by the World Health Organization to wear face masks. Are we to blot out our individual identities now, based on no foundation of substantiated research, … out of desperation to look like we are doing something to feel more falsely secure, as we roam the streets looking like monotonal robots, under government decrees robbing us of individual rights to take the normal risks of living?
I’m starting to think it really isn’t worse than the regular flu.
This is what I’ve been telling people.
First the death calculation for the USA was 2.1mil
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-report-projects-2-million-deaths-without-action-2020-3
Then, it dropped down to 20k-40k.
Next, it was 100k-200k
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/31/coronavirus-latest-news/
now it’s at most 100k.
But the thing is, do you know how many people die during a bad flu year? 80k.
When you start to put the numbers in perspective, I really don’t see what the big deal is.
A popular number I’ve seen is that 225k people die every year from medical malpractice.
I’m getting most of this from ramzpaul
JP said,
“From the link CD:
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ”
Thus, it starts with the premise that the Sun doesn’t create the climate, but the atmosphere does by heating itself. Then they reference a model which they program based on this to simulate the warming since the little ice age, which they then claim is proof that their position in valid.”
My confusion is they are claiming this information is verified by satellite and ground data. I have no idea what they are talking about or where they (the person) is getting that from?
My second query, is this right?
Temperature is the difference between two or more systems.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 micron. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV when it is transferred. That energy radiates at its spectrum against an effective black body (Earth) at -80C.
Becasue I want to reply to this…
“No. Energy transfer doesn’t have a temperature. That’s false. Temperature is a result of the state of energy excitation of particles, not of energy transfer. Energy transfer has energy. Not temperature. Temperature is the state of kinetic energy of a system. Energy transfer is just that. There is no associated temperature with it. Otherwise the air would be heated by radiation. It isn’t. You’re confusing radiation with convection and conduction. But even then energy still doesn’t have a temperature.
A 15 micron photon has energy. Show me the calculation that says it doesnt. Show me how you get 15 micron=-80C using weins displacement law. If you can’t show me this, you have no idea yourself how this comes into being and you’re an idiot.
This has nothing to do with you repeating nonsense. This is about who can prove their point. You can’t do that because you dont know what you’re talking about.
Oh and I’d like to reiterate my question on this now that the pissing contest is over…I love all of you guys but really we are on the same side here, family fights I get it but we need to try and be more kinder in our disagreements. Well, I don’t have any because I don’t know enough to think I know what I’m talking about and unless someone else can claim they are a physicist I’ll stick with Joseph as my final authority on physics and even if you do claim you are a physicist I’ll still stick with Joseph a my final authority on physics.
Speaking of, Joseph, how is that paper coming along you submitted in astrophysics?
Anyway, back to this from troll, I’m assuming this is referring to entropy and troll is confused or twisting or both?
“From Cuttnell and Johnson Physics 5th edition
Page 391 Section The Transfer of Heat – RADIATION
Example 6 A Wood-Burning Stove
“A wood-burning stove stands unused in a room where the temperature is 18 C (291k). A fire is started inside the stove. Eventually, the temperature of the stove surface reaches a constant 198 C (471K), and the room warms to a constant 29 C (302K). The stove has an emissivity of 0.900 and the surface area of 3.50 m^2. Determine the NET RADIANT power generated by the stove when the stove (a) is unheated and has a temperature equal to room temperature and (b) has a temperature of 198 C. ”
“Reasoning The stove emits more radiant power when heated than when unheated. In both cases, however, the Stefan-Boltzmann law can be used to determine the amount of power emitted. Power is energy per unit time or Q/T. But in this problem we need to find the NET POWER produced by the stove. The net power is the power the stove emits minus the power the stove absorbs. The power the stove absorbs comes from the walls, ceiling, and floor of the room, all of which emit radiation”.
NOTE KEY IDEAS: That radiation is absorbed by the HOTTER OBJECT (stove) when its transmitted by the COOLER ONE (surroundings)! And that its NET TRANSFER that matters here when talking about radiation transfer. Which is always HOT TO COLD!
Now does this say it heats the stove? No. This is a matter of power generation, not internal energy state. However one could easily imagine that the temperature would be different if the stove HAD NO SURROUNDINGS! This is the FUCKING POINT! With the surroundings the temperature would be COOLER!”
CD says: “I’d like to reiterate my question on this now that the pissing contest is over…”
That’s exactly right CD. It’s all about egos. If it were about physics, I would have won been declared the winner long ago.
Joseph E Postma says:
2017/10/21 at 11:19 AM
Planck’s Law is a function of wavelength
Planck’s Law can also be a function of frequency or wavenumber, because you can just substitute via c = lambda*nu.
You guys heard of the #filmyourhospital?
Just skip the cringe joker talking.
The Elm street hospital around 4:47 has definitely been in the news. That’s in New York.
The 8:35 one is interesting.
Another interesting thing, I now know of people who were tested positive but report no symptoms, ever.
A guys wife got some flu like symptoms in Los Angeles. He goes to get them tested.
They both tested positive. The wife was mildly sick for a while and the husband experienced no symptoms.
Is there a virus? Yes.
Is it a pandemic? I don’t think so.
SO is this correct or not?
Wien’s Law is based on energy emitting from an effective black body (in this case, Earth). Therefore it has a temperature. A 15 micron photon carries a charge, useless energy until it is absorbed into a compatible surface and transfers that charge to energy and even then that energy does not necessarily equate an increase in temperature.
O wow. New theory.
China and particularly Whuhan(epicenter) had a epidemic of Pneumonia from the poor air quality.
This started as a cover up to blame the deaths on a virus instead of goverment/industry.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5e7150043b4c4d00a2225434
He makes some extremely interesting claims.
The test are irrelevent, there are actually no confirmed cases of corona virus.
A test for corona virus doesn’t exist.
He claims H1N1(swine flu) wasn’t real either. (26mins)
That was to cover up the pork industry killing it’s employees with it’s toxic conditions.
This would explain China’s reaction. They had some internal strife and need an excuse to go into lockdown. Like a prison trying to prevent a riot. Arn’t the Hong Kong riots still going on too? Haven’t heard about that in a while.
Defiantly worth a listen anyway. INFOWARS has a reputation of their own.
CD, you may mean the S/B Law. That law specifies the emission based on temperature. S = σT^4 for a black body.
A photon carries no charge.
Yes, the photon must both be absorbed AND raise the average vibrational frequency/kinetic energy to raise temperature.
CD,
I think that we’ve been pretty kind in our disagreements. I’m honestly not even clear on what our disagreements are — that’s what I was trying to home in on. I tried to clarify where I thought disagreements were occurring, and I got labelled as …. “confused” [still laughing about that].
[Student raises hand in class to ask a question. Teacher laughs at him and calls him confused, while encouraging the student to ask more questions for the teacher’s entertainment, without trying to engage the student in a rational exchange of ideas, to discover the gaps between them.] David Bohm would not have found this amusing.
Sometimes to get at the nub of an argument, a person has to dig through manure [I mean “minutia”].
(^_^)
I didn’t mean that your question was irrelevant minutia, but it was the hostile responses which made the point for me…
JP,
I was not put off in the least by YOUR comment. You are the moderator, and I respect that. My quip, if I had one would have been with the g man — I was attempting to reconcile his views with Rosco’s, without showing either hostility or critical disagreement, and, to do that, I was diving deeper into the definitions of variables that might have been the issue, or the definition of what a word describes, in terms of a graphic that it might be applied to.
It has probably gotten too gnarly now to continue, so I think I’ll be done with it. Maybe time for a new topic. (^_^)
Sadly, my brain has been hijacked by the SARS-CoV-2 utter insanity, and so I’m tending to focus on this at the moment.
@Robert Kernodle
I’d like to know what you think about the Kung Flu at this time. I’m pretty confused.
boomie789,
In a nutshell (appropriate choice of words), I think the Kung Flu is a real virus that is REALLY being blown out of all sane proportion as to its effect. In a phrase, the world has gone completely mad.
Who the hell knows what’s going on? Who can tell? Who can you trust? I am close to going out into the streets, as others have done, touring my local medical facilities to see just what the reality is around me.
Something just is not right about this whole damn thing.
I don’t think that there is enough reliable information to even be confused. Even your confusion is incapable of being validated. You, therefore, are not confused, but rather are in a twilight zone, … a netherworld, … an intellectual Alice-in-Wonderland.
It’s supposed to be pretty bad Near me because of Mardi Gras.
I’ve found some Videos of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Just of the parking lots, not empty just normal. I’ve been to those hospitals before.
https://twitter.com/quick17_?lang=en
They supposedly just finished building a medical camp in New Orleans. I heard from my aunt who is a Nurse. I wonder what it looks like there…
CD: “My confusion is they are claiming this information is verified by satellite and ground data. I have no idea what they are talking about or where they (the person) is getting that from?”
They just make it up. They just pretend things. That’ all. They just string some words together and then pretend that it supports them. Literally…this is all it is.
USA Docter rant
This made me chuckle nervously
Here is a recording of the siren
How terrifyingly hilarious
@MP
Robert, we cool never said we weren’t. Apologies if you felt that was directed at you. I think Joseph cleared the air nicely.
Geran, what is Wien’s Law used for in regards to temperature? Yes I am at a lost here.
The Wien’s displacement law describes “one of the relations between the emission spectrum of a black body and its temperature. It states that the higher the temperature, the lower the wavelength λ max for which the radiation curve reaches its maximum. The shift to shorter wavelengths corresponds to photons of higher energies. In other words, λmax (peak wavelength) is inversely proportional to temperature.”
So a photon does have energy but does it have a temperature? A transfer of a photon’s energy does not mean an absolute temperature change, but does the photon itself have a temperature?
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law takes into account the total power radiated from a body at any temperature and, together with the Wien’s law, they originate from the Planck’s distribution.”
As always, thanks all for your help.
Hi CD,
Wien’s Law is the derivative of Planck’s Law equation. It gives the wavelength where the spectrum is at a maximum. The most common formula is:
λ = 2898/T, where λ is in microns, and T is in Kelvins.
Example: Find the wavelength of maximum emission for a black body at 288 K.
λ = 2898/288 = 10.06 μ
A photon does not have a temperature. Only mass can have a temperature, as we define temperature. A photon has energy, but no temperature. You may see that a photon has a “relativistic” mass, but that only works to account for its momentum.
So WDL does not relate to the temperature of a photon. It relates to the peak of the emission spectrum. But, it also provides us with the energy of the photon (since we know the wavelength), and the temperature of the emitter.
Never a problem with you, CDM.
As for does a photon have a temperature, … my understanding has been that “temperature” is a molecular description. A photon is too small, and seemingly non-existent in a way that a temperature could be assigned to it.
“So WDL does not relate to the temperature of a photon. It relates to the peak of the emission spectrum.”
The peak emission is from the IR emitting from planet Earth…My brain is coming back online now. The emissions is based on the heated molecules not the photon itself. I ate red meat today and now my brain is working again. This diet sucks!
This troll is spinning so much confusion he got me forgetting the fundamentals of thermodynamics.
This is a solution to a problem in astrophysics which has never been accomplished before. You’re welcome. Special thanks to Euclid.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee8
PDF:
Click to access pasp-final-an-algorithm-for-coordinate-matching.pdf
BTW: Special bonus to whoever can identify the Euclidean redundancy in the algorithm: can you do it?
Joe,
Just before the boys get stuck into that…. here’s some more light reading from NZ….this thread has a troll.. Pyat … who appears to be a skilled sophist … a wordsmith of the “greenhouse” pseudo-science. A mishmash of assertive, sciency, fairyland crap. I gave an answer here about the IPCC in which…. maybe the shifting of a decimal point backwards one place could have occurred ??
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/03/zero-emissions-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-1567822
(bugger.. just revealed my real name, again)
Tried posting my last YT video to one of “its” comments. Will see if it gets posted.
Looks as if it didn’t get through, Joe. ….something like the controller of a country aerodrome passing out in a state of shock , looking at a Boeing 747 approaching for landing.
From Pyat. ” there is ample scientific evidence that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature by a lot more than 0.6C. The water vapour feedback is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, a rock solid piece of physics. Increases in water vapour have been measured, and are in line with expectations. The “tropical hotspot” thing is ten years out of date (ie, we now know it’s there)”
They do love to use the “water vapor feedback” claim a lot, which is ironic since CO2 and warm water don’t mix very well.
What is this, “Clausius-Clapeyron”?
…and how are they taking it out of context?
Joseph,
I see you got it published. Congratulations are in order.
Now id they’d only allow you to fix the climate models…
Oh yes, there you are, Joe….under Bobby j ?? Nice one, well done.
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation looks like it is just a solution to temperature increasing with pressure not much different than the Ideal Gas Law just it is used to show temperatures aren’t linear with increased pressure and by using the formula you can determine peak curves of temperature with increased pressure.
“This is known as the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation and allows us to estimate the vapor pressure at another temperature, if the vapor pressure is known at some temperature, and if the enthalpy of vaporization is known.”
So what on Earth does that have to do with CO2? As CO2 rises in the atmosphere just like all gas it declines in temps, so they are just rewinding the same old garbage. The only way it would be significant would be at the surface and water vapor negates any (regional) temperature increase from CO2.
The 0.06C difference in the atmospheric temperatures is molar mass calculated, not pressure calculated. Pressure is the result of increased molar mass and naturally if our molar mass increases in the atmosphere a pressure based temperature would follow. That however, as Joseph loves saying, IS NOT THE GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY !!!
So they are trying use the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation and the Ideal gas Law and mixing it up to justify a desired outcome. If learning science was just based on finding the right mix of crap to justify your deductions I’d have become a scientist.
“The vaporization curves of most liquids have similar shapes. The vapor pressure steadily increase as the temperature increases. A good approach is to find a mathematical model for the pressure increase as a function of temperature.”
CD, you’re really getting good at detecting their sophistry. Your clown provides a perfect example: ”The water vapour feedback is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, a rock solid piece of physics. Increases in water vapour have been measured, and are in line with expectations.”
He mixes his pseudoscience in with a “rock solid piece of physics”. Clausius-Clapeyron is actual science, but his “water vapour feedback” is not. He’s trying to use “C-C” to promote “feedback”, where there is no connection.
Solar energy can increase atmosphere water vapor, but water vapor can NOT increase energy. He’s mixing up cause and effect, in line with expectations!
I’ve just seen your whole video right through, Joe I think you would have got a better result if you’d just gone and given the peer-reviewers a slap over the face with a wet fish.
“Solar energy can increase atmosphere water vapor, but water vapor can NOT increase energy.”
I like that, cuts down the word salad reply typical of our climate clown friends.
Joseph, the explanation I am hearing more and more is that that GHGs slow the “rate” of energy transfer through the atmosphere. That is how it is explained by the astronomy professor in the video, “the slower we can make this heat transfer happen by having more GHGs the higher the warmer it will stay at the surface of the earth, the higher the equilibrium temperature”
Similarly, I have been told: “Your mistake is assuming the Earth is a static equilibrium rather than a steady state system Solar input has to be balanced by IR outflow The rate of outflow is controlled by ghgs and the surface temp. If ghg increase slowing the outflow, surf temp increases to balance”
Both are missing the convective aspect, as Nikolov says, “there is no trapping of heat in a freely convecting atmosphere”, but there is something more fundamentally wrong. What is the best way to answer this from a physical standpoint?
Joseph,
What happened to Pierre? Haven’t heard from him in a long time. I know I asked this before, so anyone?
To all: this thing has been trashing all sort of comments – I don’t know why.
@minarchist –
They’re not talking about the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere absorbing some heat from the surface is not the GHE. Their climate change/alarm is based on the atmosphere providing twice the energy than what the Sun provides.
Further, if the rate of IR outflow is controlled by GHG’s, because GHG’s emit, then this means that GHG’s in fact COOL the atmosphere because the rest of the atmospheric gases cannot emit. This indicates that their interpretation of all of the data is wrong, and that they’ve invented an entire pseudo-physics for these false interpretations of data. The problem is endemic in the entire field, right from the beginning. Never forget that they start with flat Earth theory, and flat Earth physics. From there, they interpret all data and create all new physics in order to satisfy flat Earth theory, where in particular, the Sun cannot and does not heat the Earth or create the climate, as I exposed is their position in the “AMS Official” video/post.
“If ghg increase slowing the outflow, surf temp increases to balance”
The self-contradiction is embedded here and exposes the fundamental flaw of starting with flat Earth theory way earlier on. If GHG’s can emit, then this means that they can cool, and if they can emit, then it means that they will have a LOWER temperatures as compared to gases which cant emit. The statement contradicts the physics of emission, emissivity, and temperature. An emissive gas has a lower temperature than a non-emissive gas. GHG’s are emissive gases…they can emit, hence they can cool. Non-GHG’s cannot emit, hence cannot cool, hence have to be warmer than emissitive gases (GHG’s)! So their paradox is exposed here.
Sometimes a step back, a smack around the chops goes along way. What you posted above is simple. Stay on track and don’t go down the rabbit hole. Thanks Joesph
PS my comment “Stay on track and don’t go down the rabbit hole.” was directed myself.
Hi Joseph,
I have just seen your video on https://principia-scientific.org/ams-official-our-sun-does-not-create-earths-weather/ and left a comment something like this —
Reviewer 1 appears not to want ‘heat’ mentioned but have all calculations to be in reference to ‘energy’.
This shows more than anything how deranged ‘climate science’ has become.
Radiant energy can travels through vacuums with no thermal effects, and through the atmosphere with some thermal effects.
Heat on the other hand is what you have when this radiant energy interacts with matter.
A far as I can judge this planet is all about matter and therefore stating thermal effects in terms heat is a valid point.
Radiant energy without matter can not cause heat, radiant energy with matter could cause heat.
Joe
Urgent request here, now. please intervene at this point of this conversation and post (pun intended) your Earth Model here to shut this clown up.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-1567868
You’ve done a good job there Mack. I’ll post soon.
Aahahahahahaha….. good show, Joe. that turned out well….very well, in fact. Every little climate blog chips away….good work. Tell the boys not to go and rouse the cretins anymore…it would spoil yours and my effort. 🙂 😉
Posted this on wrohttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod2/pau3b.gifng conversation thread. Still a valid question.
So the Pauli Exclusion Principle refers to fermions not bosons so how does that relate to CO2 and photons which are bosons?
“No two electrons in an atom can have identical quantum numbers. This is an example of a general principle which applies not only to electrons but also to other particles of half-integer spin (fermions). It does not apply to particles of integer spin (bosons)…”
So (as I am seeing it) the PEP cannot be used as an example of a lower energy photon not able to increase the temperature of a higher energy source? Or was I not following the conversation correctly?
WOW that was a wrongly applied post. The link whatever this is “Posted this on wrohttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod2/pau3b.gifng conversation thread.” originally said Posted this on the wrong conversation thread…”
In all the different conversations not sure if this was addressed so if you don;t mind a reiteration Id appreciate it.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737 pdf
Sure, look at the conclusion:
“At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere.”
Radiative “BURDEN”? LMFAO! Is that a scientific term? Just hang on a sec while I get my radiative transfer heat flow textbook, and look that up in the index. Hmmm…looking…can’t find an entry for “radiative burden”!?
The most retarded shit imaginable. We suffer a world of the most retarded shit imaginable. And our most retarded are our PhD climate scientists and supporting physicists.
Secondly…they are doing the same thing from the same starting point that everyone else does: they believe that the flux from the atmosphere must be warming the surface because they believe that the Sun cannot possibly be the sole source of heat, due to their flat Earth maths starting point. They remotely measure a temperature, and then believe that this temperature ADDS with other temperatures to give a final higher temperature. What’s the temperature of a radiative 200 W/m^2 emission??? It’s 243K or -30 C.
Remotely measuring a temperature does not mean that that temperature adds or is adding to your warmer temperature.
The atmosphere is burdened with its own temperature which produces it own radiation which heats itself up some more and this explains the temperature that the Sun cannot heat the surface to since the Sun only provides -40C.
That’s their science…that’s it.
Thank you Joseph,
So the person peddling that paper I told him…
“Cold cannot not make a warmer body warmer, the most fundamental laws of physics, the atmosphere does nothing to increase the temperature of the surface unless it was warmer than the surface and it is not. This is based on a macro and micro scale.”
How can I make that any clearer?
So he replies with…
” …correct, heat transfer will not take more energy from a colder body into a warmer body.
But this is not heat transfer, this is energy that is reflected.
They measured the energy coming down to earth reflected back from Greenhouse gases.
What is happening to this energy when it reaches earth?
You seem to be getting confused with heat transfer.”
I’m not sure what game he is playing at this point but clearly he has no real education in thermodynamic physics. If you don’t know what heat is then you don’t have a clue what energy can and can’t do.
They just lie. You’ve met one of their tacticians…they just lie on the spot as needed. That paper likely never mentions reflection once! My same comment above applies…the atmosphere doesn’t provide itself 200 more Watts/m2 because of reflection. Nowhere in GHE literature is it about reflection. THEY are confused. Ask them for a peer reviewed paper showing that the GHE is from reflection…play their game against them.
CD concludes: “I’m not sure what game he is playing at this point but clearly he has no real education in thermodynamic physics.”
CD, his game is called “sophistry”. He’s trying to cover up for his lack of knowledge with blah-blah and false assertions, like “You seem to be getting confused with heat transfer.”
When they get so lost in their own babble, it’s time to ask them “Can you bake a turkey with ice cubes?”
They hate that….
Don’t you see the bald lie CD? When have GHGs ever been about reflection!? The GHE and GHGs are about absorption!
So this is going to be my response gleaned from comments on here mostly Joseph and Geran. I would like to add some reference materials at the end. Any suggestions would be appreciated and/or edits in the physics or the math. Did I miss anything?
““What is happening to this energy when it reaches earth?”
The people who wrote that paper have no clue how to answer that.
Welcome to Scattering Theory 101…
#1 The action of photons impacting a surface does not imply the photons will be absorbed. “Absorption” is only one of several things that can happen to a photon. It all depends on wavelengths. A very short wavelength, relative to the surface, will actually penetrate the surface—think X-rays. A very long wavelength, relative to the surface, will be reflected. Absorption depends on a close compatibility between the photon’s wavelength and that of the surface.
#2 Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 μ. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV. To put that into perspective, it would take about 77,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 {77.760 (10)^21} such photons to equal 1 Joule. So it would take 4.2 times that many photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius which would never happen with 15 μ emitted by CO2 because it cannot radiate above its spectrum frequency as I have stated [line spectrum not source].
1 Joule = 6.24 (10)^18 eV
Or, 1 Joule = 6,240,000,000,000,000,000 eV.
One MeV is one megaelectron volts or one million electron volts, and the MeV is a measure of energy. It is equal to 1.60217646 × (10)^(-)13 joules.
An ice cube emits mainly at a wavelength of 10.7 μ. So ice photons are about 50% “hotter” that CO2 photons. As it’s hard to heat the surface with ice cubes, it’s even harder to heat it with CO2.
#3 If a photon is reflected then there is no energy exchange, reflection happens as often as absorption, otherwise our eyes would be of little use. Unless you are looking into a source, such as a fire or the sun, you are able to see because of reflected photons.
“For vibration and/or rotational modes, there must exist a magnetic dipole for photon absorption to occur. The molecule is *unaffected by nonresonant frequencies, and if the molecule is already excited, even radiation at the correct frequency will be rejected* (scattered) by the molecule (thus a heated CO2 molecule will not absorb another photon).”
#4 Absorption is affected by temperature. If you want a surface to be a good absorber, cool it off. If you could cool to Absolute Zero, the surface would be a perfect “black body”, able to absorb all photons. If you heated a surface to a very high temperature it would be a very poor absorber. At room temperatures, infrared wavelengths are typically not absorbed.
#5 You often hear “If a system has more energy coming in than going out, its temperature MUST increase”. They apply that nonsense to Earth’s surface (the “system”). Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means more infrared energy coming back to Earth. So, in their pseudoscience, they believe that means surface temperatures must raise.
Of course infrared impacting the surface does NOT imply absorption. (See #1.) But even their statement isn’t physics. You *CAN* add energy to a system without increasing temperatures. Bring a bowl of ice cream into your den. The ice cream is emitting infrared. You have “added energy” to the system (den), but do you expect the room temperature to increase? Or, add a liter of water at 40 degrees to a large bowl already containing water at 45 degrees. You have added energy to the large bowl (system), but the average temperature DROPS.
Thermodynamic “heat” has two components: 1) energy transfer, and 2) from “hot” to “cold” (ΔT).
Without both components, there is no “heat” just a transfer of energy. No heat=no raise in temperature.
So that is what happens to the energy. Anyone claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the physics.
Yep that’s good. Also just use their own argument against them: if GHG’s reflect IR then they are NOT absorbing IR and hence CANNOT be warmed by the surface. Then, if GHG’s are just reflecting energy and hence not absorbing energy and hence not warming: 1) this entirely contradicts GHG theory, and 2) we can also then claim that THE SURFACE ALSO REFLECTS the energy since they acknowledge that this is possible, and they have NO argument to say that GHG reflect while the surface absorbs.
So…keep it simple, point out the basis logical flaws.
@CD Marshall
Saving that, ty.
It absolutely amazes me how they refuse to accept energy transfer does not always equal a temperature increase. They will argue over and over, twist that way and this, squirm left or right but can’t say yes it is possible for energy to transfer without increasing temperature.
Naturally they can’t possibly be in error.
Anyone else keeps downloading a PDF every time they visit this page?
100737
CD, you get an A+. Now you can move on to get your PhD (Postma’s high Distinction).
Or, you can just stay with what you’ve learned. You already know more than Spencer, Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, et al.
So after that exhaustive explanation I gave this is what the moron replies…
“your refusal of answer what you think happens to the energy that is reflected is obvious.
Let me say it for you:
If you add energy to something it heats up.
You seem to be denying physics.”
These people are pond scum bottom feeders.
They are a coordinated enemy doing this on purpose!
Hi Joseph and Guys. Need a little help in getting my response back on track. This guy is continually moving the goal posts and we are on a continuing merry go – round that we go through. I need to break this cycle.
We have just finished discussing how cold objects do not heat up hotter objects. For which he acknowledged then fell back on slowing down the cooling process.
The latest response is below. I need to get back on track without this continuing subterfuge and sometimes strawmans that distract me! This guy is full of shit. I have caught him out making conflicting statements in the past but he is good at sliding away from that………… his comments below. Aside from acknowledging his comments sound splausible because he has dictated how energy transfer works. Which is very debateble.
Yes, we’ve been through this before – which is why I know that you’ll persistently avoid understanding no matter how patiently it’s explained. Every system in existence is always trying to approach thermal equilibrium. Wrap yourself in a blanket, and to the outside world you’ll immediately look colder – because what the outside world sees is the cold outer surface of the blanket. But inside the blanket you’ll immediately start to warm up. That warmth works its way through to the outer surface of the blanket, which consequently begins to emit more heat. If your body were to keep generating energy at exactly the same rate as it was before you added the blanket, eventually you’ll reach a new equilibrium – with the outer surface of the blanket releasing exactly as much energy as you were releasing before you wrapped yourself in it, but now with you at a much warmer temperature inside.
My comments. I need to get the response right and appreciate the assistance
shoot sorry I did not proof read this and delete a section. his comments blow…..
Yes, we’ve been through this before – which is why I know that you’ll persistently avoid understanding no matter how patiently it’s explained. Every system in existence is always trying to approach thermal equilibrium. Wrap yourself in a blanket, and to the outside world you’ll immediately look colder – because what the outside world sees is the cold outer surface of the blanket. But inside the blanket you’ll immediately start to warm up. That warmth works its way through to the outer surface of the blanket, which consequently begins to emit more heat. If your body were to keep generating energy at exactly the same rate as it was before you added the blanket, eventually you’ll reach a new equilibrium – with the outer surface of the blanket releasing exactly as much energy as you were releasing before you wrapped yourself in it, but now with you at a much warmer temperature inside.
After you help Jopo my troll hit me with this from a Clive Best, ever hear of him? I’ve glanced at the paper will read it later or you can just troll his website for fun and kicks. Clive Best is using HITRAN spectroscopy database for his justified global warming mantra.
A notable comment from Geran on OLR… “To have anything useful they would have to have actual spectra, comparing ground measurements with corresponding directly overhead satellite measurements. Comparing actual spectra at the surface with actual surface temperatures and the exact overhead satellite could be something meaningful. With enough such measurements, over several years’ time, they might have something that could be studied. At this time all they have is garbage…”
Hi Joe. Everytime I open this thread the following download occurs MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE FORCING
Joe delete that link that’s on me Jopo sorry not sure why it’s doing that ??? I would delete the link if I could. Sometimes those hyperlinks to weird things???
Either that or they are monitoring Joseph’s computer and its interfering with their trackers.
Which would be funny if it didn’t have a slight chance of actually being true.
JoPo–Don’t let them claim the atmosphere is ONLY a blanket. It is a very special “blanket” that helps to regulate Earth’s temperature. If the temperature gets too hot, the emission to space increases by the power of 4. And that’s at a minimum because the atmosphere can also expand. So having the ability to expand (increase its surface area) and emit porportional to the 4th power of its temperature, means the atmosphere is a “blanket” that can control its maximum temperaure, easily. (PS CO2 helps with that emission!)
CD–I haven’t been to Clive’s site in years. I remember he was a “luker”, but I don’t think he is corrupt like most, just unaware. Maybe you can teach him? Link him to Joseph’s work.
Thanks geran I’m looking at his stuff later. This troll guy is still on me about energy.
Air is not a blanket. Air and blankets are opposites. Blankets stop air from acting like air…stopping convective cooling. Their “argument by analogy” is a specious way to do science in the first place, and is factually flawed and self-contradictory in the second place.
Let me know if the auto download is fixed.
Clive Best is no longer a lurker he is a true believer…
“So finally the reduction in outgoing IR radiation caused by a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm becomes 4.7 watts/m2. This is not far away from the value as calculated by climate models – 3.7 watts/m2 ! This is usually called “radiative forcing”. Note how in the stratosphere the energy loss increases with CO2 concentration. This predicts that the stratosphere should cool, as the troposphere warms. All predictions of warming/cooling are of course based on the assumption that all else remains constant – lapse rate, H2O, clouds etc. The real signature for a CO2 GHG effect would be to observe cooling in the stratosphere where these effects are much smaller.
In the next post I will examine in detail how “radiative forcing” depends on CO2 concentrations…
@ Postma
fixed
Reading some of the stuff on Clive Best and his commenters it has dawned on me that many people may not realize that the troposphere expands and contracts daily and any satellite readings need to take that into consideration when applying the data to elevation. Its not that the troposphere is getting warmer higher up its that the troposphere is expanded at what was that point in altitude is now warmer when expanded and will be cooler when contracted.
It is also equally fascinating that they blame this on “radiative forcing” when the Sun during the day is warming the troposphere more and making it expand and thus warmer at higher altitudes…
Also this claim that the stratosphere is cooler as the troposphere warms is proof of the GHGE is that during the day the troposphere expands pushing the tropopause higher but the cooler stratosphere will remain cooler above the elevated tropopause irregardless.
I would think this expansion/contraction would influence the lapse rate ratio as well?
CD says: It is also equally fascinating that they blame this on “radiative forcing”…
“Radiative forcing” is part of their pseudoscience. They believe Sun provides less energy than an ice cube. So they believe “radiative forcing” makes up for the deficit. It’s the same mistake the “heat creep” makes, as well as zany Zoe and her 0.09 Watts/m^2 geothermal. None of them understands the basic physics of how Sun warms the planet.
A quick anecdote: Zoe was trolling me over at PSI last week. She won’t go away. So, instead of hitting her with “you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes”, I said “you can’t bake cookies with ice cubes”, hoping a little male chauvinism would get her attention. Sure enough, she left me alone after that!
🙂
Hi Guys, I know it has been covered here before but if someone has the time please help out. What gases release energy to space. Is it only greenhouse gases. Can non greenhouse gases emit energy to space. I ask as I simply want to put forward with my understanding to others on a forum that ghgs are the predominant gases that emit energy to space. So any addition of ghg’s in our atmosphere would actually enhance the ability of earth to shed heat. If this is so what search words would you recommend I use to show that ghg’s actually assist in cooling. Not heating
That is correct and it is true basic physics…but you won’t find it anywhere near climate science and have to only understand that that is true. If GHGs emit then they cool, period. If non-GHGs do not emit then THEY hold on to “heat” and keep the air warmer than otherwise.
Thank you Joseph. Appreciate the response at this hour for you over there. One last Q if I may.
This is what I am about to send. Is this factually correct. I hate it when I get snookered by posting incorrect info. My post to be……………
CO2 is not a blanket that prevents convection. A real Greenhouse will though.
CO2 is not a real greenhouse. You Tristanc have created a Real Greenhouse with your description of CO2 for which is NOT REALITY.
Alarmist advocate that No other gases can emit energy to space. If it cannot ABSORB it cannot EMIT.
Yes non ghgs conduct energy but they do not Emit energy. Only Greenhouse gases emit energy to space. So if we introduce ghgs we are in effect enabling more shedding of heat to space.
Summary.
1. Non GHG gases DO NOT EMIT ENERGY! Therefore they do not SHED energy to space!
2. The only gases that SHED heat from the Earth are Greenhouse gases!
CONCLUSION
Greenhouse gases must COOL our atmosphere or you guys have not got the science right!
Perfect. That’s the real physics.
The response was this………The ground, jopo. The ground emits the energy. Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it goes straight through………
Any decent responses would be appreciated
That’s a deflection. Without GHGs, the atmosphere wouldn’t be able to shed energy hence be unable to cool hence would be hotter. Fact. In any case too, the GHE is *not* that the cool atmosphere can be radiatively heated by the warmer surface. They never maintain a consistent argument or position! And they never talk on the actual terms they’re supposed to be talking about.
Well the goal post are continually being moved with this guy. No doubt about that.
I can see that I will be going round in circles soon with this guy.
My response will be …..
You T are framing a scenario that non ghgs cannot carry energy!
Our atmosphere is 98% non ghg’s and it is FULL of energy and heat. Conduction and thermals dont require ghgs. Our sun is plenty hot enough to create turbulence without the need of GHGs.
Without ghg’s that energy could not be shed!
wowsers this T guy has got himself all wound up. Claims that without ghgs the Atmosphere would quickly lose heat via conduction with the surface and the Surface will emit all energy directly. But does not answer Questions on conduction during the day. Do non ghgs heat up during the day via conduction with the surface. He still will not acknowledge that ghg’s are what cools our atmosphere. Some colourful words coming from these guys now.
Can someone pls decipher this for me. Seems way out of left field when all I said was you still have not answered whether GHG’s cool the atmosphere. Then this happens. …….. T response below
Without greenhouse gases: all infrared radiation from the surface goes straight out to space, unimpeded. The emission spectrum as seen from space would be a smooth black body curve, similar to the red one below. The other gases in the atmosphere will still redistribute heat by conduction and convection, drastically reducing the temperature extremes between light and shade compared to that seen in an airless environment like that on the moon. In the midday sun it would undoubtedly get extremely hot, but the moment the sun dips below the horizon the temperature would plummet (think Sahara Desert, where if you’re caught out at night you’ll be in danger of dying of hypothermia).
Add greenhouse gases and you get the real-world black curve (filled with cyan) seen below. Yes, the greenhouse gases eventually radiate heat to space (of course they do – I say this a lot, but I don’t understand how you could possibly see that as a “gotcha”) – but they do so at the top of the atmosphere, at a temperature far below that of the ground (-60 degrees Celsius or thereabouts). So the energy shed in the wavelength bands where they absorb strongly is similarly far lower than it would be if they weren’t there at all.
Let’s take another tack here for a second and chat about Venus. I’m sure we all know about its hellish surface temperature (737 Kelvin or around 464 Celsius, according to NASA). But what perhaps isn’t quite as widely known is that if you look at its infrared emission profile via a telescope, it appears much colder than Earth (-48 C for Venus, -19 C for Earth). Why? Because that’s exactly how insulators work. Because they reduce the rate of energy transmission through them, the “inside” becomes hotter while the “outside” becomes colder.
Given that Venus’ atmosphere is composed almost entirely of greenhouse gases (it’s 96.5% carbon dioxide), according to your reasoning that’s exactly the opposite of what should happen. If you’re right, the surface of Venus should be extremely cold – that is, hell should have frozen over. But it hasn’t, so you’re not.
He admits that GHGs cool…some cooling is better than no cooling hence GHGs cool! They just try to get around the fact. Venus has 90X the atmosphere hence why its surface air is so much warmer due to the adiabatic gradient. The TOA of Venus however is cooler than Earth due to high albedo…so much for GHGs making Venus warmer! The adiabatic gradient and TOA of Venus FULLY explain Venus’ surface air temperature…NO sign of GHG enhanced temperature whatsoever!
Reminds me of that conversation if a Venusian would even notice the sun.
If you were on the surface of Venus the sun wouldn’t matter to you that much. The sun could disappear for a Venusian and they would barely notice. The surface is covered in lava and active volcanoes.
The Sun is directly responsible for the climate here on earth, we would notice almost immediately.
The surface of Jupiter is also hotter than mercury. Super high pressure there too.
“The TOA of Venus however is cooler than Earth due to high albedo…”
They found a work around for that. They claim that some WL can pierce the atmosphere and those WL reach the surface and can’t escape…creating the out of control warming.
VideoFreak argued that point, a cold can warm hot believer and endorse of the Roy’s Institute for Higher Sophistry.
Joseph this is a little old you may be familiar with it…
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.3696974
I was given this as proof that, “It specifically states that heat is a product of not only the energy of a photon, but the number of photons.”
I did not see that point in the paper?
Sorry you can link to the .pdf here just cautious about those links now…
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3822
“that heat is a product of not only the energy of a photon, but the number of photons.”
It’s an irrelevant and basic point. Higher temperature means higher energy photons AND higher numbers of photons. It goes together.
Q = sigma*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
The hot side has higher energy and greater number.
Compare Planck curves for example. The warmer Planck curve has a distribution with more high frequency photons, and more photons over all frequencies.
So the warmest flaw is that they assume more energy equals higher energy. How can I convey that point across mathematically? Higher energy is more KE more energy does not automatically equal higher KE.
A glass of water has energy a hot glass of water has higher energy. When I try and use that as an example they deflect with but if the surface is gaining more energy per square meter why would it NOT get warmer?
Warmists not warmest. As always thanks for you time I do very much appreciate the help I get from you guys.
The warmer surface does NOT “gain” more energy from the cooler atmosphere. That doesn’t happen. Because heat doesn’t flow backwards. End of story.
I’ve always been curious if a photon is emitted from the Earth back to the Sun would it reflect the photon? Which is the same thing the Earth would do to photons redirected back at the Earth from the atmosphere (correct?).
So this guys argument is if enough photons get directed back at the surface (in a concentrated area) it would get warm enough for absorption because he believes stacking photons increase their temperature and if enough pile up it will get absorbed because more photons means more energy more temperature.
Which seems to be the new standard argument now.
These folk give me a headache.
CD, it gives you a headache because you have learned pseudoscience “hurts”!
Sun’s photosphere will reflect any photons from Earth. No problem.
And when the clowns try the “enough photons get directed back at the surface” crap, use the “ice cubes trying to bake a turkey” example. No matter how many ice cubes you use, you still can’t bake a turkey. In fact, you can’t even raise the temperature of a room temperature turkey, no matter how many ice cubes you use.
Then tell them to “learn some physics”.
Geran these guys are slick if I use the ice cubes example they say you are including an increase in mass with each ice cube negating the purpose of the increased photons, CO2 is only re-directing the photons back to the same area.
As I said they give me a headache because they just slip out of any logical argument you give them.
CD, they are not really slick. They are stupid and unwilling to learn. Mass has nothing to do with the ice cubes/turkey example. It refutes their “CO2 warming the surface” nonsense. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. A clear sky emits about 240 W/m^2. If a clear sky can warm the surface (their pseudoscience), why can’t ice cubes warm the surface even more. And, they erroneously claim that fluxes add. So bringing in more ice should bake the turkey even faster!
The simple example just upturns their nonsense. That’s all you can do. There are possibly lurkers that may learn from you, but the clowns don’t want to learn. They prefer their false religion to reality. You may be doing more good than you realize.
This idiot I’m talking to believes 10 100 watt bulbs is equal to a 1K bulb.
Now 10 bulbs in a room (at a 100 watts each) might make it overall warmer in the entire room because heat is distributed over a larger radius but the heat will not be equal to a 1k watts if I still have this right. He also believes adding another element to your oven gives you twice the heat output not a maximum maintained temperature that can’t exceed the system output.
I gave him the Lars Paper he refused to comment.
I’m sending him the Turkey videos from Joseph next.
You have to be careful, because energy adds, but flux doesn’t. Don’t let them trick you!
So in the light bulb example how would that go? Say you had a 10 x 10 room well insulated what would be the difference between one lamp with a 1K watt bulb and 10 lamps with 100 watt bulbs placed in the center of the room? I’m sure someone has done similar experiments a thousand times. Physics students love doing experiments.
Adding bulbs adds more independent power. The atmosphere does not add more independent power.
Yes but does that equal a 1000 watts is what I’m asking. 10 100 watt bulbs doesn’t create a 1000 watt bulb. Each individual power source emits a 100 watts that doesn’t make the room a thousand watts brighter does it? Sorry I know this is high school physics stuff but apparently some PhDs skipped high school.
No it does not change the color temperature but it does increase brightness.
Thank you I know you posted on this here in some great detail just so hard to find when I need it.
In your “10 X 10 room” CD, if everything is ideal (same filament temperatures, etc.), there would be no difference. Energy is conserved, so 10-100 W bulbs would emit the same energy as 1-1000 W bulb. But, the 10 bulbs would not be able to raise the temperature of an object above the temperature of one filament.
It’s the same for ice cubes. 10 ice cubes cannot raise the temperature of anything above the temperature of one ice cube.
On Earth, more atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the surface above the temperature of the atmosphere.
So I think I fluxed up, 10 lamps is still 100 watts per square meter flux, energy increased but not the flux, no way the standard troll has a clue on that difference. Most people taking standard physics I don’t think would know the difference?
…Sorry that came before Geran’s comment.
I will softly beat my head on the desk for a few minutes of self contemplation.
IF NASA is breathing odds are yes they are faking something.
So back to my light bulb experiment say two identical rooms 5×5 meters. Let’s use
1-1000 watt Halogen in one room
>Lumens 27,500
>Voltage 120
>3200 K Color Range
10-100 watt Halogen identical lamps in the other room…
>Lumens 1,900
>Voltage 120
>2800 K Color Range
The Watt range would be the same (energy).
The temperature would never be the same 10 at 2800 Kelvin 1 at 3200 Kelvin.
The Lumens?
Energy is the same. Would the flux be the same? 1000 W/m^2?
The ambient temperature of the rooms itself what would be the difference or would they be the same?
As far as atmosphere and surface goes it would be surface 1000 watts atmosphere 100 watts no change to the surface. However, I’m trying to understand the difference between Energy/Heat/Temperature… I Don’t know why I am having such a hard time with flux but apparently I haven’t quite got it down yet.
One of Joseph’s favorite phrases…
“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.” -D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics
As always thank you for my higher education (attempts at anyway) 🙂 😦
This is the latest video from Naomi only if you could contact her Joseph she has a bright mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q1I44l_kGg
Hi guys. Am I correct in saying the following in response to someone who is questioning why i dispute the blanket theory. Basically they simply believe it is HEAT that is being radiated back to EARTH. My understanding is that;
Ghgs release thermal radiation to space.
Ghgs release FLUX back to the Surface.
Flux vs Real radiation
Warmist utilise the very natural process of Gravity (WORKING) on the Flux to create HEAT.
These Charlatans are using the natural process of the Adiabatic effect and pretending HEAT is being redistributed. It is NOT heat!
The Ideal Gas Law predicts our atmospheric temperatures and it does not need BACK (FLUXES) RADIATION.
It works with and without Back radiation.
………………..
Please feel free to assist with a better choice of words.
I did not post the above I need to totally re think that.
A plausible argument you think?
…………..
Humans perspiring and having heat removed from their body via ghg’s in order to cool down!
Trees transpiring and smothering our gardens and houses with ghg’s to cool them down and us.
………………..
The retards are in denial that ghg’s shed heat from our atmosphere.
this is flaming nuts. the smart bloke who does all their smart talking is egging them on. just absolutely stupid now.
Having fun now. these guys are whining
I know its late in the night over there. I wish I could gain the knowledge from you guys close to realtime. Anyway this body evaporation and tree transpiration cooling down via ghg’s has got them in a rage at me. this is what i posted
………………………………………………
But I must be honest I have having great fun with this. Some of you guys have become fixated on this and whilst I am 100% correct with my statement that ghg’s cool our atmosphere. Peeps with closed minds are clearly a little distressed
Evolution has the smarts! It has worked out how to cool Human beings. And how to cool down trees.
It uses GREENHOUSE GASES to remove that heat and emit it ELSEWHERE and eventually out to space
This hissy fit by some of you expose the level of indoctrination that many of you have succumbed too.
Totally freaking out at the thought of ghg’s being a coolant.
ghg’s Cool our atmosphere.
ghg’s cool our body!
ghg’s cool our trees and our houses.
If you want to BLOCK this heat from escaping I guess you could put up a SOLID BARRIER. Much like a real Greenhouse.
………………………………………………………………..
Jopo to block cooling you need to prevent convection like in a greenhouse (I’m guessing you already knew that). That’s why they fixate on the blanket scenario, nothing in the real atmosphere prevents convection. Slowing or nearly preventing convection warms your body up and your house in the Winter. Convection is grade school science and yet political climate science hasn’t a clue that nothing in the atmosphere prevents convection.
The Greenhouse Effect is so named to mislead those in believing it stops convection.
Personally GHG term should be removed. We have IR responsive gases and non IR responsive gases and different levels of IR responsive gases. On top of that we have IR absorptive gases and non absorptive gases. We have gases without magnetic dipoles that can’t absorb IR but once heated can emit IR or reflect IR all the same.
Remember 80% of IR emits from the Earth directly to space. 20% is intercepted, increasing the “IR” responsive gases in this margin doesn’t change the saturation rate.
Joseph did the math a while ago…
“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: The thickness of the atmosphere until it gets so thin that light waves can escape freely to space is about, say, 20km in altitude. Given that the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second, it would take an unobstructed light wave 66-67 microseconds to get through the atmosphere. 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.Seven milliseconds, compared to 10 days of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the atmosphere, compared to 121 years of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the oceans.” -JP
Using his math I calculated a single photon can be absorbed by CO2 and emit in around 70 microseconds…I know devastating to our environment, right?
So in my light bulb experiment which I got no takers on apparently, the illumination may increase (can’t think of the proper physics term for that for some reason off the top of my head), but the temperature output would not.
So here is where flux and energy trick me. The energy is 1000 watts either way (thank you Geran) but is the flux 1000 W/m^2 and where does the Lumens fit in???
The lumen is the SI derived unit of luminous flux, a measure of the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source per unit of time. Luminous flux differs from power (radiant flux) in that radiant flux includes all electromagnetic waves emitted, while luminous flux is weighted according to a model (a “luminosity function”) of the human eye’s sensitivity to various wavelengths. Lumens are related to lux in that one lux is one lumen per square meter.
The 1000 Watt bulb has 27500 Lumens whereas the 100 watt only emits 1900.
10 bulbs increase the visible light radius but does it mean * 10 the Lumens?
How is Lumen flux even written out? 1900 L/m^2 ?
Lux: The amount of light that is cast on a surface is called illuminance, which is measured in lux. This can be thought of as light intensity within a specific area.
Lumens: The total output of visible light from a light source is measured in lumens. Typically, the more lumens a light fixture provides, the brighter it is.
One lux is equal to one lumen per square meter (lux = lumens/m2). Essentially, as light travels from the emitter, it will disperse throughout an area. The further the light has to travel the more it will be dispersed. Therefore, the amount of lux in an area or on a surface can vary depending upon the distance the light travels and the angle at which it is dispersed.
Where the lumens provided by a given emitter are the same, light that travels less distance and/or is more narrowly focused will appear brighter because lux are concentrated in a smaller area than light that has traveled a greater distance and has been dispersed over a wider area.
CD, you’re making this way to hard. That’s why I specified all filaments are the same temperature. That keeps it simple. Now you are comparing apples to apples. Each filament is emitting based on its temperature. So a 1000W bulb is emitting the same energy as 10-100W bulbs.
It’s finished.
Again the troll is claiming that more bulbs at lower watts proves energy increases temperature as in more photons in a condensed space will increase the temperature.
Even though I said absorption is based on temperature his workaround is more photons equals more temperature so it would be absorbed hence the light bulbs which threw me off.
He then claimed the paper I gave here that pdf’d everyone up says, that more photons equals higher temps thus supporting his claim that GHG send IR back tot he surface to “warm it up more”.
SO since this has become a pointless conversation with him I want to just keep repeating something like this…
*More energy DOES NOT automatically mean HIGHER FREQUENCY PHOTONS and more photons does not magically become a higher FREQUENCY because they have accumulated.*
I wish I had a few particle physics references to add to that. They NEVER refer manuals to their support its always a paper which we know is trash or they misrepresent the paper like this clown is doing.
Oh and as always, THANK YOU ALL for your help.
Adding in ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT POWER SOURCES is not related to the GHE at all!!! ffs
A room with a single bulb vs a room with a bulb in every available space has nothing to do with the ghe…
So how is this…
“*More energy DOES NOT automatically mean HIGHER FREQUENCY PHOTONS and more photons does not magically become a higher FREQUENCY because they have accumulated.*”
Good as is or do I need to edit? More energy or increased energy? Should I leave “automatically” out?
CD, they’re flailing you with sophistry!
Remember, it is the “information” contained in the photons that determine if the temperature can be raised. Ice cubes can NOT raise the temperature of an object thst is at room-temperature. The ice cubes don’t have the “information”. You can add all of the ice cubes the room will hold, but the object’s temperature will not rise.
Adding lightbulbs with the correct “information”, and you can affect the room temperature. Add 100 such lightbulbs and you can warm the room substantially. Enough high-powered bulbs, close enough, and you could even bake a turkey!
But, the atmosphere does not emit the correct “information” to raise the surface at a temperature of 288 K. And adding more of that incorrect “information” will still not raise surface temperature. The atmosphere emits less “information” than ice cubes.
Now, go get ’em. And take no prisoners….
“Information” contained in the photons that determine if the temperature can be raised.
If I had a clue what that meant it would be helpful. I’m assuming that’s a wavefuntion property?
So I think I found the equation for absorption/Emission but it looks like something recovered from the Roswell Crash…
Yes CD, the “information” is the photon energy/frequency/wavelength. That “information” determines whether or not the photon will be absorbed and thermalized.
Your “Roswell Crash” scene is referring to electron energy level transitions, which are typically visible wavelengths. Infrared wavelengths are typically related to molecules.
Thank you Geran.
Good rant for a while describing the insane left. Everything he says about them also applies to their insane flat Earth theory climate change:
This troll is directly misrepresenting everything I said…
TROLL:
“you said earlier “it isn’t matter if it is one or a million photons”
And then I showed you an article that directly said it is to do with the number of photons too.
You said infrared cannot be absorbed. When the sun’s light contains lots of infrared and we have Infrared heaters for homes (look it up).
You saying a low frequency photons cannot be absorbed is false.
I see again you never link to anything external and we should just take from your comment?
Not sure why you’re even writing stuff in bold either. I never said that. Trying to strawman me now?
More photons mean more energy. It is the energy that causes the increase in temperature. And Infrared energy is absorbed! We have Infrared heaters for god sake!
what I actually said…
> Ten 100W light bulbs = 1000W in energy yes NOT in temperature . Each bulb would only radiate at its maximum temperature. Energy increased not the temperature. (I did make an error on watts/ flux somewhere in a one comment).
>An average 1000 watt halogen bulb emits 3200 K Color Range an average 100 watt halogen bulb emits at 2800 K Color Range no amount of 100 watt bulbs will ever emit at 3200 Kelvin Color Range.
>Ten 100 watt bulbs will never achieve the color temperature of a single 1000 watt bulb. Increased energy doesn’t always equal increased temperature as I said from the beginning.
>The paper you supplied totally supports what I’ve been saying and if you had actually learned what I said you’d know that.
>That heat is a product of not only the energy of a photon, but the number of photons.
>It’s an irrelevant and basic point. Higher temperature means higher energy photons AND higher numbers of photons. It goes together.
Q = sigma*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
The hot side has higher energy and greater number.
Compare Planck curves for example. The warmer Planck curve has a distribution with more high frequency photons, and more photons over all frequencies.
>More energy DOES NOT automatically mean HIGHER FREQUENCY PHOTONS and more photons does not magically become a higher FREQUENCY because they have accumulated.
>the photon energy/frequency/wavelength determines whether or not the photon will be absorbed and thermalized.
>15 micron photon transfers energy colder than ice. That is not tipping anything or warming anything. Period.
>All they are measuring is energy anything above 0 Kelvin emits a thermal signature that does not mean it can create heat. Ice cubes have a thermal signature and they also emit photons roughly in the 10.7 micron range
>IR detection devices do just that they detect IR. Energy or heat-energy is the same thing to the device, in real world applications they are not, heat increases temperatures (hot to cold) and a system most certainly can increase in energy without an increase in its temperature.
Hot to cold. Sun=Hot. Earth’s surface=Warm. Atmosphere=Cold.
> Ice cubes emit around 10.7 micron photons which radiate a spectrum warmer than 15 micron. No matter how much 15 micron photons hit the Earth the radiating spectrum will not exceed a temperature literally colder than ice (-80C)
>a line spectrum cannot exceed it’s maximum spectrum output. The energy transferred from a 15 micron photon or a million 15 micron photons will radiate at around -80C. Unless the planet goes into a deep freeze one day that’s not going to warm it up.
This has been pretty much the conversation. Pointless. However any tips, clarifications or mistakes (I found a few on my own and corrected them) are always appreciated and encouraged. Either I got the science right or I am wrong.
CD, it’s like scoring fighter pilots for “ace”. One confirmed enemy down requires him misrpresenting your words AND him insulting you. Five more such engagements, and you are an ACE.
You have to score it that way because they will never admit they’re wrong. They can’t leave the cult.
Look at this crap put out by NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
“Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “
“…the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Actually that is not far off. 2 X 0 = 0
Geran,
LOL
I do have a question on the Conservation of Energy that trolls are using as a work around, they are saying the Earth is not a closed system therefore the CoE law does not apply so “radiative forcing” is possible??? Whatever they mean by that. I honestly think they put every argument agaisnt CC into a database and come up with a counterargument. The more we fight the more they build a counter data set. Which is easy to do when you are liar and don’t have to heed the laws of physics and actual science.
I looked up the term in one text (HyperPhysics) it states
“If a system does not interact with its environment in any way, then certain mechanical properties of the system cannot change. They are sometimes called “constants of the motion”. These quantities are said to be “conserved” and the conservation laws which result can be considered to be the most fundamental principles of mechanics. In mechanics, examples of conserved quantities are energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The conservation laws are exact for an isolated system”
It also states lower down…
“Energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work. It may exist in a variety of forms and may be transformed from one type of energy to another. However, these energy transformations are constrained by a fundamental principle, the Conservation of Energy principle. One way to state this principle is “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed”. Another approach is to say that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.”
And down more…
“An isolated system implies a collection of matter which does not interact with the rest of the universe at all – and as far as we know there are really no such systems. There is no shield against gravity, and the electromagnetic force is infinite in range. But in order to focus on basic principles, it is useful to postulate such a system to clarify the nature of physical laws. In particular, the conservation laws can be presumed to be exact when referring to an isolated system:
Conservation of Energy: the total energy of the system is constant.
Conservation of Momentum: the mass times the velocity of the center of mass is constant.
Conservation of Angular Momentum: The total angular momentum of the system is constant.
Newton’s Third Law: No net force can be generated within the system since all internal forces occur in opposing pairs. The acceleration of the center of mass is zero
Answer: the sun isn’t -40C heating potential at the earth. So since that’s their position, their position and everything which follows from that position is false. QED.
That argument seems to be in the state of transit to modification. They are slipping in more “we aren’t saying the energy isn’t coming from the Sun of course it is! We are saying that the atmosphere is retaining more of the heat than before…”
Hence radiative forcing…
They are like water and switch the “explanation” for climate change on a whim. However the CoE does reject forcing in an open system so they needed to discredit CoE.
It really is tiresome isn’t it?
They always change subject and run from the fact of their position: they believe the sun only heats to -40C. Just stick to that because thats all thats needed
CD, it doesn’t matter “open” or “closed” system, there is no such thing as “radiative forcing”, in the sense they are talking about. They are talking about the “radiative forcing” of the bogus Arrhenius equation. That bogus equation creates energy out of thin air. The equation has no mathematical derivation, no empirical support, and is not found in any legitimate physics book.
“Radiative forcing”, “climate sensitivity”, “transient climate response”, and “equilibrium climate sensitivity” are all buzz words used in the GHE pseudoscience. They have NO scientific validity. The clowns can’t even agree on what numbers should be used. They always want more funding to find out.
peeps are just in denial. Having a laugh. Always handy when the the go to site for alarmist is contradicting them! Another CLIMATE FORCING. excluding flat Earth logic from these dicks
. NASA introducing
No way an astrophysicist doesn’t know why gas giants are warm. What a bunch of liars. NASA, like their affiliates in the mainstream media spewing fake news, are the CNN of fake science.
These people are activists and such a disgrace to the real scientific community.
Any of you fine science gurus explored megadroughts? Someone well over a year ago mentioned they saw cycles in megadroughts and magnetic decay and/or planetary harmonics. Anyone ever hear of anything that sounds remotely familiar to that? I was a noob back then (more so than now) so I didn’t really pay much attention to it as it sounded crazy to me at the time. Now, not sounding as crazy.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7632
Jopo’s link which got me thinking about the
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/sun.html
While the center of the Sun’s core can get as hot as 30 million degrees F, its outer layers cool down. The photosphere, which is outside the core, is the coolest layer. This is as expected, because normally heat passes outwardly from hot to cold. However, the Sun’s outermost atmospheric layer is much hotter than its surface layer! Astronomers have puzzled over this enigma for more than 50 years. What is happening on the Sun?
Scientists still aren’t quite sure. They do know that within the innermost core, energy is generated by nuclear reactions. The energy generated and stored in the core diffuses (spreads) outward by radiation (mostly gamma-rays and x-rays) into the next layer, the photosphere——the most visible surface of the Sun——and beyond. Here, gaseous layers change from being completely opaque (blocking light) to a radiative (particle/wave energy) condition to being transparent (admitting light). In the chromosphere, the rising heat causes hydrogen to give off the reddish light seen in the prominences during solar eclipses. And, the corona, which extends for millions of miles beyond the relatively cool photosphere, is even hotter. While there are differing opinions on the causes of the corona’s extreme temperatures, most scientists now attribute it to the interaction of the Sun’s magnetic field lines.
“This is as expected, because normally heat passes outwardly from hot to cold.”
“normally”
“Jopo’s link which got me thinking about the sun’s corona”
They utterly hate admitting auto compression, adiabatic lapse rate and gravity have any influence on a planet.
Can you imagine how hot Jupiter would have been as the nearest planet to the Sun it may have actually became a mini second Sun (we shall call it, “Mini Me Sun”) or close to to it.
The gas giants are massive and hot cored. Ironically, the Earth has the third “guesstimated” hottest core in our solar system.
The Sophists can’t argue auto compression so they just pretend it doesn’t exist while deep mine workers wish to the Heat Gods it didn’t.
So I did a little bit of study, found a .pdf I had saved a ways back and the popular theory is that when the Solar Cycles are weaker especially coupled with an Earth’s decaying magnetic field, cosmic rays increase causing prolonged drought.
From one source (not sure on the validity of said source) it shows correlation with megadroughts and weaker solar cycles.
@CD Marshall
I know about the grand solar minimums and their strong correlation to ice ages.
Grand solar maximum doesn’t mean droughts and deserts necessarily, from my understanding.
I think it’s still a mystery as to why Africa dried out. Saudi Arabia and Egypt too.
If I’m remembering right those places were wetter in the distant past, especially Africa.
Oddly enough even in ice ages you can have droughts. Tundra often has very little precipitation.
Anyway they have strong possible correlation between magnetic decay in South African history and severe droughts.I’d imagine if they were allowed they’d find a similar thing in Arabia.
They were able to correlate the droughts with the magnetic decay or a “possible” connection as those things go.
“Ethnographic and archaeological data from the Mapungubwe landscape show that rainmaking deposits on hilltops, along with burnt grain bins in ordinary villages, represent cultural responses to severe drought by Iron Age agricultural communities. In ordinary villages, burnt granaries were the result of cleansing rituals, rather than violence or natural causes. A total of 13 episodes of severe droughts were previously documented in hilltop and village deposits. New climate proxy data from baobab trees provide a 1000-year-long regional record that helps to refine this drought sequence…”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959683615609753
“The paucity of Southern Hemisphere archeomagnetic data limits the resolution of paleosecular variation models. At the same time, important changes in the modern and historical field, including the recent dipole decay, appear to originate in this region. Here a new directional record from southern Africa is presented from analysis of Iron Age (ca. 425–1550 CE) archeological materials, which extends the regional secular variation curve back to the first millennium. Previous studies have identified a period of rapid directional change between 1225 and ∼1550 CE. The new data allow us to identify an earlier period of relatively rapid change between the sixth and seventh centuries CE. Implications for models of recurrent flux expulsion at the core‐mantle boundary are discussed. In addition, we identify a possible relationship of changes recorded in these African data with archeomagnetic jerks.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076007
“Alexander Wendt is one of the most influential political scientists alive. Here’s his case for taking UFOs seriously.” -VOX
What has happened to science when someone thinks this is a statement of validity? Seriously, “political scientists”. The media are intellectual vampires and the more they feed the dumber society becomes.
So EF M chap I’ve crossed before is a former engineer with thermodynamics training and has now taken the mantle of the dark side.
“Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gas CO2. One of CO2’s properties is it has a reactive band in the 255K range where it absorbs and releases infrared photons in Earth’s black body radiation range. Once released after absorption, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth’s surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water’s surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas that prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon, -18C on the mean. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. 93% of the Earth’s heat gain is being stored in the oceans. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate. That’s the physics behind the science.”
Funny he left out an important part from this. “Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water’s surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation…” Not from a 15 micron or cooler photon it won’t. He even admits its a 255K range and yet thinks that can evaporate water?
Besides wouldn’t reflection happen more than absorption? Unless of course the water is around 255 Kelvin.
“the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets” isn’t this the exact opposite? Warmer temps create more humidity in the atmosphere not the other way around. This guy is A$$ backwards it seems in his so called physics.
“93% of the Earth’s heat gain is being stored in the oceans. ” Sounds like he pulled that science out of his A$$.
“H2O is the primary greenhouse gas that prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon”
Again opposite science. The atmosphere prevents us from having the extreme variations present on our Moon and water vapor helps maintain a lower temperature longer.
That’s all I could find. What did I miss?
Hi Guys. need some help here. What am i missing that is so obvious or is this guy ‘T” now just waffling out crap.
the crux of this is that I have stated that Evapouration and Transpiration are clearly a cooling process. They have claimed that removal of heat via evapouration / transpiration is the removal of latent heat and that is not considered to be the greenhouse effect.
i then asked if two plus thirds of the world is releasing latent heat via water vapour when does water vapour become a greenhouse gas. For which the insults have started on me.
Have I cornered these guys or am I missing something so obvious here that I should be embarrassed.
Here is the original post he posted that le to the current exchange we are having.
…………………………………………………………….
You’re still (I can only assume deliberately at this stage) confusing two different things. Once again, for those in the back: evaporative cooling has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It occurs because of what’s known as the latent heat of evaporation. As anyone who’s ever boiled water knows, it takes energy (and a lot of it) to turn a liquid into a gas.
In any material, the temperature is defined by the average kinetic energy of all its molecules. But of course, the kinetic energy of any given molecule is constantly changing as it jostles around with its neighbours. Some molecules near the surface pick up enough energy to break free entirely and fly off into the great unknown – thatis, they evaporate. But that energy doesn’t come from nowhere – it comes from the surrounding molecules. So a molecule flying off with much greater than the average kinetic energy of the mixture leaves the average kinetic energy of what remains slightly lower.
That’s evaporative cooling in a nutshell. Notice the complete lack of any radiative heat transfer in the mechanism. That’s because it simply doesn’t factor in.
Cricky, this must be about 500 pages worth of comments. Spent just about 4days reading top to bottom. But some very interesting and useful information included, just in diffuse high entropy state… I need looks of work still to distill it back to concentrated state..LOL. Thanks for all the good insights.
But seriously, I have need of a little wisdom. Defeating most of the RGHE hypothesis is easy, but the pseudoscience and sophistry that gets throw at one can be daunting. The GHE mechanism also keeps morphing. The ones I have little difficulty with are: i) GHGs result in Backradiation as Heat to surface; ii) GHGs slowing the rate of Heat Transfer through the atmosphere (insulating) thus “Heating” the surface.
The next other one which comes up often, after the first two above are adequately bashed, is iii) the GHGs increase the average altitude at which effective emission to space occurs, and hence the entire T profile back to surface moves up and the surface warms. I instinctively know this to be bogus, but need some help with good science explanation for why this cannot be the case; and more importantly a simple logical way to rebut this angle confidently. Any good advice..??
@Kev-In-ZA
I have not been confronted with that one personally but I have read those comments on blogs and papers. The one I read “appeared” to be conflating the natural troposphere expansion during the day with evidence of more warming in higher altitudes. The troposphere expands and contracts daily (obviously) so the tropopause moves higher and lower daily, the temps are still freezing above the tropopause.
However, It would be useful to hear the actual comments for the real experts (not me) to better help you. AS Joseph has been stressing on some of the last posts IR is the only means of emissions to space and as far as I understand basically the only means that usually breaks the tropopause (always exceptions to that rule I suppose).
I look forward to a better explanation from the more learned than I. You’re in the right place just be patient 🙂
@Kev-In-ZA
First it is fundamental to note that they HAVE these morphing arguments of changing goal posts. They run it like an encryption algorithm with constantly-changing keys. Once you unlock one key, you are automatically faced with a new key and a new encryption to break. They have three 3 such keys as you have identified, and you are quite well to have identified those as you have: many of us have identified those totally independently. What we have found is that when you even go through all 3 encryption keys…they just start back over at the first one! So you unlock each key, and debunk them, but then they just start over as if you never unlocked and debunked the first one anyway.
So, we can point out that they’re making up definitions of the GHE which are not mutually consistent. But this doesn’t work, because then they use such a statement back-against you and will just insult you for being “too stupid to understand” or whatever. So forget trying to ever get them to be consistent, because *IT IS INCONSISTENCY* where they live and what their strength is and what they depend upon. Inconsistency is their bread and butter.
Thus, don’t go there with them. Don’t engage with their morphing circular encryption algorithm…it is just there to distract you and to wear you down.
So here is the truth, the key which unlocks all of their fake keys: ALL THREE, and any argument they have for a GHE, is predicated on their flat Earth model where the Sun does not heat the Earth or create or sustain Earth’s climate and weather. ALL of their argument are created in order to invent a mechanism where the climate creates itself because it is their position that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create or sustain Earth’s climate, and they are in that position in the first place because their “science” is literally flat Earth theory.
You have seen I assume the AMS video where the peer-reviewer denies that the Sun heats the Earth. So don’t go anywhere else with them, don’t argue down any other avenues they try to bait you into, don’t debate the veracity of their GHE physics or GHE mechanism, etc. Just only keep on repeating to them that their position is that the Sun does not heat the Earth, and they are in this position because their science is flat Earth theory. Make of them and ridicule them for it…as this is the only language they know. Relentlessly ridicule their stupidity of believing that the Sun doesn’t heat the Earth, because they use a flat Earth model at the start of their “science”. Don’t get down any other debates with them. Don’t allow them to try to justify it. Don’t debate the details of why they think that this position of theirs is OK. It is NOT OK. To defend it is itself ridiculous. So when they try to defend that position starting point, which they will, just being it back to the only point you need to make and ridicule them for it. Ridicule them for even attempting to justify their starting point position.
They’ll say “Oh…the Sun DOES heat the Earth as the Sun is the only source of heat. But the GHE makes it hotter.”
That’s an attempt to pretend their starting point is legitimate. What they leave OUT of that statement/defense is that they believe that the Sun only heats Earth to -40C, and the GHE does the rest. The state the very point pretending it is theirs, when in fact it is OURS and it destroys them.
But if you want to know, the point iii) argument you recited above is all about this “tropospheric hotspot” which was predicted…but which does not exist. It was measured for, and it empirically was found to not exist. No tropospheric hot spot = no support for raised emission height argument for the GHE.
@Postma
👍
““If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” Eric Hoffer
Climate ‘science’ has hit the trifecta, simultaneously vague, unintelligible, and unverifiable.””
r/3DogNapt
Joseph,
Does this sum up your equation or would you write it out better?
1361*0.7/5.67e-8)^(1/4)*(integrate sin(x)*(cos(x))^(1/4) from 0 to pi/2
This equation gives 288.027 Kelvin (I’m hjoping that’s right?).
I’m trying to find an easier way to convey your message but enough so they can understand it w/o going into the deeper details. A ‘hook’ if you will that an honest person will ask more about and a troll will disregard in rage and confusion (naturally a hook for those who claim to have a working understanding of physics).
I would also love a less technical version that is brief for those intermediate types such as myself or someone with a year or so of basic physics or at least a hint of understanding the basics.
hoping not hjoping which sounds Norwegian for some reason.
Ummm…not understanding a reference to “your equation”. All averaging of flux is meaningless basically. Real-time forces is what drives physics. Flux is a real-time force. Averaging gets you conservation of energy, but conservation of energy doesn’t get you the physics.
Sorry I forget to those who do equations all day that would be meaningless without some context. Its a shorthand version (I think from Zoe actually) of the average surface temps based on here…
So stupid question does water vapor absorb 15 micron or reflect it? If it does absorb that energy colder than ice what happens to the water vapor and/or why doesn’t it freeze, turn to rain or snow or whatever.
I guess I was of the understanding water vapor only reflects IR of compatible wavelengths not absorbing it which leads me to the next question how could that energy “warm” CO2 in the atmosphere? Or is that the point, it doesn’t warm it which is why it cools the atmosphere?
20200514
Joseph, thanks for that advise, and your arguments certainly resonates as an alternative strategy for dealing with this continual morphing of the argument. Will have to try that some time and see how it goes.
As to the iii) variant of the GHE with GHG creating a supposed “tropospheric hotspot” with a consequent higher overall raise T profile, thanks for that simple empirical rebuttal. I perhaps need to find a good paper reference for the failure to detect the tropospheric hotspot.
As to a theoretical argument against this concept of raising the emission level causing surface warming, not sure if my thinking is correct. But I have always been intrigued by what the effect of supposed “backradiation” would be on the theoretical Adiabatic Lapse Rate. Since Adiabatic Lapse Rate represents a constant Total Energy state with Internal Energy exchanging to Potential Energy with increase in altitude causing a temperature profile with altitude with no need for Conduction Heat Transfer. But if there is significant Radiative Heat transfer either up or down the atmospheric column, this should distort the theoretical Adiabatic Lapse Rate. Obviously, in the lower atmosphere, latent heat effects change the ALR significantly as well, but ignoring this effect, if “backradiation” was “pumping” something like 340W/m2 of real Heat back down the atmospheric column as per the typical Trenberth EEB cartoons, then the dry ALR should increase to well above the -9.8K/1km elevation increase. But this is not something that is observed. Similarly, if significant energy was being “pumped” up the atmospheric column by radiation, but it was being seriously “retarded” in that path due to GHG “trapping”, then it would distort the ALR seriously towards isothermal conditions thus reducing the lapse rate to well below -9.8K/km. So even if the effective emission level was being raised, working back from that higher level but with a lower lapse rate would likely cancel out the “surface warming”. This seems to make sense to me, but then again, my thinking might be junk.
Joseph, btw, I posted this on 2 FB Climate groups as part of sharing some back-to-basics thinking which I think people need to focus on, rather than climate “fact” accounting such as temperature changes and sea-level rise etc. This was also with your “Which One” Round Rotating Earth vs Flat Earth diagram.
I am trying to develop a simple but cogent treatise against CO2 driven AGW which I can then share confidently with family, friends, and colleagues. These are short samples helping the cause and my thinking along the way. Hopefully I still have any of family, friends, and colleagues left after I let it loose.
“Quote”
CO2 Driven AGW – This is W.A.R. – It Wasn’t About Radiation
Act 1 Episode 3 – Artificial Creation of a Conundrum
The CO2 Driven AGW (CDDAGW) hypothesis is based entirely on CO2 causing a radiative greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. This CDDAGW hypothesis needs to be backed right-up to it very foundations, and the critical tenants thereof tested. All else is moot and risks “propagation error”.
Critical to the CDDAGW hypothesis, is the idea that the basic first order Earth Energy Balance wherein Solar Insolation is averaged all at once over the entire surface area of the earth. This stupid averaging assumption leaves the Earth average surface temperature supposedly too cold at about 255K on average (or 231K depending on which erroneous EEB model I reference), and not near the typical average surface temperature of around 290K (16-17C) that we all experience as self evident. This average surface Temperature conundrum leads climate scientists to invoke “Backradiation” from the atmosphere to “warm” the surface by some 33K. To put it mildly, this thinking and reasoning is gibberish and pseudo-science, and is not at all representative of how the Earth’s energy balance works.
The root of the rot in climate pseudoscience thus starts with this averaging of the Solar Insolation (less Albedo) over the full surface area of the earth at once, as in applying about 240W/m2 at ToA. This approach is BS, and everything that follows from this point (other than the simple 1LoT truth that average total energy inbound the earth “Control Volume” should roughly equal the average total energy outbound), should be committed to the dustbin of history along with the CO2 RGHE hypothesis….it was not needed in the first place. It Wasn’t About Radiation after all…!
[Note, before anyone goes into elementary geometry, yes I understand the geometric averaging of the cross-section area of a sphere to the surface area is a ratio of 4. This is not about geometry averaging that I “potentially” don’t follow. If you go down that route, I will treat you as the idiot that you are.]
Climate science needs to do a total reset of itself, with perhaps a realistic first order starting point of true hemispheric Solar Insolation onto a revolving earth, with appropriate heat capacity buffering, and weather cooling systems applied. A total fresh start… The lectures and counter basic-model of Joseph Postma are self evident of the stupid erroneous starting point, and this angle needs to be taken seriously. (climateofsophistry dot com)
“End Quote”
So (in my water vapor musings) unless I am wrong 15 micron doesn’t even possess enough energy to change the temperature of water vapor when it absorbs it. Is that about right? So even in the atmosphere if absorbed by CO2 it does not marginally effect the temperature gradient. However an excited molecule will emit energy as it relaxes, thus cooling in the process.
So I guess the only question left is can a lower energy photon once absorbed knock a molecule out of a higher vibrational state thus cooling that molecule in the process? Or is that part of scattering theory and particle physics that the photon absolutely cannot be absorbed if it is not the same wavelength of the excited molecule which if water vapor is warmer at the time a 13-15 micron will not be absorbed but reflected. Does that also apply to collision?
So yes I think that is true. Water vapor will not absorb a photon of lower energy if vibrating at a higher level.
So in collision I’m guessing its the same higher energy will transfer to lower energy not the other way around.
Glad we had this talk.
It would be nice if I knew the laws/theories/equations that supported this.
@Kev-In-ZA
Good Job! I was compelled to make a similar post as well.
There is a part 2 in the comments.
It’s pretty much the same thing but by a layman. Hopefully for the layman. Yours is a technical level above mine. Feel free to critique! I have thick skin.
Admittedly it is a lot of regurgitation from Postma & friends, but some of it is my own thoughts.
I answered my stupid question myself based on your previous feedback. You really have to keep going back to the fundamentals which trolls strive hard to misdirect you from. Absorption is based frequency/wavelength same for water vapor and IR.
A perfect example of a troll misdirecting you with nonsense not related to your previous conversation. The purpose? Controlling the narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png This graph clearly shows water vapor and CO2 sharing the same 15-micron bandwidth.
You still haven’t answered where that extra 7% in absolute humidity came from.
https://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/atmospheric-moisture-increase
The sun is in a cooling phase, but the temperature continues to rise. Explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
You ignored the missing 1.2 billion years in geological history and the Permian Extinction. Why?
Without the secondary greenhouse gases, the physics simply don’t match geological history.
Still no documentation. A web address maybe?
Sorry brain-dead, after “controlling the narrative” is troll comment which had nothing to do with our previous conversation which was myself giving him the math as to why 15 micron can’t warm the surface up more.
Satellite global temperature took a significant drop in April. So, I dropped in over at Spincer’s blog to enjoy all the whining….
It appears the Moon “debate” is still going on. All the sophistry they have to use to protect the pseudoscience parallels exactly with what they do with the bogus GHE.
It’s fun to watch.
The Moon debate? Is that the gibberish that the reason why we aren’t like the Moon is because of the GHGs???
That argument is almost embarrassing especially if you are an astrophysicist or attended grade school per-indoctrination age. Atmospheres created by gravity was one of the first things I learned about space outside of Earth Science and the Sun’s influence on Earth you know like day and night, condensation and photosynthesis things political climate science teaches against.
Where did anyone in actual science get the idea that the energy transferred from 15 micron photon can evaporate water? Unlike myself, these are from people with acclaimed fields in science and some decades of experience.
Granted I wouldn’t know if someone in science hadn’t of explained it to me but these knuckleheads are suppose to be in the scientific field.
“The Moon debate? Is that the gibberish that the reason why we aren’t like the Moon is because of the GHGs???
That’s another Moon debate, CD. It turns out there are a lot of such debates about the Moon, I think because the Moon is such an embarrassment for NASA and Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
But the particular debate ongoing over at Spincer’s, which I was part of about 3 years ago, is whether or not Moon rotates on its axis, i.e., an imaginary axis through its center of mass. NASA and all of I.P. say “yes”, but it’s so easy to prove them wrong. And the clowns that try to support it get so tangled up in things like angular momentum and orbital motion that it’s hilarious. Just like with the GHE, they try to make up stuff, and then, when exposed, fall flat on their faces! Some even go berserk, making it that much more fun.
“…these knuckleheads are suppose to be in the scientific field.”
The “scientific field” ain’t what it used to be. It has been corrupted by money and politics.
Hmm now that you mention it I just assumed the Moon was tidally locked. That’s why we need to send tech there to see the Dark Side of the Moon which has never been viewed from planet Earth.
…Or so I have been told.
@Geran, correct me if I am misunderstanding, but when you say it is easy to prove the moon “doesn’t rotate on its axis”, are you referring mainly to the nature of it orbital dynamics not being about its centre of mass…? Might be symantics, but surely the moon is rotating once every about 28 days, and by definition, rotation of any object can always be thought of as rotation about its centroid of mass within a translated coordinate system.
My simple understanding of the moon is that it follows an orbit similar to the earth around the sun, but sort of wobbles in and out, and around and about the earth due to a mix of earths and suns gravity controls. Net effect is a weird sine like wave on top of typical earth orbit with moon going around sun every 365.25days and rotating about every 28 earth-days or about 13 revolutions per year (ie 13 moon-days per year). Is that about right roughly..??
CD — Yes, “tidal locking” is the next layer of pseudoscience. They use it to cover up for the fact that we can easily see Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
Kev-In-ZA — There are two motions involved. “Orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
“Orbiting” is the motion of a race car traveling around an oval track. The car is only orbiting. The car is NOT rotating on its axis. Except in a “spinout”. 🙂
“Rotating on its axis” is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
So Moon is orbiting but NOT rotating on its axis. The Earth has an orbit around the Sun, with the Moon orbiting Earth. The Earth ALSO rotates on its axis. The Earth has 2 motions. The Moon only has one.
Again, if you go to wiki, NASA, or many university sites, they all incorrectly describe the Moon as rotating on it axis. Just one big “copy/paste” organization called “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. As CD pointed out, they even try to use the “tidal locking” nonsense to fool the sheep. (Often they also throw is “synchronous rotation”, trying to sound “sciencey”.) The sheep get so confused they can’t discern the conflict: If it is “tidally locked”, then it can NOT rotate on its axis.
It’s not that hard to figure out, even for a beginner. That is what makes it so interesting. Sheep will go to extremes trying to support the pseudoscience and sophistry, rather than thinking for themselves and accepting the obvious. It’s as if they’re afraid to leave the flock—safety in numbers, I guess.
A race car points north, then east, then south, then west, then north again. Moon does same. A race car is “tidally locked” to the centroid of the track, like the moon to earth. In this sense there is rotation about an axis of the respective object. I don’t think that there are any other senses.
Geran, again, maybe we are talking past each other. But the moon is orbiting as well as rotating. Even a race car on a track has rotated once at the end of a lap either clockwise or anti-clockwsie looking downwards. Now the one side of the moon always faces earth, unless one is on LSD and has seen the “Dark Side of the Moon”. At full moon, the side facing the earth is illuminated while about 14days later the side facing the earth is dark at new-moon, and so on… The moon has about 13 lunar days and nights per year, and hence is rotating about 13 times per year. Unless you are applying extreme symantics, the moon rotates as well as orbits (but with a complex orbit path)
”In this sense there is rotation about an axis of the respective object.”
But the “rotation” (orbiting) would be relative to the centroid of the track, not the centroid of the race car. The race car is not rotating about its own centroid.
”Even a race car on a track has rotated once at the end of a lap…”
But that is not rotation about its center of mass, Kev. That is a “perception”, from observing outside the track. The perception is due to the car turning 360 degrees. A “turn” is due to outside forces changing the direction of the object, just as gravity turns an orbiting body. You are suggesting that an orbiting body must always be rotating on its axis, which is not correct. An orbiting body may or may not be also rotating on its axis. If rotating, bodies may have different rates of rotation. There is no connection between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”. They are completely seperate, independent motions.
Again, rotation on an axis is clearly defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
The only thing I want to know is can you see both sides of the Moon from Earth at some point? Every full Moon where I’m at looks exactly the same (USA-NE) or is it that when its fully visible from where I am at its always the same side of the Moon? I always wanted to know if their was a significant difference on each side of the Moon or if that was just science fiction/pop science.
Geran, yes and no, no and yes. The moon has angular momentum in the solar system coordinate system. Therefore the moon is rotating. The moon therefore has 3 “influences”: 1st – rotation around the sun every about 365 days; 2nd – rotation around the earth every about 28 days. But nothing in this orbital dynamics required the “rabbit” one the moon to always point at the earth. So the 3rd -rotation is around the moons centroid. Otherwise we would only see the “rabbit” side pointing at earth 13-times a year, not all year.
You none rotating analogy for the moon to the racing car would have the racing car reversing at 300mph down the back straight…and so you are wrong that the moon doesn’t rotate.
So more from my new troll EM F a near 70 year old engineer who is either nuts or paid off. You be the judge? Again I don’t see how 15 micron can evaporate water? This is only have of the reply. He gave me a long winded list of links that are “proof”. He seems a waste of time really, he’s been to your site, Joseph. For sure a troll. I think you banned him.
Troll:
“Matter can only absorb electromagnetic energy at its own resonance frequency.
CO2 and water vapor both absorb and release at 15 microns. Here is your graph which you seemed to ignore last time.
Unless relative humidity is at saturation, that is the amount of IR in the environment has maximized the water vapor, evaporation will always occur. If the amount of latency heat decreases, condensation will occur.
Me:
“”Natural” Evaporation is mostly from the Sun (some geothermal) whose photons are a much higher/frequency than 15 microns.”
Troll:
Refer to the graph. Again, how do you think a 46% increase in CO2 and a 7% increase in absolute humidity occurred at the same time? Magic? Interstellar gamma rays? It is the secondary greenhouse gases that block infrared photons from escaping into outer space, which causes the global temperature to rise causing evaporation which further increases the global temperature. As temperature rises, absolute humidity increases, but relative humidity decreases. This is called a positive feedback. That additional temperature also prevents the oceans from releasing its heat. Additional CO2 is entering into the oceans, also creating an additional barrier, preventing heat from escaping into the troposphere. That additional ocean heat is burrowing underneath the Antarctic ice shelves accelerating the glaciers into the oceans, raising sea levels. Much of our infrastructure is on the coasts. We are going to erect seawalls worldwide? Is there any evidence of these claims? I’ve been collecting a bit as I’ve been reading.
CD — Earth only “sees” one side of Moon. That’s why we know it is NOT rotating on its axis.
Kev — Sorry, I don’t speak ZA. Could you translate that into my feeble English?
CD — You’ve got another floundering fish on the line. I especially liked his statement: ”Additional CO2 is entering into the oceans, also creating an additional barrier, preventing heat from escaping into the troposphere. That additional ocean heat is burrowing underneath the Antarctic ice shelves accelerating the glaciers into the oceans, raising sea levels.”
That’s a keeper! (And, it’s in English.)
Troll:
“Matter can only absorb electromagnetic energy at its own resonance frequency.
CO2 and water vapor both absorb and release at 15 microns. Here is your graph which you seemed to ignore last time.”
Yet once again he ignored (chose to) that 15 micron energy cannot evaporate water.
Energy transferred from a 15 micron photon, is what I meant.
Geran, because we only see one side of the moon, we know that it must be rotating. You are confusing orbit around the earth with rotation about the moons axis. Both must occur for you to only see one side of the moon permanently. Think of a car going around a circular track without rotating around its own axis….! It would have to keep pointing in the same direction as it started all the way around the track, right? And that is just wrong. So the car is orbiting the race track while also continually rotating about sits centroid. The moon does the same thing with each lunar cycle.
Initially it was of course the Moon does not rotate. But Yes I see your point now Kev in ZA. Rotating to maintain one hemisphere of the Moon continually facing us. I.e tidally locked.
Kev. if you believe “because we only see one side of the moon, we know that it must be rotating”then I probably can’t help you.
Go in peace.
just out of curiosity what range of micron (energy) can evaporate water? As it stands, KE is the primary reason for evaporation inst it, especially in the oceans well that and direct sunlight.
Jopo, what is Moon’s angular momentum about its COG, since you are so sure it is “tidally locked”?
Don’t keep us waiting.
”
More from my troll:
Me:
” the second part is just pop culture science and pure drivel.”
Troll:
If you think the second part is pop culture, you will never put the pieces together. Physics is just physics. It either works or it doesn’t. In my world, it all works every time. Plugin the numbers and go. If something wasn’t correct, don’t you think the hundreds of thousands of engineers in this world would spot it? Nothing and I mean nothing is going to sneak past that many smart men. There are guys out there that are scary smart.
Me:
“CO2 never been this high before pure bs.”
Troll:
Who told you that? During the Permian extinction, CO2 levels were increasing at the same basic rate as today, but it lasted for 10,000 years.
The sun is considerably hotter now. A Permian event today would sterilize the planet.
I don’t know why you think the models don’t work. Try being an engineer without one. They work every time without exception. The technology today is so advanced, it’s insane. Supercomputers do the heavy lifting. You honestly think anything is going to get by all those people with all that technology? You are what, one guy amongst a few others with bad ideas that don’t work?
Me:
“I will agree our atmosphere is like a blanket and the key word is like, it delays warmth from leaving it does not prevent it.”
Troll:
No one said that. Compared to absolute zero, the change is absolutely minute. That one-degree change is .347%. It’s all it takes to get out of the ideal temperature range. Clearly, you’ve made up your mind without going through all the overwhelming evidence. You’re wasting your time and mine if you refuse to learn the science.
So now I’m think I’m getting the troll’s claims, he is saying that a 15 micron photon is hitting the oceans and causing more evaporation which is warming the planet up more…
This is from an acclaimed retired 63 year old engineer.
Geran, have a look at this perhaps https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Is that not rotating around an axis?
Yes it is…
Lol
Thank boomie789, a picture speaks a thousand words, and a meme drums it home.
Thanks Kev-In-ZA
Good video. Claims the reason the moon is tidally locked is because of the center of gravity is lower(closer to earth) than the center of mass. Which makes sense to me.
Gravity is pulling on the near-side harder than the far-side, aligning the moon.
Interesting video. Geran’s argument in tatters. I wonder what causes the offset centroid of mass to “tide lock” the moon. Could be the moon froze as a bit of an oval shape (like the ocean tide bulges) thus having 2 forcing points that could tide lock the moon to either hemisphere of the moon. Or it could be that the iron core of the moon froze a little offset or bulged relative the the rest of the lunar sphere thus causing the bias to one hemisphere if offset mass at high density…
“Bosons are particles which have integer spin and which therefore are not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle like the half-integer spin fermions. The energy distribution of bosons is described by Bose-Einstein statistics. The wavefunction which describes a collection of bosons must be symmetric with respect to the exchange of identical particles, while the wavefunction for a collection of fermions is antisymmetric.
At low temperatures, bosons can behave very differently than fermions because an unlimited number of them can collect into the same energy state.” -HyperPhjysics
So was I right that the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to bosons? (Right or wrong?)
So photons most certainly can “pile up” at lower energy without an increase in temperature its not only in quantum mechanics it has been the base of boson research for decades. However not at higher energy which doesn’t matter as Joseph said earlier, higher temps have more photons and higher energy photons they simply go together.
Which is funny because the climate trolls on purpose (I think) mixes up more energy with higher energy.
Now at higher energy do bosons behave like fermions and is the PEP at that point applicable or is it still irreverent because fermions still have half-integer spin and bosons integer spin or am I still not reaching down far enough at the molecular level?
Again as always, thank you.
CD, you’re correct in both. Photons do not obey the PEP, and more photons does not necessary mean higher temperature.
Kev, I started explaining the Moon nonsense by stating:
“Again, if you go to wiki, NASA, or many university sites, they all incorrectly describe the Moon as rotating on it axis. Just one big “copy/paste” organization called “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. As CD pointed out, they even try to use the “tidal locking” nonsense to fool the sheep. (Often they also throw is “synchronous rotation”, trying to sound “sciencey”.) The sheep get so confused they can’t discern the conflict: If it is “tidally locked”, then it can NOT rotate on its axis.”
So finding computer “models” doesn’t prove anything. The simple example of the race car is what you must face. It’s called “reality”. If you want to believe the race car is “rotating on its centroid”, that’s fine. But beliefs are not science. And to protect your beliefs, you must discard the definitions of both “orbital motion” and “rotating on an axis”.
But, at least you’re with the consensus. 🙂
Here’s a simple thought experiment to debunk the “tidal locking” nonsense, for those interested:
A heavy bar is orbiting Earth. The bar is parallel (tangent) to Earth’s surface. There are weights at each end of the bar. One is 10 times the mass of the other. The orbital period around Earth is “T”.
How many orbits until the heavier end has “tidally locked” to Earth (meaning the bar is then perpendicular to the tangent)?
Answer later.
Geran. You are trying my patience for being civil. But I have a suspicion that you are a thought experiment for testing the true mettle of climate alarm deniers. Sort of, to toughen them up for the sophistry nonsense out there from “warmers” and “alarmists”…
But seriously, the earth must be rotating on its axis otherwise the same side of the moon would not be facing earth continuously. You are trying to conflate the concept of the rotation (orbit) about the earth as an explanation for explaining the orbit and presentation of the same face of the moon towards the earth.
If the earth had no angular momentum in the solar coordinate system, then for practical purposes a point on the moon which points towards the North Star Polaris would continue to remain under the North Star. For practical purposes, everything else about the moon’s orbit would remain the same around the earth and the sun. The “Track”stays the same. But the moon is not rotating per the assumption of no angular momentum. But then we would at times see all sides of the moon.
Your confusion is to say that if something orbits around a virtual point like the centre of the earth (like a ball on a string tied to a pole with the string side of the ball always facing the pole), then that object is not rotating as well as orbiting. You are being sophistric….
A free orbiting earth has no “requirement” to keep the “preferred” side facing the earth, but if it does, then there is concurrent orbit and rotation. And because the same side always faces earth so perfectly, it is almost guaranteed to be tide locked rather than just a freak of nature.
End of lecture. If still not convinced, we can start the computer method of input. You punch it in…
Kev, it is not me that is trying your patience. You’re getting frustrated because you can’t change reality.
Again, here are the clear explanations of both “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”:
“Orbiting” is the motion of a race car traveling around an oval track. The car is only orbiting. The car is NOT rotating on its axis. Except in a “spinout”.
“Rotating on its axis” is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
So Moon is orbiting but NOT rotating on its axis. The Earth has an orbit around the Sun, with the Moon orbiting Earth. The Earth also rotates on its axis. The Earth has 2 motions. The Moon only has one.
The explanations aren’t changing. It’s called “reality”.
And, don’t miss the thought experiment that debunks “tidal locking”:
Tossing around buzzwords like “tidal locking”, without any understanding, is a technique used in sophistry. If you’re an expert in “tidal locking”, give us an answer to the simple problem. If you don’t have a clue about “tidal locking”, quit trying to use the buzzword to support your other false beliefs.
@Geran
If the earth was removed from the equation, then the moon would shoot off and stop rotating around its axis.
But compared to the earth and sun, if the sun was removed from the equation, the earth would shoot off but still rotate around its axis.
So the moons rotation is not independent therefore is not actually rotating around its axis.
Am I close to understanding what you are trying to say?
Pretty close, boomie. Very good!
If somehow released from Earth’s gravity, Moon would still NOT be rotating on its axis.
If somehow released from Sun’s gravity, Earth would still be rotating on its axis.
You seem to get it, but your concluding statement is slightly wrong. Here’s what you may have meant: “Moon’s rotation IS independent of orbital motion, therefore it is not actually rotating around it axis.
Boomie789, don’t be misled that easily. Per typical Newtonian physics, once momentum is acquired, some form of “action” will be required to change that momentum or it will carry on indefinitely (but with slight trend to tide lock to the sun given whatever tide mechanism locked it to the earth). The moon has a lot of angular momentum. So if the earth were suddenly taken out of the equation, the moon would carry on rotating about its centroid at about 13 revolutions per year while its orbit around the sun would continue roughly the same, as that orbit is largely defined by the relative sun gravity and the relative orbital speed around the sun. The prior wobble/orbit around the earth might cause the moon to drop to a lower orbit or climb to a higher solar orbit depending on from where and when it is “liberated” from the earth gravity effect.
BTW, the wiki link is more for fixed kinematic and dynamics more appropriate for mechanisms and engineering, not orbital mechanics. So, per that definition, even the earth rotation is not about a fixed axis, because the earth’s axis is moving in the solar system coordinate system, and is also precessing and wobbling over time. But some of those basics still apply. That was stuff I learnt in 2nd yr engineering some 30yrs ago.
A key aspect of 3D coordinate mechanics is that there are 6 totally independent degrees of freedom (DOFs) wherein kinematics and dynamics need to be honoured at all times. Orbital dynamics can be fully described in the translational DOFs (typically ordinates labelled x,y,z for cartesian cord system, but could also be described in other coordinate systems). Whereas, true rotation can only be described by invoking the rotational DOFs. Rotation must have an axis of rotation, and that axis must be described in the translational DOFs. But in orbital mechanics and axis can and almost always is in a moving coordinate frame (aka orbit) and very likely has wobble as well. Coordinate geometry also allows displacement and super-positions to be applied under certain conditions and following appropriate rules. But almost always, a “floating” body will rotate about an axis passing through it Centroid of Interia
This is getting silly now. The moon rotates about an axis through its centroid about once every 28days in addition to all the complex orbital stuff.
Geran, note, I don’t claim to understand or be able to explain the idea of “tide locking”. However, it is self evident that the moon rotates and orbits in a strangely conincidental way such that one hemisphere, and only one hemisphere is visible from earth. Very likely a mechanism like “tide locking” at play rather than just pure coincidence don’t you think. I’m sure someone smarter than me has figured that out already. I just haven’t gone a looking.
@Kev-In-ZA
“So if the earth were suddenly taken out of the equation, the moon would carry on rotating about its centroid at about 13 revolutions per year while its orbit around the sun would continue roughly the same”
That is not how it works in my head. Once the gravity well is gone, the planets shoot off.
I don’t think angular momentum works like that with gravity wells in space.
The gravity well for the tidal lock is gone as well.
Take the sun, earth and everything else out besides the moon. Now what happens?
It will shoot off in a straight line yes? The line through space-time is now straight. All the gravity wells applying force(curving space-time) are gone.
like this lol.
@boomie789, on a solar system level, we are still well within the realms of conventional Newtonian mechanics. No need to be thinking about curving space-time and realitivity stuff. The key is nothing changes without a force (action), so without a gravity field the orbital path and the translational DOFs will instantly “dissolve” and the object will continue on a tangent to the orbit and becomes a straight line in space. (Obviously, in the universe, there will always be some other celestial body.) But the rotational kinematics (spinning/rotating about the 3 ortogonal possible axis through the centroid of inertia of the body) will continue indefinitely unless affected by actions.
”This is getting silly now.
Kev, it is beyond “silly”. It is hilarious!
Your comments are getting longer as you attempt to pervert the simple explanations of “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. Boomie gets it, but you are unable.
Let’s make it even more fun.
Take the rotating sphere graphic shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Install a switch so that the rotating can be started/adjusted/stopped. Next, mount the sphere on the top of the race car. With the switch turned off, have the race car make a lap, as you observe from the center. Notice you see only one side of the sphere. The sphere is NOT rotating even though the car is orbiting.
Now, turn the sphere on, so that it rotates on its axis. Have the race car make another lap. Notice the sphere is spinning. Now, adjust the speed of the sphere rotation, trying to make it appear as if it were not spinning, to an observer inside the track. You can NOT do that. You can NOT make it appear it is not spinning, if it is spinning.
But, I suspect you will continue to avoid reality. That’s why this is so hilarious.
I see you have retreated from your knowledge of “tidal locking”. Now you are admitting you don’t have a clue. You tried to fake it, but you got caught. “Faking it” is not engineering. Sorry.
Geran, fuck off with this moon bullshit. Not the place here.
Ah well. Geran if you where a little more humble we might have gotten to the bottom of it. Leave the belittling for the alarmist.
Anyway thanks for playing guys.
No problem, Joseph. I’ll go.
I noticed you didn’t attempt to answer the “tidal locking” question. Reality is a bitch, as they say.
Thanks for the fun.
@Geran & Kev-In-ZA
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Earth-disappeared-would-the-Moon-still-rotate-around-its-axis-every-28-days
Ill just leave this here. Can follow me over if you like.
@Boomie789, your first simple diagram painted the picture as self evident that the moon does indeed rotate. You should soon get a clear enough explanation for why it will continue to rotate at quota.
@Geran, i like your ball on the car roof analogy. But your mistake is to NOT think of it as on a zero fiction mag-lev bearing and also with the air removed (vacuum of space) for the first case. Now think what the ball will do.
But we are wasting comment inches on crap. Out from me on this angle.
Anyone else on this site a physicist besides Joseph? If not where in the world are they? Have they all been paid off or just too busy for blogs. Seriously Joseph, you have to have a least one physicist who isn’t nuts besides you? Just one somewhere? Anyone in particle physics should know this CO2 warming crap is bollocks besides the obvious errors in the models.
As my wife has stated who deals with this stuff on a world scale, “we now live in a strange world.”
People are becoming more like zombies, the Walking Dead. They speak, they talk like people but nothing exists behind the facade of the life like eyes.
CD Marshall, have you read Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009 and their Reply to Comments 2010..? There are other serious scientists out there, just few and far between. I think most are already so brow-beaten by the alarmist lobby and afraid to speak-up least their reputations be ruined by mud-slinging, that they don’t bother to go there…
Click to access 0707.1161.pdf
Click to access 1012.0421.pdf
One of my elder brothers is an Emeritus Professor in a hardcore science field with multiple publications in Nature and Science including several features on the cover of Nature. I am tempted to try and drag him into this debate me having changed from a skeptical “luke-warmer” to a rabid CO2 driven AGW denier in the last 1-2months… Will see, but I suspect he will run scared given the reputational risks involved.
Wow I love that characterization CD. And the most dead of all are our scientists.
Yeah, it is shocking and disturbing absolutely. I’ve talked face to face with physicists at work about this and their faces just glaze over. The subtlety of what should be obvious just cannot interface with their minds. They in fact act like they are artificial intelligences, unable to actually change or self-reflect on their programming. They’re just not there!
And then, well you know what the AMS said: the sun doesn’t heat the Earth.
If this is what our education system produces…then behind the facade is an empty intelligence. It made us smart phones to monitor us 24/7…but that’s it. There’s no intellect behind it, no philosophy, no acquisition of any absolute knowledge or reasoning ability, etc. It’s all just dead behind the facade.
“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.”
― Plutarch
“The Remembers”. They are really good at remembering, not so much actually thinking.
The worst is when they are told to remember a new thing, contradictory to the last, and the new thing is just as valid. Evident in this plandemic.
CD Marshall, have you read Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009 and their Reply to Comments 2010..? There are other serious scientists out there, just few and far between. However, I think most are already so brow-beaten by the alarmist lobby and afraid to speak-up least their reputations be ruined by mud-slinging, that they don’t bother to go there…
Links to G&T 2009 and 2010
https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0421
@Kev-In-ZA
Yes I have read,
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2…” by G&T
“Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Woods 1909 experiment…” By Nasif S. Nahle
“Reply to comment…” By G&T
Plus N&Z but as I understand they still hold on to Flat Earth Physics
I have talked to very few on “our side” and they all respond pretty much in the same manner, not wanting to venture out of their area of expertise or comment outside of their immediate profession…
So yes they are locked out out and smeared if they dare denounce the Greenhouse Gas Effect as it has been created in the political media.
I noticed even Naomi Sebt always comments on not taking anyone’s side, she reads the science for herself and comes to her own conclusions based on the facts presented but refuses to comment on what those conclusions are.
Which is why it really offsets me when I hear idiots make these comments like, overwhelming evidence, don’t you think someone would have blown the whistle by now if it weren’t true, scientific community, endless scientific proof, the experts say and so forth well knowing they destroy anyone who dares.
Honestly I’m surprised no one has told Joseph to shut up about it at his work by now or threaten to fire him. News people, even meteorologists, have been fired for speaking out against global warming or even questioning it.
Then you have traitors like RS who go on the Rush Limbaugh show and pretend he is a martyr for the cause of justice and truth while Joseph can only get on whatever he can and barely make a dent in the opposition.
I hear the meteorologist for Sean Hannity is brilliant and retired and openly disputes global warming, to what extent I don’t know.
@Kev-In-ZA Yes I’ve read them. I’ve spoken to some on the right side of science but they don’t want to venture out of their “immediate areas of expertise” and comment which is obviously because they can’t w/o the repercussions.
If you want to watch a movie which makes you feel right at home with this insanity watch “The Signal” 2014 don’t let the slow first half fool you it goes right into WTF after that.
If you liked Dark City you’ll like the Signal.
If you can’t win throw in the feminist card: Great stuff!
https://allthatsinteresting.com/eunice-foote
@CD Marshall, I seem to be in twitter 140 word limited mode. I can’t post proper paragraphs.
@CD Marshall, One of my elder brothers is an emeritus professor in a hardcore science field with multiple publications in Nature and Science including several features on the cover of Nature for his teams work. I am tempted to try and drag him into this debate having changed from a skeptical “luke-warmer” to a rabid CO2 driven AGW denier in the last 1-2months… Will have to see, but I suspect he will run scared given the reputational risks involved.
I work mostly with seasoned engineers who are somewhat receptive (most of us being curious, cynical and skeptical bastards at heart), and also several geologists who are a mixed bag (most with good deep time perspective and climate evolution knowledge, but usually lacking critical thinking skill in physics). One of the PhD geochem’s in our team was the one that got me going on my focused climate knowledge journey after a bit of a spat we had over the Mann vs Ball (and Steyn) case where I pointed out the possible fraud of “over-cooking” the earth by the likes of Mann and his Hockey Stick nonsense (remember, I was a “luke-warmer” at the time). She should have known better from the geology perspective about MWP, RWP, LIA, etc. But no, too clever PhD geochemist, insulted me, questioned my intelligence, and threw the IPCC SfPM at me to help educate me…whahaaaa. What a joke. And the more I looked, the more pseudo-science and GIGO processing (modelling; surface temperature anomoly; sea-level rise) I found. So here I am, a rabid CO2 driven AGW denier looking for insights and arguments to defeat this madness!
@CD Marshall, One of my elder brothers is an Emeritus Professor in a hardcore science field with multiple publications in Nature and Science including several features on the cover of Nature for his teams work. I am tempted to try and drag him into this debate having changed from a skeptical “luke-warmer” to a rabid CO2 driven AGW denier in the last 1-2months… Will have to see, but I suspect he will run scared given the reputational risks involved.
I work mostly with seasoned engineers who are somewhat receptive (most of us being curious, cynical and skeptical bastards at heart), and also several geologists who are a mixed bag (most with good deep time perspective and climate evolution knowledge, but usually lacking critical thinking skill in physics). One of the PhD geochem’s in our team was the one that got me going on my focused climate knowledge journey after a bit of a spat we had over the Mann vs Ball (and Steyn) case where I pointed out the possible fraud of “over-cooking” the earth by the likes of Mann and his Hockey Stick nonsense (remember, I was a “luke-warmer” at the time). She should have known better from the geology perspective about MWP, RWP, LIA, etc. But no, too clever PhD geochemist, insulted me, questioned my intelligence, and threw the IPCC SfPM at me to help educate me…whahaaaa. What a joke. And the more I looked, the more pseudo-science and GIGO processing (modelling; surface temperature anomoly; sea-level rise) I found. So here I am, a rabid CO2 driven AGW denier looking for insights and arguments to defeat this madness!
How in the crap do I write the The Bose-Einstein Distribution equation out on a normal keyboard?
f (E) = 1/EkT
Where do I show the Ae and -1?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/disbe.html#c2
Joseph E Postma says:
2020/05/17 at 1:17 PM
Geran, fuck off with this moon bullshit. Not the place here.
‘Bout time
So microwaves work by Dielectric heating. That explains a lot. Thanks TL Winslow wherever you might be. I was focusing on the gravitron part of the process not the end result. A+B = C (The full picture).
That is why the sophists make you look at only A or B or C not the whole picture. .
You can use that as an exercise which part are they focusing on in the subject, A-B-C and figure the part they are keeping you away from is where you need to head them off and kill the argument.
Anytime you get close to the truth they redirect from one point to another. If B is what exposes the fraud then they will redirect you to A or C and skip B.
Clever bastards.
Good stuff and a little closer to myself understanding the particle physics disproof of CAGW…Joseph if only you two could connect anomalously.
https://www.iceagenow.info/debunking-the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
July 1, 2019 at 6:16 pm
…Anyone wishing to use the text above, feel free. I choose to remain pseudonymous simply because I don’t want the snowflake rage-mob’s ire directed my way. I’m not looking for credit, I’m looking to kill CAGW before the whackos who believe in CAGW destroy our way of life via deindustrialization and carbon taxation…
“The only way our planet can shed heat is via radiative transmission of energy to space. N2 and O2 (the two largest constituents of the atmosphere) are homonuclear diatomic molecules, so they have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot effectively emit (nor absorb) infrared, and thus cannot shed energy to space. CO2 has been shown to cool the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere and the thermosphere (studies below). Indeed, CO2 is the largest contributor to upper atmosphere cooling. Without CO2, the planet would heat up due to a reduced ability to radiate energy to space. If the upper atmosphere cannot cool via CO2 radiative emission to space, the air below would not be able to convect upward, thus quickly warming the entirety of the atmosphere. Thus CO2 acts as a cooling gas, not a ‘heat-trapping’ gas. More CO2 will cause more radiative emission to space, thus the upper atmosphere will cool more, thus tropospheric air can convect more easily, thus cooling the troposphere more effectively.”
Almost my own words!
@CD
“How in the crap do I write the The Bose-Einstein Distribution equation out on a normal keyboard?”
Enter it as an equation in a word processor or spreadsheet and then convert to image to get this-
Thanks Rosco but alas YT won’t let me do that (I don’t think?)
To All:
Does the Bose-Einstein Distribution apply to the stacking of low level photons w/o increasing energy or does it have to be in conjunction with other equations/formulas or does it not apply at all.
After reading some of LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks comments I gave you Joseph I had a moment of clarity (??? or insanity).
This graph everyone is having so much trouble with that shows the bite out of CO2 what if the truth is the exact opposite? That bite shows how much CO2 cools the atmosphere at that point, not blocking or re-directing it as such.
Don’t forget C02 is arguably the molecule of life.
More C02=More Plants
They pump it into greenhouses.
Even the crabs and fish do better with more C02 in the air.
Patrick Moore brings up that before human industrialization the C02 levels were dropping to the level were all plant life will die.
Almost as if Gaia spurred us to rescue her. (Patrick says something like this)
Exactly that boomie! This is a mission to save life on Earth! Detailing this in my new book.
Actually Boomie regional CO2 levels were very high in the 1800s-1960s they rose and dipped dramatically. Another lie the IPCC has told and sold to the public.
Callendar truncated the readings to fit his objective as did Keeling, IPCC and so on.
@CD Marshall
I don’t know what you are refrenceing off hand.
I’m sure the global average could go below 150ppm c02 and still have regions multitudes higher in C02 concentration.
Higher global average C02 correlates with a greener earth, yes?
That average actually means something pertinent to reality.
@Postma
Also best wishes for your book.
I’ll buy it.
More Co2 is good Boomie, yes I concur. Just the IPCC claim “never been this high before” is an absolute lie, it has been higher in regional calculations anyway up to around 550 ppm as recently as the 1800s some tested by world class chemists of their time.
Congrats on your book Joseph, I’m so poor I can’t afford a free thought. Else I’d had bought and read all of your books by now and well my pc crashed completely, that was not fun to fix. Took two weeks to get all the parts I needed because of the Covid-19 garbage and three days to build and restore it after that.
But now that is over maybe I can buy a few 🙂 Do you have them on pdf downloads? I’d actually prefer that to paperbacks.
@CD
Ah yes ok I understand.
6$ on amazon for “The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History”
Really short read. 2 hrs. You can read it in your browser.
“This graph everyone is having so much trouble with that shows the bite out of CO2 what if the truth is the exact opposite? ”
There is nothing complicated about the graph.
It shows that satellites record distinctly lower radiation numbers in the bands coinciding with the CO2 absorption band centred around 666 wavenumber or ~15 microns.
The coincidence with peak emissions in wavenumber is meaningless – in a wavelength plot it does not coincide with peak emissions YET both are right so forget about this.
No matter what domain is chosen for the radiation emissions the values plotted in Planck’s equation are exactly the same for comparable wavenumber or wavelength – they have to be due to the mathematical transformation from one to the other,
What contradicts climate alarmists is the fact that the radiation recorded by satellites is consistent with a really low temperature – between 220 and 230 Kelvin.
This fact destroyed the claim that back radiation heats the surface and the hypothesis morphed into “radiation trapping” reduces Earth’s heat losses. Unfortunately this unequivocally translates to the fact that only an external forcing is causing warming and the only candidate is the Sun.
As for the Moon nonsense consider a car on a circular track as proposed. Initially the car is in the north/south orientation in the east and travels anticlockwise. When it reaches north it is oriented west/east, when it reaches west it is oriented south/north when it reaches south it is orientated east/west and back to north/south orientation in the east.
Like the Moon the same side (left hand) of the car always faces the centre of the circle.
This motion is exactly the same as the car rotating about its central axis in exact coincidence with an orbit around the centre.
If it didn’t every side of the car would face the centre of the circle and we know that doesn’t happen with the Moon.
Thus, because the dark side of the Moon NEVER faces Earth the ONLY mechanism whereby this can occur is if the Moon rotates once about its axis in coincidence with one orbit of Earth.
Anything else is simply not possible no matter what crackpot ideas people invent.
Thanks Rosco but what is the difference between wavelength and the reciprocal of wavelength? Never heard that phrase before in that context.
You know I read some very old posts on here and Rosco and geran have been with you a long time Joseph, a very long time. Such support is hard to come by I’m sure you have quite a few long term supporters who just don’t comment on here as much. What can I say I’m a Blabbermouth. Most people don’t want to sound stupid but how else are you going to learn?
The gift of the educated is to raise others up to their level and become smarter for it, the ‘gift’ of the arrogant/ignorant is to be just smart enough not to realize how stupid they actually are.
And then you have the middle where most of us reside.
Geran’s a big boy…anyone intelligent knows they can comment here…unless/until they pull a Zoe/Spencer/Cotton/Latour that is…lol.
Er sorry “us” as in me not “us” as in you. Obviously you are on the upper tier of intelligent. Cotton and Latour? Never heard of them or maybe I did ?
Wavenumber and wavelength are reciprocal.
A wavelength of 1 micron is equivalent to 10,000 wave crests in a centimetre or 1 million in a metre obviously.
“The wavelength is given the symbol λ, and the wavenumber is given the symbol k.
k = 1 ÷ λ
The wavenumber has units of 1/distance, or distance−1. For wavelengths expressed in meters, this is m−1, and if the wavelength is expressed in cm, the units of the wavenumber are cm−1.”
You only need to keep units consistent – the conversion between microns and cm^-1 is 10,000.
The argument proposed previously that frequency and wavenumber are the same thing is totally spurious.
It may seem that the number of crests in a given distance and the number of crests passing a given point are the same but this argument falls apart when one considers standing waves.
Clearly a standing wave has wavenumber and wavelength but it has no frequency as defined in SI units – it is a standing wave.
The argument that the NASA graph is fake as proposed on PSI by Geraint Hughes and supported by geran on that site is just wrong and all the arguments made there and here display a lack of basic understanding of the maths and the physics.
That’s my claim – no-one should ever try to debunk pseudoscience with even more ludicrous pseudoscience.
@Kev-In-ZA Happy to have you with us. I need all the education anyone is willing to give me and help with The little bit I know.
@Rosco If you have the time can you contrast what you explained to this (I’m learning)…
Also, CO2 has no magnetic dipole in a relaxed state, thus IR does not cause the vibrational sequence it is only IR active after stretching into a higher vibrational state . I find that amusing for some reason. Did I read somewhere that if a molecule isn’t IR active its Raleigh active?
What causes CO2 to activate into a higher vibrational state? N2 collision or just atmospheric collision in general?
If that’s the case then N2 activates CO2 and they work off of each other to quickly shed energy off of N2 and cool it faster by emitting that IR mainly to space. So more CO2 would cause N2 to actually cool faster? Since the effective emission of CO2 ( in a radiating blackbody is already in the open window to space.)
Somewhere I read without IR gases convection would not be possible. If that is how I read it that does not seem to be true. Conduction leads to convection and convection transfers IR once heated to to other molecules. A non magnetic dipole molecule will still transfer IR in the form of KE to another molecule which IS transferring IR even though it is not emitting.
Basically and this is back to ground 0 with your original points, Joseph, the atmosphere is heated during the day by the Sun to the surface, which is 100% with evidence of the troposphere expanding during Solar-surface activity.
So the question is w/o “emitting” IR molecules would that IR ever get to space?
Rosco (A Rosco anyway):
“Our atmosphere is not heated to any significant degree by radiation.
As one realizes that and accepts that conduction between heated surfaces and air and convection of that heated air is the primary method of heating the atmosphere the rest of the unproven hypothesis makes no sense at all.
If anything adding more IR active gases should cause a faster cooling rate due to increased radiation of IR to space.” Which is Joseph’s thoughts exactly.
That explains one of my questions.
If this is true it answers a few more ofmy questions.
More from LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Radiation transmitted by the atmosphere
Adapted from image at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
“You’ll note the immediately-above two paragraphs describe the energy flow from vibrationally-excited N2 to CO2, which then emits at either 9.6 microns or 10.6 microns, both of which are in the Atmospheric Infrared Window. Thus this radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space…
Remember, N2 is a homonuclear diatomic, thus it has no net magnetic dipole, and thus it cannot emit (nor absorb) infrared radiation. So once it is vibrationally excited, its vibrational states are metastable and relatively long-lived… much longer-lived than the average emission time of CO2. Thus CO2 will emit radiation and break Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, whereupon there are more N2 molecules waiting to excite it again. Thus energy must flow from N2 to CO2, just as it does in a CO2 laser.
The Equipartition Theorem states that energy is shared equally amongst all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system… in this case it means that just as much energy flows from CO2 vibrational mode quantum states to O2 or N2 molecule translational energy as flows from O2 or N2 molecule translational energy to CO2 vibrational mode quantum states (barring violation of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions via radiative emission… and in this instance, CO2 is the only molecule which can radiatively emit, so net energy must flow from N2 to CO2)… in other words, at best it’s a wash and therefore CO2 cannot cause atmospheric warming… which is why, despite years of looking, scientists haven’t been able to find the mid-tropospheric ‘hotspot’ their models predicted.”
I’m missing a graph up there somewhere…
This is part of a Troll’s reply to me. Be sure and read the supporting link, https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/21/intelligent-materials-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ it’s great.
“The warming is because the longer wave back radiation is IN ADDITION to the incoming shorter radiation from the sun. To work out if an object is warming from incident radiation, you have to include all the sources of radiation incident on the object. See “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th edition”, Incropera and DeWitt (2007)
A reproduction of the page is provided here: https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/21/intelligent-materials-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
This also covers in detail the myth propagated by many that the longer wavelengths cannot have any effect on the temperature of a body and they somehow magically must disappear (which breaks the 1st law of Thermodynamics – something the myth propagators can never account for). Radiant energy from a colder body CAN have an EFFECT on a warmer body (again you must consider all incident energy to calculate NETT energy loss for the object i.e. warming or cooling). This is easy to prove in a lab and is in thermodynamics text books the world over. You state: “The real greenhouse effect is a cooling mechanism for our atmosphere not a warming one. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar, fraud or a fool and sometimes all three. ” With stable greenhouse gas concentrations, the planet will neither cool nor warm. If you increase their concentrations, the greenhouse effect will be enhanced and the planet will warm, and if you reduce their concentrations, the planet will cool. The greenhouse effect is not a “cooling mechanism” at all but it does interfere with outgoing radiation (and outgoing radiation would indeed cool our planet if the sun was turned off)”
READ the
Anyone having trouble with disqus?
@CD Marshall
It always comes back to adding cold to hot.
Perpetual motion machine reply maybe.
“IN ADDITION” nope, that would be creating energy from nothing.
LOL I sent him a re-education in the laws of thermodynamics just to piss him off because anyone responding this way is an idiot on purpose. Especially since he claimed, “I have already did a couple of years of undergraduate Physics at University and managed to pass the Thermodynamics unit…”
This was my reply:
I had a more informative reply but I’m cutting that out for it does seem its above your level of understanding after reading the absurd article you showed me. I’m concerned about your fundamental understanding of thermodynamics.
Heat, Energy and Temperature although closely connected are not the exact same thing.
Energy moves from body to body, even multiple bodies, to form thermal equilibrium in all bodies connecting to each other. Heat is a product of hot to cold on a macro or micro level.
All laws must be considered in the concept of Thermodynamics.
1st Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.
The change in eternal energy of a system
is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system.
Delta U=Q-W (work done by the system)
Delta U=Q+W (work done on a system)
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Entropy and disorder
• 100% energy cannot be transformed to work
• entropy can be produced but never destroyed
Kelvin & Planck
“No (heat) engine whose working fluid undergoes a cycle can absorb heat from a single reservoir, deliver an equivalent amount of work, and deliver no other effect”
Clausius
“No machine whose working fluid undergoes a cycle can absorb heat from one system, reject heat to another system and produce no other effect”
Both statements of the Second Law constrain the First Law of Thermodynamics by identifying that energy goes downhill.
The Second Law is concerned with Entropy (S) which is produced by all processes and associated with the loss of ability to do work. The Second Law states that the entropy of the universe increases.
For energy to be available there must be a region with high energy level and a region with low energy level. Useful work must be derived from the energy that flows from the high level to the low level.
Delta S=Q/T
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
If two systems are at thermal equilibrium with a third system then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
So I’m putting this at the bottom to see if you bothered to read it.
If you make it pass this you should know (again) Energy, Temperature and Heat are NOT the same thing. Heat is a form of energy in transit, all heat is energy but not all energy is heat. Any system can change energy without a change in temperature. (That longer wave radiation can’t increase the emissions of shorter wave radiation concept).
CO2 is not adding new energy to the system it is radiating or reflecting energy already in the system. At its peak of 15 microns that energy isn’t doing anything to the atmosphere or the surface because low energy bosons (in this case a photon that can transfer 0.0827 eV/ equal to a blackbody emitting at 193.2 Kelvin/-79.97 Celsius will not make or maintain warmer temperatures anywhere on planet Earth.
You see low level energy bosons can stack indefinitely without increasing temperature. Photons are particles with frequency-dependent energy and anything re-directed by CO2 are line spectrum not source, therefore they cannot increase temperature anything above its radiating frequency (naturally when the energy is transferred to a compatible object).
^That is good. I even understand better now.
@CD Marshall, The stuff on CO2 bumping along the bottom at about 180ppm was a very interesting angle I picked up from Patrick Moore. He pointed out that before the Cambrian explosion about 500m.yr ago, CO2 was very high. Plant and marine life then began a grand process of to sequestrated much of that CO2 in both organic (fossil fuel) as well as inorganic (limestone and dolomite) forms locked away from ready use. Organic carbon is more easily released back to the atmosphere, while inorganic is very difficult to release again. It must either be eroded and dissolved/denatured; or go through a tectonic subduction and come out a rim volcano. We also know that plant life starts suffering at about 180ppm and most won’t survive at 100ppm. Hence, life on earth has pull the CO2 down to a basal level at which it sort-of bumps along the bottom in a balance between supply and demand.
So to ease the earth derth of CO2, we should not only burn fossil fuels (organic, green and recycled from the carboniferous period) as well as making lots of cement by coking limestone…LOL.
@George, I had major problems posting around about 19th-22nd hence strange double and truncated posts FWIW
@CD, great thermodynamics summary which anyone debating these topics should know and try to stick to, especially, Internal Energy, Work, and Energy with Temperature related to Internal Energy as a key additional point.
One semantics correction. Leave eternal energy for the AGW alarmists, and replace with Internal Energy (U). Eternal energy is one they need and might understand. “eternal energy is the energy that CO2 creates to warm the earth”…LOL
Ha that’s a funny typo and could catch. I also used transit instead of transient, which is also semantics but could be room for an argument.
Nice talk CD. I think I may have actually absorbed some of that.
I’m sorry CD but I can’t agree with this:-
“CO2 is not adding new energy to the system it is radiating or reflecting energy already in the system. At its peak of 15 microns that energy isn’t doing anything to the atmosphere or the surface because low energy bosons (in this case a photon that can transfer 0.0827 eV/ equal to a blackbody emitting at 193.2 Kelvin/-79.97 Celsius will not make or maintain warmer temperatures anywhere on planet Earth.”
I agree with the “not adding new energy to the system” completely but you have gone down the same rabbit hole many others have by assuming CO2 cannot absorb or emit at any temperature by mistakenly applying Wien’s law.
The peak emissions of the Blackbody curve for 193.2 K coinciding with the CO2 absorption/emission band of ~15 micron is not relevant at all.
The claim that emissions in the 15 micron band coincide with low temperatures is wrong.
Consider this plot of Planck curves :-
In the 303 Kelvin Plot – the red curve – the value of power density at 15 micron is ~21.5 versus ~33 for the peak.
Therefore there are significant emissions at the wavelength CO2 absorbs and emits at and the quoted peak emission temperature of 193.2 Kelvin is totally irrelevant.
Surely CO2 at 303 Kelvin is capable of emitting radiation at the levels in the 303 Kelvin curve – IF blackbody laws apply to gases ?
Roscoe,
The peak emission claimed is at 15 micron. Of course it can emit at different WL according to its vibrational state which if I understand correctly it can’t achieve without other molecules transferring energy to knock it up to a higher state such as N2 and O2 in particular. Yes gas is not a black body either as I understand it but it is radiating from the blackbody of the surface so it can be calculated if I’m following this correctly with my advanced year and a half of physics (ha ha).
The math done by LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks shows a large spectrum of emissions…but as far as I can tell it all pretty much emits in the open window of IR to space. The 15 micron is what the climate clowns claim is going back to the Earth and warming it up more or staying in the atmosphere and warming it up or whatever version they are doing this week.
So yes it has to emit at different wl to shed more heat to outer space.
“You’ll note the immediately-above two paragraphs describe the energy flow from vibrationally-excited N2 to CO2, which then emits at either 9.6 microns or 10.6 microns, both of which are in the Atmospheric Infrared Window. Thus this radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space…
Remember, N2 is a homonuclear diatomic, thus it has no net magnetic dipole, and thus it cannot emit (nor absorb) infrared radiation. So once it is vibrationally excited, its vibrational states are metastable and relatively long-lived… much longer-lived than the average emission time of CO2. Thus CO2 will emit radiation and break Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, whereupon there are more N2 molecules waiting to excite it again. Thus energy must flow from N2 to CO2, just as it does in a CO2 laser.
The Equipartition Theorem states that energy is shared equally amongst all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system… in this case it means that just as much energy flows from CO2 vibrational mode quantum states to O2 or N2 molecule translational energy as flows from O2 or N2 molecule translational energy to CO2 vibrational mode quantum states (barring violation of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions via radiative emission… and in this instance, CO2 is the only molecule which can radiatively emit, so net energy must flow from N2 to CO2)… in other words, at best it’s a wash and therefore CO2 cannot cause atmospheric warming… .”
Do you agree or disagree with this analysis?
Rosco not Roscoe, sorry I do that for some reason in my head.
Firstly, I find claims that molecules such as N2 and O2, which have no magnetic dipole, cannot emit infrared radiation confusing. Surely blackbody theory and application is based on the premise that Planck quantified that all bodies emit radiation in accordance with their temperature and N2 and O2 in ambient environments are at a temperature where mid/far infrared radiation is the characteristic ?
If true then one of the fundamental principles of electromagnetic radiation is wrong in certain cases.
I believe our understanding is nowhere near the level that people can go around spruiking as if they are infallible – no implied criticism because I am as half baked as anyone.
Secondly, I find no evidence that CO2 emits at the wavelengths cited – “either 9.6 microns or 10.6 microns”. I presume that excited N2 collide with CO2 thus transferring energy which CO2 emits at the cited wavelengths ?
I would certainly read any evidence citing this in ambient conditions. Lasers have no bearing on emissions at ambient conditions.
As far as I can ascertain CO2 has 3 emission bands coincident with its absorption bands.
This CO2 absorption graph comes from https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#Top
As is evident the transmission at 9 – 10 microns is 100% – 0% absorption – so I fail to understand how any measurement of emissions is available for the wavelengths cited.
But CO2 apparently only emits at the wavelengths of absorption – I am simply saying at those wavelengths there is a lot of radiative emissions at ambient temperatures at 15 micron.
Surely CO2 at 30°C isn’t emitting radiation at minus 80°C.
I’m digesting your comments BUT I was under the original impression that once heated all molecules emit IR. So yes that has confused me recently since the consensus seems to be they don’t emit.
Sorry to ramble on but
Using the concept that the energy of a photon is h.c / lambda then longer wavelength photons have lower energy.
Using Einstein’s postulate for the photoelectric effect that electrons get all of the photons energy or none lead to his formulation of the stop function whereby a threshold energy level is required to break an electron’s bond and an infinite amount of less energetic photons will never achieve this.
Thus I believe that an infinite amount of low energy photons can never increase the temperature of an object already emitting higher energy photons than the incident “stream” – thermodynamics “stop” function equivalence.
I fail to see, as was suggested previously, that the photoelectric effect is not a variation of heat.
It is an energy transfer, it is strictly due to a hotter objects radiation. Heat can flow without causing a temperature increase even though it is the most common effect – phase change, viscosity etc.
Also Bohr’s evidence for quantum energy levels in electron orbits seems to have no place in climate science.
The radiant energy from a 30°C object can melt ice but it requires the really high energy from very high temperatures to cause an electron to leave its orbit but this doesn’t matter ?
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”
Why should I argue ? Climate scientists are arrogant fuckwits if they truly believe their “science is settled” nonsense.
Joseph, feel free to intervene anytime you feel like it and correct me so I don’t get cocky 😦 🙂
Rosco,
I had this well explained and the site bumped me now I have to try and start over.
If I have my crash course in particle physics correct…
The peak absorption of CO2 is at 15 microns. The peak emission is between 9 and 10 microns at a temperature range of 254-303 Kelvin. CO2 can’t reach that peak emission without “stealing” energy from hotter molecules like O2 and N2.
Since the atmosphere is not a blackbody it is not a source of temperature and all re-directed IR from CO2 is line spectrum only thus even at 10 microns would not change the surface temperature. Thermodynamics, a line spectrum can only at 100% proficiency maintain the temperature it reflected in the first place and only at its radiative spectrum frequency.
Since CO2 once vibrating emits IR it essentially cools homonuclear diatomic molecules off faster that can’t shed IR off via emission. None magnetic dipole molecules of course radiate EM once heated, and can cool off but that takes longer without being able to emit (shed off that IR). Essentially like Joseph has explained, magnetic dipole molecules cool the atmosphere off faster by “stealing” energy from higher energy emitting molecules and re-radiating that energy at the speed of light which none IR molecules cannot do.
The main course of the climate clown sophistry is claiming IR is the main source of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere and it is not. If we had no IR active molecules in the atmosphere 100% of IR emitting from the surface would go to space unhindered BUT the bulk of the heat-energy created via conduction/convection/advection would remain heated much longer and not be converted to IR by IR active gases and emitted to space. So the only way it could be emitted is to return that energy to the surface via auto compression and emit as low level IR taking much longer to shed off the heat from the Earth as far as the Troposphere is concerned.
However overall the planet would be much hotter for we’d have nearly no protection from the more harmful rays bombarded on us through solar storms and the heat would be unbearable and I’d imagine droughts all year round. Granted the atmosphere makes CO2 via solar storms but it would not be enough to protect us.
CD
The absorption bands of CO2 are centred around 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. At ambient temperatures the amount of energy absorbed in the 2.7 and 4.3 bands is insignificant. However there is substanatial energy in the solar radiation at these bands.
Why can’t CO2 at 303 K emit IR ? Referring to the Planck curve a few quotes above there is plenty of energy in the 15 micron bandwidth.
As far as I know I have never seen any emission graphs for any gas at ambient temperatures – it is impossible to measure emissions from CO2 or other gases at ambient temperatures – only empirical graphs are based on absorption and transmission, not emissions.
Does CO2 emit IR at any other wavelengths other than its absorption bands ? Hell, I don’t know.
Why isn’t the atmosphere a source of temperature ?
The air temperature can reach over 30°C here at night after the sun has set when we get tropical air coming from the north – I think the air is the source of that temperature.
Of course infra-red radiation, other than the Sun’s IR, is not a major source of atmospheric heating – the proportion of IR active gases is too insignificant and their absorption properties, excepting water vapour, too narrow to play any major part.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/ssys.html
“All of the planets and moons in our solar system emit strongly in the infrared. This infrared emission is the heat from atmospheres and surfaces which peaks in the mid to far infrared (15 to 100 microns). Solar system objects also reflect infrared radiation from the Sun. This reflected radiation peaks in the near infrared at about 0.5 microns. The study of the infrared radiation from solar system objects has given us much information about their composition.”
Now the so called gas giants have totally insignificant amounts of “greenhouse gases” and their atmosphere’s are so thick the IR emitted MUST be coming from the atmospheres !
I repeat – “All of the planets and moons in our solar system emit strongly in the infrared.”
Greenhouse gas theory is gobbledygook !
Rosco,
You said, “Why isn’t the atmosphere a source of temperature?”
I’m not following your point on the last comment. Hope this answers your questions…
I’m going to quote Joseph on that one,
“the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.”
What this means is that the thermal radiation emitted by the atmosphere is a consequence of the atmosphere having a temperature…NOT the cause of the atmosphere having a temperature. Think of the distinction here, the logic. It is CRUCIAL! What they are saying is of course consistent with physics – something which has a temperature will emit thermal radiation…that’s the Planck’s Law, etc. What the alarmists have done, as with everything else, is REVERSE things, so that they claim that the radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the cause of the atmosphere having a temperature, and thus can cause for itself higher temperature by emitting into itself. You see what they’ve done? Because they start with the first initial premise of reversing output for input as I’ve been discussing….then everything else that follows likewise becomes inverted and made backwards.
The thermal radiation emitted from the air is a consequence of it having a temperature ; it is not the cause of the atmosphere having a temperature . The cause of the atmosphere’s temperature came first, and then, the atmosphere can emit since it was given some temperature. So what’s the true cause? Of course the Sun and solar heat, and the lapse rate etc. -JP
Ya know I just thought of something funny. According to particle physics (and thermodynamics) if what the Climate Clowns were saying about CO2 were true and it was NOT counted as the same energy in the system, but new energy and IF it were more energy than already in the system it would at its wavelength/frequency reduce the ambient temperature of the Earth.
Hows that for irony.
This is the incoherent reply I received from an old scientist after thoroughly explaining atmospheric thermodynamics to him.
“Nice copy paste but you make a rookie error. Heat energy is unidirectional from warm to cool. Heat energy requires mass. Visible light and IR energy is EM and bidirectional – all bodies radiate. There is no heat in a vacuum. Radiation from the Earth’s surface encounters GHGs within a very short distance. This energy is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically with 50% returning to the surface of the earth. The returned energy is absorbed and has to be re-emitted which causes the surface of the planet to warm to stay in S_B equilibrium with space. With the energy being trapped close to the surface less energy escapes to space. To be in equilibrium with space the surface has to warm to emit the back radiation – this is the GHE without which the surface of the planet would be 33 K lower temperature. Humans are increasing the GHE by increasing nGHGs from burning fossil fuels, cement manufacture, land disturbance and flaring. The nGHG warming causes WV to enter the atmosphere as rapid secondary feedback – this acts like a GHG and amplifies the warming causing more warming.”
Lol sorry this was my reply…
“I thoroughly explained heat-energy and you glazed right over it making the rest of your explanation obsolete.
On the macro…Energy moves from body to body, even multiple bodies, to form thermal equilibrium in all bodies connecting to each other. Heat is a product of hot to cold on a macro or micro level. All laws must be considered in the concept of Thermodynamics.
Energy, Temperature and Heat are NOT the same thing. Heat is a form of energy in transit, all heat is energy but not all energy is heat. Any system can change energy without a change in temperature. (That longer wave radiation can’t increase the emissions of shorter wave radiation concept).
CO2 is not adding new energy to the system it is radiating or reflecting energy already in the system. At its peak of 15 microns that energy isn’t doing anything to the atmosphere or the surface because low energy bosons (in this case a photon that can transfer 0.0827 eV/ equal to a blackbody emitting at 193.2 Kelvin/-79.97 Celsius) will not make or maintain warmer temperatures anywhere on planet Earth.
As I stated, low level energy bosons can stack indefinitely without increasing temperature. Photons are particles with frequency-dependent energy and anything re-directed by CO2 are line spectrum not a source; therefore they cannot increase temperature anything above its radiating frequency (naturally when the energy is transferred to a compatible object).
The surface is mainly heated by the Sun not the atmosphere.
atmosphere.”
Good one CD.
Another guy saying radiative heat transfer doesn’t obey the laws of thermodynamics.
In other words, adding cold to hot.
Postma says
“Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
Also from hot to cold.”
More gold from this “old dog” global warming shill…
“The science part of the IPCC report which is the most important is apolitical. IPCC is a review board founded by WMO – World Meteorological Organization – a scientific body under the auspices of the UN. Politicians can’t assess the science – that is done by climate science experts from many countries. The distilled science from published peer reviewed scientific papers and official governmental reports from a wide spectrum of agencies is open for everyone to read and it is fully cited to the underlying science.
Your adiabatic claptrap is pure nonsense. In the polar regions the adiabatic lapse rate increases with altitude. The energy transfers of the Earth-atmosphere system are in equilibrium. On a global scale and over a time period of several days and more this assumption is valid, and is adequate for an understanding of the causes of climate change, however, the real world is more complex than this.
If energy fluxes are calculated for different areas around the globe, one finds that between about 40°N and 35°S the incoming solar radiation is greater than the outgoing terrestrial radiation. Elsewhere (i.e. nearer the poles), there is a net radiation deficit, that is, more radiation is lost than received (Trewartha & Horn, 1980). To restore equilibrium to this balance a meridional interchange of heat exists from the tropics to the poles (read up on Hadley cells). If this energy transfer did not occur, the equator would be 14°C warmer on average than now, whilst the North Pole would be 25°C colder (Barry & Chorley, 1992). This latitudinal transfer of energy occurs in several ways, involving the movement of sensible heat (convection processes caused by heating, rising and dispersion of surface air), latent heat (evapotranspiration processes involving evaporation of water vapor from the oceans and transpiration from land plants) and ocean currents.
As well as this movement of heat energy, there are other transfers that occur and must be balanced according to thermodynamic and physical principles. These include the transfer and balance of mass, momentum, and moisture. The movement of heat involves the movement of air (sensible heat), and moisture or water vapor (evapotranspiration). If a packet of air moves from the equator to the poles, this air must be replaced by colder air returning from the poles, having released its heat. In other words, the fluxes of air masses at specific locations around the Earth must be in equilibrium. By similar reasoning, both moisture and momentum fluxes must balance. This picture is further complicated by the rotation of the Earth, which introduces a Coriolis Force on the moving atmosphere, and the axial tilt of the Earth, which affects the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation. Persistent perturbations in the balance of insolation (incoming solar radiation ) reaching Earth’s surface and outgoing long-wave radiation can lead to substantial climate change. Nevertheless, relating climate variations to radiative perturbations is not straightforward due to the inherent noise of the system caused by large temporal (seasonal to decadal) and spatial variability of the climatic response.”
Scientists are not qualified just as much as politicians aren’t! Lol. Refer to my AMS video findings etc.
The IPCC and AMS think that the Sun doesn’t heat the earth. Real experts!!!
His “sophistry” is the unspoken fact that the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium and never will be in thermal equilibrium which is why we have constant changes in temperatures. He mixed the Earth’s energy budget up with atmospheric thermal equilibrium and I’m guessing he did that on purpose.
In short he is again equating energy with heat.
Wtf is that guy going on about? All that to say the earth is warmer than it should be or something?
The earth is the temperature its supposed to be! It’s not trapping more energy than escaping, building extra energy up. Raising the temperature. I think that’s what he is saying?
How can it be in disequilibrium? How does something get out of thermodynamic equilibrium? You think C02 does that?
Lol.
All those big words and he is retarded.
Funny stuff CD
Ok I get it “never will be in equilibrium”.
I was thinking of that word differently.
He probably is a purposeful liar
Boomie if the Earth was in thermal equilibrium it would be isothermic, much like Venus.
@CD Marshall
Can you extrapolate? If you’re in the mood.
I think that means thermally independent.
Just means the temperatures remain a constant or nearly a constant at all times, day and night.
aaahh ok. ty.
Boomie,
Sorry Isothermal is the more common phrase I see little difference between the two as a noob.
Isothermal: means a system remains at constant temperature. dT=0/dU=0.
Isothermic: the temperature remains a constant.
In physics (?) Isothermic means “durring which a temperature remains a constant” and in meteorology, it means having equal or constant pressure at (and this part I find a little confusing) in regards to space,pressure or volume.
So does the isothermal process create an isothermic atmosphere or is the isothermic atmopshere what creates the isothermal process?
Either way, it may be better to say isothermal.
Hyperphysics link…
O yea. I should have looked in that resource.
Ty.
I just looked it up and Thermic means “heat” and iso means “the same” could not be more cut and dry could it?
Isosceles triangle. Makes sense.
Hi guys,
Hoping you can help out here. Am I factually correct in the main part. is my argument circular logic. Although I cannot see how it is.
Or better still can you see what my argument is?
My argument is that the application of the SB LAW via a ratio to Earths Surface temperature and emissions temperature in two different scenarios returns a correct answer as per the SB LAW.
Which chart below best represents the SB LAW?
Being
1. Assuming that Earth is on AVERAGE THERMAL emissions of 390W/M2 or
Earths emission zone (grey body) coincidentally is Back Radiating at is 390W/M2
Which graphic looks plausible?
Oh shoot the wrong charts altogether. my apologies. I will do again
OK here is the correct charts.
……………………….
Hoping you can help out here. Is my argument circular logic or not?.
So as per Holmes logic is his paper as per below I use the ratio of temperature from two different pressure levels and apply the SB LAW factor of ^4 to the ratio. J=sbT4 or T4=J/sb
Holmes paper ……On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance and the Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies
My argument is that the application of the SB LAW to a ratio to Earths Surface temperature and emissions temperature in two different scenarios returns a correct answer either way as per the SB LAW in BOTH scenarios. The questions is which SCENARIO best reflects the SB LAW
The Grey / white body or the Back / Grey Body?
.
Which chart below best represents the SB LAW?
Being
1. Assuming that Earth is on AVERAGE THERMAL emissions of 390W/M2 or
Earths emission zone (grey body) coincidentally is Back Radiating at is 390W/M2
Which graphic looks plausible?
@Jopo
You’re appear to be confusing work on/in a system from energy input and output. Temperature of the surface is irrelevant in the Conservation of Energy, that’s the adiabatic lapse rate, gravity and work in other words those are results of work being done/to on that energy in the system.
The input average is 960 W/m^2 using Joseph’s model that’s for half of a sphere, 480 W/m^2.
The output is emissions for the whole planet, thus 240 W/m^2. The temperature exhaust of the Earth as seen from space is -18C so it lines up.
Have you seen this video?
Good answer CD Marshall.
Reminds me of a guy telling me that -18C isn’t the average surface temperature, 15C is.
240w/m^2(-18c) is the earth’s RE-EMITION of the sun’s input energy.
By taking the 960w/m^2 solar flux at the equator and dividing by four.
But it gets even weirder when you think about dividing/multiplying an area and somehow that also multiplys/divides the flux. Robert Kernodle points that out in pictures way up in the comments.
RK is one o many gifted minds on this site.
As Joseph has pointed out so many times, they use the real exhaust for the planet, 240 W/m^2 as the input. Energy is mainly distributed in real time at the Equator, feeding the Hadley Cell which this main energy moves out to the other cells (Ferrel and Polar).
Oh gawd. what was that I did last night. Too much good stuff.
Some of the stuff in their is wrong and irellevant to what I was seeking as per below anyway.
So I shall clear this up a bit..
I not for one second accept that even 390 W/M2 can drive our climate. It is because of Josephs work that I have become a lot more confident at looking outside the box from others.
What I was asking was if my approach had circular logic to it if I was to put forward to an opposing person.. My line was that there assertions on climate would be more valid if they reversed the ghg 390W/M2 feedback and assume that the Earths surface emissions were 390W/M2 and not 390W/M2 feedback from the atmosphere. My thoughts were that were that I then just apply the Power is proportional to T^4 between Surface and emissions temp. Thus how could ghg’s be a factor. However I now relaise that the argument is circular. The ghg feedback would be argued to be inbuilt into the ratio. As is the adiabatic process. So my thoughts are flawed.
LOL Boomie. you always put up funny shit.
You can still the the funny math I did adding kelvins or something together somewhere in these comments. CD Marshall had to show me how to use the Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/stefan-boltzmann-law
I must have gained 10 IQ points since I started following this.
ty