Just a friendly discussion covering a few topics, the main one of which being the fraud of climate science and its flat Earth theory foundations.
Categories
-
Join 499 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- J Cuttance on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Rober on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Nepal on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
Climate of Sophistry 
Joseph,
A Tour de Force.
Congratulations.
10 mins in, the interviewer is a bit of plank
excellent interview! i think it might be worth explaining for a little bit how the climate works because i can imagine an alarmist pointing to you saying ” there is no greenhouse effect” as a straw man. Wrongly implying that you don’t concede that the earth is warmer than a without atmosphere earth. It would be great to have a few minute long real climate science 101 for the msm layperson
@wineknowitnothing I do actually discuss that in my last video a little bit – here, time indexed (19:37):
The surface is both warmer and cooler with an atmosphere, but the system as a whole is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. By day the atmosphere keeps the surface much cooler, and at night the atmosphere is simply a large mass which radiates poorly and hence retains temperature longer. Also latent heat is released at night which prevents temperature drop. As a whole, the average temperature of the atmosphere is exactly what it is supposed to be, and the bottom of the atmosphere is also exactly what it should be, with no greenhouse effect.
Time index doesn’t work on embed. Go to 19:37.
Good video and a good start.
On point, this is what I got from a moron,
“”This energy is already in the system”. No, the sun keeps adding energy to the system, thus energy is building up.
The end.””
This is my template for the reply any suggestions, proper science terms I can change or edit…
“Since when does the Sun shine on the entire planet 24 hours a day?
As stated previously, the troposphere expands when being heated and contracts when being cooled. Cooling, Pinocchio, means it’s not warming.
Now I’ll explain this once more and you’ll not get it three times over.
The Sun’s energy contribution ends on the planet when that part of the surface is no longer being irradiated by direct sunlight, the Earth converts solar energy to terrestrial (energy) emissions, everything coming off the Earth is terrestrial converted solar energy not direct solar energy. When the cooling effects of night happens, that is no longer solar energy that is terrestrial conversion of that energy. Thus, not new energy in the system.”
Seems like I over complicated the reply but dealing with these clowns wording is everything.
That’s the thing about thermodynamics…heat cannot flow into a system which is at the same temperature, and so, you can’t just “build up” energy because as soon as you put it in it starts leaking back out. Eventually it will leak back out as fast as you put it in, and that’s the best that you can do.
It makes no sense to have a model where the solar input is 1/4 strength. In no scenario does this make sense. This is neither an average, nor real-time. Matter responds to the impulse of power…that means the power received, not 1/4 of the power received.
Oh and regarding the C19, my wife’s family had quite a few cases over int he West, nearly half a dozen to a dozen of her family has “contracted” C19 all of them recovered without a vaccine.
Hi Wineknowitnothing,
You said:
“I think it might be worth explaining for a little bit how the climate works because i can imagine an alarmist pointing to you saying ” there is no greenhouse effect” as a straw man. Wrongly implying that you don’t concede that the earth is warmer than a without atmosphere earth.”
You make a good point, and so here are my comments:
1. Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes.
2. Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No.
3. Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes.
4. Do greenhouse gases heat the planet? No.
5. Is flat earth theory correct? No.
6. Does the Sun create the climate? Yes.
As you can see the whole subject is littered with a veritable warren of rabbit holes, which is why Joe calls his blog the Climate of Sophistry.
Joe as an experienced scientist is very keen to make clear the fundamental differences between Energy, Temperature and Heat.
Here is my take on the matter as a retired professional geoscientist with a 1970s degree in Environmental Science and 50 years of learning about this subject.
Work Done (Energy) is measured in Joules and is defined as Force times Distance Moved.
Kinetic Energy is energy of motion, and in the case of the vibrational motion of particles or the movement of molecules in a gas, it is this motion that we customarily call temperature.
Heat, and this is fundamental to the arguments being made, is the difference in temperature between two bodies and is therefore a boundary phenomenon and is also transitory.
Energy can exist in many forms, not all of which are detectable as temperature. For example, Latent Heat and Potential Energy are both forms of energy storage within the structure of matter that do not have any thermal signature.
So why do I say that there is a greenhouse effect? Well, it is a matter of definition.
All rotating planets collect solar energy on one side only, but they almost all emit thermal radiant energy back to space from both sides (tidally locked vacuum planets are a special and exceptional category). The Vacuum Planet (VP) equation was devised by astronomers as a way of calculating the thermal emission temperature of a planet when seen from space.
The equation makes a number of assumptions and uses the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship between kinetic energy (temperature) and thermal radiation. When applied to vacuum planets or low-pressure planets, (Mars for example), everything is fine, however when applied to planets such as Earth or Venus that have an atmosphere with a surface pressure of above 100 hPa (mbar), and that possess a troposphere (weather layer) then everything breaks down. The average annual surface temperature of the Earth is 288 Kelvin; however, its calculated VP temperature is 255 Kelvin. This measured and calculated difference in temperature of 33 Kelvin is the Earth’s greenhouse effect.
So, what causes the difference in value between the thermal radiant exit temperature of the Earth that the VP equation calculates and the average surface temperature? To answer this, we need to understand the two fundamental layers of the Earth’s atmosphere that are involved, these are the surface high-pressure troposphere (the weather sphere) and above it the low-pressure stratosphere (the layered sphere). The boundary between these is the tropopause and it is a low temperature region with values of around 220 Kelvin.
Now the troposphere has a high thermal radiant opacity, due to the presence of polyatomic molecules such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, that because they have modes of vibrational flexure can impede the passage of thermal radiation. The stratosphere by contrast is transparent to thermal radiation and is dry of water.
Next, we must understand that in the troposphere temperature falls as altitude increases, whereas in the stratosphere the temperature rises as altitude increases, so the temperature profile for the Earth’s atmosphere has a wishbone shape. This means that at an altitude of 50 km above the surface, at the stratopause, the low-pressure air has a temperature of 260 Kelvin.
So, what causes the high temperature at the base of the atmosphere? Quite simply its weight. Compress a mass of air and it heats up. Now of course that heated air will immediately start to cool by radiative energy loss to space, particularly through what is called the surface radiant by-pass window. But each day, every day and for eons the surface of the Earth is warmed by the daily passage of the sun, the climate maker. It is the Sun that warms the Earth and every day maintains the energy flow into and through the atmosphere creating our weather and seasonal climates.
So, what about the role of thermal radiant opacity? Does that not heat the Earth? No cold above cannot heat hot below. So, opacity delays cooling then? Perhaps but how is the warmth the opacity is impeding created in the first place? This is where the role of air mass-movement and adiabatic auto-compression in the massive troposphere becomes the only plausible and physically correct explanation for the high temperatures we experience at the Earth’s surface.
Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection.]
Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection. The gas doesn’t matter, only that it is not convecting. See next:]
Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes. [NO! This is completely a misnomer. We just say that gas cannot convect, not that it is a greenhouse gas, or gas inside a greenhouse, etc.]
Do greenhouse gases heat the planet? No. [Check]
Is flat earth theory correct? No. [Check]
Does the Sun create the climate? Yes. [Check]
Kickstarting a hypothetical frozen earth with 0.6 albedo and no atmosphere is quite easy with realtime input of our sun distance. With no surface pressure ice evaporates to vapor at 200 Kelvin (-73 Celcius) according to this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water
“Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection.]
Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection. The gas doesn’t matter, only that it is not convecting. See next:]
Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes. [NO! This is completely a misnomer. We just say that gas cannot convect, not that it is a greenhouse gas, or gas inside a greenhouse, etc.]”
Joe, it is a matter of sophistry,
There is a clear difference in temperature between the thermal emission temperature that the VP equation calculates and the average surface temperature of the Earth.
Is there a poly-atomic molecular gas that impedes the passage of thermal radiation through the atmosphere by increasing its opacity? Yes.
In order to talk their language we are forced to use their terms , but we clearly need to redefine the concepts in away that removes sophistry from the discussion.
As someone with a whopping two years of none science research,
Greenhouse gases aren’t greenhouse gases, they are simply gases with a dipole moment that intercepts specific IR wavelengths and re-radiates them. They do not stop convection and they do not stop the flow of “heat” thus they do not trap heat for they do not prevent convection.
After being heated, they no longer intercept the IR anyway, KE transfer takes over and at that point until they return to a relaxed state they are simply emitters of KE and converting Kinetic to IR energy. As stated due to their specific energy capacity, re-radiates thermal energy in the atmosphere faster than N2 and O2 can set to a relaxed state, meaning they take some of the thermal energy from warmer atmospheric gases (with larger thermal energy capacity) and help those gases to cool faster.
Consensus uses circular reasoning that doesn’t stand the logistics of quantum mechanics science.
Good one CD!
Another really good interview Joe. I wish we could get stuff like this into the msm but I suppose that would be to much honesty for them. You touched on the idea that it is either or, I now use that as my main argument with other lay people. It’s amazing when you ask them if they think the sun or co2 heat the earth they nearly always say the sun. I think the problem is that the general public believe that it must heat the earth at least a little bit,surely they wouldn’t tell that big of a lie.
Have a great day
Barry
Cheers Barry!
Every mainstream manual or textbook in climate science I have read claims the Sun heats the earth
as its foundation BUT as if they are all in “disconnect” then go on to say ghgs warm the earth greater than the Sun!
And they all show the flat earth physics energy diagrams.
It’s amazing dissonance, so blatant and obvious…!
Joe,
An incredible number of people get hung up on this issue of thermal radiant opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is a massive stumbling block. If we go back to Joseph Fourier then we find that he was very impressed by the experiments in the Alps made by De Saussure in 1774 when detailed measurements were made of the heating capability of the solar radiant flame using a heliothennometer.
“Fourier compared the heating of the atmosphere to the action of an instrument called a heliothennometer. This instrument, designed and used in scientific mountaineering in the 1760s by Horace Benedict de Saussure, consisted of a small wooden box lined with a layer of black cork. Sunlight entered the box through a window covered with three panes of glass separated by air spaces. This arrangement served to magnify the heating effect of the Sun’s rays (measured by a thermometer enclosed in the box) while eliminating the cooling effect of wind currents. In 1774, simultaneous heliothermometric observations taken at different locations by Saussure and an assistant demonstrated an appreciable increase in solar heat with altitudes. (Fleming J.R. 1999).
No-one can doubt that opacity is a critical feature of the absorption of energy, and it is implicitly assumed that the opacity of the atmosphere due to the presence of polyatomic molecular gases must cause heating.
So, while there-can be no doubt that in the atmosphere high frequency solar radiant energy is absorbed by the air and thereby heated, as was proved by De Saussure in 1774, the case for low-frequency radiation is also assumed to be true. This is in spite of the clear need to apply Postma’s Law that states, “No material can be heated above the temperature of a solar radiant flame, and furthermore any material that has a higher temperature than that flame will not be heated.”
So, we are back with the same problem, no one seems able to understand the role of frequency in the process of radiant heating.
That Fleming quote is still not quite accurate because it states that the heating of the sun’s rays is “magnified”. The device did NOT magnify radiation with a lense, and, with a glass pane it is not possible to magnify heat. The de Saussure box is just a basic greenhouse, and MAXIMIZES, not magnifies, solar heating potential, by stopping convection. It still can’t do better than the input which is what magnify rather than maximize implies, which of course is what the climate science greenhouse does, is magnifies heating by heat recycling.
Joe,
I agree with you, but the issue is not magnification, the issue is absorption.
The assumption being made is that all absorption of whatever frequency causes heating.
That needn’t be called Postma’s law – it’s merely the application of the heat flow equation with the 1st law. Plus those aren’t my words.
True, But its your idea in this application. You need to own it
It’s not original. It’s well known. It’s just ignored. And I wouldn’t state it that way.
Please formulate the words in your own way so that I can quote you,
Joe,
We are in a war. Please give me some ammunition.
The common point is a radiative source cannot increase its own temperature without work. Energy does increase, the Bose-Einstein statistic confirms that, but since Bosons are under the B-E statistic (and not the Pauli Exclusion Principle), it shows for ‘heat’ or simply, temperature, to increase it follows the requirement that restricts photonic energy.
Photons
Photon Energy=Delta E =hf
E=Energy of the photon
h=Plank’s constant (6.63×10^-34 Js)
f=frequency of the EM radiation
Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv.
E = hv C= λv. E is the energy of the light in Joules (J), h is a constant which is 6.626 X 10-34 J•s, and. v is the frequency of the light in s-1 or waves/s (also called Hertz (Hz). C is the speed of light.
IR radiating from the Earth’s surface is the source energy, any energy striking GHGs and returning back to the surface is a line spectrum or spectral line if you prefer. That spectral line cannot increase the temperature of its radiative source.
The atmosphere is simply not a black body.
ive seen all the videos and I did subsid physics at a uk university a long time ago. I was making the point that the interviewer while he had a good grasp of the politics of both the climate scam and covid you could sense he was a bit lost on the detail of the science. The danger there is that you start using the language of the alarmist or their terms they will jump to use them against you if the sophist manner that Joseph testified too. I think this channel and site is a fantastic resource to spread climate realism! (an all to niche field im sorry to say ) I think the psychological insight into possible motivations other than the overarching eugenicist backdrop was particularly insightful.
As an aside I love Tony Heller’s work also although ive always thought he was a luke warmist? Does anyone know what his opinion on agw is?
Fresh science question site question
Is it posible to kickstart a hypothetical frozen world with 0.6% ice albedo to a earth with an atmosphere with just the sun at current distance?Is it posible to kickstart a hypothetical frozen world with 0.6% ice albedo to an earth with an atmosphere with just the sun at current distance?
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20875/is-it-posible-to-kickstart-a-hypothetical-frozen-world-with-0-6-ice-albedo-to-a
@wine Heller is very anti AGW but I’m not sure that he’s totally cognizant of the flat earth greenhouse fraud. I’m sure he would get it if he was presented with the info.
CDM
“The atmosphere is simply not a black body.”
This is a critical point I need to grasp.
Does the concept of a black body imply complete 100% and therefore and unrealistic reversibility?
I love Heller but he is an environmentalist activist, which is his right as long as he doesn’t force it on everybody else. He wants 80% of the cars in the world removed and he rides a bike like Pierrehumbert does.
Heller did testify to congress (2019) he believes CO2 causes ‘some warming’, but a few of his videos since then contradict that claim. He “softly” states he questions the ghg but will not openly condemn it.
Philip Mulholland ,
I did read in atmospheric thermodynamic manuals, that you can “treat” select layers of the atmosphere as a blackbody to some degree as a “minimum capable temperature” in direct sunlight that absorbs the higher energy rays such as the thermosphere or the stratosphere. That is a “virtual” interpretation not a direct concession it is a blackbody.
That’s more physicist realms and not my purview not that I really have a purview seeing as I am not a scientist.
However I think it is simply “treated as” for calculations such as the atmosphere broken down into parcels treated “as” individual systems.
Pingback: Interview with UNN | ajmarciniak
CDM
Thanks, The standard reply i get is “It’s a grey body”
The trouble with really abstruse explanations is that they sound good and shut down the questioner. ( I know this is not what you are doing)
In helping my understanding i am always looking for analogies.
Everyone does that hence the “Greenhouse ” mess.
I once tried very hard to get my geologist boss to drop the use of the term “palinspastic” (look it up and you will see why). He would not have any of it, That what what it was called and that is the name you must use.
On the same theme another boss told me “it was done to me, so now I am going to do it to you”.
As of a general rule, I don’t like bosses.
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/x529b0.mp4" /]
^ Canadians should appreciate this.
Great interview!
I would say the best interview you’ve had so far, clear and concise.
How I discovered Postma was his Vincent James interview on Red Elephants back when he was still on youtube(banned of course).
Can’t find it but I did find this.
This NPC bugman gets almost 84,000 views…
Even its voice is retarded sounding…ugh
I may be late to the party here, but have you guys seen this?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity
To put it in technical terms….’CO2 has got F all to do with temp.
Well said! lol 😆
Came up with a new theory that destroys another pillar of the GHE theory
Once a surface of a planetary body reaches the max temperature the sun radiation at its distance can provide, then the incomming solar radiation at that location doesn’t act as heat anymore. This results in a thermal dehancement effect.
A blackbody in space has high thermal dehancement. The moon has some. Earth has no (could argue very low from lower frequency spectrums) thermal dehancement, since heat transfers prevent the surface to reach the max temperature.
Well the thing is though that temperature is changing all the time on earth…in the morning heat flow from the sun is definitely occurring etc. This is the difference between looking at the average, which doesn’t actually exist, vs the real time which is what actually exists.
@ JP
Right. I am looking at realtime input. The moon daytime high on the equator reaches 122 degree Celcius. At that point the solar radiation at that location doesn’t act as heat anymore, and the amount of new added heat relies on the outgoing heatflow.
So that woiuld be dehancement compared to the earth where the surface never reaches over 120 degree Celcius on the equator.
From a PhD in meteorology (allegedly)…
“@CD Marshall All you need to do to overturn global warming theory is to
a) publish a paper demonstrating that the current maths is wrong and we shouldn’t have anything to worry about, and
b) publish another paper showing that our observations of a warming planet are also wrong or else can be explained by other means.
You’d probably win a Nobel prize. I’d be cheering for sure – it would be a lot less inconvenient if we could just keep burning fossil fuels without worrying about the consequences. But I do think that it would be an extraordinary act of collective hubris to think that we can change the mixture of gasses in the troposphere without changing the temperature balance.”
Smug bastards aren’t they? Knowing no paper will make it through review that indicates those facts.
Smug and retarded…believing that changing the gas mixture can suddenly make the gas release heat or send heat from cold to hot. They literally have no clue what they’re doing, or talking about.
And yes…they can NEVER just acknowledge the math that you show them..no no…it has to go through peer review before they will look at it or acknowledge it…even if it is as plain as the difference between flat Earth and round Earth, hot sunshine and cold sunshine, etc.
“But I do think that it would be an extraordinary act of collective hubris to think that we can change the mixture of gasses in the troposphere without changing the temperature balance.”
Apparently never heard of Boyle’s Law then.
Maybe he also needs to read this paper
Maxwell, J.C., 1868. XXII. On the dynamical theory of gases. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 35(236), pp.185-217.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786446808639963?journalCode=tphm15
“Also wrong, an absorbed photon adds kinetic energy to a molecule, which effectively determines temperature.”
This is being twisted, only if the absorbed photon is of a greater wl/f than the emissions of the molecule wold it increase the temperature, if the photon is the exact wl/f of the molecule it will not increase the temperature, and if it is lower than the emissions of the molecule it will not absorb the photon at all.
And if the molecule is already heated and is in a vibrational/rotational state it will simply not absorb another photon as molecular collision and bumping is the primary transnational method of kinetic energy and once heated, lesser kinetic energy striking it will not knock the current higher energy of the molecule out of it or add anything to it. Once again they are confusing fermions for bosons.
Did I miss anything?
CDM
I think you are doing fine.
In a sophistry war we need catchy labels.
They have their greenhouse, we have our solar flame.
I recommend the use of a solar flame thrower to burn down the greenhouse.
That’s great CD!
“Also wrong, an absorbed photon adds kinetic energy to a molecule, which effectively determines temperature.”
Only if it is absorbed as heat, which you explain, etc.
Troll
“Easily debunked: both soil and troposphere temperatures have been increasing for years. Why is this?”
I see no plausible evidence that’s happening in any way?
@ MP
How can the moon have so called “greenhouse effect”, when comparing to a black body?
Can’t find the image but when comparing to a blackbody and correcting for emisitivity and albedo there is on the moon slight colling during the day and substantial warmer than expected temperatures at night.
Could the general concept of radiation balance on a blackbody be oversimplified?
Reaching the max temperature around the equator of the moon during the 2 weeks days suggest high photon rejection rates (not adding heat) as part of the outgoing radiation equation.
And if so those ratios on an hypothetical real time black body would be much more.
And that circles back to the first question. Not incorporating photon rejection rates at certain temperatures versus flux intensity creates the illusion that there is a greenhouse effect on the mooon, compared to a blackbody
“both soil and troposphere temperatures have been increasing for years. Why is this?”
At ANY time scale, they are changing. Like I said in the video…current changes are entirely nominal…within historical norms on ANY time scale.
Noise requires NO explanation…in a chaotic system, small changes don’t have an explanation. And they must just love that…because then they can invent whatever explanation they want, even though the changes are identical to nominal variation.
“Molecules can easily absorb more photons, if they already absorbed one and are in an excitated state.”
Not sure where this guy learned his QM or the COE laws?
According to him a molecule can turn supernova.
Maybe that’s how stars are made? Supernova molecules?
We can only hope that it is still warming and that we are still recovering from the little ice age. If we start cooling I would be quite concerned for my grand children. The people on the equator seem to have adapted to warmer weather than the rest of us enjoy and I think most Canadians and a lot of Americans as well as a lot of Europeans would be quite happy to see a degree or two of warming. We are now enjoying a few more frost free days than we did a few decades ago which means our crops now have a better chance to mature so we can feed more people easier and cheaper. I don’t know why people would consider warming a problem when it has always been of a benifit to mankind.
Because they’re insane and they’re actually trying to destroy civilization.
Barry the ocean would need to cool off first as a sign of an impeding glaciation, if I have the geoscience correct.
The bad thing about glaciations is you have little warning. By the time oceans are cooled off to the point of being blatantly obvious you’ll be in the glaciation.
Then again all it takes is a slight change in albedo or TSI.
Sadly I think you are right Joseph. When I seen Gores rediculous so called doc years ago the first thing I said was they want to destroy the middle class,why else would all the elites be pushing this nonsense while flying around on their private jets and floating around on their gas guzzling yachts. They simply don’t want us in their space.
I know this is going into more complex QM than I have studied, but can a molecule absorb another photon before releasing the E of that photon in the open atmosphere? I know they can manipulate things in labs, but this is the open atmosphere. Molecules can collide and bump transferring kinetic energy before the ejection of the original adsorbed photon but that dipole moment is still spectrum specific, regardless of a change in emissions, its absorption range doesn’t change.
But what if it is a higher energy photon that is compatible to that molecule’s absorption range, would it knock out the existing photon’s KE and replace it or “add” its kinetic energy to it to the existing energy or scatter, partially transferring the some of the energy. Then again can single photons partially scatter?
I know a whole field of scattering theory was created just to study this very thing.
@ Joseph E Postma says 2021/02/24
Antidote for cherry picked graphs is zooming out, Looking at larger times scale waves/variations.
Also for ocean Ocean Acidification crap, coral proxies show long time sidewards wavy patterns
MP,
Pierre gave me an excellent rebuttal for ocean pH a long time ago.
“CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3).
Underwater volcanoes eject calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor and that is the buffer that controls the pH of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 (sand)
CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2
Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2
Carbonic acid/ H2CO3”
Thank you Pierre, wherever you are.
Sorry I double dribbled the last part.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2
This is the correct equation.
I tried writing it out a long time ago and messed it up.
So the full text should read as,
“CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3).
Underwater volcanoes eject calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor and that is the buffer that controls the pH of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2
@ MP
“How can the moon have so called “greenhouse effect”, when comparing to a black body?”
If we are going to talk about the mean surface temperature of the Moon, then we need to use the Vacuum Planet (VP) equation. I hope that this short note helps:
Introduction:
A short note to show how, using the Vacuum Planet equation of Astronomy, the mean annual surface temperature of the Moon can be determined.
Method:
Using the standard Vacuum Planet equation as exemplified by Sagan and Chyba [1] “The equilibrium temperature Te of an airless, rapidly rotating planet is: –
Equation 1: Te ≡ [S π R2(1-A)/4 π R2 ε σ]1/4.
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, ε the effective surface emissivity, A the wavelength-integrated Bond albedo, R the moon’s radius (in metres), and S the solar constant (in Watts/m2) at the moon’s average distance from the sun.”
Data:
Volumetric Mean Radius of Moon 1737.4 Km [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
Average Surface Atmospheric Pressure 3E-10 Pascal [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
Expected Te 220.8 Kelvin [1] The early faint sun paradox
Eclipse duration Minimal % time in eclipse Lunar Occultations NASA JPL WebGeocalc
Surface gravity 1.62 m/s^2 [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
Average Solar insolation per solar orbit 1361 W/m^2 [3] Earth Fact Sheet.
Bond Albedo 0.11 A (Constant) [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
Average Surface Solar Insolation 605.65 W/m^2 From Irradiance [3] and Albedo [2]
Average Orbital Distance (Earth) 149,596,000 Km [3] Earth Fact Sheet
Results:
Solar Constant at distance a S 605.65 W/m2
Radius of Body R 1,737 m
Bond Albedo A 0.11 Constant
Stefan-Boltzmann Constant σ 5.67E-08 W/m^2/K^4
Effective surface emissivity ε 1 Constant
Expected Te Te 220.79 Kelvin
Greenhouse Effect GE 0.0 Kelvin
Actual Ts Ts -52.36 Celsius
Distance from the Sun a 1.4960E+08 m
Conclusion:
The Moon has an average surface temperature of 220.79 Kelvin (-52.36 Celsius).
References
[1] Sagan, C. and Chyba, C., 1997. The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases. Science, 276(5316), pp. 1217–1221.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5316/1217
[2] Williams, D.R., 2020a. Moon Fact Sheet NASA NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
[3] Williams, D.R., 2020b. Earth Fact Sheet NASA NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Meanwhile, back in a simpler world….. land of the laypeople…
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/#comment-1580700
Further down in that thread ,,, there’s this bloke Rick. 🙂 who would drive you to drink.
Mack,
Here is the view of a laypersons friend of mine, Erl Happ:
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/the-absurdity-of-climate-hysteria/
Mack
“Maybe you should get your eyesight tested Haven’t you noticed this planet is the blue planet. Water has a colour. It is blue. Nasif Nahle is a BIOLOGIST …. he’s noticed that the Earth is not covered in black asphalt with an emissivity of near enough to 1. Sorry, 0.82 looks right to me.”
Awesome comment.
That thread is a goldmine,
Thanks.
Mack
“Flushed him out as a DINO…. denier in name only. …hopefully time will make them extinct, too.”
You need to trademark that before it gets stolen.
@ Philip Mulholland 2021/02/25 at 2:28 AM
Thx for the metrix to play with.
Found the image that shows global warming on the moon, at least compared to a to the moon adjusted greybody.
MP,
Interesting Graph.(The New Earth eclipse shadow is a nice touch).
Makes me wonder how much energy the Moon is receiving from the Earth-light at New Moon.
A comparable set of measurements made on the Far-side that never receives any Earth-light would be very instructive in this regard.
@CD I think that the absorption spectra is mostly due to scattering, not real absorption, because the molecules are collisionally dominated and already vibrating in all modes in the first place. But a vibration mode is a specific frequency…it can only contain the energy specific to it. So
Interestingly enough, molecules according to mode, can flip from IR to Raman absorption. CO2 is not IR active in one of its modes, it’s actually Raman active.
In order to block the bulk of solar storms in the thermosphere, CO2 needs to be active to higher energy rays of the Sun or at least work with NO to redirect those rays, but it does get heated.
Quite a subject.
So briefly, in scattering theory it says as a result of collision (from a sharp beam to a localized target) several outcomes are possible: elastic, inelastic and absorption.
After that it gets really complex, scattering theory is some heavy physics but as a cursory study it seems they are more centered on particle physics not lesser energy waves such as IR.
I found a paper from MIT with the annual heat balance of the NH no mention of the ghge but then it is from 1954.
Joseph,
I found someone you “might’ be able to help, he sounds like a young kid but he’s asking the right questions. I don’t think you can put links in this site though? I have before with trickery, but I think he takes them down once found.
You can find it under my post “Sorry buddy but CO2 does not trap heat. Physics approved and quantum mechanics tested.”
CDM
That must be:
Houghton, G. H. 1954.On the Annual Heat Balance of the Northern Hemisphere. Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1-9.
Have a look at my Library if you are into digging.
The links will not work from the archive but the list is quite comprehensive, and then you can always go on to Google Scholar.
Philip Mulholland,
That is exactly it. Thanks for the links.
I just had a real long debate with a climate scientist PhD that was arguing with me on reddit…from one of boomies posts on the skeptics reddit.
Basically the response is how we saw it with the other person that I debated: 1) they deny that the derivation flat Earth models are what the GHE is or how it works, 2) they focus on other things that aren’t the point, 3) they try to argue that the GHE is measured by something TOTALLY different which actually has no clear definition or meaning at all, 4) they misunderstand basic points being presented, 5) they tell you that you have no support.
It is interested about that comment I made the other day about herd herbivores: at the end of the debate, he goes “You’re all alone.”
Doesn’t that speak volumes? A pack hunter doesn’t gaf if he’s alone…he still makes do. A herd animal on the other hand…it’s the greatest horror, literally when they are in the greatest danger is when they are alone. They can’t stand it.
It’s a bit too long and boring to post, unless I do a heavy edit which I might do one day…but I can link either an unlisted YT link or a onedrive download for those who wish to sit through it…the raw video?
Well…I just started working on the edit. But it’s a much more boring and slower debate over-all. Interesting for case study, but I am not sure I will post it. After I’m done what editing I care to do, I will post a private link.
You’re not alone you have support from other scientists and because you are aren’t widely circulated your work never gets noticed on a larger scale.
The herd mentality is a strange sad thing to see when you’re an outsider looking in. The herd will even sacrifice their own members to save their own careers.
If Mann ends up being ousted as the fraud he is, they’ll cut him loose and claim they simply didn’t know. The lie must be protected at all costs and all members of the herd are expendable to keep the lie alive.
Exactly! The herd is more than willing to sacrifice individual to protect itself. The whole point of being in a herd is so that the problems you present to it are suffered by other individuals.
Good point guys, those on the outside of the herd protect the inner circle of sheep by self sacrifice although they don’t know this until to late. Interesting thread from Mack’s conversation with Rick who at the end claimed that a microwave and fridge prove reverse heat flow. This is the mentality we are up against people who don’t even understand mechanical things that they use everyday but can rattle off equations all day long.
Have a great day guys
Barry
Man you guys should watch this actually. Just working on the edit. I’ll post soon.
“Interesting thread from Mack’s conversation with Rick who at the end claimed that a microwave and fridge prove reverse heat flow. This is the mentality we are up against people who don’t even understand mechanical things that they use everyday but can rattle off equations all day long.”
Literally so braindead. It’s not heat…it’s WORK!!!!!! Those example do MECHANICAL WORK…lol.
But yah, anyway…we’ve seen those stupid arguments before about fridges and microwaves. They just love to obfuscate and confuse everything.
You all should watch this debate when I post it…the guy just obfuscates and mixes up and confuses everything! It’s a great case study.
Making memes about stupid climatechangeists arguments, combined with the correct answer. (side by sides) would work very well.
Memes should be short in text lenght tho
Could provide already popular funny side by side meme templates if anyone if interested.
@MP I made this one after the last debate.
Here is an example of a current popular side by side meme. Can plug in the text you want left and right. There are many variations with different carracters left and right
@ boomie789
Lol
Boomie that makes me chuckle each time I see it. Showing the heat equation to alarmists is like silver to a vampire (with pretty much the same reaction).
@ boomie789
Look at it.!!!…..Aahahahahahahaha
That’s priceless, Boomie
@ JP
Haha MP gosh that’s so awesome
Begun, the climate change memewar has
OK here’s the debate – it is unlisted on my YT and so it won’t show up to subscribers…only if you have the link.
It’s the usual thing: he spends all of his time running away from the point that I want to make, running away from acknowledging it, denying that what I’m pointing out is what I’m pointing at, he even denies heat flow thermodynamics at one point, and tries to scheme some crazy alternative explanation which he won’t acknowledge is still based on interpreting the climate as where the Sun cannot create it and that temperature needs to be bumped up by other means. It’s really an amazing case study in the degree to which they insist upon lying and refusing to simply acknowledge what is being pointed out to them. They just run and run from argument to argument and don’t stop when each argument is refuted…never stop to reconsider. Their statement that heat can flow from cold to hot gets debunked? Who cares, continue to the next argument, no matter that they violated the most important laws in modern physics. They really have the strangest minds…watch and you will see him come up with things that make no sense whatsoever, miscomprehending the most basic things. This is a PhD in atmospheric physics, apparently.
Of course, they CAN’T acknowledge the very first point I’m trying to make, because that’s precisely where the whole rest of their interpretation of climate and absorption spectra etc etc etc falls apart.
It’s so telling to see how he skips from one subject to another subject to another one, etc., all the while refusing to acknowledge the meaning of the rebuttal of the flat Earth diagrams. At one point he says that the GHE derivation diagrams are “only teaching tools”, which we’ve seen this argument before, implying that we teach totally false and non-existent things as a matter of course in the classroom but then do actual real physics after we leave the classroom…lol! Where do we learn the real physics if classroom physics only teaches “pedagogical tools which aren’t how the real thing works”??? lol I just love this argument for its circular self-destruction!
I think it’s too slow and boring and long to post, but the hard-cores here will want to watch it for sure – I would be really interested to hear your breakdown and evaluation of it:
“Do you understand gravitational waves?”
He asks this to a physicist in astrophysics? Did he know who you are?
Are you going to have to get a degree in atmopsheric physics next?
On average, over the course of a year, half of the Earth is never lit.
There is always night somewhere on the Earth always and at all times.
He’ll be asking the light to bend round the rapidly rotating 1 Hz Earth next.
Exactly. They love to use this idea of averages to say that the earth can be approximated as lit at all times…at quarter power…but yah, over the course of a year, half of the earth is never lit!
They really do seem like programmed computers with a well defined script. It’s uncanny.
The fact that he didn’t know the SB law I find a little concerning in the fact he has a PhD.
Yah he really is clueless at some points.
He also doesn’t comprehend density flux and the difference in using averages.
So basically he is just another cookie cutter textbook scientist which is no better than a glorified technician. Even some engineers can think outside the textbook (the really good one can anyway).
So he also doesn’t understand watts per meter per second which allocates the Earth rotating each second and applied the SB Law.
“I don’t see math in that diagram, I just see arrows with numbers.”
Well that’s vector theory out of the window then.
Purposefully obtuse.
What they basically do is averaging out all possible potential, and then ask what is the max potentional on an average with no potential.
“But what number do you add back in?”
“Where does that 2nd 240 come from?”
“Why did you decide 240 is the right number to use?”
If 240 plus A equals 480, then A equals 240 is just something that is made up by choice?
Should have said,
So he also doesn’t understand watts per meter per second which allocates the Earth rotating each second and thus you can apply the SB Law for that input per second.
The chunk is “spreading” that wavelength to different frequencies, thus the Earth is still emitting just not in that specific wavelength. CO2 is just diffusing light which it has always done.
However, that graph is one graph they keep showing over the Sahara on a specific day, I have never seen anything showing that all over the world every day.
He almost managed to create an argument that if you removed the CO2 bite from the graph then the area under the curve would go up, then he stopped because he realizsd that he would end up proving that CO2 generates cooling.
Yah he was making it up as he went along.
Actually that graph (at least the one I have) is from when the CO2 was 325 ppm from the IRIS Satellite over the Sahara with a surface temperature of 320 Kelvin/46.85 Celsius which is rare to reach that temperature.
Now the weird thing is in that graph it shows CO2 which has a remarkably less absorption that water vapor or O3 is intercepting more energy than either one. Which is simply impossible, granted little water vapor would exist in the Sahara, O3 would be the same.
Two possible conclusions I’ve heard is that they flipped the graph or switched the gases from water vapor to CO2.
It sounds like he is reading these things off a list.
If you compare that graph to total absorption lines of the atmosphere, it is confusing because it’s in wave number, whereas in wavelength that gap doesn’t exist at CO2 levels or water vapor, when looking at the graph of all absorption the natural graph has waves with peaks and dips and CO2 is not in that dip, neither is water vapor but O3 is.
BLANKET! He said it! lololololol
When he said he just wanted the math I think he wanted something like this in the number 8 box.
I’m only halfway through and I love it.
Yes…try to use blanket analogy but when that doesn’t work just move on to the next argument…never go back to address the actual point.
You do show one just like it a bit later just as good.
1:31 He is mixing up the assumption that the planet works as a greenhouse which was a theory not a proven fact, with the false justification included in the K&T budget.
So, yes K&T made it up based on a false assumption but worked for their purpose of demonizing CO2.
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”
Great quote!
From Slaying the Sky Dragon
Not sure where you find the patience Joe. They can’t seem to grasp that they have started out wrong, it’s as if co2 has to raise the temp because we say it does. And yet the simple experiment that should easily prove it can’t. If you gave a four year old a train engine model and asked him what makes it fly he would tell you it’s not an airplane. If you give that same scenario to a climatologist he will immediately divide the horsepower by four and explainto you that wings and lift aren’t required just trust me.
Yep Barry they just refuse to acknowledge where they start…
boomie789 2021/02/25 at 7:20 PM
That diagram is so good, I went to put it in the archive but it is already there.
One for the library.Thanks.
CDM 2021/02/25 at 7:36 PM
“essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”
There is no argument from me that trying to drive any machine with the energy of its exhaust is impossible. Using the intensity of the diluted solar flame as energy input is bogus physics. This is because divide-by-4 energy intensity is the weak impotent thermal exhaust surface area flux and not the strong powerful solar input surface area,flux.
However, once you put back the power of the day lit hemisphere flux into the equation with the zenith blow torch heating of the solar flame then the system can do work.
All of meteorology and all of hydrology are the physical reality that results from the capabilities of solar flame that allows the atmosphere to do work by the process of physical mass motion of a compressible fluid in a gravity field on a rotating globe.
I forgot to add Oceanography and Glaciology to my list. In essence the list includes all of the aspects of Environmental Science which deal with energy capture, storage, transport, dissipation and loss by the mass motion of fluids and solids over the surface of the Earth. Climate is just a component of this dynamic, and it is very much the stubby tail on the rear end of a very large dog.
Speaking of heat pumps, I’ve been wondering about CO2 actually acting as a sort of refrigerant in the atmosphere. What I’m saying is that a work input of convection could hoist the heavy molecule up into higher altitudes….there lose heat… and the weight of the heavy gas to bring it back down pick up more heat …etc …etc.. Anyhow, the whole rotation of Earth puts work input to the atmosphere with water vapour doing the heavy lifting and coming back down as rain.
I put this sort of comment on Carbon Brief…. it stayed for a few hours and just disappeared.
I’m hoping you guys and Joe might say something about this….please.
Mack 2021/02/26 at 2:33 AM
“Speaking of heat pumps”
This is a complex subject and it depends on who you ask.
One of the features of atmospheric science is the thermal profile of the atmosphere, in particular its lapse rate. This is a rich area to study and one about which there is a lot of uncertainty.
The bulk of the atmosphere’s mass is located in the two lowest spheres, the troposphere and the stratosphere.
The Earth’s temperature profile for these two layers has a wishbone shape with the lowest values located at their mutual boundary, the tropopause.
Amongst the key differences between these two is that the high-pressure troposphere is opaque to thermal radiation, whereas the low-pressure stratosphere is transparent. Now one of the really strange things is that everyone seems to assume that the planet’s average thermal radiant temperature of 255 Kelvin (its Vacuum Planet thermal radiant exhaust temperature) is located in the troposphere at a pressure of about 540 hPa. I say curious because at this level the troposphere is still translucent to thermal radiation.
like I said, lots of moving parts and issues to raise.
For the Christopher Debate, even NASA says that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irreversible, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo2.html
@Mack – one of the big tenets of climate theory is that GHG’s emit radiation. The thing is, if they emit radiation, but the rest of the 99% atmosphere doesn’t, then that means that GHG’s give the atmosphere a vector by which to shed thermal energy. An emissive substance (GHG’s) will always have a lower temperature than a non-emissive substance (N2, O2, etc.). So if GHG’s introduce a means by which the atmosphere can shed thermal energy, then the atmosphere will cool.
This is just another example of the contradictions generated at the basis of climate theory.
Funny how he was describing my model at the start hey? Not realizing he’s debunking their model lol
Found an alternative explanation for the infrared gap in earths outgoing radiation
Co2 absorbs around 15 microns or wavenumber 600 and radiates in a somewhat wider range
However, the top layer of the oceans seem to also convert that spectrum. According to a paper i found there is some increased absorbtion of infrared in water around the 600 wavenumber.
Click to access Water_absorption_spectrum.pdf
This can’t heat the oceans since infrared can olnly penetrate the first few molecules of the top layer in depth, so it would radiate out or convect out.
But it can contribute to a conversion of that spectrum range to other spectrums.
So that fellow from the debate email me with two questions. I don’t think I will bother responding to him as it is clear that he will simply follow the script he’s programmed to, but I will copy the answer to the first question here which I did write out in draft just for the fun of the exercise:
Christopher: “1) What temperature would the surface of the Earth be if there was no atmosphere? You keep saying that the atmosphere cools the surface by convection, but we also agreed that the effective temperature of the planet is -18C. If we could remove the atmosphere without affecting the albedo (obviously removing the atmosphere would have a huge impact on the albedo, since oceans would evaporate, etc), but if that were possible, then I posit that the effective temperature of the Earth would be the same as the surface temperature. So the earth with no atmosphere would be -18C on the surface, but now we see it is 15C – therefore the atmosphere warms the surface. Tell me how this is wrong?”
1) Yes of course we can assume equal albedo for the purposes here. I would point out though that we still have two different system, and hence can expect different results. Without an atmosphere it is the solid surface which is the exterior of the system; with an atmosphere now the gas makes part of the exterior of the system, and then we must understand how the gas is going to behave. A gas, driven by high-power thermal energy, will convect, and, an adiabatic gradient naturally gets set up in the air column. The adiabatic gradient necessitates that the gas will be warmest at the bottom of the column, coolest at the top, and the average is naturally in middling region. Since the comparison of “average temperature” is always made with reference to the effective temperature, for Earth -18C, it is said that the average temperature of the surface would be -18C without an atmosphere. That is fine. With an atmosphere the ground surface is no longer the surface, as the atmosphere comprises part of the surface. So with reference to the -18C average temperature, now we must expect this not at the ground surface, but within the atmosphere. So if we make that comparison again, staying consistent with the proviso of the non-atmosphere case, then we expect that the bottom of the air column will be warmer than that average. Staying consistent, if we compare where -18C is found in the atmosphere on average, and apply the adiabatic gradient to that, then we find the near-surface-air temperature which is measured on average of +15C. Thus, without an atmosphere, the effective radiative temperature is -18C, and with an atmosphere this is still the effective temperature, but between these two scenarios we cannot expect to find that actual temperature at the same location. With an atmosphere that temperature must be found in the middling atmosphere, not at the bottom of the atmosphere. Thus, the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere is fully explained in theory and successfully predicted in practice without reference to a “greenhouse effect”.
a. Without an atmosphere, we calculate the effective temperature and assume that this temperature would be the average of the surface. The effective temperature is what is always compared against.
b. With an atmosphere, it is the same effective temperature, which we will continue to compare against, but it can no longer be expected to be found at the ground surface due to the fact that the ground surface is not the surface any longer, and, the adiabatic gradient establishes that the average temperature must be found around the middle of the atmosphere, not at its top or bottom, as per the definition of an average.
Climate science entirely ignores the provisos of part b, and maintains focus on the surface without taking into account that the ground surface is no longer the surface. On the Earth, having an atmosphere in between being overwhelmingly deep as on Venus, and extremely thin as on Mars, the result is that the surface temperature is both cooler and warmer than can be expected. In the day time the surface is kept much cooler with an atmosphere due to convective and evaporative cooling, etc., and at night the surface is kept warmer due to the presence of latent heat release from H2O as well as the simple fact that there is additional thermal mass making up the surface. But still, the near-surface-air temperature will be warmer than the average temperature, where we continue to compare against the effective temperature of -18C. If we consider where we actually find -18C, and continue to apply basic equations of thermodynamics, then the near-surface air temperature is calculated to be exactly what is actually measured, +15C.
This highlights a second issue which climate science obfuscates and gets wrong, which is what causes the temperature differential in the atmosphere. In climate science this is attributed to radiation and the radiative “greenhouse effect”, whereas it is actually the adiabatic gradient which creates the temperature differential within the atmosphere as a function of altitude.
A last relevant point is the issue of atmospheric emissivity. The reason why so-called “greenhouse gases” are named as such, and their primary function in the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of climate science, is that they emit thermal radiation, whereas the rest of the 99% + atmosphere does not. If “GHG’s” emit but the rest of the atmosphere doesn’t, then this means that “GHG’s” introduce to the atmosphere a vector by which it can shed thermal energy, where no such vector existed before. Thus, a “GHG” would cool the atmosphere, not warm it. It is true that a “GHG” may absorb heat radiation from the warmer surface, and there is nothing wrong with this, but this simple process is not the “greenhouse effect” of climate science. Additionally, CO2 is collisionally-dominated with the rest of the atmosphere, which means that the rest of the atmosphere is continually keeping CO2 activated in all modes of vibration. If CO2 can emit this thermal energy it picks up from the rest of the atmosphere, then again this will serve to cool the atmosphere, not warm it. Given that CO2 is overwhelmingly collisionally dominated, the question is how much heat it picks up from the surface vs. how much energy it emits due to collisional activation; collisional dominance would imply that it emits more from collision than it picks up from heat radiation from the surface, which again indicates a cooling effect. Perhaps it is neutral.
Climate science theory requires that “GHG’s” somehow increase the temperature of the surface above what the Sun can provide; however, heat cannot be recycled and it cannot flow from the cool atmosphere back to the warmer surface, as heat flow is unidirectional down temperature gradients only, and so there is no mechanism by which a “GHG” could actually perform that requirement via radiative transfers. On the other hand, the adiabatic lapse rate naturally explains why the near-surface-air is higher in temperature than the average of the air column. It is simply an entirely complete and self-consistent explanation when we refer to the atmosphere with regards to the adiabatic gradient and the basic equations of thermodynamics, whereas the climate science interpretation with its misnamed “greenhouse effect” is rife with inconsistency and contradiction to established physics. Climate science of course claims to be consistent with physics, but it may only claim this by ignoring physics which is inconsistent with it.
It is not simply that the surface temperature is warmer than the average temperature as compared as the effective temperature with an atmosphere, the question is why, and what is the mechanism? With the adiabatic gradient, which must exist according to basic thermodynamic law, the mechanism is thus explained: the bottom of the air column cannot be the average of the air column, and the average of the air column is found around the middle, and hence the bottom of the air column must be warmer than the average. Thus, the mechanism is explained, the reason for the difference is explained. Climate science attempts to substitute this explanation with its “radiative greenhouse effect”, but the substitution is invalid, violates physics and thermodynamics, and is unnecessary to postulate in any case.
We may also refer to the fact that areas with the highest “GHG” concentrations in the form of water vapor are cooler on average than areas which receive the same insolation at the same latitude but are deserts with almost no water vapor present, and are warmer on average. Again, another example of theoretical and empirical inconsistency of climate science’s approach to the climate.
A thermodynamic approach to the climate, consistent with empirical facts about the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth, leads to natural explanations of the features of our climate and atmosphere, and it does this without generating opportunity for debunking and argument. On the other hand, climate science’s approach to the climate ignores thermodynamic principles, ignores empirical facts and the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth, and comes up with explanations for the climate which are rife with inconsistency both internally and externally to other fields of science, and thus generates many opportunities for debunking. The only approach that climate science has is to simply ignore the thermodynamic analysis, and that is basically all that it does. In discussing things with countless climate scientists and climate science followers over the years, the overwhelming and in fact universal character of such people is that they have no understanding of basic thermodynamics whatsoever. And while it is true that not that many people do, even within science, the problem is that the climate is fundamentally a thermodynamic process and nothing besides. Every single time I discuss things with a climate scientist or follower of such, I find a person who believes that heat can flow from cold to warm by radiative means, and when asked for literature references to support their claim, it can never be produced, whereas all thermodynamic literature explains that heat flow is irreversible for all modes of transfer and that heat cannot naturally flow from cool back to warm by any means. The equations are simple enough and start at the First Law of Thermodynamics: dU = Q + W; to raise an object’s internal thermal energy, it requires heat and/or work. Then you write the heat equation: Q = sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), which shows that heat is the net of the energy flow between hot and cool, and heat does not flow from cool to warm; the cool term of the equation is not heat, only the difference between terms is heat, the net difference of the terms is heat. Climate scientists do not understand the most basic thermodynamic principles or its mathematics.
The standard approach to the climate by climate science is to entirely discount and ignore and rewrite the fundamental empirical and thermodynamic facts about the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth. It is from this fundamental starting point taught at the very basis of climate pedagogy from which all subsequent postulations of climate physics is then created and interpreted by climate science, the fundamental feature being that climate science assumes a need to explain higher temperatures than what the Sun (which it ignores) and basic thermodynamics (which it also ignores) can explain. Of course, if you begin with ignoring the Sun, and begin with ignoring thermodynamic theory, then of course there is a need to postulate alternative explanations outwith those pre-existing empirical and theoretical facts.
Thanks Joe,
I was looking at that poor Scotsman on that interview at the top. A mixture of incredulous, shock, disappointment, discomfort….look on his face.. as he was faced with the “bitter” truth. But it shouldn’t be “bitter”, should it, Joe.? These people should be rejoicing,… knowing that there’s nothing to worry about with CO2…. now knowing that CO2 can go through the roof and it won’t make a hoot of difference to the weather….knowing that their children’s and grandchildren’s future is free from any “global warming” catastrophe .
My argument with the Rick bloke over at Treadgold’s place seems to have wound down to a halt.
I left the guy amicably so it’s also good for my soul, too.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-1583252
@mack – ya maybe that’s the problem, it’s just too shocking even if it’s good news. Wow…how bad is that!? Good news is too shocking to handle…that’s some psychological abuse right there…
MP,
It is over the Sahara though.
Funny thing is that’s the only “proof” they offer and it was over a decade ago?
Where are all the other SABER satellite images allover the world currently that supports this was global and not an isolated one day phenomenon?
Just like the convenient CO2 levels which they claim are global but but never decrease it doesn’t pass the smell test of legitimacy.
The Spectral emissions of CO2 according to temperature: (all are in the open window)
Kelvin/Micron
320= 9.0554
300= 9.6591
280=10.3491
260=11.1452
240=12.074
220=13.1716
The troposphere does function like a Carnot cycle. granted, and each Hadley cell (renamed for convenience bu technically we have 6 Hadley cells) are smaller “engines” but as you said they all need fuel.
The Sun supplies the thermal energy and the Coriolis effect supplies the moving parts?
CDM
(renamed for convenience but technically we have 6 Hadley cells)
#6 Fair point,. I have been spending too long looking at Venus.
Coriolis effect supplies the moving parts?
The air is the moving part, the Coriolis effect is the cylinder wall that limits the movement options of the air.
He also tested you on “chem-trails”. I was holding my breathe there, for you, Joe…. hoping you hadn’t fallen into the tin-foil hat brigade. It’s a tester for kookiness.
Joseph E Postma says:2021/02/26 at 2:17 PM
I would send it JP.
That redpill might work. Since it has a lot of NLP programming in it (repeating the main arguments). So it might plant the right seed to deprogram him away from the dark side NLP programming.
“Children of The Con” 🙂 🙂 that deserves an up tick, MP. You guys are very clever with these graphics etc….. now showing at the bug-house.
Fresh science site question
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20911/can-the-absorbtion-of-infrared-around-the-650-wavelenght-be-a-substantial-cause
LIVE – Biden Bombs Brown People – REEEeeeee Stream
Joseph did you send your reply? I watched some of the vid again and found it interesting how hung up on actual numbers this guy is like -18. Who cares what the actual number is if you don’t care how you arrived at it has no consequence. I think a lot of these people don’t really understand what they are defending but it is what they were taught and sure enough the computer kicked out exactly what we put into it. Sometimes I get the impression that they think we just don’t know how to run a calculator,he seemed quite sure that somehow the climate model has to be right because it gets all the answers he agrees on without ever considering the input. I vote send.
Have a good day
Barry
Cheers Barry. I think I won’t, for now. I know what the response will be, I know what they will do with it. I will soon, just not right away yet.
That’s about it lol
Thanks Joseph for showing us your reply to ‘Christopher’. It crystallizes down to real basic science, and it starkly shows the morass of pseudoscience modern climate theory has become, and exactly why it is wrong.
I will probably plagiarize your reply (with attribution) a lot. 🙂
@MP says: 2021/02/27 at 1:14 PM
LOL!! You made me splutter a mouthful of tea into the bin – LOL 🙂
Climate changeists may argue that this argument isn’t fair, since convection isn’t allowed to take place. Not if they are consistent tho.
Here’s the first few paragraphs of a book I’ll probably never finish, with apologies to H.G. Wells.
Venus Attacks
No one would have believed in the early years of the twenty first century, that Venus had relegated global warming to the status of flat-earth theory.
No one gave a thought to the other worlds of space as sources of paradigm destruction, or they dismissed the idea of counter-evidence from them as impossible or improbable.
As the quacks and peer reviewers busied themselves about their concerns, such as their fellow humans’ dangerous breathing, their hopeless mathematics were being scrutinised and studied, as someone with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
With infinite complacency, eco-fascists went to and fro over this globe serene in their assurance of their empire over the masses’ minds.
Yet across the gulf of space, facts that are to warmists as sunlight to the vampire, data vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded earth’s presumptions with enlightening eyes.
Slowly and surely, reality drew against the carbon-based religion, and then came the great disillusionment.
Very good!
Actually The War of the World’s first chapter has a really interesting take on planetary and biological evolution that I’d forgotten about in the decades since I’d last read it. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36/36-h/36-h.htm
Mars cooled first, because of its size, so developed intelligent life first. But then the cooling continued so as to threaten the Martians and they regarded Earth with ‘envious eyes.’
What you could call Wells’ boundary conditions were a linear evolutionary rate dependent on time and a geological global-cooling problem. They were a great basis for the book.
A great comment from someone?
“Reproducibility, not peer review, has always been the final measure of quality in published scientific research. All sorts of garbage has always passed through peer review. Once published, bad science gets discovered only when other researchers in the field attempt to reproduce the results reported in the garbage paper, and find that they can’t.
One of the ways that climate alarmism is propagating is by exploiting the fact that climate researchers rarely even try to reproduce each others’ model results. Models are very complex, so methods are rarely described in enough detail for outsiders to attempt to reproduce them, even if they want to try, which they don’t. This gives the modelers free reign to generate almost any result they want, knowing that no one will ever independently test their methods. In effect, there is no final test of quality for climate models.
Compare climate science to a hard science field, like chemistry: If I publish a paper reporting a single-pot method for synthesizing DNA from inorganic reactants, the chemistry world would be astonished. My paper would make headlines, and for a while I would be a big star, attracting lots of grant money. However, if other chemists went into their labs and found that they could not reproduce my results, I would be disgraced, and the grant money would disappear. But in climate science, researchers can report astonishing results, get the headlines and the grant money, and know that their methods and results will likely never be independently tested. This is a bad situation that encourages bad science. The incentive to generate sensational, alarming results is great, while the risk of invalid methods being found out is small.”
Gosh that’s brilliant. Exactly…it’s a field built on model results, and that’s it, and those results can be anything, and verification is always 30 years in the future for which you need continued funding to get there lol!!!!
Plus you have NOAA “adjusting” data to fit the false model outcome.
@ CD 2021/02/27 at 5:46 PM
Right. Like “hide the decline” in the climategate emails
CDM 2021/02/27 at 5:40 PM
“Models are very complex,”
Here is a nice simple one that works for the Climate of Titan.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349462371_The_Climate_of_Titan_Revisited
MP
Rising sea Levels?
I love this game.
Castell Harlech: Architecture
To come back to a theory i threw out earlier in this thread.
What causes the parabolic curvatior after a certain temperature?
It goes in a straight line until a certain temperture. Then it bends.
Why?
Sry wrong pic, here is and adjusted one to make an aking point
The answer to above question is important for follow up questions/logical reasoned answers
Maybe i am wrong in the perception of the first question, in that case move on
If not, lets dig further
The guy who claimed he “schooled Dr. Holmes” is back…oh and said Joseph should be in prison for speaking out against climate change with actual science lol.
EM F:
“Without the understanding of the secondary greenhouse gases, you still cannot explain life on Earth when the sun was 30% cooler than today. This planet would have been exactly like Antarctica but global wide. Since the atmosphere was primarily CO2 and CH4 with virtually no O2, the planet was sufficiently warm for life to begin. There have been at least two snowball Earth events when the secondary greenhouses were weathered out of the atmosphere. This is understood because there are 1.2 billion years of the geological record missing and dropstones at the equator where they shouldn’t exist. Try to theorize that otherwise. Hothouse Earth’s climate is Earth’s normal. During those periods, the Milankovitch cycles don’t appear simply because there are too many secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even during the Milankovitch cycles, temperature surges up and down depending on how much CO2 and CH4 go in and go out of solution from the oceans. Otherwise, the Milankovitch cycles would show smooth temperature sine wave variables.”
They just invent a bunch of interpretations to suit the narrative.
@ CD Marshall
Got a picture of him?
Could meme satire him into oblivion for the fun of it.
@ CD Marshall
I asked that question on a science question site.
And they admitted it is even with double averaged out (divide by 4) very probable . So even much more from around the equator and in the middle of the day on all locations.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20875/is-it-possible-to-kickstart-an-hypothetical-frozen-earth-with-0-6-ice-albedo-to
Oxygen has existed on Earth for billions of years so not sure where he got that from anyway? Dr Holmes should do a video on it, short as that maybe. You know, since this guy schooled him and everything lol.
Plus the planet was warm because it still had a hot surface had nothing to do with ghgs.
What’s next? Greenhouse gases caused the core to melt?
This is why science has gone butt wild, now everyone can say whatever they want (thanks to climate consensus science) and never have the work proved and tested with valid methodology and tested science verification.
Now science is backwards, Joseph HAS to prove the Sun heats the Earth but CO2 can hold the full intensity of nuclear powered radiation without hardly a glance at the science.
A complete inversion of reason. Holy cow. What an operation.
MP 2021/02/28 at 5:16 PM
Is the parabolic temperature increase bending at a certain temperature because of photon rejection rates at certain temperatures?
If so, would subsurface and other heat transfering means lower that photon rejection rate?
It’s the real-time Stefan Boltzmann law heating in effect. The differential is large and sudden giving the parabolic increase, but then tapers off as the heat flow goes to zero as the energy out becomes equal to energy in.
@ MP says 2021/02/28 at 6:34 PM
To complete the questioning.
Does a calculated black or grey body have max heat eascape routes at certain locatins, or all warms at the same time and no sub surface?
Is emissivity a constant?
Emissivity is constant. Subsurface does warm but the heat transfer is slow and not as dramatic as the surface layer.
@ Joseph E Postma says: 2021/02/28 at 6:36 PM
“but then tapers off as the heat flow goes to zero as the energy out becomes equal to energy in.”
Right. Also think that
So would a system with sub surface and other means heat flow and energy conversion to latent/potential be able to keep that rate of heat rejection down compared to a blackbody what cant?
Given the same solar input there are other metrics in play in real time, not incoirporated in black/grey body calculations.
So the moon gets because of heatflow to the low subsurface (max 15 cm) extra heatflow from the sun, at noon, in mi9d lattitudes.
Yes in real time there is heat loss to subsurface and other things like convection etc.
So should there be curvatior bending point in time and rate correction factors for calculated temperatures when comparing to greyblack bodies?
It becomes a differential equation. So it naturally bends.
Just remembered a quote I have from Joseph on the moon…
“The moon has lower albedo than the Earth…it absorbs more input energy from the sun and reflects less energy than compared to the Earth. That is, the lunar regolith has greater absorptivity of incoming solar energy than the Earth does. The Earth is more reflective due to the presence of clouds. This is the only thing that makes the effective temperatures different.” -Astrophysicist Joseph Postma
It is believed the Moon has a hot core as well but does nothing to heat the surface, they have discovered craters at the Lunar South Pole believed to be around -238C yes that is the right temperature, a little colder than the surface of Pluto.
The Moon is an odd object and most of the calculations don’t make a whole lot of sense off hand. So can the Moon retain some solar irradiance due to its emissivity in direct sunlight and how long does that last after the sunlight drops.
More curious if they built a base on the Moon would they have to put most of it underground?
Did “The Martian” with Matt Damon look realistic to you? Or “The Moon”, much better film. I’d imagine the first bases on the Moon to look like those.
Correction “Moon (2009)” with Sam Bell. Good movie.
Space1999 was my role model for the Moon, the Eagle transport was my childhood dream of what a ship would look like.
Moonbase Alpha
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c87f5444-87ba-4729-b423-75f87ca2b743/dd4fpxy-5961f634-6b29-46af-a114-c4ec673837bc.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvYzg3ZjU0NDQtODdiYS00NzI5LWI0MjMtNzVmODdjYTJiNzQzXC9kZDRmcHh5LTU5NjFmNjM0LTZiMjktNDZhZi1hMTE0LWM0ZWM2NzM4MzdiYy5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.8e4DVH69Je7eqZXMFTKAiecyMQF1TOl9g7Xcvu1Q4_c
Eagles were cargo carriers and other functions:
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c87f5444-87ba-4729-b423-75f87ca2b743/dcj7vx3-59937b7e-034b-41e8-ad1e-07778374d11b.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvYzg3ZjU0NDQtODdiYS00NzI5LWI0MjMtNzVmODdjYTJiNzQzXC9kY2o3dngzLTU5OTM3YjdlLTAzNGItNDFlOC1hZDFlLTA3Nzc4Mzc0ZDExYi5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.J9Vljy-IVvefjdlK5yuGumeN8g0LAqLdV5QgGRhVo_4
Note these were before the Space shuttles.
You guys are as entertaining as hell. A beacon of reason in a sea of insanity! My only qualifications are a thinking mind, but even I ‘get’ the math trick of GHG theory.
But…The Borg have been assimilating everyone they come into contact with for a very long time now. And despite the pushback from some small bands of resistance fighters…as Picard would say “ I think we’re fkt !”
P.S. I think memes are the most potent language of the internet. Keep em coming, get em out there.
CDM @ 2021/02/28 at 5:23 PM
“Without the understanding of the secondary greenhouse gases, you still cannot explain life on Earth when the sun was 30% cooler than today. This planet would have been exactly like Antarctica but global wide.”
He is applying the divide-by-4 rule. There is no faint Sun paradox.
Even with a divide-by-2 application and a 30% weaker Sun in the Archean then the reduced solar flux value of 330 W/m^2 (post-albedo) gives a solar flame temperature of 3 Celsius (lit hemisphere average).
The kick -back will be that the albedo is higher under conditions of global icing.
The response is to check the temperature at the solar zenith.
For a 30% weaker Sun irradiance of 953 W/m^2 and an albedo of 0.3 then the zenith flux will still be 660 W/m^2 for an S-B temperature of 55 Celsius which is clearly good enough to melt ice at the equator.
You have to kick the Earth’s planetary Bond albedo up to 0.67 to get the zenith flux down to 315 W/m^2 and a solar flame temperature down to 0 Celsius.
The Earth is a rapid daily rotator, (more so in the Archean) atmospheric dynamics with a Hadley convection cell that is forced to the surface in the mid-latitudes will guarantee that a planetary high albedo atmospheric veil, such as exists on slowly rotating Venus, will never have happened on the Earth.
The faint Sun paradox does not exist.
“The faint Sun paradox does not exist.” rename that and it would make a great research paper, meaning make the wording so complex normal folk would have no clue you were actually talking about this and just maybe you can slip it through peer review.
Seriously, that would make a great paper.
Plus I was just thinking by their own lack of reason, the planet was warmed by the core over the Sun at one point and thus the so called greenhouse effect, especially at the incredibly higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, would have created “a runaway greenhouse affect” on Earth and Mars when both were still young planets, preventing both from ever cooling.
Thank you, Philip that was a good answer.
So far 4 upvotes and almost 100 views on a radiation conversion by water on a specific wavelenght question.
Not a single answer lol.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20911/can-the-absorbtion-of-infrared-around-the-650-wavenumber-in-water-be-a-substanti
Philip M,
This is my “re-vised” reply about glaciations…
Ice Age glaciations occur because of the incidence of radiation decreasing at the surface, not a degree change but actual thermal energy density change.
Why would that matter? Decreasing the incoming solar density flux decreases the potential thermal temperature of the planet.
What brings us out of a glaciation? Increase in the solar density flux of the surface TSI at the equator.
W/o water vapor the Equator could reach 120 Celsius. However, if that density flux lowered the temperature would as well.
Mini ice-ages occur because of the same short term concept, total density flux decreases, or referred to as a Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.
Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water unless the angle of incidence of the total solar flux is reduced then the glaciation moves in and that is justified by the Milankovitch cycles.”
MP,
That is a fascinating paper. I’m curious, what were your thoughts so far on it?
CDM,
Looks like we are getting close to a theory of everything.
Atmospheric water vapour causes atmospheric warming.
Atmospheric particulates causes atmospheric cooling..
All of this action is taking place at the solar flux input point, – the solar zenith
Just think what would happen if cloud coverage increased to 70%?
So I just dropped this on a troll, odds are he will have no clue what I am saying and use peer review research as the scapegoat in some way or form.
“CO2 doesn’t cause warming so the estimate was not correct based on that alone. CO2 is not a heat source, only gullible and uneducated in science would think that (and many in science are that gullible or not properly educated or just good charlatans). CO2 like all improperly named greenhouse gases, which have nothing to do with a greenhouse at all, re-radiates a specific or specific wavelengths of IR which is a line spectrum, as such a radiative source cannot under any circumstances under the laws of physics or thermodynamics, increase its own heat source without work.
A photon carries transferable energy based on the frequency of the photon in that specific wavelength, and those wavelengths do not increase the frequency to a higher frequency, regardless of energy population at that specific wavelength.
In other words a hundred photons at 15 microns or 1 photon at 15 microns can increase energy of a system and never raise the temperature one degree this is regulated by the Bose-Einstein statistic which governs all bosons including those used in climate science.
To raise temperatures heat is required and that is why the political version of climate science makes no distinctions between energy and heat. Trust me the distinctions between makes all the difference in the density flux of solar heat coming into the planet and just energy emissions going out from the planet”
CD Marshall @ 2021/03/01 at 10:50 PM
“Just think what would happen if cloud coverage increased to 70%?”
One of the things that should be apparent by now is that climate science is Lewis Carroll’s Looking-Glass World, where Alice found that everything was back to front.
My father, a maths teacher, once told me how spherical geometry was first devised by mathematicians. Everyone knows that the sum of the 3 internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, this is an immutable consequence of Euclidean geometry. Right?
Well actually no. What happens if you assume that the sum of the 3 internal angles of a triangle is more than 180 degrees? The answer is that you have just discovered spherical geometry where the sum of the 3 internal angles is indeed more than 180 degrees. Just ask any ship’s navigator if you don’t believe me.
Science advances by testing assumptions. Take albedo for example, in climate science this is a primary control on solar energy flux into the planetary atmosphere. Maybe this is just another Looking-Glass world assumption? One of the interesting aspects of designing the DAET climate model is that we can make so many new explanations for observed climate phenomena.
Albedo is one such example. Specifically, planetary cloud albedo and the temperature of the tropopause, where the relevant condensing volatile finally freezes solid, and therefore changes to become an efficient upper atmosphere particulate thermal radiator. In the case of the Earth, it is super-cooled water, for Venus the freezing volatile is concentrated sulphuric acid.
It is the temperature of the tropopause that governs the process of volatile freezing. It is the planetary lapse rate, a function of gravity and specific heat, that determines the level of this point above the ground in the atmosphere. It is the mass and gravity induced pressure reduction below 100 hPa that determines where the mean free path to space for thermal radiation through the overlying atmosphere is no longer blocked.
In short, atmospheric albedo is a consequence and not a cause of planetary climate.
Philip,
Cold creates clouds, that’s an interesting point, water vapor creates the source but cold actually creates the cloud formations.
More from EF M who seems to not get anything I say?
Me:
Ice Age glaciations occur because of the incidence of radiation decreasing at the surface, not a degree change but actual thermal energy density change.
Why would that matter? Decreasing the incoming solar density flux decreases the potential thermal temperature of the planet.
What brings us out of a glaciation? Increase in the solar density flux of the surface TSI at the equator.
W/o water vapor the Equator could reach 120 Celsius. However, if that density flux lowered the temperature would as well.
Mini ice-ages occur because of the same short term concept, total density flux decreases, or referred to as a Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.
Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water unless the angle of incidence of the total solar flux is reduced then the glaciation moves in and that is justified by the Milankovitch cycles.
EF M reply:
“but actual thermal energy density change.”
The only way to increase thermal density without increasing temperature is to increase photon frequency which means the sun instead of being a white star would be a blue star. That would mean output would have to be in the ultraviolet to x-ray which would kill anything and everything. Life would never arise with a sun like that. Nonetheless, you’d still have an issue with the second law of thermodynamics. Instead of the sun’s AU of 1,000 W/m^2 at the surface, you’d have about 700 W/m^2 which should bring the AU temperature down to -95C. Without some sort of insulator converting blue light to infrared and then blocking those infrared photons from escaping, the Earth would be a solid ice ball. Not only would the blue light have killed anything and everything, but it would have been too cold. Your theory doesn’t work.
You still haven’t explained “Catastrophe: Snowball Earth”., nor can you explain “the Missing 1.2 billion years”. Using the greenhouse gas model, it all fits.
“Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.” I’ll agree with this, but there is the usual corresponding spike in temperature afterward.
“Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water” Well, not enough to put sufficient water vapor into the air to heat the planet. The planet would remain an ice ball clear to the Equator. Once in a Snow Ball Earth climate, the only to get out of it is sufficient secondary greenhouse gases to heat the planet, and then once melted, you would a runaway greenhouse effect afterward, which is exactly what happened.
CDM @ 2021/03/02 at 4:19 PM
We need a new set of terms for this new climate science.
Form now on no more “greenhouse effect” I will instead refer to the “Maxwell Mass Effect” in honour of the renowned Victorian mathematician James Clerk Maxwell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Just because they can make something fit, doesn’t mean it’s correct. That’s exactly where the GHE comes from in the first place – to make flat earth fit! From there you can make the ghe fit anything to make anything fit.
The GHE still fails at its basis and origin. Other explanations for what he’s talking about are required and are likely already available. His example of geological history is hardly evidence of the GHE.
“Your theory doesn’t work.”
Your understanding doesn’t work.
CD Marshall says:2021/03/02 at 4:22 PM
They just make up an imaginary non reality world.
In the example the commenter made He didn’t take into acount the lower flux intenstity to make ice evaporate at lower presure
And he didn’t take into acount that it takes both high pessure and low temperature to get NO or O2 into a freezing state. …..making it improbable to get an no atmosphere pressure world.
This is the kind of stuff where atmopsheric chemistry comes into play with atmopsheric physics.
The biggest issue I find with this theory is a young Earth was far hotter than the Sun was creating on the planet with massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. With this theory, the Earth would have been created in a runaway greenhouse effect and became Venus so would Mars.
Talk about irony…
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmet.html
The International Standard Atmosphere from NASA
“Variations in air properties extend upward from the surface of the Earth. The sun heats the surface of the Earth, and some of this heat goes into warming the air near the surface. The heated air is then diffused or convected up through the atmosphere. Thus the air temperature is highest near the surface and decreases as altitude increases. The speed of sound depends on the temperature and also decreases with increasing altitude. The pressure of the air can be related to the weight of the air over a given location. As we increase altitude through the atmosphere, there is some air below us and some air above us. But there is always less air above us than was present at a lower altitude. Therefore, air pressure decreases as we increase altitude. The air density depends on both the temperature and the pressure through the equation of state and also decreases with increasing altitude.”
You should quote NASA exactly for your paper and reference this.
CD Marshall @ 2021/03/02 at 7:22 PM
“With this theory, the Earth would have been created in a runaway greenhouse effect and became Venus so would Mars”
The runaway Maxwell Mass Effect is a fiction. Using their own flat earth physics then the maximum possible thermodynamic temperature that can be achieved for ANY terrestrial planetary atmosphere of ANY composition coupled with a planetary Bond albedo of zero, is 3 times the surface diluted solar irradiance. This is the immutable mathematical limit of their own infinite geometric series of energy recycling.
So, as we have already established that the Sun was 30% less powerful in the Archean and delivered only 953 W/m2 at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA), then with an albedo of zero the divide-by-4 full surface (no night-time) planetary solar flux received at the surface will be:
953 divided by 4 all times by 3.
This has a value of 715 W/m2 which gives a S-B thermal global temperature of 62 Celsius. This low global temperature, being below the boiling point of water will never create an atmospheric mass induced boiling water thermal runaway.
More atmospheric pressure? Then the boiling point of water just goes up (nice try) 😊.
For more details of this mathematical proof see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344539740_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth's_Energy_Budget
Philip,
I was referring to the claimed theory that ghgs take us out of the snow ball effect as claimed by EF M and those videos.
If the ghge was real as they claimed then when the planet was far hotter from the surface still cooling, with massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would have never cooled, becoming another Venus (if Venus was actually from CO2 which we know it is not). With that kind of surface temperature, CO2 would be active in all its rotational/vibrational mods. I was just stating how fallacious the statements are by simple observation.
While you are here, more fun from idiots…
“Why on Earth are Winters Getting Worse if the Planet is Getting Warmer?”
The planet warming is causing more snow to fall.
2C warming is causing more snow according to a climatologist.
Look at 4:00
CD Marshall 2021/03/03 at 2:01 AM
“The planet would have never cooled, becoming another Venus (if Venus was actually from CO2 which we know it is not).”
A simple rule of battle – Take control of your enemy’s weapon and turn it against them.
By their own irrefutable logic there is a fixed limit to the process of solar radiative heating.
Venus is hot because it has a massive atmosphere – agreed, but Venus is a slow rotator and this has a controlling effect on the planet’s atmospheric mass-motion circulation dynamics.
The Earth is cooled because it is a fast rotator and the surface-to-space atmospheric by-pass window is kept clear of cloud in the mid-latitude rotation forced descending limb of the Hadley cell (deserts get cold at night).
Lots of moving parts to consider 🙂
OK, let me nail Snowball Earth as well (and this time I will do a full model analysis and not just my previous single lit hemisphere scoping number fudge).
We know what the Earth’s dry atmospheric lapse rate is for the troposphere, it is 7.5 K/Km
Looking at Snowball Earth with an Albedo of 0.306 and a weak Sun irradiance of 953 W/m^2, then the simplest single cell DAET model gives a global average temperature of minus 9.6 Celsius – Snowball Earth. But that is with an atmosphere of 1 bar. Now to get the global average above freezing we need to add 1.3 km of extra air to the dry atmosphere lapse rate of 7.5 K/Km to raise minus 9.6 Celsius up to a global average temperature of zero.
For the Earth’s pressure profile this extra 1.3 km of surface air equates to an increase in surface pressure to 1.18 bar.
So how do we do this? Get those volcanoes to pump out CO2, to increase the surface pressure. Now there is no rain to wash out the CO2 (it’s a Snowball) but it will take a good few million years to achieve this. (There is however no land-based animal life to care about this).
Let’s check the albedo sensitivity. Going all out with a Venus albedo of 0.77 then the Snowball will have a global surface temperature of minus 73 Celsius, seriously cold – but not yet cold enough to initiate a high-pressure carbon dioxide condensing volatile meteorology (curious that). To melt this Snowball, we need to add a lot more pressure to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to an extra air thickness of 9.76 km for the 7.5 K/Km atmosphere lapse rate. This extra air requires a surface pressure increase to 3 bar.
A 3-bar carbon dioxide atmosphere Earth is achievable by normal geological processes, but just needs more time. (Geology is a patient science).
Remember however with a surface ice high albedo of 0.77, any albedo changes down, for example a decent volcanic sourced global dust cloud settling on the ice (Mars has those type of global dust storms) then the sudden surface albedo change at a high atmospheric pressure will initiate a catastrophic global melting and the end of Snowball Earth.
Did I mention carbon dioxide? Oh yes it makes the surface pressure rise., but that’s all that it is required to do.
P.s. Those photosynthetic Archean algae have a lot of explaining to do.
My faith in the standard IQ and critical thinking of humanity is fading fast.
I showed someone the International Standard Atmosphere model, explained a dozen times (literally) that the standard model has shown the surface temperature average to be 15C for over 45 years and that model must be accurate for all air flight world wide.
To any reasonable mind deduction would be GISS, NASA and NOAA are lying their arse off by claiming the surface has increased by 1-2 degrees in just the last decade or whatever its claimed now.
But nope, the person’s reply…
“So help me out here. I googled “International Standard Atmosphere model”, and “If air flight used GISS or NASA or NOAA models, airplanes would be dropping out of the sky like flies”, and I’m not getting anything related to climate change. Am I doing something wrong?”
At this point, why do I bother?
CD I think it’s hopeless the general public seem to have the IQ of a hammer. They can’t seem to understand how the real physical world works but seem to believe anything that comes from a computer model even though it’s proven over and over to be wrong. It’s almost as if people want the world to fail and then some how that will be better for our children.
Higher educated conservatives still level with lower educated, just confirming their toughts some more
Higher educated liberals have a huge difference in understanding things compared to the general population.
The high educated neo-liberals (wannabe globalist commie/fascist/technocrat combo).
They are the lone wolves. ….Not reasonating with the rest of society.
Got my first answer on a water absorbtion of ispecific infrared wavelenght question.
They just play stupid. And claim despite a visual explaining the point not undersanding the question because of in his/their view of wrong used terminology lol
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20911/can-the-absorbtion-of-infrared-around-the-650-wavenumber-in-water-be-a-substanti
MP,
Yes he’s playing the 3-ds Deny,Discredit, Deflect.
If he is smart enough to ‘correct’ you he is smart enough to understand the question.
Philip Mulholland,
As I said your Snowball Earth would make an excellent concept for a paper, your explanation is forcing me to do homework though 🙂
I’m curious, Professor Easterbrook seems to be into glaciations, has he done any valid research on the subject? Not a very accessible guy, I tried emailing him once he never responded, to his credit, Pierrehumbert did (or an aid or college grad) but I did get reply from him at least.
NASA on the other hand, didn’t, I must be on the “no reply” list when I queried for black body historical records to compare with solar cycles.
The latest troll reply,
“If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature. Try it, your theory won’t work. O2 and N2 simply won’t retain heat for any length of time. Do the exact same thing to a clear glass container of CO2 and the temperature will increase dramatically. This has been tested time and time again. Your theory is bonkers.”
I just had another thought,
” In the limit of a horizontally uniform radiating temperature, the answer is clearly 4, which is just the ratio of surface area of a sphere to its cross section, and comes from the most elementary energy balance principles…”
Wouldn’t that geometry be assuming the TOA is the heat source, and not treating light as the physics which reaches the surface and then converts to the heat source?
Which is basically treating albedo as a divisor not a reflector/diffusion?
So the TOA “can” be treated as a virtual restricted blackbody in that sense due to the amount of absorption and re-direction of the higher energy particle physics.
The atmosphere would then be the characteristic grey body or limited blackbody for the conversion of some energy particles that is so weak the temperatures are still below freezing.
Then we have the surface, more like a blackbody creating higher temps at the equatorial zenith.
Apologies esteemed scientists, I got lazy in my verbiage.
I did not mean TOA as in 100 km, I meant the actual top of the atmopsher as in the Thermosphere.
CD Marshall @ 2021/03/04 at 9:06 PM
“If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature.”
More rabbit holes, it is hard to know where to start.
1. What is ambient temperature? The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 9.3 mega Pascals. If you pumped the air up to that pressure and left your cylinder on the ambient surface of Venus what would happen? How long would it take to cool back to 15 Celsius? He is clearly a Boyle’s law denier.
2. The air is always warmer at the bottom of a deep mine shaft. Why is that?
3. What about the wind? He is trying to equate a static system with a dynamic one. For as long as the planet continues to daily turn, for as long as the sun continues to shine on its surface, then the air will circulate and the Trade winds will blow. Where does he think that the motion energy of the wind comes from? Is he also a Hadley cell denier?
Maybe he does not “believe in” the “science” of “green energy” after all.
Philip while you are here (if you still are), do you know what generally causes SSWs (sudden stratospheric warming) over the Arctic?
I know this has happened for centuries, and it can break down the Polar Vortex which breaks down the Polar jet stream which then can dump snow over Texas or England or anywhere.
But what kickstarts it?
Does a change in wind patterns influence this at all?
CD Marshall @ 2021/03/05 at 1:18 AM
“Do you know what generally causes SSWs (sudden stratospheric warming) over the Arctic?”
No I don’t know. However it is a very good question and clearly needs an answer,
I suspect that Piers Corbyn is the man to ask.
http://weatheraction.com/
This was my reply to the troll,
You are confusing two different (but closely related) processes here buddy, pressure/compression. This is like heat and energy, something many get tripped up on in thermodynamics.
While the compressor is running the hoses typically get hot due to compression, pressure by itself does not normally increase the temperatures. Take CO2 cartridges for an example, not hot at all even under pressure.
The ocean floor is a perfect example for water is not compressible.
IR absorption through the glass is a totally different process than the compressor.
Everything under the Sun will get hot including O2 and NO.
Ghgs are IR reactive as well, and CO2 has a higher molar mass and different specific heat than NO and O2.
Thus it will expand, increasing pressure and compression, which activates the KE and creates the increase in temperature.
Did you forget Boyle’s Law and Charles’ Law?
The difference in molecular constants and state variables?
Thank you, will do!
All this talk about temperature and pressure makes me think that those who survive this catastrophic global warming may be the ones with the strongest eardrums..
Because of all the shouting?
Or the pressure on the eardrums?
I just heard ice is melting at the poles because of the acid in the oceans.
Will these idiots ever stop? No real science will exist at the end of this century if they keep this up.
“”If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature. Try it, your theory won’t work. O2 and N2 simply won’t retain heat for any length of time. Do the exact same thing to a clear glass container of CO2 and the temperature will increase dramatically. This has been tested time and time again. Your theory is bonkers.””
Except the atmosphere is convecting, and a glass container isn’t large enough to manifest the adiabatic gradient.
These people keep telling us that you can warm co2 with a heat source. I don’t think anyone disagrees,the problem comes in when they claim to make the heat source warmer which not being a scientist I can’t say it doesn’t but would need to be shown proof.
FYI
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20937/why-does-climate-science-divide-total-insolation-by-4
Popcorn on.
As if acid “melting the Arctic” wasn’t enough, I read this:
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Now they have people convinced coal is radioactive!
Wait, what’s going here?
Imagine roasting 200lb pig on a spit over a fire. It takes 24hrs on a slow rotation to cook the pork evenly. The temperature is 160F. If I use your equation, and four sources of 40F surround the pig instead of a fire, the pork will still be raw. Averaging temperature serves no purpose. Further, (1−a)Ω4 suggests all sunlight is reaching the earth at the same time. This is not the case. Why not (1−a)Ω2? – Leon Hiebert 16 mins ago
Imagine this: dt of the time on one side, dt on the opposite. So half of the time 2dt is on one side, same on another. Now add these small amounts of time. – User123 12 mins ago
Why is user123 wanting to add the sunny side to the dark side if I’m understanding correctly? Is he suggesting the “4” in 1−a)Ω4 is based on the speed a body rotates? Say we had 3 planets that spun at different speeds and one that didn’t spin at all. How would you calculate it then?
CD Marshall,
WRT your thoughts at https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/02/23/interview-with-unn/#comment-70560 and the consequences of a planet without water.
Some thoughts.
Without water —
1. The temperature differential between the sunlit side of the planet and the night side would be much greater.
2. Without the regulating effect of water on the atmosphere, probably the top of the troposphere on the sunlit side of the would rise while at the the dark side and pole that is in winter would fall.
3. With no water the polar albedo disappears, polar summers are much hotter, polar winters are very much colder.
With such stark temperature and therefore pressure differential around the planet the air will move around faster. This high movement ensure that the cell structure of the atmosphere would change. Out goes the Hadley, intermediate, and polar cells, and probably more cells would appear between the equator and the poles. Increased wind speeds would ensure lots of dust in the atmosphere, more dust that is not only whipping around the planet but also being lofted high up at the sunny equatorial region. This dust would band-up to regions of dust overcast sky with a cold surface below and clear areas where the ground beneath is very warm. However these areas are not static but writhe all across the planet.
Overall I would envision the planet to look more like a mini Saturn but with faster moving features, than anything here is today.
Great analysis!
Thanks Joseph,
I am also trying to come to grips with how the planet’s temperature differential could act as an amplifying method to solar variations.
I don’t believe it is the absolute temperature (solar energy) changes that drives the climate into cooler or warmer periods, but it’s the effect on relative changes occurring both on the sunlit equator to night side, and equator to poles.
As only small variations of solar energy are seen then I see (perhaps) a need for the Earth’s weather/climate system (maybe) having a method of amplifying it.
My thoughts run this way …
Assuming that the temperatures differentials from sunlit equatorial to the poles and to the night side drives our weather, then during a warm periods (solar maximums) this differential would lessen — the poles get warmer (by how much?), the atmosphere gets damper (evidence?) thus maintaining the night time temperature better, and conversely during cooler periods (solar minimums) the differentials increase — solar equatorial warmth is only slightly impacted(?) (by the small drop in solar energy) but polar and night time temperatures drop more that usual (but by how much?). Each scenario could maintain itself but could they get back out of the climate regime they are locked into consistent with the observations?
I’m going to leave the interpretation of this response for you guys. I don’t know if he was giving me a point or taking one away. I’m leaning towards a point for Joseph.
“@LeonHiebert roasting is a nonlinear process; it involves a threshold. Heat diffusion is basically a linear process, though blackbody radiation is of course very nonlinear, being T4. Your question turns out to be quite interesting! –”
Got one thinking Leon!
Ya but it’s actually your fishing rod, I just got a bite and wouldn’t know what to do with it. lol You should make another account and play layman.
tom0mason
Great analogy.
Your world “version” sounds very much like the Gobi desert on steroids.With such potential higher wind, dust storms would become lethal. The Coriolis effect pushes ocean water higher to one side of the planet now imagine no water. Storms easily reaching 200 mph and more.
The existing species would have to have been developed more as subterranean than surface dwellers. Just like if mostly all the Earth was one ocean, species would be developed as nautical.
These are seeds for world building analyses of other planets.
Take Mars and the Moon for example, not surface friendly, humans would have to adapt to subterranean life.
Which the diamond mine in Africa has a literal city under the Earth, some had to be born never seeing the surface of the planet for the black market under the mines is like a hidden civilization.
“Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste”
Does anyone have a reply to this? I need something factual to put the comment in proper perspective and counter it.
‘Is it possible to kickstart an hypothetical frozen earth with 0.6 ice albedo to an earth with an atmosphere, with just the sun at current distance?’
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20875/is-it-possible-to-kickstart-an-hypothetical-frozen-earth-with-0-6-ice-albedo-to
BOOMIE,
you had a link to an old co2 record stub didn’t you?
“@LeonHiebert No, fast rotation is needed only to heat a sphere uniformly. If the rotation is slower, one hemisphere of a sphere gets warmer and the other one colder. (And opposite after P/2.) – User123 6 hours ago
Radiant heat, not conducted heat; not sure temperature is the correct unit. Watts per square metre? A quarter of a Fahrenheit temperature won’t be a quarter as hot btw. – Ken Fabian 6 hours ago ”
Help me chip away at this guys. I have just a simple method of broaching this subject from the perspective of someone not overtly a “denier”. Just a curious fence sitter. The moment a scent of denier is detected, I will lose any cooperation, psychologically derailing my attempts to make someone think for themselves. I think what I need to do is lift the curtain a little more about what kind of heat 1/4 power can produce.
Here you go Joseph, I got you a response no one is willing to debate you about.:
My answer is mainly here to give some quantitative reasoning, but for the sake of completeness I’ll also answer what my predecessors already answered.
Why do we divide by 4?
Imagine you see earth from the perspective of the sun. What you see is a disc. The area of this disc is πr2 and therefore the total energy earth received from the sun is S0πr2(1−α), where the (1−α) takes into account that the solar radiation is partly reflected. As stated in the other answers, the idea is to distribute the energy over the whole surface of earth 4πr2. Thus, energy received per m2 is S0(1−α)4.
Why is it reasonable to assume that the energy is distributed evenly over the whole globe at an instant?
The short answer is: If we use this assumption we are usually dealing with timescales much longer than a full rotation of the earth. Thus, daily variations are negligible.
A quantitative example:
Let’s compare the time it takes the atmosphere to adjust to an imbalance N to the time it takes the earth to rotate once. A full rotation takes approximately trot≈60×60×24s=86400s.
The imbalance problem requires a few explanations up front. Suppose we double CO2 in the atmosphere. This causes a forcing of F2×CO2≈3.7Wm2 according to IPCC. We now want to know how long it takes the atmosphere to adjust to this forcing.
Let’s setup a model: Following Gregory et. al. we model the imbalance linearly as
N=F2×CO2+λT,
where T is the temperature relative to some reference T0 and λ is the (negative) feedback parameter with units Wm2K. Thus an increase in temperature reduces the imbalance. Additionally we assume that the imbalance will lead to an increase in temperature over time (as done e.g. here)
N=CdTdt,
where t is time and C is the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Combining the two equations above we find
CdTdt=F2×CO2+λT.
The solution to the differential equation above is
T(t)=−F2×CO2λ(1−eλCt).
We can see the adjustment process takes an infinite time, however two thirds of the process are done within the e-folding time τ (when the term in the exponent is −1). The exponent is −1 if t=τ=−Cλ. Note that if t is approaching infinity we have T(∞)=−F2×CO2λ (This is called Equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of doubling CO2).
What’s left to do is estimating C and λ. We can estimate the heat capacity of the atmosphere (just a column) to be
C=cppsg=1005JKkg105Pa9.81ms2=1.02×107Jm2K.
IPCC tells us that T(∞) is likely to be between 1.5°C−4.5°C. Let’s set T(∞)=3°C and calculate
λ=−3.7Wm23K=−1.23Wm2K. Finally we find
τ=−1.02×107Jm2K−1.23Wm2K≈8.7×106s≈100×trot.
Such a shortage on semiconductors world wide whoever can invent a new method would become richer than Musk.
Leon,
It’s funny what they put in equations and pretend its reality. Where this is the reality of the Sun’s influence on the Earth so blatant even a climate scientist can see it (but chooses not to).
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=2;-12;1&l=temperature-2m
August 3rd, 1979 the entire United States was in a heat wave and NW Africa was hitting 40+ Celsius.
You even noticed how GISS, NOAA and NASA maps they make the higher cold temperature colors almost the same as the hot colors so when you first glance at the map it looks like the planet is on fire? Geesh how could they have missed such an over site?
I can’t understand how they can justify the division of four in anyway. If you are studying the climate you have to start with a realistic model. If you think of the thousand watt rotisserie cooking one chicken in one hour does that mean you can cook four chicken in four hours with 250 watts? Easily provable just do a 1000 chickens in 1000 hours with one watt each turn the rotisserie any speed you want it won’t change anything. Oh ya I forgot do this all in a room that is kept at -18 so the chicken will cook before it rots. Good luck.
Cheers everyone
Barry,
I think they’re saying it depends on the speed of rotation but I need someone smarter to come in parse the math/logic. In the meantime, I’m playing the duck “student” to see if I can coax out some reason and get them to answer the question inadvertently. Or something…
“If we use this assumption we are usually dealing with timescales much longer than a full rotation of the earth. Thus, daily variations are negligible.”
Bunch of intentionally confusing gobbledygook. How about we do the real time round earth version though? Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
Bunch of intentionally confusing gobbledygook. How about we do the real time round earth version though? Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
I have no idea of what he was saying lol
Yea science priest using their own language.
Like how the priest before Luther or whoever who where the only guys who knew latin. Thus tho only guys who could really read the bible. That’s essentially what he’s doing. Throwing a bunch of meaningless equations at you to calculate how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
It’s not a super complicated thing Postma is trying to demonstrate.
No it’s not complicated. But if you’re following that question, you’ll see I’m taking a totally different approach this time. I already know that answer. Instead of telling him what it is, I want him to tell me what it is by finding it himself. He already said “No, 168W/M^2 does not hit the surface” thinking intuitively it must be more. I’ve repeatedly asked how hot that is. It’s coming.
Good work you guys. I’m proud of you. I’ll reply more when I get a chance.
It’s all good Leon,these people seem to think we are so stupid that we don’t understand that they divide by four for the area of a sphere. And yet they won’t just come out and defend their own theory but instead try to confuse the issue with more meaningless gobblygook. Tells you quite a bit about their commitment to the hypotheses right there.
August 3rd, 1979 the entire United States was in a heat wave and NW Africa was hitting 40+ Celsius.
The just re-adjusted the data, now its ‘up to’ 40C.
In 1979 we had to be in the Meridional, for they had the similar patterns of heat waves moving all the way from the Equator to Northern Canada and Siberia as well as extreme blizzards in the Winters.
Now the heat wave doesn’t exist? Oh well.
I had a great source of historical weather at one time, something called a history of notable weather or something, I lost it when my old HDD to a dive. I had it on .pdf and have never found it again.
“While 99% of fly ash is captured by filters, small amounts (about 1%) can escape into the air. Government regulations require power plants to limit the amount of fly ash that escapes into the environment and to dispose of collected ash properly.” -EPA
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
“Like all rocks, coal contains small amounts of radioactive elements that are found naturally in the environment. When coal is burned to create heat and steam to produce power it is called combustion. During coal combustion, natural radioactive material in coal concentrates in three main waste streams:
That was weird?
Like all rocks, coal contains small amounts of radioactive elements that are found naturally in the environment. When coal is burned to create heat and steam to produce power it is called combustion. During coal combustion, natural radioactive material in coal concentrates in three main waste streams:
Lol it keeps doing it???
Like all rocks, coal contains small amounts of radioactive elements that are found naturally in the environment. When coal is burned to create heat and steam to produce power it is called combustion. During coal combustion, natural radioactive material in coal concentrates in three main waste streams:
I give up I have no ideal why it keeps boxing the last part??? Lol I did nothing to it must be incoded in the original print or something?
“encoded”
Hi CD et al, I found this interesting snippet in the Nature IR flux analysis that we discussed a month ago. There was one hell of an inconvenient DECREASE in measured CO2 emission that got a royal peer reviewing and dismissal due, somehow, to the opacity of the molecule itself and “uncertainties”. There would be no such doubts about the later, and still the only, empirical “proof” that CO2 is downwelling 0.2 W/m2 more per decade.
“…In fact, doing so (exploring the effect of changes in well-mixed greenhousegases on spectral and broadband radiation fluxes) has proved difficult. Using data from two satellite instruments launched 26 years apart, Harries et al.8 attributed systematically decreased emission in CO2 and CH4 spectral bands to increased opacity from, and rising concentrations in, these well-mixed greenhouse gases. However, this effort was complicated by uncertainties in instrument performance, short measurement records from each instrument, and cloud contamination 9.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240.epdf?no_publisher_access=1&r3_referer=nature
J Cuttance
Thanks I’ll look at it. I really don’t know how anyone can justify a 1-3 W/m^2 as anything other than noise or bias of error +/- in this regard when dealing with a chaotic and volatile environmental system. To me it would be like claiming we saw ten or thirty more snowflakes in the current snow storm than we did in the storm ten years ago and then make up whatever reason best suits your desired narrative as for the problematic cause.
“With the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with our commercial and international partners and establish sustainable exploration by the end of the decade. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars.”
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/#why
Joseph are you too old to try out as an astronaut? LOL.
I had this insanely lucid dream once that I was an old man working on the moon…
as a concierge, Joseph?
@Leon says: 2021/03/06 at 11:04 AM
That long reply is just completely missing the point about real-time heating, etc.
It’s actually perfect. It shows how they can derive and set up all of the mathematics required to create pseudo-physics of nothing that connects to reality at all…just like they did with the GHE and their flat Earth diagrams, etc.
They’re great mathematicians. And terrible physicists.
“Barry says: 2021/03/06 at 1:17 PM
I can’t understand how they can justify the division of four in anyway. If you are studying the climate you have to start with a realistic model.”
And as we have seen them admit repeatedly – the basic pedagogical teaching model they use is one where the Earth is flat and the Sun doesn’t heat the Earth and the solar power is diluted by 4, etc.
“But that’s just how we TEACH it!” they respond…hahahahahahah 🙂
Yes…we’re pointing out what you teach…morons!
He cloaks behind a bunch of meaningless equations that the average person could never hope to understand.
It’s just an energy budget and it’s for high schoolers and the first classes of the first year of college. He has to always go to his deep fantasy math for fantasy land and can’t point to phenomena or experiments in reality.
At least he can’t if we already went through blankets, real greenhouses, venus, waterfalls and other incorrect analogies to reality. After those all fail he will hide behind a bunch of nonsense math and sophistry tactics.
And until the “greenhouse effect” itself is made illegal, this could go on forever.
Joseph E Postma says:
2021/03/07 at 1:17 PM
Currently discussing why they say 168 reaches the surface (-39) yet a car reaches 51 (626). First he said the ghe causes the extra heat outside but how will he explain the inside of car? Is that why we shouldn’t leave dogs and kids in the car, because of the ghe? Waiting to see the gymnastics.
Nice
Got him.
Well, you just did use that comparison again. I’ll drop out of this conversation here, because I think we’re drifting too far away from the initial question. One last suggestion though: read wikipedias article on greenhouses (the thing you grow plants in). – J. Fregin 9 mins ago
I’m sorry to see you go because this question never gets answered. But you do understand where I’m coming from I hope. 340 at TOA is less than the 626 needed to heat 1m2 of the inside of a car and has nothing to do with extra GHG heat. Until this contradiction is adequately answered, it will always be a sticking point. Enjoy the rest of your day. – Leon Hiebert 5 mins ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat. – J. Fregin 1 min ago
Good one!!!
I’m reluctant to take the invite. Wants to get me alone and gaslight me. No reason not to stay public.
@ Leon
Good aproach you are taking. Was the first to upvote you few days ago, to kickstart your question.
If we all get 15 points we can all upvote each others questions, what defends vs the downvoters.
MP says:
2021/03/07 at 4:59 PM
Ah thanks for the vote, I’ve racked up 60 points now.
Yes, my approach is a psychological one. They view the world through the lens of a microscope. No peripheral.
INSANITY:
noun
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
“he suffered from bouts of insanity”
extreme foolishness or irrationality.
plural noun: insanities
“it might be pure insanity to take this loan”
Insane Climate Disassociation:
Refutation of reality based physics based on a misinterpretations of fallacious science core beliefs, verging into a religious devotion of belief over applied and proved physics.
When one suffering from ICD is approached and their core shared delusion is threatened in anyway, they revert to the three Ds of ICD Beliefs,
Deny, Deflect, Discredit.
Will this age be known in history as, “Aetate Ignorant climate scientia” ?
Cd you better throw in some pandemic stupidity as well. The average person is as stupid as a hammer and they no longer even want the truth. It’s hard to believe that anyone just wants to be told what to think but that is the masses we live in.
“You need to compare apples to apples. As was explained earlier, the factor 4 comes into play for an averaged model of Earth, that is represented either by a point (0-D) or a 1-D profile. An averaged model does not have pole-caps or a hot equator, where ice would melt. If you want all those details, do a 3-D model, then you won’t worry about this factor of 4. Nonetheless 0-D and 1-D models are useful to showcase general atmospheric physics, especially the GHG, and give correct average temperatures. – AtmosphericPrisonEscape 2 hours ago
1
(cont.) Your example car exists somewhere as a point on a 3-D sphere where the insolation is larger than the average, and additionally has a significant GHG effect from the atmosphere + window. Furthermore you need a certain photon intensity, not a flux, to raise the temperature. To require a flux for a temperature is just ill-defined in a radiatively diffusive atmosphere. Beyond that, remember that in the diffusive (GHG) atmosphere the local photon intensity increases as (1+τ)1/4, where τ is the optical depth. –”
Anyone want to take a stab at this? Unpack it to the point where a simple answer wrecks the whole thing? He’s saying irradiance in a car is higher than the global average per m2 because of intensity, not flux. Or something. I know there’s a contradiction in here simply because the metric I use is this. They’re wrong, therefore they contradict themselves frequently.
So is he saying they use 4 because they only use 1-d? Sure sounds like he’s asking to see Joseph’s model.
“Nonetheless 0-D and 1-D models are useful to showcase general atmospheric physics, especially the GHG, and give correct average temperatures.”
Yes…especially the GHE…lol. Exactly. The GHE is invented to MAKE the correct average temperature…
“Furthermore you need a certain photon intensity, not a flux, to raise the temperature.”
Intensity is what is meant by flux. That is what it is called in the Stefan Boltzmann equation relation flux (intensity) to temperature.
“To require a flux for a temperature is just ill-defined”
It’s the S-B Law.
Yes, intensity in your typical car is much hotter than the average, exactly, and it is THAT high flux or intensity which generates the high temperature inside the car, combined with the REAL greenhouse effect inside the car where the air inside it cannot escape and be replaced by cooler air.
They’re doing both – using cold sunshine to invent their GHE, but then using hot sunshine where their GHE isn’t actually needed to explain a warm car interior.
“To require a flux for a temperature is just ill-defined in a radiatively diffusive atmosphere.”
Yet they define the flux of back radiation as a temperature increase in a radiative diffusive atmosphere. They can’t have it both ways, either the greenhouse gas effect is real and stops the diffusivity atmosphere from cooling or the GHGE doesn’t exist.
Lol calling the car anything but a hotbox where convection does not occur or is strongly restricted is reaching a realm of science fiction over physics.
“They’re doing both – using cold sunshine to invent their GHE, but then using hot sunshine where their GHE isn’t actually needed to explain a warm car interior.”
I just commented there before reading this but I did bring it back to S-B. I think he’s saying because they only use a 1d model, that’s why the 4, ergo 340/168. So I simply asked why would you use a 1d model? Why not Holder’s inequality law? And that’s why the car is indeed more, because it’s really a 3-d model and not 1d.
I just asked my troll choir this question,
“Can one 15 micron photon or a thousand 15 micron photons or a million 15 micron photons melt an ice cube?”
You want to see some troll contortions ask them that? They will say everything possible yet never answer the question.
“have the potential to melt an ice cube?”
I forget they will try and play the meaning game, photons “can’t melt anything”, well knowing the point is obviously in the energy transfer not the photon itself but that is just a method of misdirection from the question.
Joseph,
This was posted a week ago,William Happer on climate. Love to hear your educated thoughts…
At 22:00 he starts getting into sketchy physics.
Q=h A \Delta T Q = heat transfer rate
h = convection heat-transfer coefficient
A = exposed surface area
Delta T = temperature difference
Model/models, heat transfer from the surface is pretty much that.
I should say heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere as if it would go anywhere else?
Someone critique this if they’re bored and feel like it.
@CD: It’s a decent video discussion there by Happer. Not much to add.
But the problem has always been a poor grasp of thermodynamics…even among the skeptics…even among physics emeritus…lol. If you were to press him on it I am sure that it could be shown that he doesn’t fully appreciate what the GHE actually is or how it is supposed to work. When he described it around 23:30, he’s just describing the ability of CO2 to either absorb or scatter IR from a warm source. And of course that is not what the GHE is.
“Nonetheless 0-D and 1-D models are useful to showcase general atmospheric physics, especially the GHG, and give correct average temperatures.”
But this IS a useless metric, it gives NO information about weather or climate, in fact by its very nature it removes ALL evidence of variation, removes the weather/climate signal.
Analogy — You wish to know how far and in what direction a person went in their vehicle.
First average their acceleration because we can measure that very accurately …
http://nov79.com/gbwm/tmp.html
Hi guys just wondering if any of you have ever looked at this Gary Novak work and wondering what you thought. Seems to have some good explanations for lay people if most of it is correct,such as not being able to trap heat etc. Need someone with more knowledge than mine to know how much of it is right or wrong.
Thanks Barry
So I just did a retro check for the fun of it, Today, 3/9/21 Australia average temperature is 30 Celsius. On this day 60 years ago Australia’s average temperature was 31 Celsius.
Absolute proof that CO2 warming is inverse to the linear time lapse rate.
Lol
Joseph, any suggestions for clarity and for those more educated should I add any equations at the bottom?
SIMPLE PROCESSES OF A REAL GREENHOUSE:
*Solar energy is absorbed in the greenhouse.
*The internal air of the greenhouse is warmed by the surface by way of conduction.
*That warmed air rises by way of convection but is stopped by the glass ceiling in completing its convective process that would have cooled off the greenhouse.
*That temperature at the top of the greenhouse cannot exceed either the external temperature or the internal temperature.
Which the internal temperature, in daylight, theoretically cannot exceed the solar energy available in that time and region.
Another for your approval,
All energy distribution does not equate an increase in temperature even if radiation was being re-absorbed back to the surface. This is a climate change trick not supported by the standard Laws of Thermodynamics, but more importantly the Bose-Einstein Statistic, where it is obvious unlike fermions, low level bosons can stack without an increase in temperature, for bosons, in this case photons, are frequency/wavelength dependent.
Any line spectrum (a quantized discrete package) only carries transferable energy according to its frequency/wavelength.
Photon Energy=Delta E =hf
E=Energy of the photon
h=Plank’s constant (6.63×10^-34 J*s)
f=frequency (^14 Hz)=6.63×10^-20 J
That energy must be greater than the radiative emissions of the frequency/wavelength of the object receiving it to increase the temperature.
That means no warming to the surface
Shorter version: Line spectrum cannot return to its radiative source and increase the temperature.
Huge difference between one solar photon and the conversion of that energy to terrestrial photons on average a 1-30 ratio, the COE law helps keep the universe from being overwhelmed with higher energy particles, and no that energy is not reversible, thus the Bose-Einstein statistic. No matter how many terrestrial photons “stack” it won’t equal the solar photon it originated from.
Once that frequency/wavelength is broken down it can’t regardless of population, achieve equal temperature from the energy transferred from the original solar photon. Which means, any “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface even at 100% does not increase temperature above the radiating source it originated from. This is QM and this applies to the atmosphere.
Short wave transfers as heat to material. Material re-radiates at its own frequencies.
Yes both good. Temperature increase is about frequency increase, NOT about more photons of the same or lower frequency.
Thank you good sir,
I snagged an arrogant troll who claims to be an “BSc in Applied Physics” over on Happer’s videos.
Besides trying to discredit anything I say I’ve seen no proof of his “physics education” on any post so far.
my latest reply to BSc:
“An education is physics is not evidence or proof you understand basic thermodynamics or the processes of heating and warming on the micro level of physics. Quite frankly if you did you would see the blatant errors in the greenhouse gas effect core fundamentals.”
Let’s see if he actually replies with “science” or attacks my words as he has been doing so far and offering no science.
I’m going to reply with this: Now I want to test his “applied physics education” can you add something only a physics educated person would know?
“Maaan, Everything emits thermal radiation. You really speak of physical phenomena that you don’t know/understand at all.”
And you claim I don’t understand physics? I’m certainly not an expert in physics but I at least understand physics with some practical sense.
A gas is not a source of energy it typically absorbs spectral lines and is heated by another source (the surface) which is heated by another source (the Sun). The upper atmosphere can absorb some direct solar energy, especially O3 but it is not radiating as a black body and before you reply with something else stupid, as a black body means it has a full spectrum of radiation which a gas does not.
Nice
CDK:
“Pff. So it is called “greenhouse effect”, cause greenhouses glasses keep some of the energy in which was absorbed by the contents of the greenhouse (like the ground itself).”
The atmosphere is not a blackbody; it does not behave like “the ground”. A gas absorbs spectral lines it does not emit radiation as a source. CO2 is not a heat source and neither is the atmosphere thus heat transfer must be allocated accordingly from the source and that energy conversion from the Sun to the surface is not reversible. In case it still wasn’t clear, that means the Sun is the source of energy.
As long as our surface is free to convect it is free to cool so no, absolutely NOT like a greenhouse. A greenhouse functions by preventing or largely restricting convection. CO2 is pumped full in greenhouses and it does not change the temperature one bit.
“even on youtube, there are countless videos showing it somewhat on very small scales.”
It’s called the Ideal Gas Law, Pv=nRT, increased pressure of a gas makes compression which increases kinetic energy which increases temperature it is the same process that creates the adiabatic lapse rate in our atmosphere. Any gas with a higher molar mass than an average parcel of air (like CO2) will compress more and increase temperature, really just high school physics.
“Thermodynamic heat can be produced but never contained in a system.” I meant exactly what I said.
Q
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon…” -Thermodynamics, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects… The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat .” -Chapter 1 – Energy in Thermal Physics Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics
“…Thus ‘heat’ may be termed as the energy interaction at the system boundary which occurs due to temperature difference only. Heat is observable in transit at the interface i.e. boundary, it cannot be contained in a system” –Applied Thermodynamics by Onkar Singh
Our Troposphere functions as a Carnot cycle (Google it) as such it is not in thermal equilibrium and it will never be in thermal equilibrium and claiming COE (conservation of energy) dictates the atmosphere must be in thermal equilibrium is an error in understanding the LOT (Laws of Thermodynamics), ‘heat in does not equal heat out’.
Energy in equals energy out and if the appropriate allocations for that energy was provided in the consensus science energy budgets that balance of energy would be evident in a 24 hour period.
Energy in reaching the SURFACE: 910-980 W/m^2 (Greater solar density flux dictates a more concentrated volume of energy in but only on half the planet and half the time of the outgoing flux). Greater density flux means the energy coming in is hotter than the energy going out.
Energy out: 227.5 W/m^2 – 245 W/m^2 (Over the entire planet in 24 hours thus less density flux over an extended period of time.)
Without both components, there is no “heat” just a transfer of energy. No heat=no raise in temperature thus the equation, (Th^4 – Tc^4) from hot to cold.
The greenhouse effect does not mean an increase in surface temperature for a radiative source (the surface) cannot increase its own temperature without work especially from spectral lines for the atmosphere is not a radiative source, ergo, a black body.
I think that’s enough for now.
Troll BSc:
“The atmosphere is not a blackbody; it does not behave like “the ground”. ”
What blackbody you talking about and why? I did not mean blackbody by the ground or earth (in the case of the atmosphere). Do you even try to understand what I say? Did you even read my full comment?
“A gas absorbs spectral lines it does not emit radiation as a source.”
Maaan, Everything emits thermal radiation. You really speak of physical phenomena that you don’t know/understand at all.
“CO2 is not a heat source and neither is the atmosphere thus heat transfer must be allocated accordingly from the source and that energy conversion from the Sun to the surface is not reversible.”
I don’t know what are you trying to say here, what you mean by “not reversible”? You really speaking without context or real meaning.
“In case it still wasn’t clear, that means the Sun is the source of energy. ”
In case if you would have read my full comment, you would know that I am saying the same:
“The energy emitted by the Sun pretty much constant, what changes are the amount of energy earth losses, if there are more greenhouse gases, then there is less percent of the total energy (radiation) of the Sun is being radiated out into space from earth. ”
“As long as our surface is free to convect it is free to cool so no, absolutely NOT like a greenhouse. A greenhouse functions by preventing or largely restricting convection.”
Why are you even speaking convection here? Yes, the greenhouse is not a good comparison by you speak nonsense, you don’t even realize what are the real differences…
“CO2 is pumped full in greenhouses and it does not change the temperature one bit.”
It does, quite a lot actually.
“It’s called the Ideal Gas Law, Pv=nRT, increased pressure of a gas makes compression which increases kinetic energy which increases temperature it is the same process that creates the adiabatic lapse rate in our atmosphere. Any gas with a higher molar mass than an average parcel of air (like CO2) will compress more and increase temperature, really just high school physics.”
Why do you even bring up Ideal Gas Law? What are you calculating here with it? You are calculating nothing with it, though you write down an equation, but I bet you don’t even know what do letters mean in it, not to mention to even use the equation. Ideal Gas Law doesn’t even say anything about temperature change from an outside source…
Where or how do you come up with nonsense? Just cause you know the name of one physical law, it does not mean you are using it or even understand it. You are trying to fool me with it or you even fooled yourself that you are some kind of physicists? (no, Ideal Gas Law is not really high school physics)
Also, most greenhouses are not under pressure and even if they would be, it wouldn’t change much in an experiment as just because being under pressure it won’t make magically the gas the observer more energy or such things (at least not on pressures we are speaking of, like less than 100 bar).
All these copy-pasted quotes and lines, are without context and hardly make any sense in this context. Just cause google dropped out some things and you copy-paste the first lines or the title, it DOES NOT MEAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
I guess you are doing it to look smart or knowledgeable, but it only makes it clear that you have no clue what you are talking about and that you have no education at all in any relevant subject. Education is not just reading stuff, education is also about learning things to use and correctly.
When you are not copy-pasting, you make sentences like this: “Greater density flux means the energy coming in is hotter than the energy going out.” which makes no sense at all. You are using all the words wrongly…
Let me ask a very simple question, why do planets have different temperatures? (maybe this will reveal to you the nonsense you trying to convey here).
Which I explained he did not reply…
CDK:
Again with more levels of misdirection. You claim you’re educated in physics but can’t understand anything I say?
Greenhouse gases aren’t warming planets, again the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT and yes I understand the meaning do you?
Same reason why Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus and Saturn have a hot core.
Temperature from the Sun is based on the inverse square law, the adiabatic process is not.
Again, what part of the video did you disagree with?
Oh and yes you can do experiments in high school demonstrating the ideal gas law.
…And yes I said I study it I never said I’m sitting in a classroom. I learn what I can from scientists willing to teach me and quite a few have.
Moving on…
An education is physics is not evidence or proof you understand basic thermodynamics or the processes of heating and warming on the micro level of physics. Quite frankly if you did you would see the blatant errors in the greenhouse gas effect core fundamentals.
This guy has no critical thinking at all he’s like a cement block.
Troll:
“Everything emits thermal radiation….And you claim I don’t understand physics? …. Atmospheric gas is not a source of energy…”
Again man, everything emits thermal radiation, I know it’s hard to understand it if you almost know nothing. But that is how it is.
“Atmospheric gas is not a source of energy it typically absorbs spectral lines and is heated by another source (the surface) which is heated by another source (the Sun). ”
What surface? The Sun’s surface? Earth’s surface? Also, you are destroying the meaning of the word ‘source’. What does source mean to you???
“The upper atmosphere can absorb some direct solar energy, especially O3 but it is not radiating as a black body and before you reply with something else stupid, as a black body means it has a full spectrum of radiation which a gas does not.”
Why the heck do you even say this? What are you trying to say with this? That cause the atmosphere is gas, it does not have thermal radiation? Black body is a theoretical object, not just gas doesn’t radiate exactly like a black body, nothing radiates as a black body. It really has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I guess you thought the black body is some real thing or what the hack? Anyway, gases do emit thermal radiation, it is not perfect black-body radiation, but it is thermal radiation. Can you get it? Did you google it? Will you now copy-paste other nonsense? (though, for once, you actually somewhat replied to something I said, instead of only speaking new nonsenses)
Gobbledygook.
Still no physics just misdirection, insults and claims I don’t understand the science. Troll tactics 101 Deny, Deflect, Discredit and yet absolutely bring no counter science argument to the conversation.
What is he even trying to say, that all things are a source of energy? What physics is that?
A rule of thumb (if I am not mistaken) a radiative source is something you could see without the aid of photon reflection/absorption in the eyes.
Technically, the surface is not a source of radiation, it is a source of converted radiation. The Sun is a true source of radiation as is our core.
Earth’s core, naturally or pretty much any core of a planet with radiation, I guess.
Joseph, can you explain what the optical depth is in this response and what he’s tellig me? τ = optical depth. Thanks
“sigh “I can still apply S-B to anything I want on earth however.”. Wrong. The local radiative intensity J goes as J∼J0(1+τ), hence increasing at optical depth > 1. The Equilibrium temperature is then found by J−σT4/π=0. There are no problems in ‘this’. ‘This’ is very well understood to be a working, simplified, illustrative model in the scientific community, and better ones exist. I’m out. –”
More context.
“. Beyond that, remember that in the diffusive (GHG) atmosphere the local photon intensity increases as (1+τ)1/4, where τ is the optical depth. –”
The last comment just means that the more air you have the more emission you get from it…an exponential gets applied to the optical depth and the limit of maximum emission would be that of a blackbody.
For the first – it’s not about how much air we’re looking through. It’s about the total results, etc. We’re not concerned with how much emission we get from 10 meters of air…we are concerned with what that emission is said to be able to do…for example, act as a heating effect via backradiation, with WHATEVER total amount of emission it is. We’re not concerned with radiation transfer between infinitesimal parcels of air. The concern of the GHE of climate science is what that emission can do. Hint – it cannot warm something warmer than itself.
“local photon intensity increases”
Are they referring to this in regards of the ghgs or just general emissions from the surface?
It would stand to reason the further out from the surface you go the more scattered photons become.
Joseph,
I sent that Physics BSc a link to your video on What is Heat? Using the Laws of Physics for Climate Rationalism And Dr. Holmes one on the ideal gas law.
Let’s see if he really is a BSc, but if he doesn’t understand either well, maybe just proof our academia is educating blockhead midwits or he is a fraud.
Did some research and I found this, hence I’m guessing part of his confusions:
“All objects are black body radiators, the amount of radiation and position in the spectrum depends on the object temperature as well its emissivity. Some examples of blackbody radiators that emit visible light or whose radiation is used for other processes include the electric heaters, incandescent light bulbs, stoves, the sun, the stars, night vision equipment, burglar alarms, warm-blooded animals, etc.”
So now no distinctions are being made, thus a molecule is now a black body radiator even though it cannot radiate the spectrum of a black body.
My comments with your links disappeared. Some of my comments are doing this now, magically being removed.
Make sure you don’t have too many links in YT comments. Usually limit to a single link else YT cans it.
Interesting video I tried contacting Easterbrook no reply… I reposted the links we shall see?
(v3) Asymmetric Stretch Mode 4.25695 micron/2349.1 cm^2
Can anything on Earth bump CO2 into asymmetric stretch mode? What can emit at 4.25?
So to answer my own question, nothing but maybe volcanoes? Only more direct rays of the Sun can reach that heat in the upper atmosphere.
Netherlands elections in 7 days.
Expect a BIG freedom parties suprise (despite mail in election fraud and fake polls)
I’m pushing the flat earth science unironically on /pol/
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/311602903
Meh Jannies already deleted it. I’ll have to try again later but I know the intellects there will know what I’m trying to do with it. Could be fun.
Joseph you should open a page on Hubpages directly for the science op, maybe let a few of the actual scientists help moderate it for you.
I of course will be happy to comment there along with others, or have MP open the site, since you have been blacklisted for what over a decade now?
You know they’ve done ops with government policies where they leave parties out of it and just state the policy, and everyone is offended by the actual policy not knowing their own parties created it.
Maybe a look at the science through a neutral non bias prism is what’s needed to pry open a few eyes.
I don’t see a “science” section on there…
Actually there is, denoted as ‘sci’ off the catalog page. I posted in politically incorrect and they’re pretty anal about content being correct for the catalog. I’ll try again in science here:
https://boards.4channel.org/sci/catalog
The person to ask is Robert Kernodle would be the one to ask, I think you just need to # key points.
I found this, hard to navigate to it though, Education and Science
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/
Here we go.
https://boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/12819511
I’m being hit with 2 trolls claiming to have a physics degree each as condescending as the other.
Well look at that idiot I debated who had a degree in physics…and he couldn’t think the most basic thoughts. I don’t know WTH they’re doing to physics PhD’s these days, but they come out with serious brain damage. “It’s only a teaching tool!” duh, exactly, idiot. We need one of those drooling idiot memes saying “it’s only what we use to teach!”
Ia asked them what temperature was this was the reply,
“Scientifically heat is a transfer of energy and temperature is a measurement of average thermal energy in a system. A quick search would have told you that. Also stop using straw man arguments and equating climate change to “2+2=4.” I could give someone a three dimensional integral to solve which will only have one answer but most people couldn’t understand it or at least would make errors with seeking a deeper understanding of mathematics. While I wish it were otherwise, there are people who are paid on both sides to teach away from the truth. The speaker in this video either does not understand how to read data/perform studies (which I doubt) or they are purposely lying by omission.”
So I just returned with the basics to see what they say,
These statements are facts.
Joseph and anyone you have to read the comments from “Hook” and “Slythia”.
Under: davidonly 1 week ago
Hook is one condescending bastard.
Thanks you are right they are a waste of time.
Joseph you not alone ind dealing with PhD children,
“Below are the first two sections of the Introduction to my definitive paper on why IPCC’s core hypothesis is invalid. All the math and physics are done, but I am expanding the Introduction because too many people with PhD degrees still get confused. They don’t understand the basics of science because they have little or no background in the philosophy of science and logic. But this is really simple stuff that we can teach to high school kids”. – Dr. Ed Berry, Climate Physics.
I mean it really is true…these people can’t cogitate in terms of the most basic logic and reason.
Again – that debate with that PhD in physics. He explains MY model, then refuses to acknowledge or see that the traditional model is at odds. He tries to argue that a teaching tool for understanding the climate has nothing to do with how we understand the climate. He goes from one argument to the next. They think that heat flows backwards with radiation but not with conduction even though the fundamental underlying medium of exchange of energy and the forces of physics involved are exactly the same, etc. Their minds are compartmentalized without ability to communicate between them!
@ JP
Haha 😄
Honestly its weird to see very intelligent people stupid.
2+2+4 not because thy can deduce that two sums added to 2 more sums calculate as 4, but because some text book said 2+2 equals 4. Same answers, nowhere near the same deductive reasoning to achieve it.
Why is it 4?
The textbook said so or;
if you add two objects with two more objects you now have four objects.
LOL 2+2=4 I now have PhD ADD
“Could you give me the area of the “top of atmosphere solar flux real quick?”
Joseph, someone is asking about your model.
The area of cross section is pi*r^2…
And it DOES NOT spread over the entire surface as an input.
Sometimes simple remarks are the easiest to adapt:”Heat is the name of a process not the name of an entity.” -Peter Atkins, Oxford
That’s excellent. It’s a verb. An action. Not a thing to “trap”!
Gosh these fake physicists….!
Leon that thread is hilarious…good lord what a strange phenomenon this is, where these people are everywhere! They just can’t grasp such basic things!
Tell me about it the trolls swarmed the Happer video they are allover the place like roaches. Some idiot is telling me (I love these ones the best by the way).
“So you are denying the scientific fact that GHG’s heat the atmosphere? What do you think happens to the radiation that is emitted away from space and back down to earth? Does it magically disappear? No. It stays in the atmosphere and warms it. GHG’s heat the atmosphere by trapping radiation that would otherwise go freely to space.”
I’m not even educating him these ones are the true believers, vacant eyed and fanatical, so I”m just toying with him for my own amusement.
Someone this indoctrinated is doing it by choice. So I said this just to egg him on,
“Ignorance on your behalf is not education. Believing your ignorance is education is simply a misconception on your behalf of your stated ignorance.”
It’s a science of making things up. That’s what it is. It is really quite astounding an amazing – simply a science of making things up…and never connecting one fact to any other facts…just completely compartmentalized inventions of language.
This type is a drone and nothing more, They creep me out for they remind of the X-Files episode or Pod People, they talk and act like they are humans but they are just drones, a collective intelligence being controlled by another neural network.
The X-Files
Folie à Deux
“Folie à deux (‘madness for two’), also known as shared psychosis or shared delusional disorder (SDD), is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief, and sometimes hallucinations, are transmitted from one individual to another.”
We are experiencing SDD in climate hysteria.
I love that comment! In esoteric circles what you describe is called a “forum”…where some powerful spirit entity can control multiple bodies at once rather than the usual fashion of one mind per body. A spirit effectively incarnated into more than a single body. Each body develops its own consciousness and persona, but their subconscious is connected and ran to and by this entity rather than being their own. It Jungian psychology we are all said to be connected subconsciously to the collective human subconscious…but these forum brains/minds are instead connected to the entity.
Anyway…it’s sure interesting. They’ve made movies about this for decades…these climate people might be demonstrable proof of the phenomenon.
Cults are certainly proof all reason can be taken over by some shared delusion of reality. Our desire to anthropomorphize the phenomena is our desire to have something we can reason with or appeal to which is more accepting to our psyche than an endless, shapeless void of perpetual darkness.
And that would fit perfectly with our experience of the inclement and unpredictable weather…! Wow.
Look at this response from Energy & Environment regarding my “thermodynamic energy budget” model, same paper which I submitted to AMS and did that video about:
“There should be some solid theoretical evidence provided to support your proposed idea was a better method which should lead to some scientifically significant results.”
Can you believe how retarded this whole debacle has become?
You know…at this point any publishing group is instantly going to detect any form of climate rationalism from miles away. Look at all the crap we take online, cancel culture, etc.,…they’re cowards and they know that they would be mercilessly attacked and wrecked for publishing anything going against leftist political science. I really just can’t publish a model where I point out that it is better to have sunlight falling on a hemisphere rather than a flat line…that it makes a difference in the maths and physics. I just can’t. It’s fn amazing. That’s where we are. These people cannot accept any form of controversy or adversarialness whatsoever.
Anyone have suggestions where you think it could be published, where the people publishing won’t be politically attuned? Does that exist anywhere in science any more? Can I publish ANYWHERE that appreciates a difference between the Sun not heating the Earth, and the Sun heating the Earth???
I just found this in my tabs…
Click to access 1908198116.full.pdf
“A round Earth for climate models”
Leon if I was too intense on that thread…sorry…
JP
Maybe you need a vacation? I hear Space-X is nice this time of year. maybe a nice walk on the Moon in the future will release some stress?
That Hook guy tried pulling the two way heat transfer nonsense with me.
At the same site (different post) I have one who seems to be eluding he is a climate scientist. Naturally, I am ignorant and unlearned and paste all of my stuff from Google. LOL.
That conservation can be found here:
thus spoke 1 week ago
This video is an example of why there needs to be multiple thumbs up buttons
His name is Erik Davis
Does a meteor spread over a sphere by /4 when it impacts? Then why would massless photons entering in discrete packets, ie, waves
JP in answer to…
‘Anyone have suggestions where you think it could be published, where the people publishing won’t be politically attuned? ‘
…I don’t know of any, but the below publisher of non-leftist children’s books might point you somewhere, even if he isn’t interested himself.
https://tuttletwins.com/contact/
just found this old reply pretty sure from this site somewhere, great analogy.
“I don’t get it. Area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?”
Chris Hansen makes the all too common mistake of confusing geometry with physics. The surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of the disk. That’s the correct geometry.
But, you cannot divide the solar flux by 4. That changes everything, especially when you are considering a “thermal balance calculation”.
An analogy would be like having 4 liters of water in one container at 40 C. Then removing one liter and trying to claim the one-liter temperature is 40/4 = 10 C.
Gosh that’s a good one CD! That’s great! Stealing!
“An analogy would be like having 4 liters of water in one container at 40 C. Then removing one liter and trying to claim the one-liter temperature is 40/4 = 10 C.”
And the comeback will be -Evaporation causes cooling.
This make it up as you go along physicks is real fun.
Ah BUT evaporation would effect all the water, not just a climate science designated bottle.
Although CC would claim the one bottle is evaporating twice as fast as the other bottles
That meteor comparison is completely valid and rational, and is understandable to us, but you know that their response to it would be literal, saying that photons don’t cause impact craters. Just try it somewhere, and let’s see the responses 😉
JP,
So I’m still dealing with the ‘climate scientist’ Erik Davis, you should drop in as just the layperson as Hook called you lol these people are dumber than rocks sometimes. It would be funny for you to ask him questions and see his responses.
Under the same Happer video
That conservation can be found here:
“thus spoke” 1 week ago
70 comments
This video is an example of why there needs to be multiple thumbs up buttons
The conversation starts more at the bottom.
This is his last reply to me: (well just the highlights)
Oops didn’t add the reply lol…I’m brain dead by these trolls sucking the IQ out of me.
His whole reply was just ad hominem any way.
Scrolling but can’t find the header comment…..
WOW I just logged out and looked for it, nothing. Weird, maybe they buried it?
I did see that Martin Pattison replied back to you. I’ve never seen so many self proclaimed “physicists” on one site before! They must really hate Hillsdale!
‘Frequency is not measured in cm^{-1} – he has been showing this favourite graph of his for a while and it still has this glaring mess up in. On another note, he doesn’t pronounce ‘Schwarzschild’ properly, or even get close.’
Yah that was hilarious. You saw my response?? Lol
He is right though, the graph has the wrong SI unit, that graph is wave number not frequency. Wonder if someone did that on purpose? really just a simple mistake that doesn’t effect the graph in anyway or the point of the graph in anyway.
JP,
Latest from climate scientist,
“We never said that GHGs increase the total energy the earth has like you keep claiming we do. GHGs reduce the loss of energy. That is the premise that we have always held. You even accidentally agree to this while trying to say it is false.”
That is not the greenhouse gas effect being pushed all over the world. If it doesn’t “increase” it doesn’t warm.
These people are beyond a trip.
Naturally I never agreed to that but truth is inconsequential to climate fascists.
The K &T diagram clearly shows GHG supplying twice the energy of the Sun.
I mean we all know this argument…the old switcheroo…”its not about backradiation (which is in our peer-reviewed literature and basic teaching models and 3d climate models), its that GHG stop the Earth from emitting”. One of the original goal-post switches the Slayers identified.
Of course then, on that point, if GHG’s emit, which is what they’re supposed to be all about, then they have high emissivity and thus cool, etc etc etc.
We all know the strategies – discard one theory for a new one just as bad, then switch to another and then go back to the original.
Joseph E Postma says:
2021/03/11 at 5:41 PM
Leon that thread is hilarious
I had a feeling you were in there lol. I spotted your vernacular. The thread turned out better than I expected. No one knows what’s going on lol. “two worlds collide” lol
“I spotted your vernacular. ”
Yah that can give me away…hahaha 🙂
Joseph E Postma says:
2021/03/12 at 9:02 AM
Leon if I was too intense on that thread…sorry…
No worries man those boards ARE intense. You have to be to get through their heads.
Excellent thank you, by the way what did you think of that Paper “Round Earth for Climte Models”
which they actually mentioned flat earth.
I mean it’s fine, sure. But it doesn’t really make the point which I am etc.
What do you think of PNAS? Is it worth a shot?
They’re way too involved likely. Don’t worry I found a list I’m working through.
Check this out:
You can average out energy however you want.
Not heat input or flux intesity tho.
You can’t average out a 200 pounds AMA fighter, into 4 x 50 pounds fighters and say it is the same.
The 200 pound weight fighter has the physics to easilly win vs 4 x 50 pound fighters,
…4 punches is enough to finish the fight, even tho many other metrics are on average equal.
I TOLD YOU they wouldn’t get it or would get it stupidly! haha
Try the meteor impact next…and see the same stupid response…lol
“We never said that GHGs increase the total energy the earth has like you keep claiming we do. GHGs reduce the loss of energy.”
Six or half a dozen is still 12
Oops six lol. But according to them it’s 12 hah
I REPLIED, he’ll weasel they always do.
“We never said that GHGs increase the total energy the earth has like you keep claiming we do. GHGs reduce the loss of energy. That is the premise that we have always held. You even accidentally agree to this while trying to say it is false.”
Yet we all know you do and now you just cornered yourself. The K&T diagram clearly shows GHG supplying twice the energy of the Sun which they reduce the real power of Sunshine to replace it with GHG science fiction.
Backradiation, which cannot increase its radiative source, is the pedagogy of all peer reviewed literature and the focus of all basic teaching models you guys use.
So if you admit that ghgs emit you admit that they cool exactly as I explained in the how they cool the rest of the atmosphere.
How ghgs really function are shown in deserts, they don’t warm the desert up at night in fact they expedite cooling after the Sun goes down.
Latent heat in the form of water vapor maintains a decreased more steady temperature longer overnight and that process is not the greenhouse gas effect.
You claim, “GHGs reduce the loss of energy” gets horribly twisted into forcing creating higher temperatures and that is not how forcing works.
Nice!!!!
This climate scientist is the epitome of a brain dead drone…
“Well, I gave you a last chance. You are claiming that GHGs function in a different way that known physics and experimentation demonstrate by saying they cool the entire atmosphere. That is not how GHGs work since their cooling effect is only seen in the upper atmosphere. GHGs also don’t cool deserts. They simply aren’t strong enough by themselves to maintain proper heat due to dry air and lack of clouds.
And you can lie ab out what I said, but I have always held the GHGs don’t increase total energy received by earth. They simply reduce to loss of energy. I have stated that repeatedly.
I again suggest you actually get an education so you can understand the topic. You are too prideful to be an actual scientist since you can’t admit fault and refuse to look at things you don’t like. Fix that, won’t you?”
Ha ha ha what an idiot!
Oh lord…never ends.
This is what I actually posted to him now that you read his comment you can see how totally void of reality they are.
Thermodynamic heat (technically appropriate description in thermodynamics) must meet a requirement, Delta T, an energy transfer from hot to cold and is considered a transient phenomenon; heat is never contained in a system. Thus, CO2 does not trap heat, a physics impossibility and a deliberate misdirection by climate consensus science.
Fundamental physics radiative heat transfer:
Q=s*(Th^4-Tc^4)
Q
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” -HyperPhysics
Energy moving through the atmospheric system is not heat. For that energy to become heat it must first meet the appropriate thermodynamic requirements, (Th^4-Tc^4).
Energy transfer from a15 micron photon is not enough energy to melt an ice cube so how does CO2 reach a higher vibrational/rotational state? CO2 is unaffected by nonresonant frequencies, and if CO2 is already excited, even radiation at the correct frequency will be rejected (scattered) by CO2 (thus a heated CO2 molecule will not absorb another photon) and the energy transfer from a photon to increase a temperature requires that the wavelength to be shorter than the wavelength frequency absorbing it. However, it can absorb KE in this process from collisional/bumping molecules even several times before emitting its absorbed photonic energy {which would increase the emitted energy}.
In other words it requires more kinetic energy than what CO2 can absorb by a 15 micron photon. So where does that energy come from?
“The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object ” that would be heated molecules by conduction/convection/advection or anything that is absorbing Raman scattering or a higher spectrum of infrared radiation. Molecules with a higher heat capacity like N2 and O2 would carry more internal energy than CO2 (even methane has a slightly higher HC than CO2 as does H20).
Note CO2 in its symmetric mode is Raman active NOT IR active.
So what happens when homonuclear diatomic molecules collide/bump with a molecule with a dipole moment with less kinetic energy? It transfers that energy to the other molecule. Since CO2 once vibrating emits IR it essentially cools homonuclear diatomic molecules faster (that can’t shed IR off via emissions) after CO2 absorbs some of the transferred energy from those molecules. None magnetic dipole molecules of course radiate EM once heated, and can cool off but that takes longer without being able to shed off that IR. Magnetic dipole molecules cool the atmosphere off faster by absorbing some of the energy from higher energy emitting molecules and ejecting that energy at the speed of light which non IR molecules cannot do.
So no, CO2 is not warming the atmosphere it helps to cool it off faster by stealing energy from hotter molecules and re-radiating that energy in all directions. That does not mean any energy directed at the ground will be re-absorbed, it may very well just reflect back out to space, or a cloud or scatter on another molecule.
This is probably the most honest information about science anyone has ever given you and I have no doubt you will reject it all.
Begin your tirade of denial here..
Wow! You obviously schooled them and they have no response to real science.
Good stuff CD. One or two typos, but you’ve planted seeds of doubt amongst some of he faithful.
typo…the faithful lol
J Cuttance
Where are the typos? With my poor eyesight I can look at them all day and not notice, even spelling. The glasses I was prescribed are worthless, can’t see a thing in them! My brain and keyboard aren’t getting along well. By all means, clarity and proper terms are essential, so never be shy about correction on my behalf, I grow from it.
Since these guys love word play so much this I felt needed more explanation,
Q=s*(Th^4-Tc^4)
Is this appropriate for heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere or I should I make it more specific?
I mean heat transfer from surface to the atmosphere isn’t general, so its hard for me to consider a single “general” equation. Then again If I were a physicist I would do a page long equation and lose all without an appropriate level of science education anyway.
Every text book I look at changes the basic equations.
Is the surface considered an ideal radiatior?
For example,
Heat Radiation: P=e sigma A (T^4-Tc^4)
They didn’t even add the heat to the equation but it is implied by common sense.
P= net radiated power, (which to any sane person would be considered heat).
e=emissivity
A= radiating area
T= tempersture
Sigma= S-B constant
Tc= temperature of the surroundings
“While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.”
Say what?
Isn’t that just basically saying heat transfers from hot to cold wherever the two exist?
Yes. That is reverses to the other direction, still from hot to cold. You got it.
And yes P would be heat.
Thank you Obi-Wan Postma, You are our only hope!
That would make a great meme.
Boomie? PM?
Thanks for the recap CD,good work. Every time I read your own and Joseph’s comments I understand a little bit more,or at least remember what I already forgot. These people get busy defending there teaching model and in the process forget that it states quite clearly that the atmosphere heats the earth more than the sun by a factor of about two. Then deflect to I never said that it just slows cooling , well which is it? They seem to use circular reasoning as if we can’t go back and read their previous comments which are never consistent with their own argument.
Have a great day guys
Yea that was really good.
Barry,
Over 2 years ago I didn’t even know what a homonuclear diaotmic molecule was let alone a dipole moment which I would have thought was some kind mental disorder or seizure.
We have outstanding teachers and most importantly, which is why common practice in most corporations is to hire new blood instead of re-training old blood, once someone is taught wrong it takes twice as much work to correct them if you ever can. A PhD has almost no chance of accepting they are in error if accolades and ego petting is more prominent in their career than the absolute pursuit of science and making sure it is correct. it is much easier to teach someone correctly the first time with no prior obstacles hindering the teaching curve.
If you wear your feelings on your sleeve you can’t take correction well. In the writing realm of fiction, often times you are told to re-write the entire novel you just put blood, sweat and tears in for the pursuit of absolute perfection (which can never be obtained by mere mortals but should always be the goal, the drive that keeps us pushing forward).
That’s why midwits are great drones for climate science, good enough is all they know and have no desire to better themselves. Just pet them a few times and they are happy, throw them a bone in the form of reward,media mention or party/conferences and they wag the tail and remain obediently stupid.
Cheers Barry!
Well said CD! It really reduces to ego stroking. You put these people on a plane and fly them to a conference using public grant money…and they’re at the top of the world. I’ve been there, done that, and witnessed it…it changes them. They transform into entirely different people. You can share an office and spend everyday with them, and know someone almost intimately, but you get to the conference with them and they are totally different people, complete strangers. It’s the strangest thing.
These people have no critical thinking…They are blunt minds who take anything literal,
Secondly, I already addressed your statement about the Troposphere as a Carnot Cycle but since you didn’t listen here’s a quote:
“The atmosphere crucially does not act as a Carnot cycle. For instance, the average surface heating is about 100 Watts per meter square. With an average surface temperature of 288K and an emission temperature of 255K, the work done by a Carnot cycle would be about 11 Watts per meter square. By contrast, typical estimates of the kinetic energy dissipation in the atmosphere are between 2 and 5 Watts per meter square. The difference between the Carnot upper limit and the generation of kinetic energy can be attributed to the hydrological cycle, and in particular to two key aspect of the Earth atmosphere: (1) it rains, and (2) the atmosphere is mostly dry.” Found at
https://wp.nyu.edu/opauluis/home/research-atmospheric-heat-engine/
I’m done responding to you at this point. You too are either only stating facts that help your side instead of reviewing everything or you are refusing to check if you might be wrong. I hope you will learn how to present all of the facts like a scientist rather than be a propagandist.
Treated as a Carnot cycle for this very purpose,
That paper they linked to is sophist science, trying to redirect the natural conservation of energy with their “heat in heat out” forcing tripe.
“From a thermodynamic point of view, this dehumidification can be thought of as a chemical reaction in which one reactant (water vapor) is transformed into a product (liquid water) against its natural inclination (i.e. liquid water evaporates in unsaturated air). In the technical jargon, the Gibbs free energy of the product is larger than that of the reactant. More importantly, this process reduces the amount of kinetic energy that can be produce”
This is so garbled I think I need a scientific reinterpretation. Anyone?
They seemed to miss the absolute temperatures of the atmosphere which is why it doesn’t ‘evaporate’ (and the ionization process and seeding of clouds) and KE has nothing to do with it that it is a product completely dependent on the adiabatic process.
This paper is a direct product of the crap they teach in academia that makes these guys write this junk as a result.
JP,
More from the climate scientist I wish you could find.
“So, I’ll state one last time: GHGs increase the average temperature of the earth more than it would be without them due to restricting the rate of LWR that can be released to space per unit time”
Finally he came out with the crap they peddle.
I think its time to quote a physicist for his education…
“So, I’ll state one last time: GHGs increase the average temperature of the earth more than it would be without them due to restricting the rate of LWR that can be released to space per unit time”
With or without greenhouse gases, the effective radiative temperature of the Earth is the same: -18C, from 240 W/m^2 radiative output. This temperature is found physically around 5km in altitude above the surface. The adiabatic gradient establishes that the near-surface air of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average atmospheric temperature, the average temperature of the atmosphere must be naturally found around middle altitudes, and the coolest temperatures will be at the highest altitudes in the troposphere.
Any substance with a temperature emits thermal radiant energy, spontaneously. Some substances emit poorly, and this is given by their emissivity. GHG’s do not stop the surface from emitting. Furthermore, GHG are said to be emitters, which means that they have high emissivity, whereas non-GHG’s have low or little emissive power; thus GHG’s, provide a vector by which the atmosphere of low emissive power can cool.
The LWR emitted by Earth to space is precisely what it is supposed to be given the absorption of energy from the Sun. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that the LWR emission is restricted to some lower value – it’s a plain bald-faced lie to try to claim that it is.
I wish he would debate you.
Thank you, excellent reply.
I quoted it by the way as is and tagged just to see his rage, why are these consensus climate scientists so angry, condescending and evasive?
They are vile and foul.
He replied to you,
“Wrong. We can literally measure the LWR emissions from the earth. The LWR emissions in the CO2 and other GHG bands have been decreasing in outward and increasing in downward amounts as we increase them in the atmosphere. Your quote is simply wrong, as you have been this entire time. He also compares a simplified model to a different planet that it isn’t made to be used on and then declares the non-simplified models he didn’t use must be wrong. It is a non sequitur. he also misunderstands how the lapse rate is used and how GHGs alter the height at which emissions to space are seen. There are other issues, but too many to go into at the moment. Joseph’s blog, not paper, has been refuted for not being accurate and getting his formulas and conclusions wrong in the past. No need for me to spend to time to refute it yet again here.
I figured I’d give you one last response since you tried to use a long-debunked blog post to try to refute peer reviewed science.”
Well they say whatever they want…you know nothing that you say matters or makes a difference. I think we’ve all come to the conclusion that we’re dealing with brainwashed and mentally retarded people basically…
All of the minutia that they interpret about data measurements, and their theory, is filtered through their pedagogical foundations of flat Earth theory. They lack the intellect and comprehension to understand this.
Look at the journal response: “it is not scientifically relevant to say that the sun shines on one side of the round Earth only and heats the Earth with sufficient power to create the climate. There is well-established literature which says the opposite.”
How can we not conclude that we’re dealing with retarded people? Or whatever it is that they are.
“He also compares a simplified model to a different planet that it isn’t made to be used on and then declares the non-simplified models he didn’t use must be wrong.”
I can’t even make sense of that. There are no flat planets and that model doesn’t make sense for any planet. I made a model that makes sense for any planet and certainly for Earth.
As I said…this flat Earth theory with feeble sunshine that doesn’t create the climate is their entire foundation. Their response to this being pointed out is to say “But that’s only what we teach!” That’s simply not real…no real person, no real thing that exists, says something like. It is the literal definition of being confronted with something that is unreal.
I’m blasting him again for the fun of it, it really means nothing since he’s incapable of truth.
@ CD.
To break that pillar circle jerk pillar i posted this question.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20911/can-the-absorbtion-of-infrared-around-the-650-wavenumber-in-water-be-a-substanti
Not a single answer, just confusion, because it breaks one of their circle reasoning pillars to fall back to when another one gets broken in a discussion.
I’m going to get that paper published guys. I won’t give up. It’s a perfectly good paper making a perfectly good scientific statement. I’ve done nothing with it since that AMS video…but I’m back on it now and will keep submitting over and over until it gets through. Not that it will shut them up, but at that point there will be a peer reviewed paper that anyone can use forever to expose what happened with climate science, to simply point out to them that their science is false.
JP
You could work with Dr. Holmes on it well it won’t improve your odds since they blacklisted hims as well, but it needs more citations just because that’s the stupid rule I see that has to be done.
MP
I think that was the point of showing that “over the Sahara” to eliminate water vapor. SOmething looks suspicious about it but I don’t know what.
The average surface temperature is still in the open window, nowhere near 15 micron. The average emission temperature of a black body in the 15 micron range is still in the open window at every average temperature gradient the Earth emits.
Kelvin/Peak wavelength of 15 micron (Open atmospheric Window is 8-13 micrometers) Tropical average temperatures -53C to 46.85C IRIS Satellite over the Sahara.
What I do know is the spectral peak emissions of CO2 in every ambient temperature on that graph is in the open atmospheric window I used a spectral calculator to do the numbers a while ago…
320= 9.0554
300= 9.6591
280=10.3491
260=11.1452
240=12.074
220=13.1716
The only problem with that satellite graph is the temperatures.
-53 degrees can be found at 12,000 meters/200 hPa
The typical hot over the Sahara is around 30C.
46.85 next to impossible.
“The highest temperature ever recorded in Africa was 131.0°F (55.0°C) in Kebili, Tunisia, reached in July of 1931. This small town in North Africa is located along the northern edge of the Sahara Desert .”
CD Marshal. From one of your comments earlier about an alarmist claiming the following “And you can lie about what I said, but I have always held the GHGs don’t increase total energy received by earth. They simply reduce to loss of energy. I have stated that repeatedl”
Fine if he claims that that. But the science does not support that! This from KNMI. Which is NOAA data.
I was dealing with something similar years ago. After showing the pic below the Numbnuts I deatl with now claim that Co2 is responsible for the increase in OLR by reducing the cloud cover. They really do just make up shit on the run.
How would that make sense? Cloud cover has increased since the 70s by 5% it’s 65% now, I read a paper from the 70s that had it at 60%. At least from one source anyway.
NASA says 67% in 2015, 50% in 1971 and currently claimed as 60%
On that 1971 paper the peak IR flux to space was at 288 Kelvin, and the radiative flux was measured as 345 W/m^2.
Wow my bad 1971 had weird calculations, that was 345 cm^2 per minute
Now the real funny thing is the 1971 paper was about the planet cooling from increased aerosols.
Cloud cover peaked around 1980 and then declined to around 2000. Since then it it flattened out.https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Tropical%20cloud%20cover%20and%20global%20air%20temperature
And OLR is not in conflict with that. More sunlight in more OLR out.
Alarmist put out a paper to explain why OLR was increasing when their premise was that it should be decreasing. Hence why I mentioned the OLR chart earlier and the junk excuses that they have.
KNMI also have data on the cloud cover as well.
I dont think the NASA data conflicts with the observation I put up in that link or from KNMI
good link
I still have questions on clouds.
They reflect IR and Raman (apparently)
Yes others claim they absorb IR.
Others claim where the clouds have increased and decreased matter for various reasons.
I’ve always been curious on the development of the clouds in the layers, which are increasing, decreasing or not changing at all and/or why.
We know that water absorbs shortwave sunlight. Cloud is no different in my view.
We are just being directed around the edges by the machine of deception..
Gibbs free energy, isn’t that usually associated with chemical reactions?How does that apply to the atmosphere?
It was a really stupid and wordy analogy that is useless not at all directly irrelevant.
Four quantities called “thermodynamic potentials” are useful in the chemical thermodynamics of reactions and non-cyclic processes. They are internal energy, the enthalpy, the Helmholtz free energy and the Gibbs free energy. The Gibbs free energy G is defined by
So why mention one and ignore the others?
It’s “seems” like consensus climate science is trying to find a way to justify extra work to validate warming by the CO2 IR radiation but it really doesn’t make sense.
“thermodynamic potentials” is a very important thing to remember in thermodynamics, but I keep forgetting the right terminology.
Maybe I can remember it as 4TP.
@Joseph E Postma – https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/02/23/interview-with-unn/#comment-70845 – reference getting your paper published.
A very good idea, publish real rational science based on the reality we can observe, measure, and understand.
However I’m sure you will have a long hard slog to make it happen, prepare well and fight this pseudoscience, this nonsense, with all the logic, rationality and strength that the good Lord has given you.
Cheers tom!
Nobody accepts a change in science usually until after the person is dead. Look at the guy who suggested continental drift he was ridiculed as much as you are. After his death they realized he was right. The scientific community are not as open minded as many think they are.
As long as careers,ego and money run things that’s not going to change.
Ventusky is reconstructing historical data all the back to 1979. The results so far have been illuminating.
Wonder how long before they are “forced” to change it t coincide with altered historical data?
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=8;17;1&l=temperature-2m
“Ventusky is reconstructing historical data all the back to 1979”
Fantastic news!
“Heat is the measure of the effect of increased energy at a molecular level.”
What is academia doing?
“Heat is the measure of the effect of increased energy at a molecular level.”
That is a temperature rise!
So heat is now temperature?
Wow!
You’d be surprised (or discouraged) how many people tell me something similar, some claimed to have physics degrees.
The sophistry never ends.
Dutch police went batshit crazy vs freedom loving anti lockdown people.
Election in 3 days
Look at the twitter responses for many more crazy vids, and other angle of this situation.
It really is absurd.
It’s beyond that,we are at war and the general public aren’t aware of it yet.
JP,
I got the climate scientist again here…
Two Minutes Hate
1 week ago (edited)
“I love to see a man who will stand up without wavering and declare that 2+2=4. Bravo Professor Happer!”
Its over 72 comments I am all the way at the bottom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw&lc=UgwChHkSiROljeeVQmh4AaABAg.9KOLfKRnirS9KtjSDgr20O
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw&lc=UgwChHkSiROljeeVQmh4AaABAg.9KOLfKRnirS9KtjSDgr20O
Two Minutes Hate
1 week ago (edited)
“I love to see a man who will stand up without wavering and declare that 2+2=4. Bravo Professor Happer!”
I’m tangling with the climate scientist again, Erik Davis, all the way at the bottom.
JP My comment got dumped by WP
Guys, check out this video of light being filmed at 10 trillion frames per sec. Putting this in perspective of how quickly IR light escapes earth, this should be enough to show question if IR sticks around long enough to cause extra heating. At 11:32 he says firing a bullet and watching it in comparison to the light, it would take years. How many? I have no idea, maybe one of you guys can figure it out But what I would really like to see is the same thing done but through CO2.
Joseph, do you have any connections here? I’m thinking of contacting them to see if they can capture a 15µm photon through co2. I’m sure there’s probably a long waiting list for that camera tho.
Contacting Caltech
By Mail: California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91125
Telephone: 626-395-6811
Fax: 626-795-1547
JP,
You should switch you name to Joe Physics (or something similar), catchy and create a curiosity buzz plus be a little for incognito but obvious you are associated with science.
Just a thought, naturally.
A king in plain clothes as it were.
And it would drive them crazy lol
Lol short drive off a long pier for most of them!
Great name even better!!! Now all you need is to become a doctor. Doctor Joe Physics Educator.
If you got a PhD is climate physics you’d make them go insane.
Soon the physicists who originally taught real physics will be gone and few will be left in their stead. How sad for the future of science to be left with a majority of blockheads who will redesign physics for a generation who will never know the true meaning of science but will think media personalities like Tyson, Nye, Mann and Hayhoe are experts in the fields of science.
How sad for the next generation.
Nah…we’re gonna wreck ’em.
You are sadly a minority in physics these days then again even a bright light shines greater in darkness and climate science is creating a lot of darkness.
Joseph Erik is set up for you read his lest statement…
“I said that GHGs limit the rate of emissions loss to space, thus causing a warmer atmosphere than it would be without them. I don’t see how this is so hard to understand.”
Dutch pollsters thinkgthat the ANTI corona lockdown/climate crap/globalism party gets only 3% of the votes lol.
Here is a rally in a overall leftist city called “Utrecht” today.
MP I hope things go better for you than they did Canada an the United States but I would not bet on an honest election.
The New Organon or: True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature Organon, BOOK 1: 1–77.46
https://www.academia.edu/7616406/The_New_Organon_or_True_Directions_Concerning_the_Interpretation_of_Nature
Well that’s a good quote.
From Novum Organum
Written by Sir Francis Bacon
“Reality” is the human perception of the Universe.
Science is the verification if those perceptions are valid in the laws of physics.
Consensus climate science is now allowing the “science clergy” to interpret both reality and physics without verification or validity.
Consensus science is now the new clergy and only they are allowed to interpret climate science and now everything is “climate change” even cow farts.
JP,
The nut who gave me this,
”
Claims he’s a physicist.
Steven Peralta
5 days ago (edited)
At the bottom you can’t miss him, “GinPi Gamma”
His latest comment was more sound but he’s out of my jurisdiction. Climate scientist hacks I can handle, physicists are out of my jurisdiction.
“you are missing the quantum in your “dynamics” heat is an expression of relative vibration from one harmonic set of waves/particles to another.
NOT really “temperature difference” but a relative space (pressure based on restriction of movement and capacitance of the whole system).
“Am i a physicist”
Depends on who you ask. My last Physics mentor says so.”
CDM
The medical profession has this trick of describing illness using Latin terms, the more esoteric and abstruse the better.(see what I did there?)
The clergy use the same strategy.
its is also known as baffle-gab.
When I heard about the “Sun tax” I thought these guys were nuts back then, but now they can decree a “breathe tax”.
If only Kings and the Clergy had thought of that!
“you are missing the quantum in your “dynamics” heat is an expression of relative vibration from one harmonic set of waves/particles to another.” Yes.
“but a relative space (pressure based on restriction of movement and capacitance of the whole system”
What does that even mean? He explained it in the first phrase but then… is he one of those physicists who went nuts?
This is his full original statement read it with popcorn…
“”heat” is a silhouette of shared mass/density – produced space (vibration & counter vibration).
This begins at the sub-atomic and wave reference frame.
Climate change can be equally termed “increase” in the volume of the above silhouette. The more thermal mass/capacitance material is added to the medium of the atmosphere the higher the average BAR & so on….
All civilizations have collapsed into sand b/c of desiccation of the local environment.
Bio-Complexity has been exponentially decreasing since pointy sticks & fire.
the IPCC is vastly understating what is happening.
As much as 80% of all non-human or agricultural life is already gone and going faster.
There is only about 3% of Earth’s forests left.
There is no mistake as to temp increase overall b/c of humans.
Physics of Life & Climate Change:
Any mass moved from one distance radially from center mass of a rotating system to a grater radial distance from said center mass alters the inertial state of said mass and effects angular momentum of the entire rotating system.
Now visualize oil; water; iron; gold; lead; tin; copper; coal; sand; rare earths; zinc; mercury; silver; etc…
All having been relocated from one inertial state relative to Earth’s core & barrycentre (solar system center mass).
The Entire solar system reacts to conserve angular momentum – All climate models can be derived from this albeit with much more alarming accuracy.
In effect the Earth / moon experience an ever increasing force inward (towards center mass) This causes “bobbing” and more pronounced chandler’s wobble etc.
Nature is the Universal purpose b/c of complexity and thermodynamics.
“The Earth is precious. If you alter it you will ruin it.” -Lao Tzu
The above Physics proves this statement without question.
This guy seems to be one of those who seems to think because man exists we are destroying earth or their vision of it. If only they would look upon mankind as a part of nature instead of at odds with it they would be able to see everything more clearly. The fact that they miss this simple truth shows how shallow and close minded they are. That doesn’t mean that we have always done the right thing but it also doesn’t mean that everything we do is bad,sometimes we help nature to survive where parts of it would have become extinct with out our intervention. I have been a hunter most of my life and have studied animals in their natural surroundings because of it. Anyone that thinks nature is ever in balance is sadly mistaken,first you have a large increase in the rabbit population followed by a large increase in coyote population after they clean up the rabbits they naturally starve and become weak and diseased. That is pretty much how all nature balances itself including mankind,in other words there is no balance.
Not so much balance as, cycles. Cycles within cycles within cycles. And they’ve been going on long before man began his own cycle.
CD. and JP :
I’ve joined the convo with Erik the Viking on the Happer vid I am Plom de Nume and he is opening up and schooling the newby. (I may need help)
Just disengage, it’s not useful interacting with them for now. They cannot think…their minds are wrecked…
Just refer to a few of my videos…point out that the entire basis of their thinking is wrong and not based in science, and be done with it. They’re stuck in a false paradigm.
‘Just disengage’ I disagree. Fight, dammit. Fight bad ideas with sound ones. Whether you win anyone over or not, it’s good for the sense of self that we’re developing as we speak.
True. Share my videos then when you need some firepower 😁 And always stick to basics…don’t get dragged down into the minutiae.
Find and dandy, but what the heck does this even mean, I want to understand everything it’s what keeps me driven and “not knowing” is never an acceptable answer. I will never understand everything, so I have a life long engagement to try.
“NOT really “temperature difference” but a relative space (pressure based on restriction of movement and capacitance of the whole system.”
At the tip of it that sounds nuts to me. You can’t just “generalize” the entire world as one system. This sounds like on these nutters who thinks all energy is forcing heat.
rickis
Relax I know its you I’m just having fun with the climate stooge.
Anyone who thinks the planet would be an ice cube without greenhouse gases should not be allowed to practice science when we have the Moon as our proxy. They can only pull that lie off by using averages which is the only thing climate science ever does. The effective blackbody of the Moon (270.4K/-2.75).
Sorry, -2.75 Celsius thought I slipped the C in there.
“Lies, damned lies, statistics and consensus climate science.”
J Cuttance
I agree. The feeling is slightly delicious when you know, that they don’t know, that you know, that they don’t know sht!
Are there any chemists around familiar with Beck’s work and the discredit attempts?
I think it is important to put up the argument with these people not for the hope of convincing them but planting doubt in the rest of the readers minds. We have to be able to convince the young vulnerable that the science is not settled and never will be. I think the best way to do that is to plant the seed of doubt in their mind before they get to far down that trail called academia. It seems that once a professor has spoken it is now bad to question his drivel no matter how wrong it may be.
Someone started another flat earth thread. I added a little fire.
https://boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/12845866
Would like help answering this.
“An ice cube emits 240w/m^2, boiling water emits over 1000w/m^2.” Can you take into account w/m^2 in this situation since those bodies don’t emit light?
Pure curiosity, I need it for a project.”
This is the answer I gave him.
“Well it’s the energy. The frequency that object is putting out. If you let a perfect black body absorb the radiation of those objects and measure its temperature, you can then determine the power emitted by the object.”
He read my post so he should understand the analogy to blacktop roads in the sun. Maybe some one here can really see what he needs to understand. I’d like more understanding too.
and hopefully I’m not mincing words
They emit thermal IR. The difference between them would be the heat flow…
Thermal IR *is light. Not visible light though.
Rickis that’s a better way of putting it Cycles within cycles is better than a balance. As with climate there are so many different cycles interacting with each other that it looks chaotic but when you look at the big picture it looks quite ordered.
Climate science says that the emission from the ice cube adds to the boiling water and makes the water hotter…lol!
“” heat is an expression of relative vibration from one harmonic set of waves/particles to another.
NOT really “temperature difference””
Same thing. And that’s actually what I showed in one of my recent videos…all about the frequencies, etc. They’re just mincing things up.
“This guy seems to be one of those who seems to think because man exists we are destroying earth or their vision of it. ”
That’s why their actual, real goal and purpose is to destroy man, starting with destroying his mind…climate science is a mental virus, destroying the minds of those who believe in it.
Just look at this statement: “But that’s only a pedagogical tool used for teaching!”
As if this is a rebuttal to what is being taught being pointed out! Only an utterly destroyed mind could come up with that rebuttal. A robot, an alien, a demon, a destroyed mind, a fake entity, etc…could say something like that. It’s not real. It has a quality of not being real. Which is what they want to do to man – make it no longer real, no longer existent.
“This sounds like one of these nutters who thinks all energy is forcing heat.”
It is fundamentally a temperature difference…where temperature is a measure of the internal frequencies, etc. They’re just being equivocative.
@Leon: Looks like that thread is gone.
Ya Joseph it’s laughable that this is what we teach but it doesn’t matter that it’s wrong. It’s like in your talk that started this one with the you arrived at the same minus 18 so what are you arguing about. These people can’t seem to grasp that if you start out in the wrong direction that you will eventually get to that spot just behind you but it’s a rather long trip around the world. If they would just turn around and open their mind to what is right in front of them. I think the argument with these so called experts is important if just to plant the seed of doubt in some of the readers minds,probably can’t save the ones to far gone.
That Erik Davis just can’t stop spinning…
“ou are also misunderstanding how CO2 increases temperature. It isn’t through kinetic energy transfer. I realize you are simply rehashing what the previous two people have tried to say, but it is still a misunderstanding. CO2 increases temperature via reducing LWR emissions to space, not by transferring kinetic energy to surrounding molecules.
As to your analogy, what is the average temperature after you add CO2? You go from an average of ~30 to an average of ~32.5 degrees. You can also get a slightly higher max temperature due to this excess energy that doesn’t get released overnight. The earth does not heat up to the maximum temperature it possibly can from solar radiation each day since it also emits radiation back. This allows you to actually increase the maximum temperature (to, say, 41-45) of the pot (earth) without adding extra energy since it still had energy from the previous day/heating.
The laws of thermodynamics are not altered or broken in any way.”
Still has never explained what temperature where and how? LOL.
“reducing LWR emissions to space”
Light for gad’s sake he’s talking about light! You don’t stop light from going to space.
“CO2 increases temperature via reducing LWR emissions to space, not by transferring kinetic energy to surrounding molecules.”
This is just a made up thing which as you point out has no actual explanatory causal mechanism which can be pointed out as a process. They say the words as the mechanism…sure…but there is no physical mechanism explained with some math and laws of physics to go with it.
How can we increase temperature, with radiation?
1) heat flow – this doesn’t happen from the atmosphere to surface
2) reducing emissivity – CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t reduce the emissivity property of the ground surface
As discussed on that thread, climate science is the invention of an explanation for something which doesn’t need to be explained…and even if it did, it starts with the wrong foundations to create a valid explanation in the first place…thus, the explanations they come up with are themselves non-explanatory and have no basis in the logic of explanatory power via physics or reality, etc.
Real greenhouses should be able to warm by this process they describe of reduction of LWR emission…but they don’t. THEY are the one being inconsistent with pedagogy and peer-review explanations of the GHE. THEY ARE not following their own literature.
They’re creating a fake version of the effect of emissivity. If emissivity were reduced, sure, temperature would increase – but this is a property of the surface itself, and the atmosphere or whatever is in it doesn’t change the emissive property of the surface.
No one disputes that’s a gas can be radiatively warmed by a warmer source. THAT IS NOT THE GHE! They just change definitions as needed to weasel their way out of any sort of consistency.
CD what is their energy diagram about if it is not adding that 340 watts to the earth itself? It sounds like he is saying that it just slows the transfer to space but that totally contradicts what their simple energy budget shows. But then I guess that is just for teaching , what I don’t know!
That heat doesn’t stay overnight and CO2 is not increasing the temperature but he claims he’s claiming it’s not but then says it is.
Exactly Barry. They just pretend 100% different things as needed. It still implies that the sun doesn’t directly create the climate and it still implies temperature amplification from a heating of -40C to up to 15C.
Every time Joseph cornered Erik, he claimed Joseph was misrepresenting his position. When I asked for him to explain his position he claimed he did and refused to answer.
Climate science is the art of ouroboros.
Do what they do – demand peer review citations clearly explaining and experimentally demonstrating that it works as he describes. Your own pr reference can be the K&T energy budget and links to the flat earth diagram derivations etc.
And he claimed it was not increasing the temperature of the surface and is claiming the temperature is increased? Of what then? The atmosphere does not increase the surface temperature, the surface increases the temperature in the lower atmosphere, above that it does nothing.
They’re slippery little eels. Yes he did that when I talked to him too! At one point he said that he never claimed that it caused temperature increase….but it is just that it causes temperature increase….lol!! That’s like that “its just what we teach!!!” comment…hahaha.
After that debate I had which I posted privately here….it really dawned on me just how wrecked these minds are….they’re non-operational…they’re just not REAL in some sense….they’re not there, just not there.
They remind me of Mind Flayers from AD&D (also known as illithids)
Mind flayers are infamously cruel, insidious, and evil. They have no understanding of the feelings humans call “happiness” or “love”, possessed internally of only mankind’s negative emotions; particularly contempt, fear, envy and hatred. Frustration is a common illithid emotion.
Despite this, they retain a facade of quiet calmness, and rarely show their true feelings. Their primary motivations include pride, curiosity, and satisfaction.They utterly lack an understanding of human notions such as friendship, honor, loyalty, self-sacrifice, or altruism.
Illithids are highly intelligent, and infamously sadistic. While mind flayers will collaborate with each other when necessary, an individual is entirely self-serving and will happily abandon its allies to save its own life.
Reword that with consensus climate science and that about sums them up. They “feed” on the “intelligence” of others.
“A man who reads nothing is better educated than a man who reads nothing but newspapers.” – Thomas Jefferson
Wow CD that’s disturbing.
“It is fundamentally a temperature difference…where temperature is a measure of the internal frequencies, etc. They’re just being equivocative.”
So he did prevaricate? So what was the purpose? Why bother? He was trying to obfuscate the terminology for thermodynamic heat?
And they wonder why we can’t trust the “experts”? W/o you and the few who stand in the way we’d have no damn clue they were lying.
CD. “ Climate science is the art of ouroboros.”
Had to look that one up, but yeah…spot on.
https://odysee.com/@RawNews:1/Steven-Hotze-MD-CEO-vaccine-dangerous-experimental-gene-theraphy:2
Steven Hotze M.D – The vaccine is a dangerous, experimental gene therapy
Spreading this around
Boomie my mother lives in a care home and they got through the year without a single covid case. They then got the vaccine and two weeks later a 94 year old woman in wonderful shape not feeling well one night sent to emerge in the morning dead that evening from covid they say. I won’t be taking any of their gene therapy anytime soon.
Joseph, I know you’re busy or Boomie if you have it handy, I need a thorough explanation for the K&T Energy budget, spelled out in painful detail. I’ve always needed a better explanation to keep, more science based with the equations needed.
fixed some typos
wait, few more typos.
Thanks Boomie, did good work on this typos are a pain though, aren’t they? That’s because the brain plays tricks on you, you see it but the brain doesn’t resister the mistake. When I write code I have that issue with F and 5, if I don’t pay attention I’ll register F as 5, don’t know why just hardwired into my brain.
Barry @ https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/02/23/interview-with-unn/#comment-70918
This guy seems to be one of those who seems to think because man exists we are destroying earth or their vision of it.
That is because so many of these Malthusian numbnuts do not understand that we humans are a part of nature and NOT apart from nature.
What is natures probable course for the future? Nobody knows! Hopefully it still has humans in there.
CDM
Have a look at our analysis here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344539740_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth's_Energy_Budget
I recommend Figure 5 as an alternative explanation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344539740_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth's_Energy_Budget/figures
CDM
Now look at Figure 7
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344547566_Figure_7_The_Atmospheric_Reservoir_Energy_Recycling_Process
Key points to note here:-
1 The solar flux of 470 W/m^2 is now greater than 390 W/m^2, (the required air temperature) so the sunlight ground is heating the colder air.
2. The solar warmed ground carries energy to the nighttime by planetary rotation,
3. The atmospheric reservoir also internally advects energy to the dark nighttime / winter poles as we expect.
4. At night / winter the warm air above heats the radiatively cooling ground below (we see this winter process at work in Antarctica and Siberia etc.). I did not explicitly show this loop but it clearly exists.
4. In this model the atmospheric reservoir (and oceans) have thermal capacity and both act as an energy store.
Hi guys just an interesting side note after CD turned me on to ventusky I’ve been following the temp around the Hawaiian islands. For about the last 10 days or so I have averaged three temps from present to 1980 and they always come out at 67 or 68 degrees with very little variation from forty years ago. Sometimes one hotter or cooler but no distinct pattern. I know this isn’t a scientific study or anything of the like but it is interesting in a place that has such a stable climate it has not really changed in forty years.
Have a great day everyone
Philip I’m looking at your energy budget.
Thermals. I’m assuming that’s based on the rate of cooling in direct sunlight or just an average?
Bypass radiation is calculated as the same for night and day. Interesting, for some reason I would have thought nighttime would be more.
Can you determine what parts of the atmosphere are absorbing what? Is that mainly Raman Scattering or some IR as well?
I just find it interesting for I know even CO2 can react to higher IR rays from the Sun as well as NO, but O3 seems the dominant factor as the safety net for X-rays, UV and other higher end solar rays.
The clouds have always been a mystery, I just can’t find definite answers to cloud function. They scatter both rays from the Sun and from the surface
Guess I didn’t finish this part…
The clouds have always been a mystery, I just can’t find definite answers to cloud function. They scatter both rays from the Sun and from the surface…
Do they absorb IR or just reflect?
CDM
The numbers I use are derived from K&T 1997 and then doubled up. I thought a lot about this then decided that doubling was the correct approach for the following reasons
1. Divide by 2 not divide by 4
2. Solar forced thermals only occur during the day (obviously) there is an issue with night thermals sourced from warm ocean water but I dodged that one (it can be added if required.as the energy for night time storms is part of the day to night storage transfer process)
3 The evapotranspiration number is similarly a daytime value.
4. Yes, the night time surface bypass will be larger, but it is sourced from descending air, hence my comment about the missing loop. If you send energy to the ground at night (warm air to cold ground thermal inversion) then by default the direct to space radiation from the air must be less, (swings and roundabouts).
5. Clouds are a big issue, they provide daytime reflection (the albedo filter), they also absorb and emit thermal all the time. Sunlight scattered and then absorbed is part of the budget, sunlight returned to space is not.
6. Our DAET model suggests that there is a big role for TOA particulate ice clouds (cirrus) in emitting thermal radiation to space. Solids are far better thermal emitters than any polyatomic molecular gas.
“The numbers I use are derived from K&T 1997”
That must have been a headache.
“That must have been a headache”
No, just a challenge, the sort I like.
Another troll:
“Spectroscopic analysis clearly shows heat passing through C02 in the atmosphere and radiating back to earth.”
They are simply abusing this process since atmospheric “forcing” is from the sun. They are seeing energy, not necessarily heat.
Spectral analysis (properly calibrated) would show all IR receptive gases intercepting compatible spectral wavelengths.
“It also reveals that C02 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. Isotopic analysis shows that a substantial amount of C02 in the atmosphere came directly from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Not sure how well they can really prove CO2 directly from fossil fuels? I do know that’s the C15 variety I think? Or is it C13? Been a while since I looked into that.
“Temperature has risen as our C02 accumulation has risen.”
Only in models and manipulated data. Temperatures precedes CO2 rise.
“The rise of C02 began around the time of the Industrial Revolution.”
So what?
“The sun’s last three cycles progressively weakened, yet we continued to warm anyway.”
Again they are obfuscating surface solar irradiance with TOA solar irradiance and solar spots.The solar constant is not changing much, NASA puts it at 1361 W/m^2.
NOAA:Current solar constant is 1362.25 looks like, which is equal to 2003 and substantially on the current rise.
“Earth’s orbital eccentricty, axial tilt and precession are all in cooling phases, yet we continue to warm anyway.”
This is astrophysics, but sounds like nonsense.
“As our lower atmosphere has warmed, ” Again where is this evidence?
“the atmospheric layer just above it has COOLED, according to NASA monitoring since 1978.”
The Stratosphere has always been below zero. However they are obfuscating solar storms and the higher energu rays with them that heat O3 and the upper atmosphere.
“That’s evidence of the heat trapped below and prevented from filtering back into space. Natural cycles can’t explain why satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). Neither the sun nor any warming force on earth can simultaneously warm the lower atmosphere while cooling the outer one. Only a greenhouse effect can do that.”
Some of this I can easily dispute. Any inputs and insights appreciated.
“passing through C02 in the atmosphere and radiating back to earth” I’m hoping that was a typo?
Nothing can “pass through” and “radiate back”.
CDM
C13, not C15
I just learnt something new 🙂
C13 thank you, now what I do recall is as plants have taken in C13 they emit C13 so no direct proof its coming from fossil fuels, just that it “did” come from fossil fuels. But I think there is more to that just I lost all that in my drive crash a year or so ago when I did intensive studies on CO2. C14 is also created in the atmosphere in solar storms but the amount is said to be insignificant.
Have you read this paper? The physics goes way out of my purview of understanding and the math?
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
Another interesting read…
From Rex Fleming’s paper at researchgate.
There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmos-phere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section.The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation pack-age” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is sim-ply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past.The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.Size constraints limited this review to a proper finish in providing more details about the climate theory of Sven-smark, in particular, about the details of cloud formation and the precise timing of the ice ages. However, the reader can profit by reading (Svensmark and Calder 2007).CO2 is a valuable asset: providing the input to the plant world for the food all creatures require, and providing fresh oxygen for every breath inhaled by animals and mankind.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324035341_An_updated_review_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change
The only issue I have with the second paper is our field is weakening, not growing stronger.
CDM
Thanks for the link to Ed Berry’s paper. I missed that one (I am a fan).
This whole issue of Carbon 13 / Carbon 12 isotope ratio is in my opinion a heavily defended mine field.
Some basic thoughts. It is all about fractionation and therefore it is all about energy and mass.
In any volatile fractionation process the light mass fraction is preferentially released because for a given temperature the kinetic energy in the light volatile fraction will be higher. So, for the abiotic release of carbon dioxide molecules from their main gas reservoir (seawater) the surface solar forced warming of the water will preferentially expel the C12 fraction into the atmosphere.
Now here comes the “Oh, but bit”
Oh, but we have measured the C13/C12 ratio in the oceans and there is more C13 in the ocean than C12.
How did you make that measurement? Using Peedee Formation Belemnite or its modern equivalent? If so, why do you expect a mineral carbonate that has undergone crystal fractionation, which because again it is a mass and energy process that will automatically prefer C13 to C12, to be representative of the ocean water free carbon dioxide gas component?
N.B. because crystal fractionation is a “settling” process, and because we are now preferentially setting heavier C13 carbonate ions into the crystal structure, then the heavier isotope will be captured more often. So, we are now two distinct fractionation processes away from the atmosphere. (This is getting tough to believe). I have asked for and will be happy to hear of a study that directly measures the isotope ratio of free carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in seawater (not an easy task because of the confounding issue of the bicarbonate ions).
Now for the biology part of the story. Plants preferentially acquire C12 over C13, but why is that? Well in simple terms the photosynthetic process of assimilation requires energy to function, and so it is easier for the plants to “push” the lighter C12 atom back up the chemical gradient than the more massive C13 atom (loose terms and woolly analogy but you get the idea -again it’s all about energy and mass).
So now for the Suess effect [1], the dilution of C13 and C14 by the addition of light isotope fraction C12 to the air by burning fossil fuels. This is assumed to be the only source, however the half-life of C14 is 5,730 years, so what if the age of the upwelling ocean water is itself 5,000 years old [2]? In this case would we not expect a release to the atmosphere from the ocean of C14 depleted carbon dioxide?
Really? You don’t say.
Lots of moving parts and confounding issues here.
Reference
[1] Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
[2] England, M.H 1995 The Age of Water and Ventilation Timescales in a Global Ocean Model.
“there is more C13 in the ocean than C12.”
Oops ratio not quantity…
Thanks Philip, that’s very insightful. I guess these are things only a geoscientist would pick up on?
Joseph,
More from the mad physicist,
“Heat is the amount of Tension required in reserve between complex harmonics within the field.
For example: If a musical chord is perfectly propagated through a medium it’s harmonic is preserved without “heat/noise” loss.
Your descriptions are reversing the causality.
Do you not comprehend what i am trying to point out?
Saying things like “for their to be heat you need…”
is simply not true. That has to do with measurement which alters or disenfranchises the local from the larger harmonic relational system.
By relying on mathematical definition or text one is relying on a system of linearizations that do not “paint the working system” in a very tactile way.”
“I guess these are things only a geoscientist would pick up on?”
This is my lawn.
Philip,
Dr. Berry wants feedback from other scientists, in fact he asks for it. I guess that’s what happens when you are looking at just the science and not an objective.
Very few qualified scientists have the opportunity to conduct legitimate research these days without kissing the global warming ring.
His site:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/
CD that mad physicist is just a freak…an outright freak. Just a sophist saying nothing.
Joseph,
what about this part, correct it for me please.
““Earth’s orbital eccentricty, axial tilt and precession are all in cooling phases, yet we continue to warm anyway.”
I need a refute for this, your turf not mine 🙂 Not that I have a turf, I’m just a squatter.
And of course all of you guys, (the scientists who have not lost your integrity) we thank you very much for holding the line! Junk science is everywhere and we do appreciate you guys taking the time to teach us things we’d never learn in nearly any academia institutions.
They’re postulating that the Milancovic cycles somehow indicate a current cooling, but it’s currently warming. Although it isn’t actually warming…just manipulated data as Heller shows it has actually been cooling.
Thank you, I was overthinking the statement, I guess I assumed they were actually ‘learned’ and not just a parrot.
I forgot the fanatical claims they made that we should be entering a glaciation already, but the solar constant or surface TSI is not changing to support that.
This just posted on WUWT:
Koutsoyiannis, D. Rethinking Climate, Climate Change, and Their Relationship with Water. Water 2021, 13, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060849
“It is recalled that Plato and Aristotle clarified the meaning and the ethical value of science as the pursuit of the truth; pursuit that is not driven by political and economic interests. For the latter, they used different terms, sophist (σοφιστής) and sophistry (σοφιστεία)”
Philip I’m still digesting your CO2 analyses and still trying to figure out how it answers my original query, do they really know all of this increase is from fossil fuels?
“I read some points (valid or not?). The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.”
This data conveniently skipped C13.
So in coal is both C12/C13 expelled?
This is a good sophist version you can skim it if you want or not bother since I’m sure you are familiar with all the arguments already.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
I’m sure Skeptical S has something similar, as did “media scientists” like Tyson and Nye.
CDM,
“So in coal is both C12/C13 expelled?” Yes
Whenever a climate alarmist site proposes certainty my doubts rise.
In my opinion there is no real certainty in any of this, just assumptions built on assumptions, a real house of cards. For example there is an implicit assumption that there is no natural release of low C14 carbon dioxide, clearly this is false as all volcanic sources are low in C14. There is also an underlying theme that human emissions of fossil fuel CO2 have a long residence time in the atmosphere. Ed Berry’s analysis shows that this is false. So winding this back if the C12 rich emissions are increasing leading to a dilution of C13 in the atmosphere, and the human fossil fuel source is not accumulating in the atmosphere, then we must assume that there is a natural source of C12 rich gas coming from somewhere, that somewhere is most likely to be the oceans, hence my focus on fractionation and how much we actually know about this fundamental process.
CDM
Here is another thought – Where are the studies of the impact on δ13C in the atmosphere of cement production? The atmospheric change in δ13C from the industrial consumption of limestone, with its clearly different isotope ratio to fossil fuels is what exactly?
Thank you Philip, you have been very helpful. So C13 is not restricted to only the combustion of fossil fuels but obviously it does play a significant role.
Any takers on why the Gulf Stream, or gyres in general, change speeds? The Coriolis effect is constant, so other factors have to be in play here?
CDM,
No problem, helps to keep me sharp.
Ocean gyres are a whole new issue.
You need to look first at the driving mechanism. Typically, this is the trade wind direction and strength which leads directly on to ocean basin sea level variations (the water driven by the trade winds plies up in the west), continental coastal lee-shore up-welling (e.g. Benguela and Peru) and as an added bonus variation in the Length of the Earth’s Daily rotation rate (δ LOD).
So for simple clarification:
Flux is not energy, flux is simply a measure of that energy.
Solar density does not equal just energy.
Thus a greater solar energy density flux creates more potential for thermal heat.
This is the crux of obfuscation climate consensus has worked so hard to obstruct.
Yes exactly. They use W/m^2 as if it is a conserved value…equating the output W/m^2 with the input, as if these should be equal. They are not equal, and this is not a conserved value. You have to multiply it by surface area and THEN it becomes energy…per second actually, because of the W (Watts), which is Joule per second. But at least then you can talk about total energy per second. W/m^2 is energy flux density…the density of energy. And yes it is THIS which equates to potential for heat….not total energy.
Joseph I’m still talking to Erik Davis. So I got him talking at least.
I just want my next words chosen carefully.
His lat reply,
“Again, if you slow the rate of energy loss of a system, the average total energy at any given time will be higher than if you didn’t slow the rate.”
However, the rate of loss is the whole planet and the energy is already spread out /4. E moving slower in the atmosphere does not change the surface rate or increase the average temperature.
Right. They’re just making up some other scheme to increase temperature without heat or reducing emissivity. The emissivity of the ground doesn’t change. And ghgs are emissive which means they reduce temperature. The ground doesn’t emit slower. The air doesn’t emit slower…in fact the air emits better according to ghg theory.
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/nfmcxy.mp4" /]
Interesting social experiment. I think it’s from that show “Brain Games”.
It should be called Ping Pong
Joseph, I found two educated pepes under my comment here…
youtube.com/watch?v=3WQDmwccldg&lc=UgyHDIfvuZ5V7NgoNuZ4AaABAg.9LHcuJim6J39LICGvQeA13
@Compassion Is Not for NPCs
His atmopsheric physics is spot on.
Sorry, the key one of note is @Compassion Is Not for NPCs
Under my name…
It is NPR’s CD .. none playing robots.
Wow youtube is not letting the comments load…these pathetic fn goblins.
Finally got Erik after over 200 posts to reveal his scaled underbelly.
“That said, do you not understand how slowing the rate of energy loss causes more energy to stay in the system and create a new, higher equilibrium state.”
BOOM! The sophistry of the climate consensus climate religion revealed.
Exactly
This was my last reply which will set him off into another tirade but at this point he is exposed and that’s what really matters.
ME:
Not random at all, just part of the point I am making and you haven’t perceived yet.
The adiabatic process is far more complex than a simple lapse rate equation. I’m pretty sure I covered that, won’t waste my time covering that again and I also covered the fact the adiabatic is only part of the process in the atmosphere combined with the other five diabatic processes.
The adiabatic is more than proven time and time again. Compression is the key state variable that usually makes change.
Deep mines are a fine example of that.
I also covered a few more topics such as temperature is decreased not increased at the equator and that energy is transported globally. Won’t waste too much time covering that again either.
The Equator alone has the potential solar energy to increase temperatures between 67C to around 85C (estimate can vary) at a surface flux rate of 940 watts per square meter per second. If something were to happen to eliminate latent energy storage on this planet, this planet would really be the “fireball” political science claims it is today.
Direct sunlight surface temps would be unbearable anywhere on the planet radiating above 480 W/m^2 which would be anywhere below the Horse Latitudes (30-35 degrees of the Equator).
My last point I’ve been driving is still the QM point I explained in the first place and you are still glazing right over it.
“That said, do you not understand how slowing the rate of energy loss causes more energy to stay in the system and create a new, higher equilibrium state.”
This is the focal point of your mistake in physics. it will NOT go into a higher state.
Bosonic energy can stack indefinitely w/o increasing temperature.
Low energy bosons are not fermions and are not controlled by the laws of fermions under the PEP (Pauli Exclusion Principle) instead they follow the Bose–Einstein statistics.
“Bosons obey this statistics. There is no constraint on the occupation of a particular state in an energy level as these particles
do not obey the Pauli principle. Any number of particles can occupy a state in an energy level. ” – Professor Dr. I. Nasser
This is confirmed by every text in QM I have seen.
Your energy in a system is not increasing the temperature of that system unless it meets the correct requirements, which passive radiation cannot.
You’ll go into another tirade, kick, scream and shout but it won’t help, this is a physics fact and you will eventually have to come to grips with it or forever be in error.
Seems my post got ate?
So his reply daft as can be…
“Again, nothing I said is a misunderstanding of physics. You are the one misunderstanding, but given your blog/youtube “expertise” it isn’t a wonder.
Your talk of Bosons does nothing to refute AGW or GHGs. You keep misunderstanding how the temperature increases. It does not increase because more energy is added into the system. It increases because the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
The emissivity of the ground is not reduced.
Real greenhouses disprove that argument. The temperature does not go higher than the input. The sun creates the high surface temperatures…there is no higher temperature than what the sun produces hence no slowed cooling making higher temperature.
They will not, cannot accept the error.
My reply:
“the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
Energy not heat, that does make a difference you can’t seem to “get.”
CDM
Picking up on Joseph’s reply:
“The emissivity of the ground is not reduced.”
Ask him how the emissivity of the ground is varied by the addition of CO2 to the air?
Is it by making the plants grow better and therefore altering the surface rugosity or perhaps is it a leaf pigmentation effect?
The guy’s a moron…he’s still sticking to the thermal blanket theory of preventing heat loss not providing any science to back it up and ‘deny, deflect, dig big hole for oneself.
Erik is water, constantly repositioning his original state.
More from Erik water,
“And yet nothing I have said is against physics. You just don’t understand how GHGs work. I’ll wager my background in physics at a university against your blog post education.
I’m perfectly fine admitting I’m wrong, but you haven’t shown I am wrong. You have simply said your straw man of my position is wrong so i must also be wrong. That doesn’t follow. You straw manning my position doesn’t make me wrong. You misunderstanding how the physics works doesn’t make me wrong. You providing me known to be false data and pretending it isn’t doesn’t make me wrong. You doing all three especially doesn’t make me wrong.
You keep pretending I am saying that GHGs create energy when I’ve never said that. Even the paper you are trying to use and getting the physics incorrect while using states that GHGs do work as we say they do. Somehow you can’t even get your own paper correct. Yes, pressure, density, and adiabatics do influence the temperature of the atmosphere, but GHGs do as well.
I’ll again state: the radiation emitted by earth would, if it did not almost entirely escape to space create a higher temperature than what we see as the global average. Thus the global temperature increasing is still below what it would be if the sky was opaque to the emitted radiation.
Your misunderstanding of how GHGs would have the earth be cooler than it currently is if the sky was opaque to outgoing radation, with you thinking GHGs increase the temperature above that amount. That isn’t what we are saying.
Wait, are you saying the temperature hasn’t been increasing? So you deny the GHG effect, something we have demonstrated experimentally, and you deny the temperature has been increasing, something we have demonstrated experimentally, for a single paper that admits to assuming everything it needs to assume for it to resemble reality when it comes to the values used instead of using actual data and that is entirely theoretical without any actual real-world testing?”
This little twerp needs challenged in a debate since he’s so confident in his physics.
Ask him. I’ll do it.
Have you recovered yet from your last zombie debate?
This guy talks out of both sides of his mouth and any other hole he owns.
I’m good lol
He said,
“the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
“increase the temperature above that amount. That isn’t what we are saying.”
My favorite,
“something we have demonstrated experimentally”
Where? Ask for the reference.
Real greenhouses experimentally demonstrate something else.
I replied,
An actual greenhouse disproved the ghge.
Keep trying.
Without the water cycle the planet would be warmer not hotter. Again, if we had no ghgs the surface would reach much higher temperatures and cool faster at night only from the radiative process which is not the entire process of thermal energy distribution.
I am pitting my knowledge of physics against you and winning as I would pit any thermodynamics manual ever written against your claims.
Now if you want to debate a physicist on his knowledge of physics against yours I can arrange that.
Perfect!
Not a reply,the loudmouth went suddenly silent.
Guess it was easier to verbally bash someone who wasn’t a scientist?
Still not one word from Erik.
Maybe he crawled back under his rock?
You know, one thing that we or I have really overlooked and let slip past in all of this is the spoken-language-based nature of their entire position. Modern science is based on mathematics and there are equations which underpin every single scientific conception that exists. This is of course why I refer to the basic equations to demonstrate the actually-scientific position…but then we let them slip around with spoken language instead of referenceable equations. So for this guy for example, ask him for the basic equations which demonstrate what he thinks he’s talking about. We can refer to the first law and the equations for heat flow on our side. Where are theirs?! Well…I guess this is where they reinterpret heat for example as being both energies and the difference of energies…but this is easy to debunk now when they do that.
In his case he did the classic climate trick, “You do not understand physics and are not understanding that law correctly.”
This is what a wind turbine leaves behind after it’s disaffected.
Fun app. Made a quite flattering picture of me.
https://odysee.com/
Also, this new platform is promising. Should make an account if you haven’t already. It works much better than Bitchute.
What’s this crackpot stuff James McGinn self proclaimed genius believes in?
Damn, where is his website….been forever since I looked at it.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
From what I remember I asked him a question on Postma’s work, I can’t remember is he really agrees with Postma but from what I remember he admits he is ok with lying in science for an agenda.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Response-to-Brendon-regarding-greenhouse-effect–convection-model-of-storms–and-Postma-eaj9cj
Here, been a while since I listened to this.
He’s crazy and has nothing useful to say.
He’s attacking me on YT for no reason whatsoever. It seems he’s got a bur up his but with Dr. Berry who probably dismissed his theory of whatever it is? I think I read a paper by him once a long time ago it was some weird stuff man.
Oh yeah that’s right he’s into that electric universe stuff isn’t he? I remember him talking about thunderstorms or something?
He went on this:
ME:
Scientific papers are supposed to support existing theory unless they are presenting a hypothesis. That’s how the real science world works anyway, not influenced by political and activist impartial biases.
“Reproducibility, not peer review, has always been the final measure of quality in published scientific research. All sorts of garbage has always passed through peer review. Once published, bad science gets discovered only when other researchers in the field attempt to reproduce the results reported in the garbage paper, and find that they can’t.”
Consensus Climate Science never attempts to disprove anything published that supports the “cause”, at least I have not found any so far. Anyone?
James:
This is not true in all scientific disciplines. The geographic sciences have a long tradition of relying on peer review almost exclusively. Many skeptics alienate themselves by way of putting forth a mixed message as a result of being ignorant about these traditional approaches in the geographic science. They (you) want to hold climate science to the high empirical standards of physics but at one and the same time you appear to be under some kind of mass delusion that this can be done without also including the other geographic sciences in the mix. This cause you to appear biased and makes it easy for your detractors to dismiss you as ideologues who are out of touch. Here is something for you to research that expands on this theme:
Google this: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd. It should direct you to a thread on thunderbolts forum.
James McGinn / Genius
From the SoD trying to manipulate the LoT to favor global warming:
“I created a simple example using radiation and conductivity which so far no one has even attempted to criticize. It’s early days of course, and you are welcome to point out its flaws..
You can see this at Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?.
In this simple example there is a heat source within a hollow sphere (out in space) of 30,000W and thick walls of PVC. The outer walls radiate 30,000W – of course – once equilibrium is reached. And yet the inner walls are hotter. In the specific example the inner walls radiate over 1,800,000W.
Is energy created? No.
It just appears so to people who haven’t quite grasped what the first law really says.
You see the energy into the system (in my example) is 30,000W.
The energy out of the system is 30,000W.
Therefore, no energy is created.
But inside the system, an inner wall is much hotter and is therefore radiating at a much higher level.
The reason why I expect much less criticism of it is everyone can see that it doesn’t violate any physical laws because people are much more familiar with conductivity.
The equations are all laid out there and are uncontroversial (very basic) thermodynamics.
Well, it’s not the earth’s surface and atmosphere but joining the dots together is pretty simple.
If you can criticize the K&T diagram for violating the 1st law of thermodynamics then you can criticize my example for the same violation.”
It would be one thing if they were using flux, units of W/m^2, but they’re using W which is just energy….and so they ARE creating more energy than what it supplied…they are.
What this will be is simply a variation of Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse, where instead of using the heat flow equation and setting it equal to zero for equilibrium, they will be conserving heat flow and keeping it fixed.
I think this came out before the steel greenhouse, maybe where they got the root for the project? I was reading it on Nick Schrodinger’s blog somewhere. The Science of Doom caught my eye because that was one blog I went to, talked a bit, and left for they were slimy little twerps who kept bending meanings to meet their agenda. Which of course was, if you broke it down, heat can move both ways in a system.
He even tried to claim the only difference in temperatures was the amount of photons and that all temperatures had all photons with wl/f it was just the number that resulted in the final temperature, thus any temperature could theoretically increase/decrease.
https://www.voat.xyz/
Someone revived Voat.
I just had a run in with another global warming fanatic. Which is worse those who lie about the science or those who don’t care either way? At least you can talk to a scientist, fanatics are a waste of breath. Now if thy are a fanatic and a scientist well you get the former heads of NASA.
This is what you get from a drone:
“And even if this was all a hoax, what’s the arms about not going nuclear or going green? I want a future that’s clean and not harmful yet you got conspiracy theorist on the internet spreading misinformation.”
Physics is not misinformation.
That CO2 dip on those graphs, I just had a thought on that. You can look at that like a rock in a stream, it is simply diverting the energy flow around it.
@MP says:
2021/02/26 at 12:45 PM
Found an alternative explanation for the infrared gap in earths outgoing radiation.
Sorry to be late to the show.
The light bulb is the Earth emitting. The cuvette is the CO2 in the atmosphere. The point of the yellow arrow is the satellite with the detector. The detector only measures the direct light. All the rest is reemited in all directions, up-down, right-left, front-back (360 degrees all around) is not measured by detector.
Regards,
@Pierre-D Bernier
Welcome back we missed you! Hope all is going well?
Yes, exactly Pierre! That’s how a spectrum is created. That one physicist didn’t understand this.
So that was hugely simple and helpful. No way NASA does not know this, another sleight of hand from masters of lies.
Thanks Pierre.
Hi Joseph, this is Jason R. from FB. I wanted to ask you: the climate religionists claim climate change has been ‘scientifically proven’. As a non-scientist I was under the impression that for a scientific hypothesis to have truly been ‘proven’, there must be a control to compare the hypothesis to, which in this case would be an identical planet earth with no human industry. Not a model on paper, but an actual tangible earth.
Is this inaccurate? Can this type of claim be ‘proven’ solely on paper without any real world evidence?
Hi Jason,
First we need to understand that pretty much 100% of the things that the religionists say is sophistry…
And so as for that statement – it is like saying that the weather has been “scientifically” proven; that the seasons have been “scientifically” proven, that the climate itself has been “scientifically” proven. In other words it is an asinine statement, devoid of meaning or scientific relevance.
As I have said – the way that these parasites work is to simply take something that already exists but hasn’t been thought of very much, pretend that it is new and that they’ve “scientifically” proven it, and then demand power and money for it even though it is something which has always been there.
The statement is imbued with sophistry – it isn’t even amenable to proof or verification against a control. The climate has always changed, and changes on every single time scale – from second to second, day to say, week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, century to century, age to age, etc. There is no period in the geological history where the climate can be said to have NOT been changing.
These people cannot use language in a meaningful way. Their basic usage of language is to create un-meaning with it, to create contradiction with it.
Current climate change, such as it is, is indistinguishable from nominal historical variation. There is nothing unique about modern climate changes, either in rate or magnitude or degree or anything. It is completely benign. The only appreciable change is that CO2 levels seems to be increasing, and this is good for the biosphere because it helps plants to grow.
These people are not interested in any truth or anything positive. They are only interested in destruction…the destruction of reason, of meaning in language, of the value of CO2 to the biosphere, etc. They are irredeemably toxic and antithetical to existence.
Excellent reply Joseph.
I have a question. The term ‘heat capacity’ is ambiguous, it can be treated as if they are stating internal energy is heat.
So is it really heat capacity or the capacity of internal energy? I’d say internal energy. In the battle of clarifications for heat and energy this ‘heat capacity’ isn’t helping the cause.
So I phrased it like this.
Heat Capacity is how much internal energy is stored once the gas is heated.
Yes you are correct that there is in-built inconsistency there…because heat isn’t supposed to be a thing but a process, etc. Often it is interchanged with “thermal capacity” but most people don’t use this phrase even though it is more accurate and consistent in language. So you see…there is inconsistency in language built-in, and then the sophists of course love to exploit that.
But yes it is the capacity to hold internal thermal energy.
The other real problem one is Latent Heat.
Any thoughts on a better name?
Will Latent Energy do?
Yes…this is even more tricky here – latent heat. In this case there is actually heating occurring, but it doesn’t lead to temperature rise. It is increasing internal thermal energy…but it doesn’t reflect in any temperature increase.
The thing about these regions is that they can only be filled with heat, and they can only exit as heat to cooler surroundings.
So…I think that in this case the phrase is OK actually.
Going back to “heat capacity”, this can be thought in terms of “capacity to BE heated”, which would make it more accurate.
Well…more like “capacity to rise in temperature given a heat input”.
@ Jason says: 2021/03/29 at 9:15 AM
Imprical evidence by comparing other planets proves that the whole greenhouse gas hypothesis is wrong Temperature at 1 bar on planets with a thick atmosphere is proportional to the distance of the sun, no need to adjust for fake called greenhouse gasses
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, this is derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
This is understandable when applied to a black body in space. However, when applied to certain pressure levels (like 1 bar) at planets with a thick atmosphere the outcome is the same
Meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Venus Tv=∜1.91 x Te
Tv = 1.176 x 288
Tv = 339 Kelvin
For Titan, the temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Titan at 1atm (Tt) should be the fourth-root of 0.01089 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Titan receives 0.01089 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Titan Tt=∜0.01089 x Te
Tt = 0.323 x 288
Tt = 93 Kelvin
Planet
Measured Temp 1atm
Relative Solar Insolation
4th Root
Calculated Temp
Earth
~288 Kelvin
1.00
1.000
288 Kelvin
Venus
~340 Kelvin
1.91
1.176
339 Kelvin
Titan
~90 Kelvin
0.01089
0.316
93 Kelvin
Look up 1000frolly (Dr Robert Holmes with 5 relevant Phd’s) for more insight
Talk about full circle, or ouroboros,
Maurice Strong founded the IPCC through his UN ties. Big Oil=Rockefeller=Maurice Strong=UN=IPCC=Big Oil=Rockefellers
You know who just went full Green Energy? That’s right, the Rockefeller Foundation.
Full interview here
https://odysee.com/@yellowgenius:0/Dr-Kary-Mullis—The-Full-Interview:4
Just in case you guys haven’t seen this yet. You probably have though.
Canadian activist/patriot. I linked this guy video of him at the airport that went viral.
Viral video here
https://odysee.com/@bellabiancaneve:0/canadian-chris-sky-refuses-covid-test-at-airport:4
There is an Infowars interview too
Undercover reporter inside one of the biggest UK Covid testing labs
Just had a condensed matter physics PhD journal editor tell me that “they’re not qualified to vet the difference between my thermodynamic model with round earth and hot sunshine vs. the classical model”…where the classical model is flat earth with cold sunshine. They said that only an environmental science expert could vet whether it makes a difference.
This…after an environmental science journal told me it’s a pedagogical concern not a research concern. The journal above was then the journal covering pedagogical issues.
This is worth a new video.
These people are retards. Fn retards. Or they’re all coordinated.
It’s called pass the buck and avoid conflict.
You’re going to have to go down to the equator and measure the Sun yourself even though hey already have that information. Guess you need to film yourself under the Sun while taking the measurement for authentication.
Physicists conducted many experiments trying to find the IPCC’s claimed CO2-heating capabilities.
Instead they found 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” the same as non-GHGs (N2, O2, Ar) do.
100% CO2 adds just 0.15°C more warmth to a container heated 30°C.
From a regular obfuscator
mtntim-
“At 16:30, he makes the distinction between a free body diagram, which he says could represent a real object, versus the model of the greenhouse effect for a flat surface, which he claims has no real-world analog.
But actually, the model in question can exist in the real world. One could in principle set a large flat plate in orbit around the sun, with one side constantly facing inward, some IR absorber placed above the surface, and insulation on the back. This would be an exact realization of the model in question.
Would it be a perfect analog of the earth? No. But it’s a simple system to study in order to understand the basic thermodynamics at play. In fact it’s exactly solvable, which is great for understanding. And because it corresponds to a real physical situation, any conclusions we draw from analyzing the model — in particular any sort of greenhouse effect — must be real.
/u/fatal1dea”
Boomie-
“What about the part where the cold atmosphere makes the warmer surface warmer? You know, cold adding to hot? Violating the laws of thermodynamics?
Can you show me the real world example of that?
let me guess, space blankets?
A regular greenhouse or inside a hot car SHOULD show the “Greenhouse effect”, which it doesn’t.”
You can’t be that stupid on accident. The guy has a worm in his brain or something. One of the guys who responds to every post obfuscating and lying.
Latent Heat:
Without a doubt these guys are paid to spread misinformation and lies, why else would they pop up everywhere? They are using bots to find these sites, I have no doubt.
Is this a good nutshell answer? “If the emissivity of the ground is not reduced then the surface temperature is not increased.”
As an answer to “the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
@Boomie…these people are cokroaches…like CD says…they are like bots scanning for any climate skeptic forum to join and then be retarded on.
The entire point is that a flat plane facing the sun receiving FULL power (or quarter power) IS NOT THE EARTH…and cannot represent the physics of the Earth. Retarded!
@CD: “Latent Heat: The water phase which transfers en masse thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere and powers our climate via the Hadley cells.”
Yes…which is only possible with REAL solar input on a sphere, not 1/4 solar input on a plane.
@CD yes that is a good answer.
“If the emissivity of the ground is not reduced then the surface temperature is not increased.”
And also don’t forget to add that GHG’s are said to be EMISSIVE, which means that they cool, not warm the air which cannot emit.
@Boomie – I can’t see the comment…they either have me blocked or their comments were removed…
Oh wait…I blocked them…haha…I’ll unblock.
Really though you should boot them from your group.
How are the thermodynamic potentials used in atmopsheric physics? Where is the line drawn? Internal energy and enthalpy are well known but the other two, Helmholtz free energy and Gibbs free energy even the explanations seem to overlap each other.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html#c2
Helmholtz Free Energy
Gibbs Free Energy
Anyone want to add tot his or correct it for better understanding?
“Milankovitch cycles or periodic changes of variables in the Earth’s orbit.
The first of these variables is eccentricity, which can be described as “a measure of the departure of the Earth’s orbit from circularity.” A perfectly circular orbit has an eccentricity of zero while an eccentricity with a value of one is a parabola. As the Earth orbits the Sun it’s eccentricity changes between 0.005 and 0.058 mainly due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn.
The second variation in Earth’s orbit is axial tilt or obliquity which can be defined as “the angle between an object’s rotational axis and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane”.
During this 41,000 year cycle the axial tilt can change between 22.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees. Earth’s current eccentricity is roughly 0.0167 while it’s axial tilt is approximately 23.44 degrees.
It has been determined that insulation, or the amount of solar radiation received in a given area, as the result of orbital variance, along with enhancement due to negative and positive feedbacks, plays a large role in the coming and going of ice ages.” -Geology text, authors unknown.
It does sound like an astrophysics query or geophysics.
A kid is asking:
“Okay let’s step out of physics for a second, just please, answer this simple question with a simple answer. If CO2 is not causing earth to warm then what is? Especially if solar activity has been going down.
Also explain this: why did earth go into an ice age it is now when solar activity went up? And why was earth much hotter in the past when solar activity was much lower? What’s keeping the earth warm?”
I’m really trying to keep it simple in my replies.
ME:
Nothing in atmopsheric physics is simple, you should know that. I’ve studied it over 2 years and gained more questions that I have answers.
But explaining the climate without physics is simply impossible and that is why nobody should be teaching climate science without a thorough understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics and physics.
HIM:
“If CO2 is not causing earth to warm then what is? Especially if solar activity has been going down.”
ME:
The solar constant does not change much, between 1-4 W/m^2 year to year, even NASA has the solar constant at 1361 W/m^2 currently.
Media is getting facts wrong, what you are reffering to is not the solar constant at all, it is the higher tier of sunspots and solar storms, which do not effect the total surface solar irradiation. About 1% or less of the higher end solar storm rays ever reach the Earth’s surface. The upper atmosphere is heated by solar storms, not the surface. So when solar storms decrease, the upper atmosphere cools. That will change the global average and it has, for it dropped a degree (254 Kelvin /NASA Earth Fact Sheet), but the global average is not the surface average and will not change that much which still holds at 288 Kelvin (NASA Earth Fact Sheet).
HIM:
“Also explain this: why did earth go into an ice age it is now when solar activity went up?”
ME:
Many do not understand this either and it is conflated in politics and media.
Glaciations are caused NOT from the Sun’s solar output, but the Earth’s orbit, rotation and so forth.
…That’s all I got so far.
That’s great!
Still don’t have an answer to “And why was earth much hotter in the past when solar activity was much lower? What’s keeping the earth warm?”
Philip covered part of that up here somewhere. For one the atmosphere was thicker if I recall, and the other two are albedo and emissivity plus depending on “when” you have to include geothermal.
So far:
Depends on the when as much as the why. A thicker atmopsher is a warmer atmosphere, that’s the ideal gas law, increased molar mass increases temperatures. So yes more CO2 will slightly increase the temperature of the planet by increasing the molar mass, that much is absolutely true. By how much, physicists are not in agreement.
Secondly, as I explained, solar constant is only part of the equation, how much reaches the Earth’s surface and/or is retained is the other factor. For that you must include albedo, emissiviity, molar mass and geothermal, orbit, rotation and so forth.
Not sure I agree with all the assumptions, was solar activity lower? Is the earth warming?
Then I would probably talk about the grand solar minimum.
And it definitely didn’t have anything to do with C02.
CO2 increases molar mass slightly as would anything that is a heavier gas. The atmosphere was thicker than it is now. More volcanic activity would make a thicker atmosphere as well but increase albedo to the surface so that could have accounted or contributed to the LIA to some extent.
Solar output was said to be lower but we are talking millions of years ago and he was referring to the classic ice cube Earth scenario pushed by NASA, or the Fain Sun Paradox:
“Even with a divide-by-2 application and a 30% weaker Sun in the Archean then the reduced solar flux value of 330 W/m^2 (post-albedo) gives a solar flame temperature of 3 Celsius (lit hemisphere average).
The kick -back will be that the albedo is higher under conditions of global icing.
The response is to check the temperature at the solar zenith.
For a 30% weaker Sun irradiance of 953 W/m^2 and an albedo of 0.3 then the zenith flux will still be 660 W/m^2 for an S-B temperature of 55 Celsius which is clearly good enough to melt ice at the equator.
You have to kick the Earth’s planetary Bond albedo up to 0.67 to get the zenith flux down to 315 W/m^2 and a solar flame temperature down to 0 Celsius.
The Earth is a rapid daily rotator, (more so in the Archean) atmospheric dynamics with a Hadley convection cell that is forced to the surface in the mid-latitudes will guarantee that a planetary high albedo atmospheric veil, such as exists on slowly rotating Venus, will never have happened on the Earth.
The faint Sun paradox does not exist.” -Philip Mulholland
Add that to this:
“Milankovitch cycles or periodic changes of variables in the Earth’s orbit.
The first of these variables is eccentricity, which can be described as “a measure of the departure of the Earth’s orbit from circularity.” A perfectly circular orbit has an eccentricity of zero while an eccentricity with a value of one is a parabola. As the Earth orbits the Sun it’s eccentricity changes between 0.005 and 0.058 mainly due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn.
The second variation in Earth’s orbit is axial tilt or obliquity which can be defined as “the angle between an object’s rotational axis and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane”.
During this 41,000 year cycle the axial tilt can change between 22.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees. Earth’s current eccentricity is roughly 0.0167 while it’s axial tilt is approximately 23.44 degrees.
It has been determined that insulation, or the amount of solar radiation received in a given area, as the result of orbital variance, along with enhancement due to negative and positive feedbacks, plays a large role in the coming and going of ice ages.” -Geology text, authors unknown.
Ice ball Earth or whatever it is called.
Faint Sun paradox, I lost a T somewhere.
So part of his question is what causes the Thermal Maximum?
JP said: “Only climate alarm, climate scientists, and believers in climate change alarm and climate science, have a problem here comprehending that flat Earth vs. round Earth and cold sunshine vs. hot sunshine makes a difference in physics.”
mtntim: “I agree, there is a difference between this simple model and the actual earth. That is why I am suggesting we start by analyzing a flat plate in space, which is actually perfectly described by the model. So we should be on the same page here.
2) Because the situation of a flat plate in space with an IR absorber above it is so simple, we should be able to solve for the temperature. So help me solve this physics problem.
The plate is perfectly described by the equations here. Because there are only two unknowns, Tp and Ta, there are only two equations required to contain all the physics. The rest is just algebra.
Therefore if there is an error in the physics, it must come in one of the two numbered equations on that page:
(incoming) (1 – α)Save = (1 – ε)σTp4 + εσTa4 (outgoing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
and
(absorbed) εσTp4 = 2 εσTa4 (emitted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
After some algebra, the plate temperature is Tp= {[2 (1 – α)Save]/ [σ(2 – ε)]}1/4 .
This is a pretty easy physics problem, so if these equations are wrong, you should be able to tell me the correct equations, then solve them.”
JP: Yes they’re wrong because it is incorrect to add the emission from the Ta back in as an input to the plate. Sure, it is syntactically correct maths, but it is semantically incorrect because it doesn’t follow thermodynamic principles, because it adds the emission from the cooler Ta back in to the plate. The algebra is worked out just fine – the syntax of the math is fine. But it is semantically incorrect, i.e., it is physically meaningless, not following thermodynamics. This is an important concept that isn’t discussed at all in the physics classroom: math can be correct while being physically meaningless.
“if there is an error in the physics” yes, the error in the physics comes in by adding the emission from the top plate back to the bottom plate…making the input twice as strong as it actually is where you have the factor of two in the numerator of Tp= {[2 (1 – α)Save]/ [σ(2 – ε)]}1/4. The approach taken here is entirely incorrect as it doesn’t start with basic thermodynamic principles or definitions such as thermal equilibrium and heat flow, etc. It is algebra…yes…and it can be solved as such…but it is not correct physics.
It is a trivial problem and here is the correct way to solve it:
The equilibrium temperature for the plate and ceiling is found by setting the heat flow between them to zero, which is the definition of the state of thermal equilibrium and constant temperature: Q = 0. We can dispense with emissivity factors but they would factor in trivially:
Q = 0 = σTp^4 – σTa^4
Tp = Ta, at thermal equilibrium and if emissivities are equal. To get Ta, we compute it in a similar way given that the ceiling is what radiates outward and is thus the surface where equilibrium to the outside forcing must be found. Again for thermal equilibrium we set Q = 0 = (1 – α) Save – εσTa4
Ta = [(1 – α) Save / εσ]1/4
where ε is the emissivity of the ceiling.
Thus: at thermal equilibrium, and if emissivities are equal, then Tp = Ta and Ta = [(1 – α) Save / εσ]1/4. Energy is conserved, and heat flow everywhere is Q = 0 which is the definition of thermal equilibrium.
JP: “Consider the sequence of events: the S comes in and heats the plate. The emission from the plate then heats the ceiling. In climate GHE maths, the ceiling’s having attained a temperature from heat input from the plate now means that the plate becomes warmer still. How can this happen? In thermodynamics, you need heat to raise a temperature…thus, the colder ceiling has to be interpreted in this scheme as sending heat back to the plate, where the heat originally came from the plate in the first place. So this is reverse heat flow or heat recycling, it is heat flow from cold to hot, and there is a violation of the 2nd law down in there but it is also a violation of the first law more obviously.
In the actual thermodynamic scenario, the ceiling attains the same temperature as the plate, and the ceiling emits the required energy on its exterior. This is much simpler, and is mathematically asymptotic with no changes in the sign of the differential, which is what we would intuit for the behavior of the system. And it also explains the temperatures found in actual greenhouses where this scenario actually exists!
In the climate alarmist political algebra, however, the time-dependent solution for the temperature of the bottom plate is not asymptotically “smooth”, and the rate of change of temperature has sign-changes in slope, etc.
The climate alarmist approach solves an algebra problem which is separate from a thermodynamic problem. It is political algebra…literally.”
And it also explains the temperatures found in actual greenhouses where this scenario actually exists!
(updated in comment above)
Maybe we need another approach.
Ask what happened to the night? Where is it in the flat earth model?
Maybe it is the other side of the plate. If so how does that side get heated?
If they say well the plate turns round then ask what happens when the plate is edge on to the Sun?
A plate is the wrong thing to use in the first place, if you’re going for Earth use stoneware!
Joseph,
How would scientifically explain this?
“The science clearly shows our additional CO2 caused recent warming, and even children’s science fair experiments show that adding CO2 to a container and shining a light on it makes it retain more of that light energy/get warmer.”
“The science clearly shows” is an assertion based on desired outcome not statistical verification.
“children’s science” does sum this up nicely. CO2 scatters the light spectrum. Whether or not any of that spectrum is “absorbed” is dependent on CO2’s wavelength being compatible with the spectral absorption wavelengths of the gas, in this case CO2.
That is also dependent on the initial temperature of the gas and what vibrational/rotational mod of CO2 is currently active.
Any heating of an enclosed gas follows the Ideal Gas Law, in which case the molar mass of CO2 is greater than that of an average parcel of air, meaning if it expands in a sealed container it will increase pressure enough to activate compression, which increases the speed of the agitated molecules inside the glass which in turn increases temperature under the kinetic theory of gases.
mtntim: “edited 6 hours ago
Thank you for working through this problem with me! Unfortunately your solution does not conserve energy. To see this, simply look at the energy flux into the atmosphere/ceiling layer. You have set the heat flow from the plate to the ceiling equal to zero. However, you also have the ceiling radiating outward a value of εσTa4 .
Thus there is a net outflow of energy from the ceiling of εσTa4 . So it cannot be in a steady state while conserving energy.
The biggest issue in your solution is assuming the plate and ceiling are in thermal equilibrium, Q = 0 = σTp4 – σTa4 . Thermal equilibrium means the heat flow between any two subsystems is zero. In general a system will not reach thermal equilibrium if it is in contact with multiple external heat baths as is the case here (energy inflow from the sun, and outflow radiation into space).
Instead, you should look for a steady state solution, where the net energy flow into each part of the system, including energy from outside sources, is zero. I think if you do this, you should get the same answer I posted above, which shows greenhouse effect behavior.”
JP: So called “steady-state” algebra is the incorrect solution. The correct solution is the definition of thermal equilibrium, which is Q = 0, and this occurs when T1 = T2 for this plane-parallel example. These are the definitions to work with in thermodynamics: Q = 0, which typically results in T1 = T2, as it would in this geometry.
There is no “assumption” of thermal equilibrium – this is the end-state of any system, constant temperature and energy in = energy out. That is what my solution demonstrates. The solution demonstrated satisfies energy inflow from the sun equals energy outflow from the top layer. There is no necessity nor thermodynamic principle or method to increase temperature beyond this equilibrium.
” Unfortunately your solution does not conserve energy. ”
Energy in = energy out, therefore it DOES conserve energy. The solution was demonstrated and it specifically is based on conserving energy. Your remark is thus baseless.
” You have set the heat flow from the plate to the ceiling equal to zero. ”
Because this is the definition of thermal equilibrium, where temperature is no longer changing. Temperature can ONLY be constant when heat flow equals zero. This is the definition of thermal equilibrium. This is precisely the correct and only approach.
” However, you also have the ceiling radiating outward a value of εσTa4 . ”
Outwards to space, indeed, which is how and why energy is conserved. This equals the input energy.
” Thus there is a net outflow of energy from the ceiling of εσTa4 . So it cannot be in a steady state while conserving energy. ”
Of course there is an outflow of energy from the ceiling. This is how Q = 0 can be determined at all given an input to the system. Your remark is senseless.
” The biggest issue in your solution is assuming the plate and ceiling are in thermal equilibrium, Q = 0 = σTp4 – σTa4 . Thermal equilibrium means the heat flow between any two subsystems is zero. ”
Thermal equilibrium is defined by Q = 0, so of course, this is how the problem is solved for its end-state.
” In general a system will not reach thermal equilibrium if it is in contact with multiple external heat baths as is the case here (energy inflow from the sun, and outflow radiation into space). ”
Of course there is inflow and outflow, and when these become equal then we have thermal equilibrium and constant temperature. At Q = 0, which defines constant temperature.
” Instead, you should look for a steady state solution ”
Q = 0 IS a steady state solution. That’s precisely what it is. With steady inflow and outflow, constant temperature, and Q = 0. You seem to be missing very basic facts of the solution shown to you.
” where the net energy flow into each part of the system, including energy from outside sources, is zero. ”
But the energy flow is not zero. The energy from the Sun or source, Save, is constant…NOT ZERO. You are making things up here which have nothing to do with the premise of the problem. The only thing that can be zero is heat, Q = 0, whereas the problem is defined with constant energy input requiring constant and equal energy output…thus we cannot change this energy to zero because this would be an entirely different problem. The NET energy is of course equal to zero, as this is Q = 0. This is exactly what has been defined in the solution. The solution is based entirely on net energy flow, which is heat, is equal to 0.
” I think if you do this, you should get the same answer I posted above, which shows greenhouse effect behavior. ”
What you’re saying to do no longer has any meaning, as you’re changing energy from constant input to zero, and you’re claiming that steady state is not found when Q = 0 and temperatures are constant. Your words and your argument are self-contradictory, contradictory to the setup of the problem itself, and carry no meaning. You thus have resolved your own position out of relevance and influence.
And finally we can note that the temperature amplification mechanism of the algebraic solution, as opposed to the thermodynamic solution, has never been demonstrated in any hotbox or greenhouse.
Your own argument of theory here has debunked its own relevance via its own self-contradictions, which accords to the result of the empirical facts.
mtntim
18 hours ago
·
edited 5 hours ago
Hi /u/fatal1dea, I appreciate this post. However, I think it’s more useful to discuss the steady state where we have an exact solution, so we can make precise statements referring to equations. We can discuss a time-dependent situation like the one you describe, but discussing physics in paragraphs instead of precise mathematical equations is very error prone.
For example, you say “the colder ceiling has to be interpreted in this scheme as sending heat back to the plate”. In actuality heat flows from the sun to the plate, and from the plate to the ceiling. This is easily verified in the steady state solution I presented above — you can directly compute the heat flow from the plate to the ceiling and find it is positive, Q= εσ(Tp4 -Ta4 ) = ε(1 – α)Save/ (2 – ε) >= 0.
All that said, we could definitely calculate the full time dependent solution to this problem for arbitrary initial conditions later!
JP:
” I appreciate this post. However, I think it’s more useful to discuss the steady state where we have an exact solution, ”
That is exactly what has been provided with the thermodynamic solution: steady state, with an exact solution. You’re demanding what has been provided while pretending that it hasn’t been provided. Your statement is meaningless.
” so we can make precise statements referring to equations ”
That is exactly what is provided with the thermodynamic solution. Your request is meaningless, your statements are meaningless, as you request that which has been provided while pretending it hasn’t.
” but discussing physics in paragraphs instead of precise mathematical equations is very error prone. ”
Precise mathematical equations were provided. You pretend that they were not. Your argument is disingenuous and denies the facts of the existing thread history.
” For example, you say “the colder ceiling has to be interpreted in this scheme as sending heat back to the plate”. In actuality heat flows from the sun to the plate, and from the plate to the ceiling. ”
The thermodynamic solution I presented is what mathematically represents the facts of “heat flows from the sun to the plate, and from the plate to the ceiling”. Your algebraic solution demonstrates “the colder ceiling has to be interpreted in this scheme as sending heat back to the plate”.
” This is easily verified in the steady state solution I presented above — you can directly compute the heat flow from the plate to the ceiling and find it is positive, Q= εσ(Tp4 -Ta4 ) = ε(1 – α)Save/ (2 – ε) >= 0. ”
Heat flow is positive, however there is a back-loop of heat flow from the ceiling to the plate in the equations of
“(absorbed) εσTp4 = 2 εσTa4 (emitted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
After some algebra, the plate temperature is Tp= {[2 (1 – α)Save]/ [σ(2 – ε)]}1/4 .”
which is the factor of two which appears in them. And if as you say that Q= εσ(Tp4 -Ta4 ) = ε(1 – α)Save/ (2 – ε) >= 0, the solution here can only equal zero if Save = 0, whereas if Save > 0 then Q > 0 which means that the system is not in steady state and has a rising temperature since temperature must rise when Q > 0. Thus your solution demonstrates its own semantic irrelevance to reality, correct as it may be syntactically.
Thus, your own solution and statement here debunks itself as having an relevance to reality.
” you can directly compute the heat flow from the plate to the ceiling and find it is positive ”
It should not be positive. It should be ZERO, as this defines thermal equilibrium and steady-state.
” Q= εσ(Tp4 -Ta4 ) = ε(1 – α)Save/ (2 – ε) >= 0. ”
What are the conditions for this equation to be = 0? Since everything on the right is a constant multiplicative factor of physical condition, then Save would have to equal zero in this case, which is an irrelevant problem. And in fact on the left hand side then Tp and Ta could be ANYTHING, as long as they are equal. Thus the equation is meaningless.
What about the equation > 0? In this case it is not steady state and temperatures are changing, and again, Tp and Ta can be anything as long as they produce the required difference…but they will never be constant because Q > 0 means that temperature cannot be constant, because heat increases temperature, by definition.
Your maths and your argument is meaningless. And your denial of the demonstrated solution is only that…a denial that it was shown to you, a denial that it demonstrates steady state, a denial that is conserves energy, etc. All you are doing is denying what was shown to you.
This is ridiculous. Arguing with you is ridiculous and you are disingenuous and false.
“The science clearly shows our additional CO2 caused recent warming, and even children’s science fair experiments show that adding CO2 to a container and shining a light on it makes it retain more of that light energy/get warmer.”
This is merely a claim…it is not shown at all. Look at Heller’s most recent video for example…firstly data is manipulated, and even it wasn’t, it is still merely a claim. A gas being heated is not the GHE…either.
““The science clearly shows” is an assertion based on desired outcome not statistical verification.”
Exactly.
Joseph,
Baby steps…is progress.
“you have spoken the truth. I have followed Joseph Postma web site for five years. His clear thinking on the greenhouse effect has been mind opening. Robert Ian Holmes aka frolly has written a paper that expands on nicolov and zellers work on solar system atmospheric thermodynamic structure of bodies with thick atmospheres. There has been more than enough evidence given to overturn current climate theory to anyone with an open mind.”
Nice!!
I get asked a lot, “aren’t any physicists opposing this ghge?”
Someone should compile a list of physicists who oppose this nonsense. Off hand it seems to be more than just a few. A list of physicists and another list of climate scientists (which would include anyone with some proper training in a climate class not just a climatologist).
Joseph,
I have seen this problem before. The complete and total failure to understand the concept of dynamic equilibrium.
Q = 0 is a dynamic equilibrium that occurs in a system that is undergoing continuous energy transmission thru it.
Scientists against the influence of politically motivated climate change, all it needs is a cool acronym and a few faces to rally behind the banner.
“I have seen this problem before. The complete and total failure to understand the concept of dynamic equilibrium.”
That is the key argument to the current version of global warming, Erik the ‘climate scientist’ even said as much in his statement,
” CO2 increases temperature via reducing LWR emissions to space, not by transferring kinetic energy to surrounding molecules.
As to your analogy, what is the average temperature after you add CO2? You go from an average of ~30 to an average of ~32.5 degrees. You can also get a slightly higher max temperature due to this excess energy that doesn’t get released overnight. The earth does not heat up to the maximum temperature it possibly can from solar radiation each day since it also emits radiation back. This allows you to actually increase the maximum temperature (to, say, 41-45) of the pot (earth) without adding extra energy since it still had energy from the previous day/heating.
The laws of thermodynamics are not altered or broken in any way.
Sorry I couldn’t edit the comment, WP wasn’t letting me finish it so I had to post as is.
The final part was this though,
“…the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
“…the rate of energy loss is slower. Thus the new equilibrium state is higher.”
CDM That is clearly utter nonsense. The only way for the temperature to be higher is for the rate to be higher.
Is he trying to fiddle with the emissivity again?
With Joe’s help I disproved all of his other statements, that’s all he had left in his little bag of tricks besides the “Straw Man” counter plea which he used each time we disproved another of his theories.
“That’s not what I said.” He would claim and then say exactly what he just claimed he didn’t say.
Dimming and Brightening under Solar and Terrestrial, what science branch does that fall under exactly?
The only scientists I can recall off hand who has studied this is…ha forget his name.
…fumbles through his data base…
Professor/Doctor Martin Wild
Environmental Science.
Philip Mulholland
Is he trying to fiddle with the emissivity again?
No was deliberately confusing energy is a system with forcing to justify an increased temperature “by the Sun” and each time I trapped him with this (and it was many times) he would claim “that’s not what I am saying.”
His claim however was clear, the change A change emissions rates in the atmosphere according to climate science means the cooling of the surface is changed to retain more heat and increase temperature.
Even though I pushed to show me where in the atmosphere this warming was happening and spelled out the average temps in the troposphere according to average hPa he would then say “That’s not what I said” and change the subject.
Another fruitcake I’d have to spend waste my Saturday refuting. Any shortcut suggestions?
““The science clearly shows” is an assertion based on desired outcome not statistical verification.” No my friend, I mean scientific RESEARCH has already proven this to be true. Here is a summary of the main pieces of evidence that make scientists so confident that 100%, almost 100%, or more than 100% of recent warming was due to human activity (depending on the time frame you pick).
1) After human activity markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the lower atmosphere and the oceans got warmer than before–just as the theory of man-made global warming predicted they would. (see the links after #7)
2) Furthermore, after human activity markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the upper atmosphere got cooler–just as the theory of man-made global warming predicted it would: This happens because the additional CO2 we added is now trapping more of that heat in the lower atmosphere. (see the links after #7)
3) Moreover, after human activity markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, there was an increase in the lower atmosphere of the specific wavelengths of thermal energy that specific greenhouses gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) absorb and re-radiate. Again, this was just what the theory of man-made global warming predicted would happen. (see the links after #7)
4) In parallel, as human activity markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, there
was a decrease in the upper atmosphere of the specific wavelengths of thermal energy that specific greenhouses gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) absorb and re-radiate. Again, this was just what the theory of man-made global warming predicted would happen. (see the links after #7)
5) Despite widespread misinformation about this, many models of the relationship between levels of greenhouse gases and average global temperatures have predicted how much additional CO2 would cause how much additional global warming with impressive accuracy.https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warminghttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
6) Research that takes into consideration multiple natural factors (sun’s activity, earth’s orbit, etc.) and anthropogenic (man-made) factors on global temperatures has found that human activity (burning fossil fuels, deforestation) caused all or virtually all recent net warming. A chart on Wikipedia’s web page illustrates clearly this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
7) Taken together, ALL those pieces of evidence (and others not listed here) prove conclusively that recent warming was caused by humans burning fossil fuels (and other greenhouse-gas producing activities [deforestation, cement production]). To dip your toes into the evidence, try all three levels of content in the first link below, but especially see Figures 4b, c, and d in the “Advanced” level of the first link: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
8) Contrary to misinformation from AGW (anthropogenic global warming) skeptics, SEVEN different articles have all found that 90%-100% of practicing climate scientists agree that human activity is significantly warming the planet. See all three levels of information: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm The scientists most likely to deny the evidence regarding man=made global warming and climate disruption are those whose paychecks depend on us continuing to burn fossil fuels (e.g., geologists working for oil companies) or people whose political beliefs make it difficult to face the economic consequences of admitting that AGW is real and a serious threat: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html
9) Recent research shows that earlier warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period did NOT have uniform warming all over the Earth at exactly the same time. Thus, there is no other warming period in recent history like what unnatural human activities have set in motion. See… https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epd https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0402-y.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0.epd
Meanwhile, human activity is warming the Earth 10-20 times faster than it warms when coming out of an ice age and unless we change what we are doing, most life on Earth ultimately won’t be able to adapt to such rapid change. The last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of marine life went extinct as did over 70% of life on land–including everything over 90 pounds.
Easy: 1: temperature started to rise WELL BEFORE, almost 100 years before, human co2 emissions became significant. 2: there is no greenhouse effect – its mathematics was formally disproven in my first book, its mathematics is refuted by the mathematics of Thermodynamics as in my comments above, its empirical outcome has never been measured anywhere and there is no peer reviewed paper anywhere demonstrating it, it violates Thermodynamics and doesn’t exist hence why it has never been demonstrated. And yes, the list of claims ARE ALL still just assertions, invented narrative for noose and chaotic variations which require no explanation.
Plus the data is being manipulated as Heller shows. There is no common ground to find with these people.
He thoroughly discredited Heller (in his mind). Had to be done, you know I heard rumors someone was offering 250k to discredit Heller in any way possible.
It is part of the program Deny-Deflect-Discredit.
There is no common ground in reason or empiricism to be had or found with these people.
This is why real climate science will not get published.
Consensus Science:
What Effect Do Solar Cycles Have on Earth’s Climate?
According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.
For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun’s energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
And they ignore the magnetic effects on cosmic ray cloud seeding etc etc
Come on JP, he referred to wikipedia, the Guardian AND skepticalscience.com. He wins.
While I’m here, I’m stuck at the bit in Slayers Victory Lap that says higher humidity would increase the lapse rate if the GHE were true, in contrast to reality, which is the opposite. Why would the GHE do that? It is not explained in a way I get.
Using a 7×20 year guide to temperature changes in the U.K. You can see the recent 20 period (G) 2000-2020 hasn’t changed in the same way as 1980-2000 (F) in spite of 20 years of extra CO2 in the Earths atmosphere
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/hanee1.webm" /]
Please don’t be real
“No I think it is thermo elastic plastic that when heated and cools down will change form but like you I am guessing because it’s so small not much heat is needed to make a change who knows this might be something worth investigating”
“I’d say boil the mask and if they don’t move after that I’d be more convinced it’s worms yes”
-Some random guy from South Africa
@J Cuttance – because higher ghgs should mean more backradiation which should mean higher surface temperature and lower upper troposphere temperature thus giving a larger slope lapse rate. Of course, any analysis of the logic and mechanics of ghg theory leads to results OPPOSITE of reality!
“While I’m here, I’m stuck at the bit in Slayers Victory Lap that says higher humidity would increase the lapse rate if the GHE were true, in contrast to reality, which is the opposite. Why would the GHE do that? It is not explained in a way I get.”
J Cuttance
I have been trying to get to grips with the issue of Lapse Rate myself because it is a fundamental property of a planetary atmosphere that shows considerable variations depending on environmental circumstances.
The first point at issue is that dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) can be derived from the ratio of a planet’s gravity and the specific heat of air at constant pressure.
Γ = -g/Cp
If we take a model planetary atmosphere of air then for the Earth’s gravity the DALR will be 9.821/1.006 = 9.76 K/Km.
If we now take a surface pressure of 1 atmosphere (1013.25 hPa) a mean molecular weight of 28.962 g/mol and a surface temperature of 288 Kelvin then we can calculate the surface gas density as being 1.2258 kg/m^3. From this we can now calculate the atmospheric scale height in metres as being the ratio of atmospheric mass per square metre divided by surface gas density per cubic metre which is 10329/1.226 = 8,426 metre for a surface temperature of 288 Kelvin.
Next take the DALR and work out the height above the surface at which the air reaches absolute zero. 288/9.76 = 29.5 Km. Now the atmosphere clearly extends above 30 km so we immediately know that the lapse rate must vary with height, and indeed we will reach some elevation well before we reach the condensation point of nitrogen (77 Kelvin) at which the lapse rate must change from positive to negative. A planetary study has shown that there is a common pressure induced tropopause of 100 hPa for a range of atmospheric compositions and so it is unlikely that this is due to opacity, and more likely to be a property of atmospheric mass, but what exactly?
I have been working on the hypothesis that the height of the tropopause is controlled by the freezing point temperature of a planet’s main condensing volatile.
For the Earth this is the crystallisation temperature of supercooled water which is 232 Kelvin.
For Venus this is the crystallisation temperature of 75% conc sulphuric acid which is 250 Kelvin.
This is intriguing for two reasons, first the presence of solid particles in upper atmosphere clouds greatly improves their properties as thermal emitters of radiation to space, and second these high-level clouds have an obvious impact on Bond albedo. So, do we have here a fundamental relationship in which the capacity of a planet’s atmospheric tank (the amount of mass it can hold) is a property controlled by a fundamental mix of gravity, irradiance, molecular weight, surface pressure and the dominant condensing volatile’s freezing point?
My question is, did I miss anything?
Troll:
“Neither the Coriolis effect or the Hadley cells are causing climate change. However both could be effected by climate change.”
ME:
Not in reality it isn’t. Without those effects the Equator could reach temps over 60 Celsius to 80 Celsius. (Too lazy to look it up right now.)
The water cycle in all of its phases with the Coriolis effect manages our planet fueled by real time solar density of the Sun and a multifarious secondary influences such as gravity, cosmic rays, terrestrial/solar brightening/dimming, planetary harmonics, galactic harmonics, geothermal and magnetic field strength/decay both solar and terrestrial to name a few.
All of this would make great videos, this entire post of discussions.
Another one, seems physics educated at least, is fighting the same fight they all do on the solar input /4.
Thought it blended in nicely with the discussions.
@FromNorway
WRONG!
Here are some data that may help you:
Average TSI: 1361 watts/m²
The Earth’s cross-sectional area: πr²
The Earth’s surface area: 4πr²
The Earth’s albedo: 30 %
Do you know how many people don’t know an Ice Age is based on our movement through the galaxy?
Granted even I know little of it but as I understand it as we near the galactic center it starts getting warmer. I think it’s strange we have roughly a 125 million years of glaciations/interglacials and only one (opposite) anti-glaciation of a 100k years in the form of an ice free planet and true global warming. Then as we move away from the galactic center the ice age returns.
Naturally its not the movement to the center of the galaxy as much as it’s the effect on the planet that causes the changes I’m just over simplifying the concept.
As if they can’t understand that the output isn’t equal to the input, in terms of quality rather than merely quantity.
Yeah I replied to him I doubt any of it will leave a mark.
ME:
That is correct in math not in reality, which is why energy budgets have to make energy out of nowhere which is a physics impossibility to make up for what they took away from real time solar input.
Solar density creates the climate at the Equator and our natural ocean and air cycles moves that thermal energy around globally.
This is verified with science.
You don’t spread real time solar input evenly over the globe removing night and day and make it a statistic.
Solar density is thus removed and the thermal physics that creates heat goes with it.
The ghge is a fabrication and nothing more.
I’m taking a shot at the ghge and the lapse rate confusion.
The lapse rate is calculated according to the atmosphere’s molecular weight and gravity, with and w/o water vapor they establish a temperature based on elevation.
If the ghge was real the temperature would change at each elevation and the lapse rate would have to be readjusted to compensate that temperature change. That is never done, proving it does not change and thus proving the ghge does not indeed exist.
The ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) model would constantly have to be adjusted everyday and it has not been updated in 45 years (that I know of).
Can I have the links to the sites you guys are chopping away at that hasn’t been removed? Thanks, appreciate it.
Is any of this on stackexchange?
In one of my PSI papers I demonstrated precisely how to calculate the average wet lapse rate given the average concentration of water vapor and the fact that the air becomes dry on average at 10km. Works out perfectly. 9.8K/km modulates down to 6.5K/km given the release of latent heat from water vapor.
Anyway…if the ghge was real the lapse rate would have to be different because there would be an additional back-radiative effect on top of the adiabatic effect. The lapse rate however is only that as given by the adiabatic analysis. And yes, indeed, with an increasing ghge, the standard atmosphere and its lapse rate would be changing.
So some troll sent me this,
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html
I did a 1k word critique on it for my own personal archive. Any thoughts? Yes the entire paper is trash, very few things they got right anywhere. This is how they indoctrinate our kids.
Oh and Happy Easter everyone 🙂
Happy Easter!
Yah we’re having a snow blizzard here…lol
Note the conflating of effective radiative temperature vs. near surface air temperature, ignoring the lapse rate and what it requires of the average, ignoring that the effective temperature IS -18C, and still doing backradiation heat recycling, still claiming the sun doesn’t drive the climate etc etc. It’s a science of ignoring science…simulacrum science.
Thanks JP I think I’m getting there. PM – I thought Earth’s tropopause was where its positive lapse rate inducing UV absorption (opacity?) ran into the negative one coming up.
J Cuttance
Meteorological convention. A positive lapse rate Γ means that temperature decreases with altitude. (I don;t think that they are trying to be difficult it is just that it helps with the numbers.)
The key point is at some altitude there is a minimum temperature and this is associated with the adiabatic convection limit that defines the top of the troposphere.
PM, check.
I tried working out the theoretical depth below the surface of Mars at which the pressure is 1atm, to get its temperature and compare it with the Venus/Titan 1atm comparison that was somewhere in this excellent thread, but the extrapolation of pressure graphs and the calculation of lapse rates disagree probably because of that tropopause.
The letter Γ is cool enough for a nerdy t-shirt. How about ‘Γ disproves GHE’? It’s a shame the Greeks haven’t got a pithy little symbol for ‘disproves’.
This thread is still going.
Jees, I have about 250 post to catch up on. Anyway guys. Is this statement factually correct before I post elsewhere
“I am still waiting for you to provide us with a paper that explains how lower energy photons excite a molecule that requires a higher frequency to excite it!”
J Cuttance
“I tried working out the theoretical depth below the surface of Mars at which the pressure is 1atm”
Neat idea, thanks.
Here is my attempt for Mars:
Surface Pressure 6 hPa
Surface Temperature 210 Kelvin
Pressure equation =(4.5024EXP(1)^-(0.08D1))+(0.0057D1^2 – 0.1817D1 + 1.4803)
Depth to reach 1 atmosphere 67.2 km
Environmental lapse rate for Mars 1.11 K/Km
Temperature at 67.2km is 210 + 1.11 * 67.2 = 284.7 Kelvin or 11.5 Celsius
Two main caveats:
1. The pressure equation is corrected by the extrapolation down of an unconstrained 2nd order polynomial difference equation.
2. The pressure calculation assumes a constant gravity and so ignores Newton’s Law of Gravity Shells.
Good enough for government work. YMMV
Troll:
“Neither the Coriolis effect or the Hadley cells are causing climate change. However both could be effected by climate change.”
Utter garbage,The Coriolis effect is constrained by a planet’s angular velocity. To change the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell the rate of the Earth’s daily rotation rate must be changed drastically.
Right jopo.
Joe,
They must have this pinned under your name in the data base.
Random troll:
“Joe Postma’s nonsense was debunked by Skeptical Science here:
Skepticalscience . com / postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect . htm
Redistribution of heat from the equator to the poles can’t explain why the Earth is about 33K warmer than the theoretical 255 K calculated from 240 watts/m², because that calculation already assumes a 100 % even distribution of insolation.
Any variations due to the day/night cycle, seasons and latitudes will change the average temperature to some value below 255 K. The warming caused by the Earth’s atmosphere is thus larger than the often-sited 33°C.”
Didn’t you do a video on that?
Yes I did a few months ago.
And earth is NOT 33K warmer! This is just a bald lie and obfuscation, as you know.
Also, skeptical science isn’t a peer reviewed journal so its “debunk” is meaningless haha
I didn’t know which video it was or I’d sent him the link.
I did reply,
“Yes I’m sure they tried very hard, considering they are a politically driven and not science orientated organization.
Again, solar flux density is completely lost on you and not on them, they just bet everyone else is that daft not to notice.
Without the water cycle and thermal distribution the average would be doubled.
Greenhouse gases are more emissive than the standard atmosphere, more not less.
Postma refuted the alleged rebuke, they chose not to post it.
You (like them) are assuming the 15C is an increase and it’s not, it’s reduced from the original potential temperature.
Everything in the atmosphere acts as a coolant for the temperature not an accelerant, including ghgs.”
SS links “Climate Adam” videos.
PM – giving Mars Earth’s temperature and pressure down there? ha!
J Cuttance.
This calculation is based on known data;
Surface pressure ? Tick.
Surface temperature ? Tick.
Atmospheric pressure gradient ? Tick
Surface gravity ? Tick.
Measured environmental Lapse Rate ? Tick.
Notice that there is no mention of irradiance, not even of molecular weight and certainly no mention of opacity, thermal or otherwise. Robert Holmes describes these parameters as being “baked in” to the calculation.
I am beginning to understand what he means.
On the basis of this calculation for Mars the greenhouse gas hypothesis is stone cold dead.
Yes PM, people are sealing the GHE’s coffin with a nail gun. I’ll read Holmes, though I got in trouble presenting Nikolov/Zeller’s stuff to my astronomical society last year. One guy in the audience was a trained climate scientist and his angry reaction, disputing everything except the facts, astonished everyone.
Is Mars an exception to the tropopause rule? It’s wonderous wispy air there. I understand a large part of its atmoshere gets frozen at the poles seasonally. I discharge the old fire extinguishers at work and make CO2 snowballs on the ground which I can pick up and hold, despite them being, what?, -78C?. They feel a bit sharper than water snowballs but feel similarly cold, I presume because they sublimate, and the gaseous CO2 doesn’t have the heat transfer coefficient of liquid water.
J Cuttance,
In spite of its low surface pressure (6 hPa) Mars not only has a weather layer, it also has a tropopause at an elevation of about 80 km and a temperature minimum of 139 Kelvin; it also has “dust weather”. In addition to this Mars is cold enough for not only the formation of dry ice surface frosts in winter but also the direct formation of carbon dioxide snow clouds.
Given that no one can make the case that there is any chance of a radiative opacity greenhouse effect working on low pressure Mars, the fact that Robert Holmes mining ventilation analysis works there shows us that thermal radiant opacity due to poly atomic gases has nothing to do with atmospheric structure of Mars. Indeed the role of dust as a thermal absorber of insolation that initiates global dust storm apparitions that lowers the Martian albedo that in turn cools the atmosphere is another nail the back radiation coffin.
Good on you standing up for truth J C. I’d love the chance to present to your astro society!! lol
Jopo,
If you know all of this already my apologies (I am not a scientist). Approval by Joseph is recommended before using this, of course.
For an ‘educated’ crowd (sliding scale these days) I’d use something like what I asked ‘Erik the climate scientist’.
Which was this:
“How does CO2 reach a higher vibration/rotation state considering it has a lower heat capacity than most other gases in the atmosphere including N2 and O2?”
No need to quote me most of this knowledge was started here on these posts I just added as I learned so use your own words and methodology of presentation. Plus if they aren’t saying it verbatim I never quote in case I make an error it can’t fall back on them.
Short Version:
Energy transfer from a 15 micron photon is not enough energy to melt an ice cube [atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 microns/that corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV.] So how does CO2 reach a higher vibration/rotational state? CO2 is unaffected by nonresonant frequencies, and if CO2 is already excited, even radiation at the correct frequency will be rejected (scattered) by CO2 (thus a heated CO2 molecule will not absorb another photon) and the energy transfer from a photon to increase a temperature requires that the wavelength to be shorter than the wavelength frequency absorbing it.
Now an ice cube emits mainly at a wavelength of 10.7 microns. So ice photons are “warmer” than CO2 photons emitting at 15 microns.
CO2 is a linear triatomic molecule, it has four vibrational normal modes and three fundamental vibration frequencies. The stretching mode (symmetric) is Raman active and thus inactive to infrared radiation.
According to my studies, CO2 has a center of symmetry (centrosymmetric) located at the Carbon atom. As such it obeys the Exclusion rule
“In a centrosymmetric molecule no Raman active molecule is also infrared active and no infrared active vibration is also Raman active”.
(v1) Symmetric Stretch Mode 7.2 microns/1388.2 cm^2 (Raman active)
(v2) Bend Mode 14.98 microns/667.4 cm^2 (IR active)
(v3) Asymmetric Stretch Mode 4.25 micron/2349.1 cm^2 (IR active)
However, it can absorb KE in this process from collision/bumping molecules even several times before emitting its absorbed energy {which would increase the emitted energy}. In other words it requires more kinetic energy than what CO2 can absorb by a 15 micron photon. So where does that energy come from?
**The answer of course is the diabatic/adiabatic processes. ** Mainly from the Sun heating the surface besides the adiabatic process which doesn’t need outside work (PE/KE).
Key NOTES:
< Any heated molecule emits electromagnetic infrared radiation.
< A molecule can even heat up by the adiabatic process, no radiation required.
<The entire atmosphere gets heated even O2 and N2 which has a higher heat capacity than CO2, bumping/collision transfers kinetic energy to ALL molecules in the atmosphere.
<A photon is a photon and acts like a photon. They don’t stack, they don’t “add up” and they don’t increase temperature above the radiating frequency of the energy they transfer.
Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: Delta E=hv.
E = hv C= λv. E is the energy of the light in Joules (J), h is a constant which is 6.626 X 10-34 J•s, and. v is the frequency of the light in s-1 or waves/s (also called Hertz (Hz). C is the speed of light.
The Bose-Einstein statistic:
“Bosons obey this statistics. There is no constraint on the occupation of a particular state in an energy level as these particles do not obey the Pauli principle. Any number of particles can occupy a state in an energy level. ” – Professor Dr. I. Nasser
Low energy bosons are not fermions and are not limited to the laws of fermions under the PEP (Pauli Exclusion Principle) instead they follow the Bose–Einstein statistic.
In case a troll argues, all of these photons are typically low energy in the open atmopsheric window, higher energy is from the upper rays of the Sun (an exact term would be nice I don’t have one).
“The conversion of translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process.
The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
You will sometimes read “CO2 doesn’t have time to emit IR because the radiative de-excitation time is much longer than the mean time between collisions”. In conditions where collisions dominate (ie: below the tropopause), CO2 will indeed often vibrationally de-excite via v-t (vibrational-translational) collisional processes. But by the same token it will also often vibrationally excite via t-v (translational-vibrational) collisional processes at a rate dependent upon the ratio of atmospheric molecules which carry sufficient kinetic energy to excite CO2’s vibrational modes, as we calculated above.
Merely because a vibrationally-excited CO2 molecule undergoes collision with another molecule (in conditions where the translational mode energy of the two colliding molecules is higher than CO2’s vibrational mode energy and therefore energy cannot flow from vibrational to translational mode) doesn’t reset the “clock” on CO2’s radiative de-excitation time. Given that out of the three most abundant molecular constituents of our atmosphere (N2, O2, CO2), only CO2 can radiatively emit and break LTE, the net energy flow is to CO2 via t-v collisional processes above ~288 K.” -LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Joseph WP ate my homework.
mtntim via /r/RealClimateSkeptics sent 2 days agoShow Parent
I was replying to your two comments separately. One discussed your equilibrium solution (which I have refuted in that thread). The other suggested a time dependent solution, which I replied to separately. I was not “ demanding what has been provided while pretending that it hasn’t been provided”, or at least I certainly didn’t mean to! Sorry if it came off that way!
“Heat flow is positive, however there is a back-loop of heat flow from the ceiling to the plate”
The laws of thermodynamics only demand that heat flow between two objects is in the direction from the hotter one to the colder one. There is no rule about “back-loops of heat flow”, and in fact that doesn’t even have a meaningful definition. Heat flow between two objects is one way, or the other, period.
“And if as you say that Q= εσ(Tp4 -Ta4 ) = ε(1 – α)Save/ (2 – ε) >= 0, the solution here can only equal zero if Save = 0, whereas if Save > 0 then Q > 0 which means that the system is not in steady state and has a rising temperature since temperature must rise when Q > 0…
It should not be positive. It should be ZERO, as this defines thermal equilibrium and steady-state.”
This is a mistake you’ve made repeatedly. You think there should be zero heat flux between the plate and ceiling in the steady state: this is incorrect. It is the total heat flux into each object that must equal zero. You are forgetting about the additional heat fluxes from the sun to the plate, and from both objects out to space. Given these additional heat fluxes, the heat flux from the plate to ceiling must NOT equal zero.
ContextFull Comments (38)ReportBlock UserMark UnreadReply
fatal1dea 1 point just now
Your comments are meaningless. If heat flow is not zero then temperature is changing: dU = Q + W = m Cp dT, hence, it is impossible for you to be referring to a steady-state solution. You have no idea what you are doing, or talking about. Your last paragraph is word salad where your premises in no way even imply the outcome, if the thoughts even carried any meaning in the first place, which they do not. This is the 3rd time in which reference to and analysis of basic equations debunks your position.
“The laws of thermodynamics only demand that heat flow between two objects is in the direction from the hotter one to the colder one.”
Heat flow is one way only. From warm to cool.
“There is no rule about “back-loops of heat flow”
There is indeed – it is called the irreversibility of heat flow, which is the 2nd Law.
“and in fact that doesn’t even have a meaningful definition”
Reverse heat flow is called “backradiation” in climate alarm pseudoscience.
“Heat flow between two objects is one way, or the other, period.”
That is what the skeptics always correctly say, indeed. It is of course what contradicts the alarmist and climate science narrative in flat Earth theory. Your claiming it here is hilarious and ridiculous.
“This is a mistake you’ve made repeatedly. You think there should be zero heat flux between the plate and ceiling in the steady state: this is incorrect.”
If heat flow is not zero, then the system is NOT in steady state: dU = Q + W = m Cp dT, hence if Q > 0 then dT > 0, hence not steady state. You have no idea what you’re doing and the most basic equations demonstrate this.
“It is the total heat flux into each object that must equal zero.”
That is exactly what was done, what was demonstrated with my correct solution.
“You are forgetting about the additional heat fluxes from the sun to the plate, and from both objects out to space.”
Those were all fully accounted for in the solution: heat from the sun to the plate which goes to zero, heat between the plate and the ceiling which goes to zero, which is the only way to determine the steady-state equilibrium solution given the fact of dU = Q + W = m Cp dT.
“Given these additional heat fluxes, the heat flux from the plate to ceiling must NOT equal zero.”
Then this is not steady state, given that dU = Q + W = m Cp dT. You debunk yourself. Thank you for helping demonstrate the debunk of climate science.
mtntim via /r/RealClimateSkeptics sent 2 days agoShow Parent
Your solution may have energy in = energy out, or Q=0, for the plate and ceiling together *. However, the plate has a net energy inflow Q>0, and the the ceiling a net energy outflow, Q<0, as I showed in my last comment.
Thus if the plate and ceiling were at the temperatures you propose, the plate with Q>0 would immediately start to increase in temperature, and the ceiling with Q<0 would decrease in temperature, until the unique steady state was reached. This has to be the case. Any object losing energy (Q<0) must decrease in temperature by energy conservation.
actually there are minor mistakes in your solution that prevent this from being the case, but we can address that later.
ContextFull Comments (38)ReportBlock UserMark UnreadReply
fatal1dea 1 point just now
“However, the plate has a net energy inflow Q>0, and the the ceiling a net energy outflow, Q<0, as I showed in my last comment.”
At steady state, Q = 0 everywhere, given the fact of dU = Q + W = m Cp dT. Steady state means temperature is not changing means dT = 0, which can only be if dU = 0 which requires Q = 0 given that W = 0. You have no idea what you’re doing, or talking about. You claim steady state while changing temperature – a contradiction in terms, which is, of course, a demonstration of the entire scheme of climate change.
At steady state Q = 0 but the energy inflow and outflow is NOT equal to zero. Simple.
“Thus if the plate and ceiling were at the temperatures you propose, the plate with Q>0 would immediately start to increase in temperature”
The plate has Q = 0. YOUR “steady state” solution has Q not equal to zero, which defines not being in steady state. You are glitching out here….BSOD or something.
“until the unique steady state was reached.”
Which is Q = 0, unlike your solution which is not steady state with Q > 0.
“Any object losing energy (Q<0) must decrease in temperature by energy conservation.”
It is not losing energy at Q = 0, which is the demonstrated steady state equilibrium solution. Energy is constant and equal input and output, and Q = 0.
You have no idea what you are doing.
Sorry in the ice age reflection should have said, “Naturally its not the movement around the center of the galaxy as much as it’s the effect on the planet that causes the changes I’m just over simplifying the concept.”
I said “to” the center, we aren’t traveling “to” the center of the galaxy, our solar system orbits “around” the center of the galaxy. This is believed to be 225 to 250 million years, not sure where I got the 125 million years from?
Unless they believe the warming period starts around a 125 million years and breaks the ice age cycle?
I think that the solar system oscillates up and down through the galactic disk as we orbit about the center. That period is 125My.
Wow thanks JP, though I’m just about off the map – deep south NZ – and I don’t know how you’ll get here in this papers-please universe we’ve wormholed into. Having said that, PM, paper-please! I hope you publish your tropopause idea.
J Cuttance
Refining it right now.
Have rerun the calculation for an equatorial test of the average annual Hadley cell surface temperature, using Boyle’s law, Newton’s Law of Gravity Shells for an average Mars density with a radial velocity correction and the Martian atmospheric molecular weight. The result is stunning.
At a depth of 67.7 Km a pressure of one Earth”s atmosphere is achieved with a temperature of 18 Celsius.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html
Joseph I found this interesting about the fudge factor as he calls it if you have time sometime maybe you could give me a critique of it.
Have a great day Barry
Well, Barry, the entire GHE scheme is a fudge factor to try to correct the faulty foundations of flat earth theory with cold sunshine that can’t create the climate. The entire climate greenhouse effect scheme is a fudge factor. Great point to make in a video.
“I think that the solar system oscillates up and down through the galactic disk as we orbit about the center. That period is 125My” -Joseph
I perused the net and found one paper so complex I felt you should look at it. The little I understood I thought was interesting, but it would take a scientist to unravel the rest…
“The periodicities and phases of these oscillations are consistent with parameters postulated for the vertical motion of the solar system across the galactic plane, modulated by the radial epicyclic motion. We propose therefore that the galactic motion left an imprint on the terrestrial climate record.”
“Is the Solar System’s Galactic Motion Imprinted in the Phanerozoic Climate?”
Nir J. Shaviv,Andreas Prokoph,and Ján Veizer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139944/
CDM
Professor Shaviv does interesting work. See his ocean calorimeter paper as well.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228907219_Using_the_oceans_as_a_calorimeter_to_quantify_the_solar_radiative_forcing
Can one of you experts answer this question? Maybe a chemist or a geoscientist? Hmm if we only had one here somewhere? LOL. It is a valid query.
“carbonic acid … claim that the CO2 is measured from the air bubbles trap in the ice cores. Does not the CO2 carbonate the water to give faulty readings?
I would like to know precisely how those measurements are made. Including how they can tell if some warm days melted away certain years.”
test
Last post didn’t go through.
Guys, sorry for the off-topic post but I just discovered something this morning regarding those covid swabs. Someone scrubbed off all the bristles on a swab, poured isopropanol on them and tiny particles began to glow. The video is here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RXwObJcTFWRk/
So I did some research on “Bill Gates Human Implantable Quantum Dot Microneedle Vaccination Delivery System is called Luciferase” which lead me to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202002203
And…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153112.htm
At the risk of sounding like a paranoid tin foil hatter, I have come to the wildly held consensus that we are being chipped and not only will these nanobots be relaying real-time information about our bodies to an AI controlled data base, they will be receiving data as well. To do god knows what.
Supporting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHwUdUiHrA&t=332s
Need to rewind and ignore the robotic voice. See how the swabs inserts shards into your mucus membrane.
I tried to post something which keeps getting rejected. 3rd attempt but smaller. I discovered something this morning regarding the swabs.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153112.htm
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RXwObJcTFWRk/
I tried to post something which keeps getting rejected. 3rd attempt but smaller. I discovered something this morning regarding the swabs.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153112.htm
https://www.bitchute (DOT) com/video/RXwObJcTFWRk/
4th attempt…
Cd that is something I’ve wondered about for a long time. When you look at the Vostok charts they all seem very symmetrical almost like they are more time or pressure sensitive than co2 sensitive. I have no reason to doubt the co2 readings they get but wonder about the whole idea of being able to go back 1/2 a million years and have the right reading today that was then. Not to say I have any understanding of how it’s done
Mr Philip Mulholland
I like that.
CDM
Not sure how my handle changed.
@Mr Philip Mulholland
Oh! Thanks for the link.
Must have been during that posting glitch.
I always thought it would be nice for the scientists on this site to be more recognizable. Every time I say something in science I have to remind them I’m not a scientist, would be helpful if the scientists had a tag to help the reader to know who they are addressing and their qualifications without taxing the name tag too much.
https://principia-scientific.com/nasa-claims-proof-greenhouse-gases-drive-temperature/#comments
This is an article from psi this am,NASA now claiming to know for sure what heats the earth and still using the trapping heat term. Worth five mins.
Have a good day everyone
There’s sword-play at WUWT…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/10/a-greenhouse-gas-planetary-temperature-formula-to-put-nikolov-and-zellers-pressure-formula-in-context/
They use “more” clever words over at WUUT but the sophistry is still the same, they are claiming cold can heat hot, that greenhouse gases somehow create heat out of nothing and that a longer wave radiating source somehow can control the temperature of a shorter wave radiating source.
The latter is wrong for two prominent reasons, one a physics impossibility for photons with less transferable energy to heat up a source radiating with higher energy emitting photons on a quantum mechanics level, two, the atmosphere is not a source of energy to begin with.
Technically, it is considered for parts of the atmosphere in contact with direct solar irradiance to function “as” a limited blackbody, but aside from the thermosphere, that limited energy transference is not even enough to raise the atmospheric layers above freezing, so the “limited blackbody” is barely even that.
Latent Heat is really the COE without an increase in temperature? Not like it delays heat for it does not heat it removes the potential of “heating”. All of these phrases is why everyone’s so confused.
Latent Heat is the molecular equivalent process of storing energy in a battery.
Notice that at rest a charged and an uncharged battery can be at the same temperature but in different potential states.
Stored energy without a change in temperature. I’m curious what would be the equations for latent heat (energy)?
If I’m not mistaken, the energy is used to create the phase change. Once the phase change is maintained, Delta T can only result in two variables: A colder temperature can revert the phase change in the form of precipitation. A hotter temperature maintains the phase change.
Virga is an example of the latter, a phase change stopped in the process and reverted to the original state. Something that happens frequently over places like Death Valley.
I wonder how many ’49ers thought, “it looks like rain.” Day after day.
Ironically I heard one of the largest water reservoirs in the state exist sunder Death valley, protected. They found tiny blind prehistoric fish in the reservoir or something like that?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Endangered_Earth_Underground_Water_West_01.html#:~:text=Under%20the%20surface%20of%20Death%20Valley%20is%20one,in%20the%20valley%20%28282%20feet%20below%20sea%20level%29.
When I was in high school I was interested in archeology and geology. Ancient civilizations and various forms of communication were always a curiosity of mine.
Expounding on Pierre’s observations of the the spectrum disruption satellites detect in gases I tried to sum it up…
“In other words, Satellites are only detecting one part of the spectrum from disrupted light through a gas same thing as a prism. multidirectional scattering is not detected which is what happens in a gas that scatters light. In order to get correct calculations you would need to have satellites analyzing all angles of scattering from all vector points which is not possible from a satellite that cannot detect tangential points deviated form the main unidirectional path, A to B as it were.”
“I’m curious what would be the equations for latent heat (energy)?”
I think this is what you want:
Specific Latent Heat L = Q/M Joules/kg L^2T^-2
where Heat Absorption Q = mc∆T Joules ML^2T^-2
Q = heat energy (Joules, J)
m = mass of a substance (kg)
c = specific heat (J/kg∙K)
∆T = change in temperature (Kelvin)
It is worth noticing that in Meteorology CAPE ( convectively available potential energy) also has the same units of Joules/kg
Thanks for that Philip, I copied it for future references and I learned something new (CAPE) which I am intrigued by that as well.
“Convective Available Potential Energy. A measure of the amount of energy available for convection. CAPE is directly related to the maximum potential vertical speed within an updraft; thus, higher values indicate greater potential for severe weather. Observed values in thunderstorm environments often may exceed 1000 joules per kilogram (J/kg), and in extreme cases may exceed 5000 J/kg.
However, as with other indices or indicators, there are no threshold values above which severe weather becomes imminent. CAPE is represented on an upper air sounding by the area enclosed between the environmental temperature profile and the path of a rising air parcel, over the layer within which the latter is warmer than the former. (This area often is called positive area.)” -NOAA
I wish I could find one manual in meteorology which isn’t half politcal drivel. I read through several climate science books and thy all end the same, political garbage with some real science seeded in to make it seem believable.
Meteorologist Jeff Haby has a wealth of information but his site is difficult to navigate.
You may find this useful. It is from METEO 101: Understanding Weather Forecasting by the John A. Dutton e-Education Institute at PSU.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160205223901/https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/meteo101demo/Examples/Section6p04.html
The course does not seem to be live anymore so this archive version will have to do (some of the links no longer work).
That’s a great link Philip, thanks.
CDM,
Have a look at Joseph’s 2012 publication where he shows how the dry adiabatic lapse rate is modified by the presence of water vapour in an ascending air column. (Section 1.2).
Postma, J.E. 2012 A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
Click to access Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
It is worth making a spreadsheet and going through the numbers, the process is instructive. I have just done this myself and it is thought provoking. It is quite clear that the principle Joseph applies is sound and provides not only an explanation for the change in lapse rate that water vapour produces, but also why the environmental lapse rate can be so variable.
Here are some of the thoughts I explored.
1. What about the latent heat of fusion? Should this 3.34 KJ/kg be added to the mix given that the tropopause temperature is so low therefore all water will be frozen at that altitude. The answer would appear to be that while the latent heat of fusion provides an extra kick to convection on the way up, most precipitation arrives back at the ground as rain or disappears aloft as sublimated virga, so the latent heat of fusion is taken back in on the way down. This point is important as it provides an extra topside cooling to the upper air as cirrus cloud virga will generate cold dense descending air below them by this latent heat absorption process.
Clearly snowfall is an example where the latent heat of fusion must be taken into account, and so in winter in the Polar cells, we can expect a different environmental lapse rate.
Next there is the issue of the specific heat of the liquid water, (4.2 kJ/kg/K). The same argument applies but it is worth noting that rain is typically cold so there must be a marginal boost effect here if the ascending moist air is at 15 Celsius and the descending rain is at 5 Celsius.
The really interesting point is what about Mars? Mars has a surface gravity of 3.97 m/s^2 and a carbon dioxide atmosphere with a Cp of 735 J/Kg/K which gives a dry adiabat of 5.03 K/Km. Mars however has an environmental lapse rate of 1.11 K/Km and it has water ice clouds, dry ice clouds and dust clouds. Clearly a lot of environmental agents in play and plenty of mechanisms to explore to account for the alteration of this planet’s lapse rate.
@CD Marshall 2021/04/14 at 1:07 PM
Some more information on the role of CAPE
H/T RickWill
Thanks again Philip.
If you got time do you want to cover this from a troll unless this was the point? Sure it’s nonsense but how to correctly exposé that it is nonsense?
““Actually, it is because if you eliminate the secondary greenhouse gases CO2, O3, and CH4, absolute humidity goes to virtually zero. That means infrared escapes into outer space because there will be no cloud formations nor any greenhouse gases left in the atmosphere. It would be exactly as if the rest of the atmosphere wasn’t there because N2 and O2 don’t absorb in the infrared spectrum and if there is no CH4, CO2, H2O, N2O, and O3, Earth’s surface becomes ice crystals, reflecting virtually all incoming sunlight. This is exactly why my house does what it does.”