Doug Cotton continues to spam Leonard Weinstein’s thread which changed topic hundreds of comments ago. Leonard is a lot of trouble as a guest post as Climategate 1 broke here on his thread as well. 😉
It seems my poor moderation has led to some very powerful threats from Douglas.
Time to wake up Jeff, my boy.
This is your final warning that, if you continue to refuse to respond to posts such as this last one with a proper physics argument, rather than just deleting them or snipping them and thus making them meaningless (as SkS did often) then your site will be listed along with SkS and SoD on both my website and in my book. Don’t underestimate the effect of such!
You may delete this postt if you wish, but screen captures have been retained of many others.
and
If you are communicating with Leonard Weinstein, who obviously ignores my posts, you might wish to advise him that the pseudo-physics that he and several others promulgate will be exposed in my self published and self funded book.
Don’t underestimate my marketing on such a book, nor the numbers that will be distributed free to media and influential people worldwide.
It seems that nothing of reason can penetrate his mind on ANY matter. People like this actually concern me because of their unusual mental condition. Still, that doesn’t seem worthy of breaking the Air Vent tradition of publishing the brightest stuff where all can read rather than hiding it as other bloggers do.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. We mock them.
Since I am his son, as he has often pointed out…
The biggest problem with Doug’s book is that it is probably an E-book and can’t be used appropriately in the bathroom.
the Air Vent 
LOL. I guess he thinks he is the god of media, since he is not the god of physics.
It is possible to close the comments for a thread… 😉
Unfortunately, then you could end up with the same situation as at WUWT where it seems that, regardless of the topic of the thread, there is always at least one repetitive comment on Mr. Cotton’s pet theories.
ha ha ha ha
Who is Doug Cotton and why is he important?
Douglas J Cotton may suffer the same “God-complex” as those (NASA and IPCC) he criticizes.
http://climate-change-theory.com/
That is an easy error to make. I have done it myself. We can see flaws in the arguments presented by others. NASA and the IPCC definitely got the causes of global climate change wrong.
But flaws in others do not make our views right. The “God-complex” delayed acceptance of experimental evidence that our elements were made in the Sun for four decades!
We first proposed fission of a superheavy element to explain excess Xe-136 in meteorites in 1969 [“Xenon and krypton from the spontaneous fission of Cf-252,” Phys. Rev. 179, 1166-1169 (1969)].
In 1972 we reported other observations that falsified the superheavy-element-fission hypothesis [“Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972)].
The superheavy-element-fission hypothesis was again falsified in 1975 by evidence that all primordial Helium was initially “tagged” with excess Xe-136 at the birth of the solar system [“Host phase of a strange xenon component in Allende,” Science 190, 1251-1262 (1975)].
That observation seemed to require local element synthesis, an unpalatable concept for a NAS member that continued to promote the superheavy-element-fission hypothesis until the 1983 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC).
There we presented additional evidence of local element synthesis and severe mass fractionation in the Sun [“Information of astrophysical interest in the isotopes of solar-wind implanted elements,” LPSC Abstract #1232, vol. XIV, 458-459 (1983)] and the NAS member co-authored a report that negated the superheavy-element-fission hypothesis [“Search for isotopic anomalies correlated with CCF xenon: I. Barium”, LPSC Abstract #1221, vol. XIV, 436-437 (1983)].
Here’s the rest of the story of the continuing, but failed efforts by NAS and DOE to protect the idea that Earth’s heat source is a giant ball of Hydrogen and our future energy needs can be solved by H-fusion reactors:
Click to access 1102.1499.pdf
You can read his ebook on an iPad or Kindle. No excuses! No escape!
I was wondering about Mr. Cotton. I kept seeing him post his advertising for his site in every thread on WUWT, which is an immediate turn-off. I don’t remember if I’ve actually hit a link, but probably not since his style of writing immediately shouts “Crank!!” If he does actually have anything of value to say, it’s too bad he hasn’t learned to communicate well.
How can you diss poor Dougie? He’s absolutely sure that he’s right and you’re wrong!
He’s trying thread-jacking on WUWT too. Aside from the God-complex he needs to learn manners.
I left a reply to Doug Cotton on the Fun Stuff thread but it says “in moderation”. But I always comment in moderation. It seems that the purpose of that thread is to reply to Doug and read his half dozen replies to that reply. My goal is very modest since I am not qualified to teach physics, I would only like him to explain why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights (all other things being equal).
Eric,
Don’t use ‘cotton’ in your post and it will go through instantly.
“The biggest problem with Doug’s book is that it is probably an E-book and can’t be used appropriately in the bathroom.”
If you use an iPad or Kindle, you can at least appreciate Doug’s efforts in the most appropriate environment. 😉
If I were you, I’d make an exception and block his comments. Would save him from wasting his time writing rubbish.
Jeff,
I did a little experiment on this subject. I took two metal bars and wrapped half of one bar with some insulating aluminum tape that I had lying around. I stuck them both under a heat lamp and went skiing. When I came back, I stuck a meat thermometer into holes in each of the metal bars and measured the temperature. The temperature of both bars was identical. Subsequent experiments showed that sliding the tape off or on made zero difference to the temperature bar after it was in equilibrium.
All the insulating tape, albedo, or GHG’s do the same thing, they change the rate of temperature loss or gain. That is all. If the system is in equilibrium they do nothing at all.
If the Earth is in equilibrium, all this crap about global warming or climate change is pure BS.
Genghis,
The experiment isn’t an accurate representation of the problem. A ghg is transmissive to incoming radiation and absorptive to outgoing radiation. The electromagnetic spectrum of the photons in vs out is entirely different.
Inbound = window
outbound = door (well, shaded window is more accurate).
This argument regarding the basics does not change my skepticism.
Jeff, I think I need to emphasize that this is for a system in equilibrium.
Let me focus on albedo for a second. For some reason every source I run into for computing the black body temperature of the Earth takes the albedo (30%) and uses the absorption of 70% to set the temperature of the Earth at 255 k instead of the computed 279 K. At first glance I thought that was right, because I remembered doing the experiments measuring the rate of temperature exchange back in grade school and the color and insulation of the container made a big difference. But then I also remembered that if I waited long enough all of the experiments went to the same temperature. I am pretty sure that taking albedo (like the aluminum tape) into account is definitely wrong. All albedo does is affect the rate at which equilibrium is reached.
Now for your main point. You are absolutely correct that being transparent to SW gases and opaque to LW radiation acts like a window and a door. That is the greenhouse theory after all. I have also appreciated having a space blanket with me on a couple of occasions and can indeed verify that back radiation is very real.
If I take a metal rod and place it in a glass tube (a burned out incandescent tube) and put the other metal rod next to it in a plastic tube that should be the green house gas effect correct? At equilibrium, how many degrees hotter will the metal rod in the glass tube be? Would it surprise you if the answer is zero difference? I haven’t done it, but that is my prediction anyway. What is your prediction?
You may be interested in this PDF of someone doing a similar experiment on the green house effect http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
Can you suggest a definitive experiment that I can do to quantify the greenhouse effect? It has been a crappy winter here and I have some free time on my hands and it would be really nice if I could build and design a really effective solar heater array while I am at it.
On Tallblokes site I asked them if using a pressurized glass tube would increase the temperature of the metal rod. The silence was deafening.
If you are going to do a definitive test of the known effect, you need to quantify the expected difference and insure your instrumentation can measure to that difference level. Asking whether plastic or glass has more/less effect without characterizing the expected difference or quality of the instrument, is not a verifiable test.
I’ve never seen a good test done actually. I have seen sky radiation calculated and measured as well as gas absorption. What more do we need?
Bear with me a second as I think out loud : )
I use a heat lamp as a heat source and a target in a tube and I heat the target until it reaches equilibrium. Then I inject CO2 and/or insert a glass pane in front and behind the target. Let the temperature stabilize and measure the temperature difference? Is that a worthwhile experiment to do?
Can the back radiation in front and behind the target be calculated and measured? Absolutely, does it add any net energy to the target? That is the question. I don’t think so : )
I can already make a pretty accurate prediction, based solely on the S-B law that the temperatures of the target in equilibrium will be identical with or without the CO2 or panes of glass.
My theory is that in equilibrium the GHG’s have a zero net effect and effectively become surface radiators.
Then the question becomes is the Earth in thermal equilibrium? The Sun has been warming the Earth for four and a half billion years, I simply can’t imagine that it isn’t in thermal equilibrium. Obviously if the Earth isn’t in thermal equilibrium (colder) then GHG’s would have a huge warming effect up to the equilibrium temperature. Then the experiment should be looking for the rate of warming, but that is a different issue.
apparently…
Condon doesn’t cotton to Cotton?
Genghis,
I like the way you think but we need to do the calcs. How much energy would you anticipate the CO2 would absorb? How much temp change would that create using basic physics? This should be fairly easy to estimate. My guess is that the # is so small that you need something fancy to detect any difference.
My other guess is that it will follow the calculations.
Jeff,
Hmm, it isn’t just the energy that CO2 would absorb, CO2 will convert some of the radiation to vibrational and translational energy and pass it to the non greenhouse gasses around it. CO2* + N2 ↔ CO2 + N2⁺ and of course it works both ways warming and/or cooling the atmosphere because the non green house gases can pass the energy back. So it is basically just the specific heat of all of the components of the atmosphere. There can definitely be more energy transferred to the atmosphere. And just like before if the atmosphere or that portion of the atmosphere is at equilibrium temperature or less or higher than equilibrium temperature, then the CO2 effect will either be none, raising or cooling respectively. Which makes it very hard to test.
My flat out guess is that the primary effect of increased CO2 levels would be to raise the average temperature of the air, not the surface temperature. And if it better distributes the energy from the hotter tropical areas to the colder polar regions, the average air temperature can increase a lot while the energy content stays exactly the same. In other words the specific heat content of the tropical air masses is much higher (due to water vapor) than the polar regions which means that an almost imperceptible drop in tropical air temperature can account for a multidegree warming in the higher latitudes. (Possibly no temperature drop in the tropics primarily because temp radiates to the 4th power.)
I think it is all about figuring out the total energy content of the system, and I think your work on the higher latitudes along with figuring out how much heat is in the tropical oceans is where the focus should be.
Don’t use ‘cotton’ in your post and it will go through instantly.
I wonder if natural fiber will work?
Ganghis, the Earth is nowhere close to “equilibrium” for all sorts of reasons. Day and night is the first most obvious variant, then seasons, latitude, solar cycles, CR variations, orbital variations, and many more.
So if you’re serious about some experimental setup, the dynamic effects of different GHG concentrations would have to be built in to the system. As Jeff has pointed out, the accuracy of your test hardware would need to be extremely high to detect anything useful – you are after all trying to detect an effect that even it’s supporters suggest has only produced a drift of about 0.8C in the average of a very noisy signal over the last century.
steveta_uk,
The Sun has been roasting the Earth on a spit for four point five billion years. I absolutely guarantee that it is in total thermodynamic equilibrium, precisely in accordance with the S-B law.
Having said that, it is obvious that the energy in the Earths system is not in equilibrium like Venus whose night time temperature is as warm as its daytime temperatures. The Earth is in dynamic equilibrium with heat constantly being transported from the tropics to the poles, primarily via the ocean and the atmosphere and of course from day to night. The point though is that the total amount of energy in the system is a constant. Energy in precisely equals energy out, it is the number one Law for a reason : )
But I think your question (and mine) is how to measure the effects of CO2. I think my hypothesis (that I am thinking through right now) is that CO2 increases the rate of warming of the atmosphere up to the point of thermal equilibrium at which point it is neutral and above the point of equilibrium it increases the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.
That means that I have at least two moving targets to test, the heating or cooling rate which is logarithmic, centered around the equilibrium temperature. And an equilibrium temperature that changes from the equator to the higher latitudes. I think the S-B equation can produce the equilibrium temperature for the different latitudes, if I integrate it like N&Z did except without subtracting for albedo.
To test the theory (at least the part new to me) which is that CO2 increases the rate of cooling above the equilibrium point. I think I need to compare CO2 with a non greenhouse gas. Could I do that by putting a heating plate in the center of a pipe with CO2 on one side and Nitrogen on the other and measure the temperature difference (rate of change) in the gases, between when the plate is turned on or off? Can I measure it accurately enough, I think it is going to be tiny and the conductivity of the pipe might skew the results.
I am completely open to suggestions.
The Sun has been roasting the Earth on a spit for four point five billion years. I absolutely guarantee that it is in total thermodynamic equilibrium, precisely in accordance with the S-B law.
Uh. No. There are lags. You might want to bone up on your differential calculus to do the math.
BTW equilibrium is only possible if all inputs are constant and the outputs are also constant.
So does the outbound radiation change with cloud cover? Yes. The best you can do is short term equilibrium. And not even that well. Because you have day/night. Seasons. Oceans. Land. Fluctuating atmospheric pressure. Variable solar output. Varying vegetation. etc.
Care to try again?
M. Simon,
Apparently you missed the significance of my experiment with the two metal bars, one half covered in insulating aluminum tape that I put under a heat lamp. At equilibrium temperature, both bars are exactly the same temperature. Changing the amount of area covered by the insulating tape (as long as it is equal on both sides doesn’t change the equilibrium temperature at all.
None of your oscillations of energy, seasons, clouds, oceans, land, day and night, etc. affect the total equilibrium energy at all. They are simply the energy within the earth, ocean, atmosphere system.
Yes variable solar output certainly affects the equilibrium, so I will amend my claim. The Earth is in absolute thermal equilibrium as far as the suns output is stable.
Care to try again?
Can I assume that you agree with the warmers that my bar wrapped in aluminum tape, with 50% albedo is significantly colder than the unwrapped bar at equilibrium?
Genghis,
Your arguments are wrong. The arguments with albedo and Aluminum tape are not relevant here, as they are totally different processes. The effect of so called atmospheric greenhouse gases is to raise the average altitude of outgoing radiation to space above the surface. The adiabatic lapse rate, which is the gradient of temperature of a well mixed gas in a gravity, and which is only dependent on the specific heat of the gas and level of gravity, results in a temperature increase downwards from the average altitude of outgoing radiation to space. The increase (lapse rate time altitude) plus the balance temperature at the level of outgoing radiation result in the increased surface temperature. This assumes thermal equilibrium. If storage or release at the surface is going on, the result will lag or lead, but we are looking at equilibrium here.
Leonard Weinstein,
You say I am wrong and then go on to confuse temperature with thermal equilibrium? You can and will have energy flows within a medium that is in equilibrium. Take a cell for example, the average speed of the molecules in the cell is a thousand miles an hour with some molecules traveling up to four thousand miles an hour. Yet for all intents and purposes the cell is in equilibrium and that can be accurately expressed as an average.
The earth is no different in that regard. Yes, an effect of the lapse rate is that warmer denser air is at the bottom of the air column. And water because it isn’t compressible will have warmer water stratified on the top. And both the atmosphere and the ocean are continuously transferring energy to the colder polar regions. And the earth is radiating out more energy at the poles than it is receiving as radiation. And the earth at the tropics is radiating out less radiation than it is receiving from the sun. It is all in dynamic equilibrium.
At the end of the day (pun intended) the radiation emitted by the earth is exactly equal to the radiation absorbed. Exactly as the first law and S-B law predict.
Greenhouse gases are not Maxwell’s demons letting in SW radiation and preventing LW radiation from escaping turning the earth into a flaming paradise for them.
At local equilibrium GHGS are effectively transparent to LW radiation. Prior to local equilibrium Green house gases increase the RATE of warming. Above local equilibrium temperature GHG’s increase the RATE of cooling. That is it.
Since it appears this thread is already being used to test out an idea, let me add to the confusion. 😉 I tried to get my thoughts reviewed at Tallblokes’s place but did not get much response. I hope to do better here.
After spending time considering the observations highlighted in Nickolai and Zeller’s Unified Theory of Climate I have come up with a hypothesis that explains their observations while not proposing any new physics to explain them.
The key observation is that planets all have surface temperatures that can be approximated by an equation that has some similarities to the ideal gas law. However, N&Z concluded that this meant that radiating gases (often called greenhouse gases) were unnecessary and that planets without them would have the same surface temperature as those that didn’t. They then go on and develop a physical mechanism to support this claim. Unfortunately, the claim is clearly wrong from the start.
There is no physical mechanism that can increase the surface temperature without raising the effective radiation altitude. There must be radiating gases involved for this to happen.
However, all is not lost. All that is needed to satisfy N&Z’s observations is for the various atmosphere’s to utilize radiating gases in a different way than proposed by standard greenhouse theory. I have developed a potential way for this to occur.
Without radiating gases (high emissivity) you cannot establish a lapse rate. The atmosphere will eventually be isothermal. Even if you can figure out a way for non-radiating gases to radiate a tiny amount of energy, it won’t be near enough to change the situation more than a trifle. You still can’t create a planet that is warmer at the surface as we see in our solar system. The surface would be the only radiating point and would be required to be in equilibrium with the incoming solar energy or it would violate the 2nd law.
Now, add some radiating gases and you’re in business. The radiating gases maintain the lapse rate as they pump heat out of the system through the atmosphere. This allows the atmosphere to warm. Yes, they are required but it is the lapse rate itself (which is determined by the very things N&Z found to be consistent across planetary bodies), that warms the surface above the S-B temperature.
Also, the amount of radiating gases in not that important. What will happen with more radiating gases is the lapse rate becomes more stable. With less radiating gases the lapse rate varies much more which changes turbulence. The amount of radiating gases do not change the temperature over and above a value based on the ideal gas law (IGL) with some minor modifications.
Now, for a little background. We’ve all been told the GHE is caused by GHGs absorbing radiation and sending it back to the surface. it is called back-radiation. However, this is not exactly what happens. Yes, GHGs (what I have called radiating gases) do absorb radiation. However, the energy gets absorbed and reradiated many times as it makes its way to space. The energy is often first absorbed within a couple of meters of the surface. The energy is then randomly radiated in all directions. At very low altitudes some of it does go back to the surface where it generally is just radiated back towards space again.
This is where probability comes into play. The energy moves upward on average because of the difference in density of the various levels of the atmosphere. Any radiation emitted upward will travel further (on average) than radiation emitted toward the surface. There are simply more molecules of radiating gases lower in the atmosphere. I think I’ve seen mentioned that the average number of absorption/emission pairs is between 10 and 20. Each time one of these occurs the average position moves closer to space.
What this means mathematically is we can ignore all these steps and model the effect as one single outward radiation at a slower speed. Since radiation moves at the speed of light. It would now move at C/(actual path length taken/thickness of atmosphere). I think we all know this is still quite fast. There is no “average” back-radiation. And, it cannot warm the surface by the so-called GHE. So, given that this short delay would not lead to anything but an inconsequential warming of the planet, then the entire question of back-radiation becomes moot. It can’t be the cause of the the warming attributed to the GHE. This is simple math.
So far I have mentioned that we still need radiating gases to warm the atmosphere. And, I just said that back radiation can’t warm the planet to any great degree. So, what happens that leads to warming? The key once again relates to K&Z’s findings. The density change as we go up in the atmosphere (that led to an effective upward radiation) also defines the amount of energy the atmosphere will hold at any given altitude. The solar energy that is radiating outward has some leaks. These leaks occur when an energized molecule transfers energy to a non-radiating gas like N2/O2. This allows the air to heat up, but the amount is controlled by the ideal gas law.
With Kirchhoff’s Law we have emission = absorption. If a particular volume of air warms up too much we get extra emission. If the air gets cooler than the ideal value, we get extra absorption. We end up with sort of a default value based on the ideal gas law. Every altitude has an ideal temperature.
It is this idealized temperature at every altitude that becomes the lapse rate. When you add more radiating gases the process simply becomes more efficient. Think of the idealized temperature as an attractor state of the atmosphere. The rate of radiation at any level of the atmosphere is always changing in an attempt to restore the idealized temperature. If the space the radiating gases occupy gets a little warmer they radiate more energy. If it gets a little cooler they absorb/leak more energy. This allows the heat energy to be distributed unevenly through the atmosphere, that is, form a lapse rate and leads to a surface which is warmer.
N&Z got lots of flack for their free parameters in equation 8. They ended up with this problem because all they really did was a fit. The reason it came close and the reason it looks a lot like the ideal gas law is because the right answer is based on the ideal gas law. However, various gases have slightly different attributes which is why the equation cannot be exact. The right answer is exactly the ideal gas law with modifications for the attributes of the various distributions of molecules found in the atmosphere. Since Earth has so much water vapor it will necessarily be different than the others.
Convection also modifies the lapse rate because it allows some energy to bypass the lattice of radiating gases. Water vapor latent heat also allows heat to bypass the flow of heat through this lattice. Hence, these variables modify the default ideal gas law lapse rate but are not the cause of a warmer surface.
Interestingly, these variations of the lapse rate allow for planets to maintain an ideal temperature for life. A planet closer to a star has more convection while one further away would have less convection. Planets can exist within a range of distances from a star. Another example of a Universe designed for life.
————————
So, have at it guys. I think many of the things I mentioned are not completely new, but haven’t been put together in a complete theory.
Oops, that should be Nikolov. Sorry.
Richard,
I’m not interested enough in the topic to be versed in the nuance of atmospheric flow. Of course as an Aeronautical engineer, I have more understanding than most on the subject. On reading your comment, I ran into one problem:
“The atmosphere will eventually be isothermal.” I got nailed on the exact same comment recently. I wasn’t thinking and wrote the same thing, someone pointed out that good old gravity establishes the baseline gradient. Planetary atmospheres are not isothermal because molecules lose energy when they climb, gain when they fall. God of physics and all that.
The rest seems reasonable to me. Others will certainly disagree though.
Genghis, your ideas and concepts are very, very confused. As an absolutely beginning for you to disentangle these notions you’ve confused, you need to stop using the word “energy” and start using “flux” or “power”, which relates to rates at which energy is being exchanged. It is that which ties into the concept of equilibrium and not energy..
In radiative equilibrium, the outgoing radiative flux (amount of energy per unit area per unit time) at the top of the atmosphere equals the incoming one. (Remember for the Earth, essentially the only way you can shed thermal energy is via radiation, so if you think conditions at the “top of the atmosphere” this is all that applies). And yes this does allow for GHGs and any other radiatively active gas to trap additional thermal energy near the surface using the aptly named term back-radiation.
All I’m gonna say about it until you’ve fixed your terminology.
Carrick,
Fair enough. In rereading some of what I wrote I should have used ‘internal energy’ and flux instead of energy flow. My thinking is a little fuzzy and my language reflects it.
Let me see if I can clear up my language (and thinking) and express my basic idea clearly and succinctly.
In a closed system the sum of the kinetic and potential energy remains constant. I consider a system where “the outgoing radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere equals the incoming” flux to be closed. (to misquote you : ) )
Jeff, thank you for your response. The isothermal reference you mentioned really has nothing to do with my ideas. I probably should not have mentioned it at all.
However, I should add this has very little to do with air flow. It is primarily about energy flowing through the atmosphere via radiation using what we normally call GHGs.
The theory completely replaces the greenhouse theory as to how the atmosphere becomes warmer at the surface. If I am right, and I realize that remains to be seen, the theory completely ends the debate. I don’t make this kind of statement lightly. This is truly a game changer. Once understood the theory is absolutely elegant. It is exactly what one expects out of nature. In fact, it is this elegance that gives me, a true layman in physics, the courage to make the previous claims.
I’d really like some folks with a deeper knowledge of physics to push me so that I can communicate what I think I have discovered. I think most people who come to understand exactly what I’m trying to communicate will share my feelings.
I also realize that most people are revelling in the Gleick situation. I just hope some can spare a little time to review my thoughts.
Genghis, in a system where you have thermal inertia of any sort, assuming a constant heat source, you will always a net higher central temperature at equilibrium than if you didn’t.
Basically the poorer the conductor, the higher the temperature at depth d at equilibrium. In other words, the worse the thermal conductor, the better the body is at storing thermal energy (we all know this in the context of insulating our house to prevent heat from escaping, though in this case, the heat source is internal to the home).
The same general concept of stored energy is true of a resonance cavity, e.g., a coke bottle that you are blowing on.
If you just blow really quickly, you don’t get any noticeable amplification from the bottle, but if you blow on it steadily, the sound level in the bottle builds up until it reaches a constant, rather loud, tone. Our ear canals use this same mechanical amplification method (the pina, floppy part of the outer ear, and the ear canal itself is usually tapered like a horn).
In electricity, suppose you apply a voltage V across the leads of a capacitor. The energy stored in the capacitor is given by 1/2 C V^2.. As you increase the capacitance, the energy stored in the capacitor increases.
All of these are examples where you have a steady supply of energy for a system. The total energy stored in the system is not constant across systems, whether it be a planet with GHGs, a resonance tube or an electrical capacitor.
None of this involves a violation of conservation of energy or any such because if you really supplied a constant amount of power P from now to infinity, the energy E would also be infinite. (If you turn off the heat source, the body will eventually cool to the ambient temperature, and you will find total energy in = total energy out.)
Richard,
When I read your long description, aside from the isothermal part, I don’t see any difference between that and standard greenhouse theory. Can you explain where it is different?
I mean aside from comments about the degree of warming, it seems like you have re-iterated the mechanism.
Re: Richard M (Feb 21 02:54),
Richard;
My speculation about the even temps on Venus has long been that the CO2↔CO2 radiative exchange in such a hot dense atmosphere amounts to an energy/heat “short-circuit” that keeps imbalances from ever developing. The thermal/radiative interface is where it gets interesting.
Jeff, You are correct that there are not significant changes from the standard GH theory. That’s the beauty of it, it follows radiation theory very closely. I’ll try and give you the “elevator summary”.
1) Energy is radiated from the surface of a planet and is absorbed and emitted many times by GHGs during its transit to space. Every time radiation is absorbed there is a small probability (P1) that the energy will be transferred to the atmosphere. In addition, there is always a probability (P2) that energy will be transferred from the atmosphere to any GHG and radiated away. This is due to Kirchhoff’s law.
2) The number of emission/absorption pairs causes the formation of a lapse rate. The lapse rate is determined by the ideal gas law( PV=nrT).
3) The lapse rate is maintained by energy transfers between the molecules … the kinetic energy of the atmosphere and the energy radiated through GHGs. If the temperature of local space goes above the ideal temperature, energy is transferred from kinetic energy to GHGs (P2>P1) and radiated away. If the temperature of local space goes below the ideal temperature energy is transferred from GHGs to other molecules (P1>P2) and stays in the local atmosphere. This process attempts to maintain an ideal temperature at any location in the atmosphere.
4) Adding more GHGs only makes this energy transfer process more efficient, it does almost nothing to change the temperature since the transfer works both ways. This is completely different than standard greenhouse theory that claims additional GHGs will make the temperature rise.
5) The effective radiation altitude is a function of the structure of the atmosphere due to the amount of energy (insolation), the mass of the atmosphere and the gravitational force. The only change due to the amount of GHGs is based only upon how that changes the mass of the atmosphere.
6) Convection of latent heat and warm air bypasses this energy transmission process. This effectively reduces the amount of energy that passes through the GHGs and leads to dynamic reductions in the lapse rate.
Brian H,
As you can see it is exactly the thermal-radiation interface that works to maintain the ideal temperature at any altitude. The affect of Kirchoff’s law is when a local area of gas is at it’s ideal temperature the net transfer becomes zero. Any movement away from that temperature causes the thermal-radiation interface to either add or remove heat. This occurs because these interactions are based on the number collisions which is based on the temperature at any give moment in time.
The result of this is the uneven distribution of heat creating the formation of a lapse rate leading to a warmer surface.
I am looking for the difference and having difficulty. Can you state what is different.
Jeff Id, the big difference is that adding more GHGs does not affect temperatures. The only possible effect of adding more CO2 would be due to increasing the mass of the atmosphere. A 100 ppm increase could lead to a .005% increase in temperatures, basically round off error.
However, you are correct that this is just a subtle variation on the current GH theory. Subtle but devastating to “the cause”. That is what makes this so powerful. It does not claim to discard years of scientific work and basic physics. It simply points out a couple of powerful relationships that have been either ignored or missed.
The key is that the GHGs work to simply balance the energy at any point in the atmosphere vs. the GH theory which claims they radiate energy back to the surface which ends up warming the atmosphere.
Richard, I suspect if you wrote down a mathematical version of your theory that was self-consistent, you’d find that adding more GHG does add to the temperature. The beauty of theories based only on words is anything is possible.
Also, the transition between the theory that involves photon capture (quantum electrodynamics) and classical black-body theory is very a complex problem, not fully solved, even if the underlying theory is thought to be complete. You also have to be careful, amongst other things in not mixing the classical description with the quantum mechanical one.
One thing I should point out is that basic GH theory often simplifies the description of what is going on. The standard description is that energy is absorbed by GHGs and about half is radiated back to the surface. This energy ends of heating the surface.
This description masks the fact that most of the back-radiation never makes it back to the surface. It is absorbed somewhere lower in the atmosphere and then radiated yet again. This happens multiple times before the energy makes it to space. When I decided to look closely at the more detailed description it became obvious that whenever energy is absorbed and reradiated gravity has an impact. The air above is less dense than the air below. The mean path before reabsorption is longer when the energy is radiated towards space.
What this means is that at simple translation exists. The energy flow can viewed as a simple flow of energy towards space at a reduced rate of speed. That is, no back-radiation at all. Since this is equivalent mathematically it throws some real questions as to whether back-radiation can be the factor that warms a planet.
This is what got me started looking for another mechanism. I had read various gravity based theories before and the refutations. It appeared to me that these theories all had a basic problem. You simply cannot have a warmer surface without an effective radiation altitude well above the surface. When Nikolov and Zeller came up with their theory it had the same problem. However, they observed that the actual lapse rates on planets came very close to the value predicted by the ideal gas law.
This got to thinking about what actually happens at the radiation-thermal interface. That was the eureka moment. The ideal gas law provides an attractor temperature that is balanced by the exchange of energy between molecules. This is exchange leads to either an increase or decrease in energy at any point in space. The balance point of that exchange is provided by the ideal gas law.
As I noted earlier previously the exchanges of energies are based on probabilities. These probabilities are dependent on the temperature (kinetic energy) of the space. When the space is warmer there are more collisions which increases the probability that energy will be transferred to a GHG and radiated. When the space is cooler there will be fewer of these interactions. The same holds true for energy coming from the surface. When there is more radiation these will be more energized GHGs which can transfer heat to the other molecules. When there is less energy there are fewer interactions.
What this leads to is variations in energy transfers in both directions (thermal->radiation and radiation-> thermal). And, since Kirchhoff’s Law establishes that absorption and emission must be equal, the net result is the temperature of any given volume of space will be a function of only these two energy processes. The number of the interactions is immaterial except to speed up the balancing process.
Carrick, well that’s why I’m here. I am not a physicist (had a few undergraduate courses many eons ago) so I don’t have the skill to get to that level of detail. If someone can show why this is the case I’d be happy to forget the whole thing. However, what I’m describing is essentially two processes that work equally in both directions. Thus, it would seem to be that the details you mentioned would all get cancelled out.
I guess the net of what I’m saying is that Kirchhoff’s Law of emission-absorption parity leads to a temperature at any point in space that approaches an ideal temperature. This works to both warm the space or cool the space depending on the amount of kinetic energy that exists within that space. So, for the process to be skewed to either warming or cooling it would need the process to be unbalanced. I think that would violate Kirchhoff’s Law.
Richard M. said “If the temperature of local space goes above the ideal temperature, energy is transferred from kinetic energy to GHGs (P2>P1) and radiated away.”
Can you quantify what the ‘ideal temperature’ is?
I get the impression from the advocates of the greenhouse theory, that greenhouse gases block a set percentage of the flux from radiating away, where the temperature of the surface ultimately reaches infinity to quote Carrick.
I tend to agree with your theory Richard : )
Before I go any further I would like to thank those who have responded so far. This is exactly the interaction that is needed flesh out the validity of my hypothesis. If I can’t convince anyone that is likely to be open to my ideas, I certainly won’t convince anyone else.
{Genghis:Can you quantify what the ‘ideal temperature’ is? }
The ideal temperature is function of the ideal gas law (PV=nrT) at the moment of time an energy transfer occurs. Essentially, the atmosphere is always trying to reach that ideal state.
Richard I am on the. Road today but would like to address your comment later tonight.
Carrick said, “None of this involves a violation of conservation of energy or any such because if you really supplied a constant amount of power P from now to infinity, the energy E would also be infinite. (If you turn off the heat source, the body will eventually cool to the ambient temperature, and you will find total energy in = total energy out.)”
What you are saying would be correct if you have a perfect insulator, except for the cooling part, it would never cool.
In our Universe without a perfect insulator, all systems emit flux exactly proportional to the fourth power of the systems absolute temperature.
This means that with a constant amount of power the systems internal energy will emit exactly as much power as it absorbs when the equilibrium temperature is reach. The systems internal energy or absolute temperature will not increase beyond that point.
These are basic Thermodynamic Laws.
Jeff Id, thanks for the heads up. I will be gone this evening but will check back tomorrow morning.
Richard,
Not to quibble and I am probably wrong, but wouldn’t ‘thermal equilibrium’ be a better word than ‘ideal’.
But here is my point. You say, “The ideal gas law provides an attractor temperature that is balanced by the exchange of energy between molecules.”
There is no attractor temperature, there is only the point where flux into the atmosphere equals flux out of the atmosphere.
Therefor the sole determinants of that particular thermal equilibrium are the flux in and the specific heat of the elements in the system.
{Genghis said
February 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Richard,
Not to quibble and I am probably wrong, but wouldn’t ‘thermal equilibrium’ be a better word than ‘ideal’.}
No, I don’t think you’re wrong. It’s just that thermal equilibrium is used in so many situations. I wanted to call out the relationship to the ideal gas law which is why I chose to use ideal temperature in my description. I hope this has not led to any confusion.
If this ends up going any further and leads to a paper I would expect “thermal equilibrium” to be a more appropriate term. Of course, thermal equilibrium (or the ideal temperature) is almost never obtained.
Genghis, it also works for a finite insulator. Houses do stay warmer because they have insulation. If you were to illuminate them for long enough from outside, the interior temperature will end up hotter than if it weren’t insulated.
Second advice, this is not to be an ass on my part, but don’t try and explain the laws of thermodynamics until you get a better grasp of them.
To all,
The addition of small amounts of Greenhouse gases have little effect on the thermal properties or total mass of the atmosphere. Those effects can be neglected for all practical purposes. The warming from these gases is due only to the fact that the increase raises the average altitude of outgoing radiation by continuing to be absorbed at higher altitude before leaving the atmosphere than otherwise. The rest is due to to the lapse rate working on a higher thickness below the average outgoing level. The back radiation DOES NOT HEAT THE ATMOSPHERE OR GROUND ON THE AVERAGE. It does contribute to the higher temperatures by acting as radiation INSULATION, but with allowed convection, and moves the level of radiation to space up. Please note the difference between insulation and heat transfer.
Leonard, I understand that is the current view.
What I’m saying is the addition of GHGs does not raise the average radiation altitude. The average radiation altitude is a function of the mass of the atmosphere, gravity and the amount of insolation. It is a fixed value for a planet with a defined atmosphere.
Every point in an atmosphere has an equilibrium temperature based on the Ideal Gas Law and Kirchhoff’s Law. This equilibrium temperature is essentially an attractor state that balances the heat exchange between radiation and kinetic interactions at the molecular level. This continual interaction constantly balances the temperature and leads to a lapse rate since this equilibrium temperature varies with altitude.
I would appreciate it if you would look at this alternate view with an open mind and give me your thoughts as to why my description is wrong and current GH theory is right. I can’t find any laws physics that it violates but I’m open to your greater expertise. Thank you.
Leonard:
I think you do need to discuss the underlying mechanisms, otherwise you’ve only fooled yourself into thinking that your description of what happened is an explanation for why it happened.
I think we both can agree the result is due to the insulating properties of the GHGs, which impedes heat energy that is absorbed by the surface from visible wavelength radiation impinging on the surface of the Earth from being released into space as efficiently with the presence of the GHGs (resulting in a net higher surface temperature).
Here are is a simple thought question for Genghis:
Why does the interior of a car get hotter when it is sitting in the sun and how is that not in violation of your imaginary laws of thermodynamics?
Carrick said: “Houses do stay warmer because they have insulation. If you were to illuminate them for long enough from outside, the interior temperature will end up hotter than if it weren’t insulated.”
I never said it wouldn’t. What I am saying is that once it reaches thermal equilibrium (when flux in equals flux out) it will stop warming.
“Second advice, this is not to be an ass on my part, but don’t try and explain the laws of thermodynamics until you get a better grasp of them.”
I actually do respect you and will take that advice in the spirit that it is offered. And yes I am positive that I have gaping holes in my grasp of thermodynamics, they were easy portions of the curriculum and I just breezed through them, quite a few years ago I might add.
I would also like to apologize for my (These are basic Thermodynamic Laws.) quip.
My basic purpose here is to try and understand what is driving the climate (and what that even means). I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I am curious.
Here is my question to you. Do you think it is correct to use an absorptivity of 70% and an emission rate of 100% to calculate the Earths temperature?
Genghis:
OK then, why in your view is the internal temperature of the car warmer than the exterior temperature of the air? Isn’t the thermal energy density of the air in the interior of the vehicle higher than the energy density of the air outside of it? Isn’t this a sort of “thermal battery”?
[Note over a day, once again the total energy of the car is equal to the energy absorbed, assuming we aren’t near the north pole near the summer solstice. ;-)]
Accepted.
I generally try to avoid making statements like that, unless I can specifically state which law was violated, and exactly how. (E.g., first law is what you were probably thinking about.) Otherwise, it’s just a form of appeal to authority even at best, and at worst it can backfire on you, if your conceptual understanding is flawed.
That’s kind of a trick question. I suspect you’re thinking of Kirchcoff’s Law of Emissivity, which says the emissivity and absorption coefficient are equal, but that only applies to a homogeneous material for which no scattering is present. For an atmosphere with clouds and opaque particulates, Kirchcoff’s Law certainly doesn’t apply.
In general one also doesn’t assume that the emissivity = 100%, although that value gets used in “toy” models just to demonstrate the effect. In the “real world” calculation, they use something called MODTRAN.
{Carrick said
February 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm
I think we both can agree the result is due to the insulating properties of the GHGs, which impedes heat energy that is absorbed by the surface from visible wavelength radiation impinging on the surface of the Earth from being released into space as efficiently with the presence of the GHGs (resulting in a net higher surface temperature).}
I used to believe that just as I believed Leonard’s description. However, I think it may be only half the story. The rest of the story is that GHGs release heat to space by interacting with other molecules. The removal of this kinetic energy is equal to the impedance you described due to Kirchhoff’s Law. The net result of GHGs is neither warming or cooling.
Richard;
One immediate problem with this is other gases (e.g., O2 and N2) have a very low emissivity in the GHG wavelength band.
If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t distinguish GHGs from non-GHGs. They’d all be GHG, and the argument you only get an microscopic increase in insolation from adding more CO2 would be right.
Carrick said; OK then, why in your view is the internal temperature of the car warmer than the exterior temperature of the air? Isn’t the thermal energy density of the air in the interior of the vehicle higher than the energy density of the air outside of it? Isn’t this a sort of “thermal battery”?
Cars now? And I am assuming with direct sunshine going through the windows? The interior temperature is directly due to the greenhouse effect, allowing high energy SW energy through the transparent windows and slowing the emission of internal energy through the insulators surrounding the interior air. Yes the thermal energy density is higher in the car. Yes it is a sort of thermal battery.
I am not disputing the greenhouse effect, or back radiation and yes I understand planar walls, etc. I can sense your frustration, but don’t worry I really do have a pretty good basic understanding.
The reason I asked the 70/100% absorption/emission question was because that is how I have seen the S-B equation applied everywhere from Wiki to Hansen to the IPCC to the N&Z paper. It seems like a bad approximation to me.
What is the MODTRAN estimate of the average surface temperature water/land and the average atmospheric temperature just above the surface?
Carrick,
Oops I left off the most important question. What does MODTRAN say the incoming and outgoing flux is at the top of the atmosphere?
Genghis:
Good we have a point of agreement then, or rather several. Indeed, I’m struggling now with understanding where your issues are with respect to the inaptly named atmospheric greenhouse gas effect at this point.
It’s a data-based model of emissivity done frequency by frequency and includes correction for temperature and pressure. There isn’t an estimate that you can get from it directly without making assumptions about the atmosphere.
(Otherwise you have to do the full 3-D calculation.)
If you want something between the 3-d gory calculations and the noob-like 1-layer model, I’d recommend Rammanathan’s 1981 paper.
He looks at direct and indirect effects of GHG warming. Much of the paper is assessable to the non-mathematical reader. (I don’t know where you lie on the spectrum, sorry).
There is this nice MODTRAN based calculator here.
You can use it to get an estimate, under certain assumptions, of the surface temperature.
Carrick said. “Good we have a point of agreement then, or rather several. Indeed, I’m struggling now with understanding where your issues are with respect to the inaptly named atmospheric greenhouse gas effect at this point.”
I don’t know where you got the impression I have any issues with the greenhouse effect. Other than I posted in this particular thread?
“He looks at direct and indirect effects of GHG warming. Much of the paper is assessable to the non-mathematical reader. (I don’t know where you lie on the spectrum, sorry).”
Nor could you. I haven’t yet seen any maths (except statistics that I have had a very hard time following) in any of the climate stuff that seem onerous, basically if I can plug it in Mathematica I can do it : ) My problem is that except for some work on flame front propagation years ago, nothing I have done in recent years is any more complicated than dissecting derivatives and SDS’s to pick up some loose change.
Thanks for the Ramm reference I’ll check it out.
Richard,
There is a time delay in release of the energy from ground to space as greenhouse gasses are added. Each absorption/emission cycle is a delay where energy is grabbed from IR and conducted both to and from the atmosphere. The net effect of this delay is the entire effect of the warming that is known and it is non-zero. IOW, while the balance still exists, it balances at a higher temperature level due to the delay.
That is my preferred way to think of it anyway.
The rest of your story seems absolutely standard AGW.
What makes me a skeptic is the feedback portion of AGW science. There has been more handwaiving in this branch than a flock of penguins at 30,000 ft. Paleoreconstructions with artificially flat handles, goofy aerosol corrections, underestimates of historic variance all fit to black box multi-variate equations (models) that currently are running very hot compared to observations.
{Carrick said
February 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm
[Richard;
The rest of the story is that GHGs release heat to space by interacting with other molecules.]
One immediate problem with this is other gases (e.g., O2 and N2) have a very low emissivity in the GHG wavelength band.}
I was not claiming that O2/N2 radiate the energy. They transfer the energy to GHGs through collisions and then the GHGs radiate the energy. This is the mirror image of what happens when GHGs absorb radiated energy and transfer the energy to O2/N2 via collisions.
The think my idea boils down to whether energy transfers are symmetric at some temperature. My claim simply becomes … they are symmetric at the equilibrium temperature of the local space. However, they are asymmetric above and below that temperature but with opposites signs.
{6Jeff condon said
February 22, 2012 at 1:25 am
Richard,
There is a time delay in release of the energy from ground to space as greenhouse gasses are added. Each absorption/emission cycle is a delay where energy is grabbed from IR and conducted both to and from the atmosphere. The net effect of this delay is the entire effect of the warming that is known and it is non-zero. IOW, while the balance still exists, it balances at a higher temperature level due to the delay.}
Jeff, once again I agree but point out this is only half the story. This is the part of the story we have always been told is the greenhouse effect (and one I have repeated often as well). However, this ignores the fact that, independently, GHGs can also be energized by kinetic collisions with other particles and radiate that energy. When this occurs energy is lost from the local area. When you add more GHGs you enhance this process while also enhancing the greenhouse effect.
My idea is to combine both these processes and try to determine the net results. In order for the situation I hypothesize to be true, these effects must balance at some equilibrium temperature. As I said above that really becomes my hypothesis. They do balance at a temperature determined by the IGL.
I wish I was able to draw a nice picture because I think that would make this more clear. I would show one GHG molecule being energized by radiation at the same time as another GHG molecule was being energized by collisions. In the first case the energy would then be passed on the O2/N2 molecules via a collisions while in the second case the energy get radiated away. Two separate processes happening simultaneously within a give local space which cancel each other out.
“However, this ignores the fact that, independently, GHGs can also be energized by kinetic collisions with other particles and radiate that energy. ”
Actually, it doesn’t. This effect is bi-directional as the emitting gas is surrounded by like temperature gasses. More energy transfers are back and forth from collisions than radiates. The chance of radiating a photon is probability based in today’s science. The amount of time the molecule spends energized and the probability of radiative release combine to ensure that the radiation eventually happens.
Richard:
That is already handled in the standard theory. It’s why the spectrum looks like a black body multiplied by the emissivity as a function of wavelength (Kirchoff’s law is based on the assumption that you have many collisions of the molecules between absorption and reemission..)
If you tried to write down your theory mathematically you’d probably find either that it isn’t saying what you think it should say or it is not self-consistent.
Math is like that, it is vey unforgiving. There is only one correct answer you can obtain with a given set of assumptions, and I haven’t seen an assumption you’ve made which would lead any derivation into new territory.
Genghis, how about explaining how this is consistent with a GHG effect?
{Jeff condon said
February 22, 2012 at 10:09 am
“However, this ignores the fact that, independently, GHGs can also be energized by kinetic collisions with other particles and radiate that energy. ”
Actually, it doesn’t. This effect is bi-directional as the emitting gas is surrounded by like temperature gasses. More energy transfers are back and forth from collisions than radiates. The chance of radiating a photon is probability based in today’s science. The amount of time the molecule spends energized and the probability of radiative release combine to ensure that the radiation eventually happens.}
I don’t think I said anything that disputes this. What I’m saying is there are two collisions that matter. The one where energy is transferred from an energized (from radiation) GHG to other molecules (which adds heat to the local space) and one where kinetic energy from other molecules energizes a GHG which then radiates this energy (and removes heat from the local space). My hypothesis rests on the claim that these are governed by the temperature of local space. And, they balance out when that temperature is the equilibrium value.
Carrick,
Lets take a planar wall that is in equilibrium, in other words the temperature is the same on both sides. At this point there is no flux through the planar wall, it is opaque. If either side happens to get warmer or cooler the flux will simply flow from the warmer to the cooler. The rate flux flows depends on the temperature difference, the higher the difference the higher the rate.
The earth is in equilibrium right now.
The ‘transparent to LW radiation’ was probably a bad choice of words. What I was trying to say, and still saying poorly, is that at equilibrium the SW incoming flux is matched exactly by the outgoing LW flux. If someone where to shine a LW light at the sky it will go through, that is what I meant by transparent.
{Carrick said
February 22, 2012 at 10:22 am
[Richard:
I was not claiming that O2/N2 radiate the energy. They transfer the energy to GHGs through collisions and then the GHGs radiate the energy. This is the mirror image of what happens when GHGs absorb radiated energy and transfer the energy to O2/N2 via collisions.]
That is already handled in the standard theory. It’s why the spectrum looks like a black body multiplied by the emissivity as a function of wavelength (Kirchoff’s law is based on the assumption that you have many collisions of the molecules between absorption and reemission..)}
Thanks, I think we’re getting somewhere now. But, I don’t understand your point here. What spectrum are you referring to? If it’s the surface radiation, then that has little to do with my hypothesis. I’m only interested in the situations where energy transfer actually occurs. Hence, the spectrum issue would already have been dealt with (I think?).
OTOH, I can see where these kind of details could impact the situation. My hypothesis rests on the claim that the energy transfers are symmetric and if that is not the case then I would need to find some other energy transfer that made up the difference (and I doubt I could). However, the symmetry seems likely since it involves the exact same particles at the same probabilistic temperatures. If the transfers were not symmetric it would seem to violate energy conservation laws.
I think I just understood the point Carrick was making. Since the photon energizing the GHG in my local space comes from a warmer location that photon will have a higher energy than the average photon emitted by a particle in my local space. Hence, it would transfer more energy into the space than gets transferred out by a single photon emission. OK, I’m a little slow.
However, I think this factor is covered in the hypothesis. The key here is that my local space is seeking to find its equilibrium temperature. And, as I’ve already said, there would be more emissions if the space gets warmer and fewer emissions if the space gets cooler. I believe this is due to the IGL.
When a higher energy photon has its energy transferred into my local space it then raises the temperature above the equilibrium level. That leads to a larger number of energy transfers back into GHGs which then radiate that energy away. So, I agree completely that if the number of radiation-absorption events is equal then the local space would warm. But, the hypothesis is that the number is based on the equilibrium temperature and not equal in number.
I have been thinking that my hypothesis was just too simple to have been ignored by scientists for sometime now. In fact, I almost gave up because of this. We may be zeroing in on why it may have been missed. Without considering the possibility of a local equilibrium temperature it would be easy to miss this action. And, one would probably assume and equal number of events which leads to the view of overall warming.
The work of N&Z showed a temperature distribution on multiple planets that tracked very closely to the IGL. This is what got me interested to begin with. I believe this observational evidence suggests there is, in fact, an equilibrium temperature in local space. The big question is how can this difference in views be sorted out?
Richard,
The problem with the difference in views is that almost everyone is right (except for the extremists). The Greenhouse effect is real, ENSO is real, Solar and magnetic changes are real, the lapse rate and clouds are real, convection cells, etc. Everyone is blindfolded walking around and climbing on the elephant trying to describe what they are feeling. The zookeeper is trying to get all the damned fools away from his elephant so that he can shovel up all the elephant crap the blindfolded fools have been spreading.
Now for some more crap : ) All of the planets and moons in our solar system are in thermal equilibrium. Whole world temperature change is a myth, except for variations in solar output and orbit variation, and even those average out.
Of course inside our system it is in dynamic equilibrium, we are just trying to figure out the weather as energy flows around inside the system.
{Genghis said
February 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Richard,
The problem with the difference in views is that almost everyone is right (except for the extremists). The Greenhouse effect is real, ENSO is real, Solar and magnetic changes are real, the lapse rate and clouds are real, convection cells, etc.}
I would phrase it differently. I think there are elements of truth in all the positions. However, without knowing which elements have a stronger influence on climate we can’t know the best policy.
My own hypothesis also has elements of truth. However, it could still be wrong. In addition, if my hypothesis is correct, it will cancel any warming from the Greenhouse effect making it immaterial.
I really think the discussion here has been helpful and I want to thank those who got involved once again. This is how science should be done. A person develops a hypothesis and defends it. Others take a skeptical view and point out problem areas. In my case I now see that I will need to show how standard physics leads to an equilibrium temperature at any point in the atmosphere. If I can do this I will have a far better position. If I can’t then the hypothesis is wrong.
Richard,
The energy at any point in a column of air is exactly the same if you include the potential energy, (in the troposphere anyway.)
Let me explain : )
Let’s take a vacuum tube and stand it vertically on the earths surface. Let’s place a perfectly elastic nitrogen molecule at the top of the tube. At this point it has zero kinetic energy (zero temperature) and 100% potential energy determined solely by gravity. We then let the molecule drop. At the midpoint of the tube it has 50% kinetic energy and 50% potential energy. At the bottom of the tube it has 100% kinetic energy, a temperature (solely based its velocity and mass) and no potential energy. Then it bounces off the bottom and up again.
Temperature is simply a measure of kinetic energy and mass. Equilibrium energy is kinetic plus potential energy.
The column of air is always in an energy equilibrium state at all times. Does that help?
Ghengis, potential energy is an interesting thought.
My first reaction is it does not help. In order to impart the full force of the potential energy to another molecule, a particle needs to fall all the way to the surface. The potential energy enhancement of the motion of any particle in my local space would be minimal. In fact, since the force reduces the higher from the surface we get, the enhancement would be less the higher one goes. I think most of the particles in local space end up retaining their potential energy.
I am thinking of another possibility. When energy is radiated from a lower altitude some of the energy is lost directly to space. Could it be that the amount of energy lost is exactly what is needed to reduce the net energy received in the higher local space to precisely what is needed to balance the temperature of that space? If this was the case then we’d have the energy coming in matching the energy going out independent of the number of molecules.
If the energy lost at various altitudes is a function of the density changes as we move to higher altitudes, I suspect this is exactly what would happen. We already know the temperature itself is a function of these changes. Something more to ponder.
Taking my thoughts from the previous comment a little further I think what I stated just may be true. Although the average energy of any photon absorbed in local space is above the average energy level of the local space itself, the number of photons actually captured is smaller. This is because the density of the local space is less than the density of the average emitting space.
Note that the density is the key difference. We also know the temperature of the local space is based on the pressure from the IGL (PV=nvT). In other words, the temperature is also a function of density and should be exactly reduced by the same function, F = D(ls) / D(es), where ls = local space and es = average emitting space.
With this relationship the energy received by the local space with be a function of energy of the emitting space [G(es)]*F and the number of radiating gases available to absorb photons. However, the energy emitted by the local space will be a function of the temperature of the local space, G[ls], which is also a function of the same F which determines the temperature and the number of radiating gases to emit photons. Therefore, increasing the number of radiating photons in a local space will not increase the temperature.
Summary: The result is, on average, fewer higher energy photons get absorbed than lower energy photons which are emitted. This leads to a balanced temperature profile. And, from this point the equilibrium will be maintained.
I hope this isn’t too cryptic. I’d appreciate any thoughts on my logic.
Richard,
Temperature is not a function of density. Temperature is merely the average kinetic energy of some mass.
Think about my bouncing molecule in the vertical tube again. When the molecule is at the top of the tube it is at zero degrees. When it is at the bottom of the tube lets say it is at ten degrees and when it is half way to the top it is at 5 degrees apx.
Now lets make the tube bigger and dump in a bunch of molecules and measure the temperatures. If we put the temperature prob at the bottom of the tube it will read 10 degrees, 5 degrees in the middle and 0 degrees at the top.
If we add heat to the column of air, and extending the tube so that the molecules can’t pop out the top. Measuring the bottom temperature will now read something like say 15 degrees, but if we measure where the previous top was height wise it will give us a reading of something like 5 degrees and the zero temperature reading will be higher up the tube. The lapse rate stayed the same, and the air pressure at the bottom of the tube increased, but the density is lower.
Now let’s say instead of adding 5 degrees worth of energy we extracted 5 degrees worth of energy. The density of the air at the bottom of the tube is now greater, but the temperature is only 5 degrees now, and the air pressure is lower.
{Genghis said
February 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
Richard,
Temperature is not a function of density. Temperature is merely the average kinetic energy of some mass.}
True, I’m using density as a value for a static atmosphere. The fact is the average mass as one goes to higher levels in the atmosphere is reduced due to gravity. Hence, the density is reduced as well. It’s the reason people have trouble breathing at higher altitudes.
In the situation I’m discussing you can consider pressure and density to be a fixed relationship and based on the total mass above any local space.
I agree that we could manipulate any column of air but that is not what I consider the base case. In fact, convection is exactly the kind of manipulation you brought up, and it will modify what actually happens. However, I’m simply trying to understand the static situation first.
Richard, for GHGs, higher temperature does not mean higher energy photons are emitted. Their signature frequency, hence energy, is ‘fixed’. BB radiation has a spectrum dependent on temps, but GHGs respond to increase by radiating more often, not more ‘hotly’.
So I think speed of transmission/equalization is the ‘degree of freedom’ GHGs contribute.
Brian H, thank you for your comment. It is very interesting indeed. If you are correct then I don’t understand how the greenhouse effect can be true. It’s pretty obvious that not all the radiation will be absorbed in a local space that gets transmitted from lower altitudes. The lower density means there are simply fewer molecules available.
Maybe someone else can think of a reason why more molecules would end up absorbing radiation than emitting it. I can’t right off the top of my head. What this means is that the GHGs in the local space would emit just as much energy as they absorb. Adding more of them would absorb more but also emit more and, hence, not increase the temperature.
Frank K. asked on February 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm ” .. Who is Doug Cotton and why is he important? .. “.
In answer to the first question, Doug is an Australian businessman from Sydney who seems to be very proud that he has Degrees in Applied Mathematics and Physics, 45 years experience tutoring and researching, 50,000 visitors to his blog and is writing a book “Greenhouse Land”. He claims to have attended “ .. the University of Sydney .. studied physics under Profs Harry Messel, Julius Sumner-Miller and Verner Von Braun from 1963 to 1966 inclusive before doing Economics and Business Adninistration at Macquarie University .. a total of 9 years tertiary education .. subsequently marked students’ university assignments .. operated tutoring services .. tutored .. part-time in secondary and tertiary mathematics and physics, all of which required on going study beyond my formal education .. a one year course in nutrition ( .. High Distinction) as well as post-graduate university studies in Natural Medicine .. ” (http:// judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172518). – Please note that in all of my links I have separated the http:// and www. out of the URL because the blog’s spam filter may have thrown my comment out because of the number of links. I expect that an expert in everything such as Doug Cotton will be able to give me a better explanation.
WOW, isn’t that all so mind-blowing, but that is not all! You can find out more about Doug and his business activities at http:// judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459.
Doug also seems quite eager to make accusations about defamation, such as ” .. Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.” (first link above) and ” .. BE ADVISED HEREWITH that lawyers will be engaged to file for defamation if the front page item about myself is not removed by midnight your time on 31st December, 2011 .. ” (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2011/12/23/measuring-climate-sensitivity-part-two-mixed-layer-depths/). I speculate that the first entry on this page “The Genius of Mr. Cotton: As of today I have 12 comments in the moderation queue from one Mr. Doug Cotton. A little while ago I woke up to the genius o… ” originally linked to the Science of Doom article about which Doug took exception (http:// mattters.com/climate/news/the-genius-of-mr-cotton). The linked page simply says “Ooops…Where did you get such a link ? .. 404 Not Found .. ”.
After Doug was banned from the Science of Doom blog (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/) virtually identical opinions to Doug’s were posted under the false names Jack Frost and Valid Physics. It would be interesting to know who wrote those comments. Was it you Doug? (I hate cowards who hide behind false names although I was forced to do it once myself in order to continue discussing outstanding issues on the University of Cambridge’s “Naked Scientists Project” Science Forum – http:// www. thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39934.0. Blogs supporting the CACC hypothesis have a nasty habit of trying to gag those of us who reject it).
As for “why is he important?” – in my humble opinion Doug is only important in his own eyes, apparently believing that he is such an expert in physics that he can confidently declare that he understands “ .. questions that baffled Einstein and which were incorrectly answered by Planck .. ” (http:// judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167826). A comment was made that ” .. apparently Doug doesn’t understand Quantum behaviour of light .. ” (http:// www .theenvironmentsite.org/forum/science-supporting-climate-change-not-man-made/40126-physics-debunks-greenhouse-warming-theory.html#post393284). In my opinion Eco Warrior Uglybb missed the point, which is that Doug believes that he knows better than Planck or Einstein. Science of Doom tried to help Doug (http:// www. skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=865&p=4) but, having obtained a degree in physics nearly 50 years ago he seems to be convinced that he is right, despite appearing to have no recognised expertise in the subject. I asked him to provide references to his peer-reviewed papers on the subject but all that he could offer was that he was writing a book.
In my opinion Doug’s hypothesis will be cast in to the dustbin of history along with many other hypotheses, including the UN’s IPCC hypothesis about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).
Doug appears to be doing everything that he can to attract visitors to his pseudo-science blog (no link as I don’t wish to encourage anyone to visit it), perhaps because he sees it as another business opportunity.
Doug also appears to be very proud of his youthful appearance, which I understand he believes is due to his expressed faith in dietary supplements (http:// www. slower-aging.com/). Could this possibly be anything to do with the offer to sell such supplements to others via his Natural Medicine Research Centre?
He declares ” ..I know aging can be slowed because I’ve achieved it myself. Below right you’ll see a photo of myself just before my 60th birthday – with my 32 year old wife. Why wait? It’s your life! With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging.
A comprehensive diet and supplementation program will be designed for your individual needs at a cost which could be as little as $3.30 a day” .. .( http:// ageslowly.homestead.com/).
On reflection perhaps I have misinterpreted the information about Doug that I have found. As usual, if anything that I have opined here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not a retraction and apology is warranted. I have no wish to present a false picture to or about anyone, simply expressing my opinion based upon my interpretation of the evidence that I have seen. Others may come to different conclusions.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Test comment
I have had some problems trying to post this comment so I’ll try doing so in parts.
Part 1
On February 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm Frank K. asked ” .. Who is Doug Cotton and why is he important? .. “.
In answer to the first question, Doug is an Australian businessman from Sydney who seems to be very proud that he has Degrees in Applied Mathematics and Physics, 45 years experience tutoring and researching, 50,000 visitors to his blog and is writing a book “Greenhouse Land”. He claims to have attended “ .. the University of Sydney .. studied physics under Profs Harry Messel, Julius Sumner-Miller and Verner Von Braun from 1963 to 1966 inclusive before doing Economics and Business Adninistration at Macquarie University .. a total of 9 years tertiary education .. subsequently marked students’ university assignments .. operated tutoring services .. tutored .. part-time in secondary and tertiary mathematics and physics, all of which required on going study beyond my formal education .. a one year course in nutrition ( .. High Distinction) as well as post-graduate university studies in Natural Medicine .. ” (http:// judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172518). – Please note that in all of my links I have separated the http:// and www. out of the URL because the blog’s spam filter may have thrown my comment out because of the number of links. I expect that an expert in everything such as Doug Cotton will be able to give me a better explanation.
WOW, isn’t that all so mind-blowing, but that is not all! You can find out more about Doug and his business activities at http:// judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459.
Part 2
Doug also seems quite eager to make accusations about defamation, such as ” .. Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.” (first link above) and ” .. BE ADVISED HEREWITH that lawyers will be engaged to file for defamation if the front page item about myself is not removed by midnight your time on 31st December, 2011 .. ” (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2011/12/23/measuring-climate-sensitivity-part-two-mixed-layer-depths/). I speculate that the first entry on this page “The Genius of Mr. Cotton: As of today I have 12 comments in the moderation queue from one Mr. Doug Cotton. A little while ago I woke up to the genius o… ” originally linked to the Science of Doom article about which Doug took exception (http:// mattters.com/climate/news/the-genius-of-mr-cotton). The linked page simply says “Ooops…Where did you get such a link ? .. 404 Not Found .. ”.
After Doug was banned from the Science of Doom blog (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/) virtually identical opinions to Doug’s were posted under the false names Jack Frost and Valid Physics. It would be interesting to know who wrote those comments. Was it you Doug? (I hate cowards who hide behind false names although I was forced to do it once myself in order to continue discussing outstanding issues on the University of Cambridge’s “Naked Scientists Project” Science Forum – http:// www. thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39934.0. Blogs supporting the CACC hypothesis have a nasty habit of trying to gag those of us who reject it).
As for “why is he important?” – in my humble opinion Doug is only important in his own eyes, apparently believing that he is such an expert in physics that he can confidently declare that he understands “ .. questions that baffled Einstein and which were incorrectly answered by Planck .. ” (http:// judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167826). A comment was made that ” .. apparently Doug doesn’t understand Quantum behaviour of light .. ” (http:// www .theenvironmentsite.org/forum/science-supporting-climate-change-not-man-made/40126-physics-debunks-greenhouse-warming-theory.html#post393284). In my opinion Eco Warrior Uglybb missed the point, which is that Doug believes that he knows better than Planck or Einstein. Science of Doom tried to help Doug (http:// www. skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=865&p=4) but, having obtained a degree in physics nearly 50 years ago he seems to be convinced that he is right, despite appearing to have no recognised expertise in the subject. I asked him to provide references to his peer-reviewed papers on the subject but all that he could offer was that he was writing a book.
In my opinion Doug’s hypothesis will be cast in to the dustbin of history along with many other hypotheses, including the UN’s IPCC hypothesis about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).
Part 2
It also seems that Doug is quite eager to make accusations about defamation, such as ” .. Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.” (first link above) and ” .. BE ADVISED HEREWITH that lawyers will be engaged to file for defamation if the front page item about myself is not removed by midnight your time on 31st December, 2011 .. ” (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2011/12/23/measuring-climate-sensitivity-part-two-mixed-layer-depths/). I speculate that the first entry on this page “The Genius of Mr. Cotton: As of today I have 12 comments in the moderation queue from one Mr. Doug Cotton. A little while ago I woke up to the genius o… ” originally linked to the Science of Doom article about which Doug took exception (http:// mattters.com/climate/news/the-genius-of-mr-cotton). The linked page simply says “Ooops…Where did you get such a link ? .. 404 Not Found .. ”.
After Doug was banned from the Science of Doom blog (http:// scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/) virtually identical opinions to Doug’s were posted under the false names Jack Frost and Valid Physics. It would be interesting to know who wrote those comments. Was it you Doug? (I hate cowards who hide behind false names although I was forced to do it once myself in order to continue discussing outstanding issues on the University of Cambridge’s “Naked Scientists Project” Science Forum – http:// www. thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39934.0. Blogs supporting the CACC hypothesis have a nasty habit of trying to gag those of us who reject it).
Peter,
I don’t know what is blocking your comments. I sent them through.
Part 3
As for “why is he important?” – in my humble opinion Doug is only important in his own eyes, apparently believing that he is such an expert in physics that he can confidently declare that he understands “ .. questions that baffled Einstein and which were incorrectly answered by Planck .. ” (http:// judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167826). A comment was made that ” .. apparently Doug doesn’t understand Quantum behaviour of light .. ” (http:// www .theenvironmentsite.org/forum/science-supporting-climate-change-not-man-made/40126-physics-debunks-greenhouse-warming-theory.html#post393284). In my opinion Eco Warrior Uglybb missed the point, which is that Doug believes that he knows better than Planck or Einstein. Science of Doom tried to help Doug (http:// www. skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=865&p=4) but, having obtained a degree in physics nearly 50 years ago he seems to be convinced that he is right, despite appearing to have no recognised expertise in the subject. I asked him to provide references to his peer-reviewed papers on the subject but all that he could offer was that he was writing a book.
In my opinion Doug’s hypothesis will be cast in to the dustbin of history along with many other hypotheses, including the UN’s IPCC hypothesis about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).
Part 4
Doug appears to be doing everything that he can to attract visitors to his pseudo-science blog (no link as I don’t wish to encourage anyone to visit it), perhaps because he sees it as another business opportunity.
Doug also appears to be very proud of his youthful appearance, which I understand he believes is due to his expressed faith in dietary supplements (http:// www. slower-aging.com/). Could this possibly be anything to do with the offer to sell such supplements to others via his Natural Medicine Research Centre?
He declares ” ..I know aging can be slowed because I’ve achieved it myself. Below right you’ll see a photo of myself just before my 60th birthday – with my 32 year old wife. Why wait? It’s your life! With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging.
A comprehensive diet and supplementation program will be designed for your individual needs at a cost which could be as little as $3.30 a day” .. .( http:// ageslowly.homestead.com/).
On reflection perhaps I have misinterpreted the information about Doug that I have found. As usual, if anything that I have opined here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not a retraction and apology is warranted. I have no wish to present a false picture to or about anyone, simply expressing my opinion based upon my interpretation of the evidence that I have seen. Others may come to different conclusions.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
PS:
Pheww, that took some doing!
After a little more thought I think I have to across an analogy that relates the two possible situations in the atmosphere. I’ll use the tank of water analogy with various input/outputs to highlight the differences.
First, with the GHE we have the view that there is one flexible pipe coming in representing the energy. When additional GHGs are added it like turning up the pressure on the input pipe which makes it a little wider and allows more water (energy) to flow into the tank. Since the output pipe is based on the same pressure principles the water in the tank has to increase until the pressure reaches a new level which is equal to the input pipe. At this point we have equilibrium and the tank itself has a higher water (temperature) level as a result. Sounds good, right?
Well, there’s another view that gives an entirely different result. Instead of viewing the energy as coming through one pipe, assume that each molecule represents a different pipe. Now, when you add more GHGs you add more input pipes. The total water coming in is the same as in the first case. However, we also have just as many pipes going out as there are coming in. The addition of these pipes exactly match the input pipes and we have the water flowing in and out at the same rate. However, the water in the tank did not increase as a result of this implementation.
So, which is reality? Thoughts?
Sorry for the typo. “have to across” should be “have come across”.
Now, I suspect the 2nd scenario represents reality since there really are multiple molecules. The only equivalent of the pressure element required by the GHE scenario is temperature. But, we aren’t increasing the temperature by adding more GHGs. There are simply more molecules doing the same thing as always.
However, let’s say we add more water into the tank through another means (like convection). This will cause more water to flow out of the tank due to the higher pressure until we once again establish equilibrium with the input flow. Same holds true if we take water out of the tank by another means (say conduction). In this case the output flow decreases and we once again reach equilibrium.
In this view the GHGs work as little thermostats. They keep the energy (water) level at an equilibrium value which is based on the physical relationship of the energy transmission probability (pipe size) and the amount of energy (water) in the local space (tank). I think we have something to work with.
Richard,
Your online consideration is fun but you keep coming to the same conclusion – no effect. Consider that more H20 in the air means an average photon travels less distance before being absorbed again. The probability of the photon escaping the atmosphere before hitting another H20 GHG decreases. What’s more is that the average time for escape increases. More energy trapped in the air causing two-way excitation through collision and a delay for escape to space.
Your statements seem identical to AGW so you are in the right direction. Where the effect can be minimal is only in the basic calculation of feedback. If you increase atmospheric temperature, would you expect more or less H20? Would it form more or less clouds? What altitude would those clouds form at?
If you get more high altitude white clouds with a bit of warming, the whole temperature change is minimal because white reflects sunlight. If the last century 1C change was unnoticeable in effect, why is the next so bad?
If the model’s 4c/doubling is really 1.4, who cares?
There is no question CO2 causes warming. While your discussion is about real effects – refreshing considering some of Douglas’s arguments – it is not differentiable from the standard physics. This means that when you say X balances to no warming, it is time to apply numbers and I recognize the statement is in error for some unknown reason. Carrick pointed out that it is time for numbers above and only Doug is moronic enough to ignore him. I work in optics and know what the numbers will tell you.
If you can explain which point I am missing, I will try again but it shouldn’t take more than one or two sentences to differentiate yourself from the standard theory. In the meantime, there is a real war going on based on the standard physics. The war is between non-climate scientists and the overpaid consensus. The real war is between reason and cause. What you obviously are though is a skilled and thoughtful person who is deserving of a lot of formal education.
Have as much fun as you like here. The real problem is more complex though.
Jeff, thanks for your response. It is kind of fun. I’m intentionally taking on the role of defender of this hypothesis. I’m looking for the smoking gun that verifies the GHE. Now, let’s consider your thought,
{Consider that more H20 in the air means an average photon travels less distance before being absorbed again. The probability of the photon escaping the atmosphere before hitting another H20 GHG decreases. What’s more is that the average time for escape increases. More energy trapped in the air causing two-way excitation through collision and a delay for escape to space.}
I believe you’re only considering the absorption side of the situation. Since we’ve added more GHGs there are more photons flying around in parallel. The average distance may be less but there are more routes heading out to space at any point in time (consider the multiple pipes in my previous analogy). Do they balance out? If an individual photon takes twice as long to reach space but twice as many paths are available to get there, the net result is the same amount of energy reaches space in any time interval and no more energy is trapped in the system.
If my analogy holds all you do by shortening the distance is attach more tanks closer together. Since none of the tanks gained energy then having more of them will not change the situation. Of course, that assumes the analogy holds together.
In other words, if the local space equilibrium holds then it doesn’t matter how many local spaces are travelled through.
I think the only way to restore the GHE is for the input pipe to be bigger than the output pipe and that requires the average photon coming in to be more energetic than the ones going out.
{There is no question CO2 causes warming. While your discussion is about real effects – refreshing considering some of Douglas’s arguments – it is not differentiable from the standard physics.}
I agree with that IF GHGs lead to warming, but if this new hypothesis is correct warming occurs differently than the the current physics view. Instead of warming by trapping heat, the warming occurs because of the lapse rate which is established. This is due to the fact that the energy equilibrium is lower the higher one goes in the atmosphere which in turn is due to the spontaneous emission rate of the GHGs at various temperatures.
{Where the effect can be minimal is only in the basic calculation of feedback.}
I think the concept of feedback is interesting. If the current GHE view is correct then feedbacks will determine whether it is catastrophic or not. However, consider what this new hypothesis brings to the table. Feedbacks happen in local space. The GHGs are always trying to balance the temperature in their local space. There is no need for major feedbacks, either positive or negative, to balance the system. The temperature is almost completely determined by the insolation. Anything that changes the insolation will affect the global climate so things like cosmic rays, volcanoes, snow/ice, etc. would have some effect.
I do need to understand more about the emission spectrum to understand whether individual photons carry more average energy when emitted from a warmer source or (as Brian H indicated) they contain the same energy but are emitted more often. I think the final result depends on that answer.
“Since we’ve added more GHGs there are more photons flying around in parallel. The average distance may be less but there are more routes heading out to space at any point in time ”
Nope there are less. Once a photon enters the probability region of electromagnetic capture – that’s it.
“If an individual photon takes twice as long to reach space but twice as many paths are available to get there, the net result is the same amount of energy reaches space in any time interval and no more energy is trapped in the system. ”
I don’t see how more paths open. More photons may traverse a path, but that is only because more photons are there due to warming.
“. Instead of warming by trapping heat, the warming occurs because of the lapse rate which is established.”
This is just a different way of considering the same effect. I like to think of physics in the most basic terms though. More time to release means more heat in the lower atmosphere. Lapse rate effects are second order in that they are affected by local gas density, temperature inversions and viscosity. If a surface air mass becomes unstable due to density below another, a punch through point occurs that creates all kinds of messy math.
Really, you need to describe the difference in your ‘new’ hypothesis in a few sentences. These paragraph long explanations are the same as standard AGW with a differing conclusion.
{Jeff:Nope there are less}
The reason I claimed there are more photons is because there are more GHG molecules. Each molecule can independently radiate a photon. Logically, this results in more independent paths heading eventually towards space. While any single photon is more likely to be captured, there are multiple paths in action where the total energy that reaches space at any point in time is unchanged. However, a good question is whether the additional molecules lead to more emissions or whether each molecule does fewer emissions. My statement is based on the former assumption.
{I don’t see how more paths open. More photons may traverse a path, but that is only because more photons are there due to warming.}
Same question applies. Why would there be the same number of paths? Is there something about the environment that limits the total number of emissions? Is it based on temperature so that more molecules end up emitting the same number of photons, just fewer per molecule? If so, that would clearly change my analogy.
{This is just a different way of considering the same effect. I like to think of physics in the most basic terms though. More time to release means more heat in the lower atmosphere. Lapse rate effects are second order in that they are affected by local gas density, temperature inversions and viscosity.}
I think this is a big difference in the two cases. In the GHE I believe you are right. In my alternate hypothesis the lapse rate is a first order effect.
You are stating more emission means more release of energy while ignoring the bidirectional nature of absorption.
Absorption vs emission is the result of a probability effect which is simple to balance. By adding IR absorbing gases, there is a perfectly balanced yet increased probability of absorption and emission. Equal increases of both. Yet there is a time delay between the two events which results in some bi-directional conduction between other molecules. The net result is a delay in energy between solar input and release to space (IOW insulation) and you get guaranteed warming of the surrounding atmospheric gases.
That’s it – I really like that description.
{Jeff: Yet there is a time delay between the two events which results in some bi-directional conduction between other molecules.}
Think of the analogy with the tanks and pipes. Even though there is a delay in the water coming in getting to an output pipe, there would be no increase in the volume of water. That is due to the fact that existing water is removed just as fast as new water comes in. I think the analogy holds for my view of a local space. It’s not a sequential process, but parallel actions. If you turn around the thought process you could argue that heat was removed before new heat completely conducted within the local space resulting in cooling. But, that is just as wrong as it also ignores the parallel nature of the process.
Now, I think I have a problem with one part of my hypothesis that I sort of hand waved away previously and I think I need to cover. Earlier you mentioned there were not additional paths, I disagreed but I referenced GHGs as providing those paths. However, in the case of the initial radiation from the surface there are no additional paths. Well, that is, unless we consider some additional photons are now captured, but I think the basic assumption of the GHE is that all photons except in one particular band are captured.
I think one way to modify my analogy is to have a few pipes represent GHGs absorbing surface radiation and others absorbing radiation from other GHGs. With this view we get back to the question of whether the surface would be radiating at higher energy levels. As I have indicated earlier a higher energy level coming into a local space is enhanced and would provide some warming.
With CO2 and its narrow band of frequencies I don’t think that would be the case. However, for water vapor it just might.
What this would mean is water vapor does provide a GHE but CO2 does not. How’s that for an interesting twist.
Carrick and others,
Please consider a limiting case. The case where the atmosphere is composed of extreme absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) with the following properties:
1) All incoming sunlight is passed without absorption to the ground (and oceans), and fully absorbed and converted to thermal energy.
2) The ground and water radiate as black bodies at the ground temperature. Radiation out is long wave thermal wavelengths.
3) The thermal radiation is absorbed in a very short distance near the ground and ALL of the thermal wavelengths are absorbed completely (this implies several gases are in the mix). The 50% absorption mean length is just a few mean free paths of molecular motion.
4) To simplify, do not consider water vapor or clouds as being present.
Under these conditions, all of the absorbed solar energy is carried up by convection to high altitudes, where the absorption mean length becomes longer than the height of atmosphere remaining above the radiation up location. For this condition, the atmosphere above this height will radiate to space, and there is an average location in that band. The temperature in that average location is only controlled by the energy balance of incoming and out going radiation, and is approximately the black body radiation value. The lapse rate will be the adiabatic lapse rate if the mixing of the atmosphere is sufficient, and is assumed to be so here. The adiabatic lapse rate is a constant for these conditions, and equals -g/Cp. All of the final ground temperature is determined by the balance temperature at the average outgoing layer, plus the lapse rate times the altitude of average outgoing radiation. There is nothing else that contributed to the temperature here. There is still a lot of upwards radiation from the ground, and a lot of back radiation, but they are almost exactly equal, and net radiation heat transfer is essentially zero. Back radiation is a result of the process, not a cause. Back radiation does not heat the ground, or directly cause it to be hotter than for no greenhouse gas.
Well, I figured out where I went wrong. I built what I considered to be an analogous situation but it really isn’t. I went back to the transform I did. What it does is remove the GHE. After that it’s not surprising that I found there was no GHE in what was left.
However, it is interesting that what is left demonstrates a thermostatic effect. I don’t know if GHGs providing a thermostatic effect was understood before or not. But, it’s back to the drawing board to see if I kind come up with another transformation that preserves the GHE yet simplify the situation.
Hi Richard M, on 24th Feb at 9:17 pm . you said “ .. I believe you’re only considering the absorption side of the situation. Since we’ve added more GHGs there are more photons flying around in parallel .. ” then at 10:50 pm. you said “ .. The reason I claimed there are more photons is because there are more GHG molecules. Each molecule can independently radiate a photon. Logically, this results in more independent paths heading eventually towards space. While any single photon is more likely to be captured, there are multiple paths in action where the total energy that reaches space at any point in time is unchanged .. ”.
I believe that may be the flaw in your understanding of the Greenhouse Effect. My understanding of the poorly understood processes and drivers of the different global climates is that only a small part of the energy absorbed by the so-called greenhouse gases is re- radiated, most of it being passed on to other air molecules by collision. Since most of those other molecules are N2 and O2, which do not radiate at IR, little of that energy is radiated to space but is retained within the global system of “spheres”, first in the atmosphere but possibly distributed among the others (litho/aqua/cryo/biosperes). Retained energy causes an unbalance between incoming and radiated to and from the global system of spheres, hence an increase in the system’s temperature to a point where the radiating components (mainly the aqua/lithospheres, atmospheric liquid water and particulates) once again radiate to space the same amount of energy as is received from the sun.
Of course, I could be wrong but so could all of those “consensus” scientists, such as Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University, who acknowledged back in April 2009 that “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers .. ” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).
BTW, Professor Brook gets very upset when I only quote what I regard as the most important part of his article and prefers the whole paragraph (see his comment at http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/#comment-17562). This includes what in my opinion is a purely speculative implication that only 5% is uncertain when saying “ .. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Re: Pete Ridley (Mar 15 12:34),
So, how is it that the transfer of energy with O2 and N2 is one-way, only? Seems like a very selective kind of thermal collision.
Nonsense, of course. Any such transfer would be reversed (on average) almost instantaneously. E.g.: posit a sudden bubble of 1000°C N2 being released into the atmosphere. The CO2 in the area would pick up its share of the heat and squirt some of it away in its preferred IR bands. Same with small fluctuations in local thermal gradients.
So the “blanket” rationale is valid only insofar as it is conceded to be a thinish blanket that somewhat slows heat transfer to the upper atmosphere, where CO2, H2O, and O3 can finish the process of dumping it. The “trapping” amounts to a very slight delay factor.
typo:
thinishthinnishHi Brian H (ref. 15th March at 2:56 pm) you say “ .. So, how is it that the transfer of energy with O2 and N2 is one-way, only? Seems like a very selective kind of thermal collision. Nonsense, of course. .. ”.
It would have hoped that it was quite clear to you and anyone else that Richard M and I were talking about what happens to the IR energy absorbed (and radiated) by greenhouse gases. I’m not aware that O2 and N2 are able to absorb IR energy, let alone transfer it to greenhouse gas molecules. If you can point me to a reliable source that confirms such capabilities then I’ll accept your “Nonsense, of course” otherwise I’ll return it to you with pleasure.
Getting back to the focus of this thread, Doug C, who now proudly announces all over the blogosphere that he has published his first “paper” refuting the Greenhouse Theory. He makes a point of linking to “Latest Study Confirms No Atmospheric Warming from Carbon Dioxide” by John O’Sullivan (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf), mistakenly believing that John and his pseudo-science publishing company Principia Scientific International has some kind of status as a scientific organisation.
On Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (I suggested to Doug that he try to publish in a recognised science journal
Despite all of my efforts to enlighten Doug about PSI he declared “ .. Prof Claes Johnson has fully endorsed my 6,600 word Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and it’s now ready for publication within about 30 hours at http://principia-scientific.org/ a site which I chose as being most in keeping with the principles I subscribe to ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-184770).
You may like to have a read of my comments there today, starting at http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-186231 .
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley;
Well, if you insert words into my statements, they don’t mean what I said any more. Then you can have a fine argument with yourself, and win! Are we having fun yet?
I didn’t say O2 and N2 could absorb IR. The point was your mechanism: ” …[little of] the energy absorbed by the so-called greenhouse gases is re- radiated, most of it being passed on to other air molecules by collision. ”
So, simplifying for you, if collision can take from CO2, it can also give. That’s statistically going to balance, very quickly. So the net is a very slightly lagged IR flow via CO2 straight out to the intergalactic depths.
Hi Brian H (ref. 19th March at 8:17 am.) you and I are not scientists so I’m sure you’ll appreciate why I’m not prepared to simply accept the word of a computer programmer that “ .. if collision can take from CO2, it can also give. That’s statistically going to balance, very quickly. So the net is a very slightly lagged IR flow via CO2 straight out to the intergalactic depths .. ”. On the other hand if you can provide a reference to the work of a competent physicist saying the same thing then I’m more likely to accept it.
It seems to me that the transfer of energy between tri-atomic gases like H2O, CO2 & N2O and di-atomic gases like N2 & O2 or between a monatomic gas like Ar is more likely to be unbalanced as a result of the significant differences in the vibrational and rotational modes of those gases.
As I understand it (and please correct me if I’m mistaken) the kinetic energy of Ar can only take one form – translational -, N2 and O2 two – translational and vibrational – and of H2O, CO2 and N2O three – translational, vibrational and rotational -, which suggest to me that energy transfers by collision will differ depending upon the modes of each colliding molecule.
I also understand that translation to translation energy transfers are symetrical but for others local thermal conditions are significant and they are only symmetrical where LTE exists.
I hope that there is a competent physicist following this thread and can clear this up for us.
Regarding your “ .. if you insert words into my statements, they don’t mean what I said any more .. “ I’m not aware that I did such a thing.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“. On the other hand if you can provide a reference to the work of a competent physicist saying the same thing then I’m more likely to accept it.”
There are a lot of references but it is based on quantum absorption. Once the photon is absorbed, there is a time-based probability of re-emission in the millisecond range. I don’t know what happened to DeWitt around blogland but he used to throw the equations in the threads once in a while. I’m sure you can find them with a small amount of effort.
As far as transfer between gasses, in LTE, they are balanced – almost. The problem is that LTE is an estimate by definition. Local meaning that somewhere else there is some imbalance which creates imbalances locally as well. From calculus, the gradient (dx,dy,dz) terms are very small but NOT zero. Close enough for some things though.
Now when you talk about conduction of various modes, you are right, but I don’t see how that matters at all as conduction back and forth is second law symmetric, meaning that while individual quanta of energy may go the wrong way, in the end it all comes out in the wash from hot to cold.
You wrote:
“My understanding of the poorly understood processes and drivers of the different global climates is that only a small part of the energy absorbed by the so-called greenhouse gases is re- radiated, most of it being passed on to other air molecules by collision.”
This effect is true except that conduction goes both ways. Again through the second law of thermodynamics. If the CO2 collides and transfers, it becomes de-energized and may be cooler than surrounding gas. Thermal probability has ordained that this situation won’t last long even without more IR input.
This continued back and forth means that conduction away from CO2(and other IR absorbing molecules) has no net effect as it is balanced by conduction the other way. The only path to space being through IR emission.
How else would CO2, with milliseconds before emission, and a mean IR photon path of a few meters, have an emission altitude much greater than a few meters?
The only way is through re-energization of the IR emitting molecule — through conduction!
What Jeff said. 🙂
Regarding your “ .. if you insert words into my statements, they don’t mean what I said any more .. “ I’m not aware that I did such a thing.
What I said:
.
What you said:
I’m not aware that O2 and N2 are able to absorb IR energy, let alone transfer it to greenhouse gas molecules
See, I spoke of thermal energy transfer, and you translated it to IR energy transfer, and disputed the latter. Get it now?
Hi Jeff, I was a little disappointed that you commented before Brian had jumped in with another of his helpful “ .. Nonsense, of course .. ” comments but I suspect that I’ll get more reliable information from you than from him. I had my suspicions that Brian was simply someone with an understanding of statistics but as far as science was concerned simply a blogger like me. Having read his entry in your “Reader Background” thread (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/#comment-26255) it appears that as far as the numerous scientific disciplines contributing to improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, Brian is not the person to go to for “expert opinion”.
Thanks for making the time to give your very plausible explanation in response to my comment of 19th March at 6:16 pm, which is basically what I had found elsewhere in the blogosphere. Back in Aug 2010 there was a good article on this by Tom Vonk at WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/). The Royal Chemical Society has a useful book “Gas Kinetics and Energy Transfer” in which Volume 3, Chapter 3 “An Overview of Molecular Energy Transfer in Gases” by A. B Callear provides relevant information (available for free restricted searching http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B0WKXHtnpmQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=energy%20transfer&f=false) – great for learners like Brian H and me.
Following up on your “ .. How else would CO2, with milliseconds before emission, and a mean IR photon path of a few meters, have an emission altitude much greater than a few meters? The only way is through re-energization of the IR emitting molecule — through conduction! .. ” I have another puzzlement. This suggest to me that you are saying that above that few metres (from the Earth’s surface?) the CO2 (and other greenhouse gas molecules?) receive energy from all of those much more numerous N2, O2 and Ar molecules, all of the way up to the TOA. How then do you account for the IR energy around 13-17 microns that appears to be unable to escape to space but looks to be returned to the Earth’s surface (http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/greenhouse-effect-and-adiabatic-lapse.html – see Fig. 8.2 or for Modtran plots see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png )
Maybe Brian H will have some pearls of wisdom to offer about this too.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I was attracted to this thread because of your mention of Doug Cotton, who has decided that he might be able to make some capital by supporting Professor Claes Johnson’s hypothesis and teaming up with “Sky-dragon Slayer” John O’Sullivan at John’s pseudo-scientific publishing company Principia Scientific International (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse). Wow, I see that there has been another £50 donation to that worthy cause, taking the total in 14 months up to that staggering sum of £450. In another 25 years John will have reached his £15,000 target and can set up his “association” as a limited company. I speculate that John may have encouraged Doug to make that donation, although none of the other 39 members of PSI seem to have been enthusiastic. Poor old Doug is getting rather a pasting at Roger Tattersall’s “Tallbloke” blog (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/).
Anyone interested in finding out more about John, his “Slayers” and PSI could do worse than first reading my 13th March comment on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-185284). Obviously Doug has chosen to ignore it but as I said to him there on 17th March QUOTE: .. Especially for you I again draw your attention to “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (http://kingjbible.com/jeremiah/5.htm Verse 21) .. UNQUOTE.
BTW, Roger Taguchi, a retired award-winning science teacher discusses this on Professor Judith Curry’s “Physics of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” thread (e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941 or http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-45726). At one time those IR emission plots could be viewed online in Professor Grant W. Petty’s book “A first course in atmospheric thermodynamics” courtesy Sundog Publishing (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf) but access seems to have been removed recently.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“Hi Jeff, I was a little disappointed that you commented before Brian ”
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Pete,
I didn’t like Tom’s post very much and replied to it later, also at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/
Just because a photon is absorbed, doesn’t mean that new photons aren’t emitted again. Anywhere in the atmosphere you have conduction, and absorption of IR emitted by nearby gas. The process never stops and all molecules are continually re-energized by these interactions such that their average temeperature is the same as surrounding gas. Things that absorb at one wavelength also emit at that wavelength.
People talk about saturation of CO2 bands, are missing the point. Quantum physics teaches that a molecule which is energized cannot accept more energy of the same mode until it re-emits that mode. So if the 10 um is absorbed in some vibrational mode, that mode is used until some other transfer occurs. By time based probability, this transfer does occur, the mode de-energizes (sometimes a new photon is emitted), and the mode is ready for acceptance again.
What just happened was a time delay in getting the energy from ground to space leaving slightly more energy in the gas at any one moment.
Photons emitted from the gas are fully able to go either up or down (backradiation) and this just further delays the escape of the energy.
Oddly, the greenhouse effect would still exist even if photons somehow knew not to emit down but could only emit upward. Arguments against backradiation are 100% nonsense across the board. So much of physics and engineering wouldn’t work if they were true.
Partly why I responded to your comment is because I have worked very hard to clean up this misunderstanding by non-technical skeptics. I can tell you that anytime someone approaches any scientist with an argument against backradiation, they will immediately realize that the person talking has no clue. Every time I have had this conversation with a skeptic of the effect who thinks they know the answer, they have simply tuned out.
I suspect a bunch have gotten it straight though.
Pete Ridley:
The counter to that is 100 bad arguments doesn’t equal one good one.
Hi Carrick (ref. 20th March at 11:50 am) perhaps more appropriately, 100 misinterpreted lines of evidence doesn’t validate a single argument.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Jeff (ref. 20th March at 8:56 am) I’ll take a closer look at your article but I liked your opening statement “ .. CO2 does create a warming effect in the lower atmosphere .. ” although I’m not convinced about the “lower”.
I fully agree with your comment in “A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/) that “ .. when skeptics of extremist warming get this wrong, it undermines the credibility of their otherwise good arguments .. ”. Only a few months later, during Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 I was making very similar points to John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” during the discussions about setting up their pseudo-science publishing company Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company. On 4th Jan 2010 I said to the “Slayers” and associates “ .. everything undertaken by PSI and its supporters must be done in a manner that minimises the opportunity for disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” to destroy the credibility of PSI and anyone associated with it .. ”
As you are aware, Doug Cotton has thrown in his lot with that organisation, despite me pointing out where he can find out more about its background, including on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-185284). It seems to me that his article (based upon Professor Claes Johnson’s hypothesis) and the current discussions around it on the blogosphere (e.g. on Roger Tattersall’s and Anthony Watts’ blogs) will provide more ammunition for the CACC supporters to discredit us sceptics, despite the efforts of sceptics like Roger to persuade Doug to get proper physicists to review his article.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
During December 2010 and Jan 2011 Doug Cotton’s “hero” John O’Sullivan tried to justify the need for another sceptical science organisation by claiming that PSI was needed in order for he and his “legal team” to take legal action against Government agencies under the umbrella of PSI as a limited company. John said in E-mails to the “Slayers” and associates on 28th and 30th Dec 2010 “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on .. My legal associates and I are asking your support to help raise funds for our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ”.
Over one year later what is PSI – a nondescript USA publishing company with apparently about 40 members (according to Doug Cotton http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-186611) that has taken 14 months to raise £450 towards the £15,000 it needs in order to register in the USA as a charitable association and in the UK as a CIC. Taking into consideration that on 17th Jan 2011 PSI was a “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” with a £350 charitable donation it has seen little progress in the past 14 months (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
Please bear with me as I quote from an E-mail John sent on 25th December John to 16 “Slayers” and associates
QUOTE: ..
I want to emphasise that we explicitly demonstrate PSI is for all who love science willing to make a small financial contribution to defeat science corruption. Principled individuals need to be recruited en masse. We must not choose them on the basis of age or gender – we must not focus on the middle or working class – not left wing democrat/socialist or right wing, conservative/liberal/republican – but everyone – all who believe in saving the traditional English Scientific Method from agenda- driven post-normal scientific dystopia.
For such a science-loving organization to have real clout we must raise funds by charging a minimum annual subscription (£50 – or US $100). With this money we can afford to cover the expenses of dedicated and qualified professionals who can deliver to the membership not just words but ACTIONS!
One of PSI’s key objectives must be to challenge this ubiquitous global warming fraud in international courts.
.. the common law instrument of mandamus petition is the most appropriate weapon in a lawyer’s legal toolbox for common law nations citizens (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia) to bring down the AGW fraud. .. The NZ Climate Skeptic coalition brought such a mandamus petition against NIWA and now the NZ govt has conceded NZ has no ‘official’ temperature record. At a stroke a court has proven that there has been no warming in NZ since 1960. This is the most monumental legal victory .. I now need to apply the same legal strategy in other common law nation’s courts. But to do this effectively I must have your help ..
If we are to advance this cause meaningfully, with passion and focus then I humbly suggest we accept the essential premise that those best qualified and experienced to take this organization forward are already in place. I have the necessary talents to finish off the job by exploiting a wealth of international legal contacts. I have the time, the commitment and know how to coordinate such a global courtroom strategy. Be advised that it was my earnest hard work and foresight that brought together 22 world leading skeptics to compile the best seller ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. The book provides the most compelling scientific argument to advance a legal one. This was all my innovation and it succeed only with the invaluable support of my cooauthors. We made it reality just as we are doing now by creating Principia Scientific International. The basics are already formed and I wish to continue leading such a terrific team. We are poised to deliver a robust, financially strong charitable organization with a remit to use member subscription to file lawsuits on their behalf. I want to complete the job I started and we now need you to help recruit the thousands of paid up members necessary to turn noble words into actions. John http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com ..
UNQUOTE.
As ever, self-aggrandising John O’Sullivan is full of praise – for himself.
An important consideration that anyone proposing to join PSI is whether or not John and his “Slayers” were motivated more to pursue a “noble cause” than to give themselves additional income as PSI executives. At one time it was proposed that Professor Tim Ball would be Chairman, John O’Sullivan CEO, Hans Schreuder CFO, Rev. Philip Foster Compliance Officer (although I understand that he wasn’t aware of that) and other “Slayers” formed the rest of the Executive. John did make mention of a need for income on more than one occasion, e.g. on 2nd Jan 2010 “.. Personally, I have no time to not earn a living. I know from my own private conversations that my coauthors may also not have time to devote unpaid to setting up and running a charity .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation because, for all our hard work and endeavor, we wish to be paid”.
If anyone here is interested I have available a 62-page Word document containing the most significant E-mails exchanged during Dec 2010-Jan 2011 on the subject of “PSI & Due Diligence”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete:
Yes that is a better way of putting it.
Hi Jeff, I liked your article “A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/) which fits in very nicely with my electrical analogy of the Sun, Earth, Space system. One thing that I’d like you to clarify is your claim that Vonk “ .. confuses equilibrium with zero energy flow. In his examples and equations, he has a net energy flow through the system of zero .. ”. I didn’t spot that in Vonk’s article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/) and understood that he was correctly talking about a net, not zero, energy flow at equilibrium.
As a side issue, there was a comment by “ .. Scott .. anyone who’s run IR in organic chemistry can tell you that it doesn’t take a long pathlength before the CO2 absorption at 2350 wavenumbers (cm-1, around 4.25 microns) becomes saturated .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/#comment-449743). This reminded me of Professor Iain Stewart’s deliberately misleading demonstration during the BBC’s “Climate Wars” CACC propaganda documentary in 2008 ???. I ran a thread on this subject on the University of Cambridge’s “Naked Scientists” Science Forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.25) and have commented elsewhere on this (e.g. at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/suzuki-elders-we%E2%80%99re-doomed/#comment-448 which gives a bit more background about CACC-campaigning Dr. Stewart and the biassed BBC).
I asked my physics mentor Roger Tagichi to take a look at what you had to say about the transfer of energy between “greenhouse” gases like CO2 and other atmospheric components like N2, O2 and Ar. Roger has come back with a detailed response which you may be interested in reading. Here is an extract but am happy to forward the entire E-mail to you if you are interested.
QUOTE: .. I agree with him that once a photon is absorbed, the excited molecule of CO2 will not likely absorb another photon of similar energy (e.g. in jumping from the v=1 first vibrationally excited state to the v=2 second vibrationally excited state). The reason is that the v=1 excited state can either (1) re-emit a photon of the same original energy while dropping down to the v=0 ground vibrational state, OR (2) lose the excess energy during an inelastic collision with surrounding N2, O2 or Ar molecules, that energy showing up as translational energy of the departing molecules (any excess rotational energy in the surrounding molecules will be rapidly – in 2 or 3 collisions – thermalized to ambient temperatures).
It seems to me that Condon and the literature that I have read so far repeat possibility (1), but seem unaware of possibility (2). Yet possibility (2) is IMO the mechanism by which trace greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, O3, etc. end up warming the lower troposphere, and thus explains the greenhouse effect!
I get depressed when I think about how this simple explanation seems to be beyond the physicists who have read my writings to date .. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Jeff, asking my physics mentor Roger Taguchi to take a look at what you had to say about the transfer of energy between “greenhouse” gases like CO2 and other atmospheric components like N2, O2 and Ar has started an interesting set of exchanges involving Roger, Professor John Nicol and Colin Davidson. If you are interested I can draw you into the discussion which I think you would enjoy contributing to.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PART 1
Dear old Doug Cotton has declared on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread that he is “ . not reading a word of (my) garbage .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-187244) yet he expects us to read his! Well, here’s some more of mine for him to read. Others have to put up with Doug’s questionable ramblings about e/m radiation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics but at least my “garbage” is fact-based opinion, not the fantasising of a Narcissist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism).
Doug Cotton and lead “Slayer” John O’Sullivan seem to be well suited, both coming across as self-aggrandising individuals:
– John seems to see himself as some sort of legal expert with a team ready to take on and defeat some of the world’s strongest organisations (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005 – Doug would be wise to read very carefully that and other “garbage” by me and by Andrew Skolnik).
– Doug seems to see himself as an expert in physics and a candidate for a Nobel prize who has nothing more to learn “ .. I have been helping both secondary and tertiary students learn physics since the late 1960′s, and now have written this 6,600 word peer-reviewed paper published on various sites, so you don’t need to try to teach me physics .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20682 but I think that it is stretching the imagination too far to claim that a blog article is a “paper”).
PART 2
Both John and Doug seem to have an irresistible urge to be noticed:
– John promotes himself “ .. As an accredited academic .. taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. the world’s most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory .. co-coordinated, co-authored and published .. Slaying the Sky Dragon: .. best seller he co-wrote with 22 leading climate researchers .. over 150 major articles worldwide .. in the National Review .. and Forbes Magazine .. China Daily .. The India Times .. a member of the New York County Lawyers Association .. litigating in two high-profile international lawsuits involving climatologists, Dr Michael Mann and Dr Tim Ball .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) all of which claims have been hotly debated above.
– Doug promotes himself for “.. Website Design .. one of the most experienced Maths tutors in Australia .. complete software for both Primary and High School Maths .. wedding and commercial photography .. Natural Medicine Research Centre .. Offering a varied range of products and services like oils and including hire naturopaths and naturopathc instruction .. how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other life threatening diseases .. A comprehensive diet and supplementation program .. designed for your individual needs at a cost .. slowing of the aging process .. ” and not to forget that sexy underware (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459).
Web-publishing company PSI is so lucky to have such multi-talented individuals driving it forward! One has to wonder why there has been such reluctance to support it (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse). People are so short-sighted, not even being persuaded by that £350 donation those many months ago, made within the first hour of the appeal’s launch by a member of John’s family in New York! It would be interesting to know who made that £50 donation on 15th March! Perhaps John or Doug can enlighten us but I speculate that it was Doug.
PART 3
On a more serious note, lets look at an example of the kind of person being discussed on this thread of Professor Curry’s about the “Slayers”.
On 18th Sept 2011 John, who is in no way a scientist despite what he may think to the contrary, made what I considered to be unwarranted insulting comments about Professor Curry. This was in an E-mail involving 6 “Slayers”, Professor Petty, retired science teacher Roger Taguchi (a full time and highly regarded professional, not a part-timer squeezing the activity in between other numerous businesses) and me. John said to me “ .. you have arbitrarily and capriciously selected a self-confessed unqualified ‘authority’ on thermodynamics (geographer, Dr. Judith Curry) as your guide. Like you, Curry has perused our book. She admits she did not comprehend the higher level of thermodynamics contained within it. Nonetheless, Curry was disparaging and dismissive of our book – as are you – ridiculing my co-authors in the process. But Curry goofed by posting on her blog that even her students could refute us. I wonder how – is she actually suggesting her students are better educated on the science than her? I know my co-authors are. Aren’t you smelling her brand of BS yet?
So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that ad hom and ignorance wins the day in the unscientific world of Ridley and Curry .. ”.
I don’t know what you all think but I was disgusted by John’s cowardly attack on Professor Curry behind her back. I responded on 26 Sep 2011 with “ .. The arrogance demonstrated in your comments about Professor Curry does not surprise me but may I respectfully suggest that you owe her an apology. After all, Professor Curry has recognised post-graduate scientific qualifications and expertise (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html) and has earned significant respect from sceptics as well as supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. I’m not convinced that you come anywhere close to matching that, despite what in my opinion are your self-aggrandising pronouncements about your achievements. I’ve added Professor Curry to the circulation because it is only fair that she is fully aware of your opinion of her as expressed in your E-mail .. ”.
John’s response an hour later included “ .. I owe Dr Curry no apology. Indeed, I stand by the facts submitted in my email that (1.) Dr Curry has no formal training in higher thermodynamics (2.) She is on record as admitting she cannot comprehend the science in our book, and (3.) She stated she intended to improve her understanding of the thermodynamics but admitted she had little time do this. Where is my “arrogance” in communicating these facts? If you still choose Dr Curry as your preferred authority on these and related matters, then more fool you! .. Perhaps you also forget that it was Dr Curry’s “arrogance” that prompted her to claim that even her students could debunk our book?? In that regard I have a better idea than yours: how about a real time debate online between Dr Curry and one of the Slayers team on the science of back radiation. I’m not holding my breath that Dr Curry will accept being that she is the “authority” on all such matters (it’s amazing how cowards quickly hide when the word ‘debate’ gets mentioned) .. ”.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions about who owes whom an apology.
PART 4
If anyone would like to have a copy of my 174-page Word documents containing that series of E-mails and 62-page Word document “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails” covering the period July 2010-May 2011 involving the “Slayers” and others about setting up PSI as a CIC then please let me know. In my opinion they are fascinating and revealing reading which paint a clear picture of what PSI is really about.
Doug seems to think that he has achieved something by having his article posted on blogs like “ ..
(1) http//principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
(2) http//tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
(3) http//www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
(4) http//climaterealists.com/?id=9281
(5) http//beforeitsnews.com/story/1888/538/Doug_Cotton:_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics.html
In my opinion posting on (1), (3) and (4) is worthless and Doug is taking a pasting on (2) and (5).
Talk about delusions of grandeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions)!
If anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
#120
Pete,
My recollection is that Vonk used LTE to conclude that there was no warming. He completely missed the fact that there is a net energy flow that is affecting the gas from ground to space. Without it, I agree, there would be no warming. While LTE exists, it has energy passing in the bottom and out the top.. He messed up.
I would be happy to see Taguchi’s reply.
Doug also got shredded here:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/fun-stuff/
On reading Taguchi’s quote above, I’m not sure where we would disagree. His statement looks exactly like my understanding of the problem, unless he makes the claim that the process is uni-directional and the re-energization of CO2 cannot also happen by the same collisions described #2. Why he would assume I don’t agree with that quote is beyond me.
Hi Jeff, I’ll check with Roger, John and Colin if they’re happy for you to join in the exchanges and if OK with them I’ll copy you all that has passed so far.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Just one question for you Pete …
Why does a microwave oven not melt ice?
Such a simple little question, Pete (and Jeff) yet neither of you can answer without saying what Prof Claes Johnson says.
.
Experiment</b
Empty your frig ice cube tray into a microwave container (which does not itself get hot) and then refill the tray in order to measure out an equivalent amount of near freezing water into another microwave container.
Place both in your microwave oven and operate for about a minute. Do more if the water has not yet boiled. Take care removing the boiled water as it can explode.
There will be no water from melted ice in the first container and the cubes will be intact, unmelted.
Pour the boiling water onto the ice cubes and time how long they take to melt. They will melt in about the same time (eg a minute) indicating that there was ample energy in the radiation to melt them.
The water was heated because of friction as water molecules flipped through 180 degrees in resonance with the waves in the radiation. As they flipped there was friction between them and other flipping molecules. The warming is not caused by absorption of the low frequency radiation, but by friction.
This is seen in the solid ice, because there is not enough space for the molecules to flip. But note that they do not absorb radiation as is explained by Claes and myself.
Pete Ridley loves to criticise a few of the three dozen or so members of PSI. not mentioning all the PhD’s, professors or whatever, or the fact that there are also meteorologists on the team. What Pete displays to me is a typical “use the formula without regard to the restrictions required” attitude, which is typical in the IPCC arena also.
When it comes to physics, neither Jeff nor Pete has posed any phenomenon which disproves what Claes and I have said about radiation from a cooler source not transferring thermal energy to a warmer surface. They may have thought they had at first, and yes it may have taken me a while to find out why they had not, but I always knew true physics would prevail, and it does and has, so that their microbolometers, lasers, microwave ovens, radar absorbing paint etc can all be explained without there being any violation of the hypothesis cited above. That is why a microwave oven does not melt ice. Tell me any other reason.
.
Doug is taking a pasting on (2)
Am I really? The fact is, you are. Pete.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21179
.
.
PART 1
Hi Jeff, Doug really needs to take some lessons on how to conduct a scientific experiment. He’s been ranting on about ice in a microwave over at Roger Tattersall’s blog (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21179). Doug seems to pay no attention to important details such as measuring and recording things like the starting temperature of the substances (ice and water), their the rate of heating, the differences in the heat capacity and heat of fusion – so unscientific, but then, Doug is a business man not a scientist (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3).
No wonder those who are bothering to respond to his ranting on Roger’s thread get so frustrated. Doug continues to take a hammering there but he keeps insisting that because no-one agrees with him they can’t have read his blog article properly. Of course, Doug believes that he is right and everyone else (apart from Professor Claes Johnson) is wrong. Doug insists on referring to his blog article as a paper that has been peer reviewed. It seems that the reviewers were simply past and present members of John O’Sullivan’s pseudo-science publishing company Principia Scientific International, an organisation which appears to enjoy virtually no credibility among established scientists. It is simply a publishing company dreamed up only a couple of years ago by John, whose 20-year teaching career had come to an abrupt end in 2003 (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-148855 Para. 3).
In my opinion Doug has no chance of having his blog article published in a recognised learned society or scientific association of merit, so had to turn to PSI. As I have said before, Doug is a perfect candidate for membership of that organisation and I wonder if it was he who made that £50 donation 12 days ago (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse – come on Doug, was it you?).
In his 14th March bulletin “LATEST STUDY CONFIRMS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING FROM CARBON DIOXIDE” PSI front man John O’Sullivan (who is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination) declared “ .. The author got invaluable input from his reviewers and he acted upon the feedback he got, plus the reviewers were able to satisfy themselves of the validity of Doug’s research because they saw precisely how the author collated his evidence and substantiated his findings. In a series of email exchanges the four reviewers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (environmental scientist), Alan Siddons (radiochemist), Hans Schreuder (analytical chemist, ret.) and Professor Claes Johnson (applied mathematics) ensured that expertize from various scientific disciplines was applied constructively and thoroughly, unusual for the assessment of climate science papers. .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/130-latest-study-confirms-no-atmospheric-warming-from-carbon-dioxide).
PART 2
When I first became involved with PSI back in Dec 2010 the discussion quickly turned to needing money to take legal action against government agencies like NOAA (see Note below). Consequently I undertook a “PSI & Due Diligence” exercise, looking very closely at the credentials of all of the4 individuals involved, including three of those reviewers (Dr. Matthias Kleespies didn’t become involved until much later and 6 months ago appeared to have dissociated himself from PSI).
Professor Claes Johnson is a well-qualified and respected Professor of Mathematics, but that doesn’t make him an authority on physics. Didn’t that brilliant physicist, teacher and winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum dynamic physics, Richard Feynman said in “Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics By Its Most Brilliant Teacher” – “ .. physics is to math as sex is to masturbation .. ”. This picture paints 1000 words (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png).
As far as I can ascertain none of the reviewers are physicists, Alan Siddons is a former radiochemist, Hans Schreuder is a retired analytical chemist and Matthias Kleespies is a biologist but none appear to have published a single peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal of merit. If anyone has information to the contrary then I’d appreciate knowing about it so that I can add it to my records.
NOTE: This is an extract from John O’Sullivan’s E-mail of 26th December 2010 “ .. NOAA is based in Washington DC. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest.
John
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com .. ”.
That “internal” appeal for money failed miserably as did John’s next appeal through gofundme, which in 14 months has managed to raise the grand total of £450 of John’s target of £15000 and that first £350 came from – one of John’s family members.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Home experiment;
2 ice cubes in a shot glass. Microwaved for 50 seconds. Result: 1 shot glass half full of warm water, with a couple of shrinking ice chips floating in it.
Hi Brian H (ref. March 28, 2012 at 3:22 am) have you seen Dougy’s latest analysis of his brilliant experiment with ice cubes in his microwave (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21268)? His extraordinary conclusion is that the microwaves do not provide the energy to heat up the ice. The energy is produced by magic as a result of friction between flipping molecules. He’s proved that the Law of Conservation of Energy is nonsense. I can just see the headline news “Nobel Prize in Physics 2012 awarded to Douglas Jeffrey Cotton, novice physicist of North Rocks, Sydney, NSW, Australia” – hallelujah.
I’ve just picked up your comment and had just finished my own versions of that experiment.
Objective: to determine the effect upon a sample of water and a sample of ice of immersion in a microwave oven on full power for 60s.
Apparatus: 800W microwave; 20g (approx) ice at –12C starting temp (estimated); 20g (approx) water at 10C starting temp (estimated): 2 identical plastic containers.
09:00 (UTC+1): Both containers, one of water the other of ice, placed in microwave and heated for 60 sec.
09:01 (UTC+1): Containers removed and contents checked:
– ice virtually intact (tiny drip of water) at –4C (estimated
– water at 35C.
09:30 (UTC+1): New lump of ice placed in container, put into microwave oven and heated for 3 minutes.
09:33 (UTC+1): Ice completely melted and water at 40C (estimated).
Conclusion: Given long enough, an ice cube will be melted in a microwave.
Experimental deficiencies: Estimation of water and ice temperatures renders results qualitative only.
Further experimentation: Repeat taking accurate measurements of substance and ambient temperatures, microwave power within the oven, duration of heating followed by calculations of energy supplied versus theoretical energy required to heat the ice to 0C, convert to water then heat to final temperature.
End objective: To be awarded Nobel Prize for proving that physical hypotheses about specific heat, latent heat of fusion and latent heat of evaporation are flawed – Amen.
But I really can’t be bothered.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I hadn’t realised that I had also submitted my previous comment to Roger Tattersall’s blog (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21284) and Dougy responded to it. This is my further response which I tried to post there but it hasn’t appeared yet (maybe Roger has me on moderation).
Dougy described his “experiment” (although it is not really worthy of the name, any more than his blog article is worthy of being referred to as a peer-reviewed paper) as follows “ .. Empty a tray of small ice cubes from your frig into a microwave container which does not get warm itself in a microwave oven. Refill the ice tray and empty the equivalent amount of water into another such microwave container. Put both in the microwave oven for about a minute. The water will boil but none of the ice will melt. Then (outside the oven) pour the boiling water onto the ice and it will melt in less than a minute, demonstrating the above explanation that the heat comes from friction in the water (where molecules are free to move) rather than absorption which would have melted the ice .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21110).
He now says “ .. . My whole point was to demonstrate that there was ample energy in the first minute (maybe 90 seconds if volumes are greater) to boil an equivalent volume of water from, say, 5 deg.C, but not melt the ice. I demonstrate that there is ample energy in the water to then melt the ice within the same time frame when I poured the boiling water onto the ice. So clearly virtually all the energy went into the water and hardly any into the ice, even when they were there together at the same time and for the same length of time. .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21110).
I say “flipping nonsense Dougy”. Your demonstration is flawed (just like Professor Iain Stewart’s was (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-133756 Para. 9) and did nothing of the sort. What you demonstrated was that, depending upon how cold your ice and water were at the start of heating, after “about a minute” your ice had absorbed sufficient energy to not only bring it up to near melting point but had actually melted some of the ice inside. (try heating the ice again and smashing it to pieces with a hammer – you’ll get plenty water then, just as I did). Since a significant amount of the ice was already melted (absorbing all of that latent heat of fusion – 40 times that required to raise its – and water’s – temperature through 1C) there was sufficient energy in the boiling water to melt the remaining ice.
No need for the “flipping” magic that Dougy has hypothesised.
Dougy speculated that:
– “ .. Pete has used plastic bowls which probably got warmed a bit themselves .. ” – no, the temperature of my dry bowl in the microwave for 5 minutes heats hardly at all (although the oven plate beneath was darned hot) and the heat in it made little impact upon a fresh block of ice straight from the freezer.
– “ .. Pete may have left some water in his the second time .. ” – again no, I used not the same but an identical bowl, bone-dry from the cupboard. Of course the heat from my hand may have had a small but insignificant impact on the result, just like the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels etc. has on the different global climates.
(I notice that Dougy took his ice cubes from his “frig” and it would be interesting to know what his “frig” temperature is, but I doubt if he bothered to check that as part of his demonstration. As all scientists should be aware, all such details are the essence of a properly conducted experiment.)
He also declared “ .. defrosting mode turns power on and off, in order to allow time for conduction from heated water to melt the ice in frozen food .. ” – wrong again, it’s to prevent the water from boiling and possible causing the defrosting food from exploding due to steam pressure.
Of course, I am no more a physicist than Dougy is so, like he, I could be totally wrong about all of this stuff to do with latent heats and thingies like that. Unlike Dougy, I am eager to learn from those who have more knowledgeable than he or I have, so please enlighten me.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
BTW, Brian H, are you also the Brian who posts over there?
#137
Yes, I use the same name everywhere, unless the system doesn’t allow an embedded space; then maybe BrianH, or BrianFH, or whatever.
______
My experiment #2:
Shot glass 2/3 full, in freezer overnight. (To make sure there was no loose “seed” water or pre-melting.)
Results: 60 seconds in microwave, bottom half of glass full of water, ice on top (small air space between). 120 seconds, glass of rather hot water.
Hi Brian (ref. March 28 at 3:55 pm) “ .. My experiment #2: .. ” suggests, as mine does, that Doug is once again leading himself down a blind alley. He appears to have no understanding of the different forms of energy and how they react with substances in their different states. Perhaps he didn’t study much of this at secondary school or University, perhaps concentrating too much on religion, photography, naturopathy and business studies (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3).
BTW, Roger Tattersall doesn’t seem to like me posting on his blog so here’s what I submitted in response to your comment about Nobel Prizes and Dougy’s ambitions (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21287).
QUOTE: .. Hi Brian, let’s not forget that the Gore & IPCC award was not for science but was a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by politicians, not scientists. There is little of value in anything involving politicians. Dougy has his eye on a Nobel Prize for Physics as a result of proving that Plank and his fellows were wrong .. UNQUOTE.
He also objected to my response to Doug, very similar to what I posted here at 12:53 pm. I can’t see anything untoward about either but it seems that Roger has some objections, but it doesn’t help as far as moving the debate with Dougy along. Mind you, with a closed mind like he has enlightening debate is not really possible.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Heh. Pete is on permanent moderation at my site. His latest 4 arrived in the space of 10 mins while I was busy elsewhere. I’ll check them tomorrow. The ‘Dougy’ post went in the can for the sheer childishness.
Jeff, I found th easiest way to stop Doug thread spamming was to give him his own thread to spam. Works like a charm. 😉
Tallbloke: Been there, done that. This very thread is the hole.
Doug is one of the the oddest people I’ve run across on the Internet and I’ve been at this for some time. He plays science with no background, avoids real questions, pretends extreme narcissism yet is fragile, gives small points when lost, temporarily changes his position to address lost points, and over time returns to the original flawed statements.
Douglas Jeffrey Cotton’s arrogance is beyond belief. On the thread that Roger Tattersall dedicated to his nonsense (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics) he has had detailed explanations from contributors of the flaws in his understanding (based upon Professor Claes Johnson’s simplistic model), particularly from individuals using the false names Tor and br1. Despite their efforts, on this April Fool’s day Doug declares “ .. Every relevant equation in “standard physics” is based on a false assumption .. don’t tell me yet again that I need to read physics textbooks. I have been helping university students learn their physics ever since I majored in it .. I know what the books say, but such is in error because the early scientists were mistaken .. they were obviously wrong .. You cannot argue successfully against this point, but it is not in textbooks yet.
.. So please don’t respond yet again with “standard physics” which is the very thing I am refuting .. ”.
(http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21719 and #comment-21733 #comment-21734)
Although he has been trying very hard recently to prove otherwise, Doug is not a complete idiot. He does at least now “ .. acknowledge that the radiation from the cooler body does slow the radiative component of cooling of the warmer target .. ”. Hallelujah, he accepts that the “greenhouse effect” is real. Now all that he needs to acknowledge is that with that constant source of energy coming from the Sun there has to be a compensating increase in the temperature of the Earth until balance is restored – ignoring the many other processes that also contribute to the distribution of energy within the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres.
Finding that he was taking a pounding over his blog article posted on the blog of the virtually unknown science-fiction publisher Principia Scientific International started by John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” it seems that Doug has had to call up reinforcements – Professor Claes Johnson has come to his aid (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21742). Strange that he chose to enter the fray there on April Fools’ Day. Maybe he’s getting worried that Doug will be awarded that Nobel Prize for Physics instead of himself.
It should be interesting following the responses to his comment.
Back in October Professor Johnson declared “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking,
in particular not the slayers group .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122522) but I wonder if he has rejoined the “Slayers” gaggle as a member of PSI.
Best regards,
Pete Ridley
Douglas Jeffrey Cotton’s arrogance is beyond belief. On the thread that Roger Tattersall dedicated to his nonsense (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics) he has had detailed explanations from contributors of the flaws in his understanding (based upon Professor Claes Johnson’s simplistic model), particularly from individuals using the false names Tor and br1. Despite their efforts, on this A p r i l F o o l’s day Doug declares “ .. Every relevant equation in “standard physics” is based on a false assumption .. don’t tell me yet again that I need to read physics textbooks. I have been helping university students learn their physics ever since I majored in it .. I know what the books say, but such is in error because the early scientists were mistaken .. they were obviously wrong .. You cannot argue successfully against this point, but it is not in textbooks yet.
.. So please don’t respond yet again with “standard physics” which is the very thing I am refuting .. ”.
(http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21719 and #comment-21733 #comment-21734)
Although he has been trying very hard recently to prove otherwise, Doug is not a complete idiot. He does at least now “ .. acknowledge that the radiation from the cooler body does slow the radiative component of cooling of the warmer target .. ”. Hallelujah, he accepts that the “greenhouse effect” is real. Now all that he needs to acknowledge is that with that constant source of energy coming from the Sun there has to be a compensating increase in the temperature of the Earth until balance is restored – ignoring the many other processes that also contribute to the distribution of energy within the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres.
Finding that he was taking a pounding over his blog article posted on the blog of the virtually unknown science-fiction publisher Principia Scientific International started by John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” it seems that Doug has had to call up reinforcements – Professor Claes Johnson has come to his aid (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21742). Strange that he chose to enter the fray there on A p r i l F o o ls’ Day. Maybe he’s getting worried that Doug will be awarded that Nobel Prize for Physics instead of himself.
It should be interesting following the responses to his comment.
Back in October Professor Johnson declared “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking,
in particular not the slayers group .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122522) but I wonder if he has rejoined the “Slayers” gaggle as a member of PSI.
Best regards,
Pete Ridley
Hi Jeff, novice physicist Dougy certainly has it right about “ .. it’s all about money .. ” (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72933). That’s seems to be the motivation for the “Slayers”, evidenced by those appeals for charitable donations in Dec 2010/Jan 2011/etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-126001 etc. – just search for “charit”).
We now have not only new PSI recruit Dougy spamming the blogosphere trying to get people to visit the PSI pages but PSI co-founder and Chief Financial Officer Hans Schreuder sending out E-mails to CACC sceptics like the Global warming Policy Foundation’s David Whitehouse and Benny Peiser, Climate Depot’s Mark Morano, Bishop Hill’s Andrew Montford, Climate Realists Gabriel Rychert, for the same purpose
“ .. Please read http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf .. Kind regards, Hans Schreuder .. ”.
I’ll be sending each of them an E-mail drawing their attention to the comments from Andrew Skolnick and me on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi again folks, just a rider to my earlier comment. Perhaps someone can explain to me what benefit there is (apart from trying to sell PSI memebership) for Hans Schreuder to encourage us to visit PSI’s site in order to read the article by Joe Postma. That same article appears to have been available on Hans’s own site since 10th Sept. 2011 (http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf) and certainly was there on 20th Sept (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8364). Hans’s other site (http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/) provides a link to it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Although novice physicist Dougy continues to spam his version of science on the Internet he is unable to answer my questions on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread and has now resorted to ignoring my comments (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-190000). He makes another ludicrous revelation of his version of the “truth”, saying “ .. The truth is that Ridley, for some reason, obviously feels threatened .. ”.
You said “ .. Doug is one of the oddest people I’ve run across on the Internet and I’ve been at this for some time. He plays science with no background, avoids real questions, pretends extreme narcissism yet is fragile, gives small points when lost, temporarily changes his position to address lost points, and over time returns to the original flawed statements .. ” (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72609) and I find it very hard to disagree.
Is it possible that he resorted to getting involved with the “Slayers” and PSI rather than offer his arguments up to proper peer review by specialists in the subject because he craves support, from any quarter. Maybe some expert in psychology would like to comment.
On a more promising note, Dougy now does seem to have accepted that “ .. Any radiation from a cooler atmosphere (including backradiation) .. slows the radiative component of surface cooling for that component of the radiation which does not get through the atmospheric window .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21989). That certainly is a breakthrough but he still needs to try to understand why that slowing of the radiation to space demands that the global system must increase its temperature (and its radiation to space) until balance is restored between the virtually constant incoming solar radiation and the outgoing IR radiation to space.
Patience is a virtue – I believe that he’ll catch on eventually (I’m a supreme optimist you know). As such I still have faith that he will one day be able to answer the questions that I have put to him which so far he has ignored.
As I said to Dougy on 14th March QUOTE: .. I again draw your attention to “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (http://kingjbible.com/jeremiah/5.htm Verse 21) .. UNQUOTE (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-185562 Para. 10).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
14 months ago we saw Dougy’s hero John O’Sullivan holding out the begging bowl claiming to need money for the purpose of “ .. supporting Principia Scientific International (PSI). Help us bring about change .. Give generously for this good cause knowing you can help to counter the creeping folly of misguided societies that appear to have been commandeered by political lobbyists and shills serving self-interested corporations or misguided national governments .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
Having failed miserably with that appeal for money the next bowl went out 12 months ago begging “ .. Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. Mann .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/).
John seems to have set a trend for begging for money for good causes relating to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. We now have the “other side” begging for money for “The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: Protecting the Scientific Endeavor” (http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/). This one appears to have been initiated yesterday (4th April) by staunch CACC supporter Scott (Super)Mandia who begged “ .. Help the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) raise money to cover the costs of Dr. Mann’s legal defense as well as other scientists who face similar challenges .. ” (http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/support-climate-scientists-look-cool-doing-so/).
Eye-catching sales gimmicks seem to be a must for this kind of begging.
John O’Sullivan had his offer of “ . If you contribute £60 (Sixty British Pounds) or more (approx. US$100) we will ensure you receive a copy of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ plus a bonus book (two volume pack RRP: $38.98) .. ” – most science fiction books are far cheaper that than!
Scott Mandia offers “ .. $25 .. t-shirts .. $150 .. three of the t-shirts and a copy of Climate Change: Picturing the Science .. $300 .. a hockey stick signed by Mike Mann.. $1000 .. 16×20 signed silver gelatin print by Joshua Wolfe .. ”.
It seems that there is much more support for the CACC supporters’ begging bowl than there is for John’s. He’s only managed to raise £350 in the first hour then a further £100 in 14 months in his PSI bowl whereas it is claimed that for Scott’s bowl “ .. The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals .. ” (http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/).
Wow, I can’t wait to add my £0 to those bowls.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The physics upon which the carbon dioxide scam is based violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law, Wien’s Displacement Law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics which causes there to be a stable equilibrium temperature gradient as the state of maximum entropy. The physical evidence that water vapor cools also proves it all wrong. If water vapor warmed (as the IPCC claims) then the whole world would be at 100% humidity due to a runaway effect.
Thankfully Donald Trump will eventually put an end to the sheer waste of trillions of dollars that could be better spent saving lives in many ways. The scammers are very worried because the fact that Trump was voted in shows that public opinion is changing and fewer are still gullible enough to be fooled by blankets in the sky supposedly formed by 0.04% of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases are more like holes in a blanket, being the only ones that can radiate energy from the atmosphere back to Space, as NASA energy diagrams show happens. They also absorb 19% of incident solar radiation, thus acting like an umbrella, as is obvious when the most prolific greenhouse gas by far, water vapor, forms clouds.
The biggest joke of all is that Pierrehumbert, in his “gold standard” textbook of climatology, calculated what the temperature would be without water vapor but forgot to remove the clouds that would not have existed and the oceans. Their physics is so pathetic that it has obviously now become a fraudulent scam that is backed up with manipulated temperature, radiation and sea level data.
NASA’s energy budget diagram is quite wrong because it does not show the energy in the “heat creep” process that I have discovered must exist as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Instead the NASA diagram shows about half the solar radiation being absorbed by the surface, when in fact most undergoes resonant (or pseudo) scattering, about which I wrote in my paper published on several websites in 2012.
The main energy input to the surfaces of Earth and Venus is not by radiation at all, but by non-radiative heat creep which is defined and explained in my 2013 paper. Both papers are linked at the foot of the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com.
A FEW FACTS and PROJECTIONS to 2400AD: It was hotter in Roman times and hotter still about 3,400 years ago. For about 90% of the last 10,000 years the world has been hotter than at present. In the last glacial period, however, there was about 10 times as much carbon dioxide as at present. Sea levels rose steeply up until about 8,000 years ago, but then they continued to rise at a much slower and fairly steady rate. There has been no increase in that rate in recent decades. For about 30 to 40 years after 1939 the world cooled while carbon dioxide increased. This year is very similar to 1998 which was the peak of the superimposed 60-year natural cycle. Back in 1938 and 1939 the temperatures were very similar to the present because it was the peak of the previous 60-year cycle. The current hiatus should continue until at least 2028 and solar activity indicates slight cooling starting 2018. Long term cooling for hundreds of years should start around 2058 with another Little Ice Age starting about 2400 AD. The peak in 2058 should be about 0.4 to 0.7 degree hotter than the present. http://climate-change-theory.com/planetcycles.jpg
Regarding carbon dioxide, there are two mutually exclusive paradigms regarding planetary surface temperatures – one that assumes incorrectly that surface temperatures are determined by radiation, and the new 21st century paradigm that is based on the laws of physics and can be used to explain all temperatures and the required heat transfers for all planets and satellite moons, above and below any solid surface, right down to the core.
Watch my comments at 47min:10secs and 1hr:49mins in this meeting: https://www.facebook.com/malcolmrobertsonenation/videos/956385411172006/
The whole two hour meeting in Parliament House, Canberra is worth watching.
You’re just soooo smart aren’t you Jeff – and yet not once have you provided evidence that the greenhouse gas water vapor warms. Do you know why you can’t? Because the laws of physics, about which you haven’t a clue, allow us to deduce that it must cool. That’s why the IPCC never publishes any study showing it warms, as they would like you to be pathetic enough to believe with their greenhouse garbage for the gullible (like yourself) based on fictitious fiddled physics which you, in your ignorance, and without tertiary education in physics, failed to recognize as being false. I provided you with a statement about my work from an academic which read: “As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.”
I’m certainly more knowledgeable than you.
I can’t take the time to read all of this spam. It’s a real shame that some have fallen for your nonsense.
To those who don’t realize Trump is right about the climate scam:
The carbon dioxide scam that you are promulgating (that is causing immeasurable poverty, starvation and death) is ENTIRELY based upon the assumption that the fluxes of solar radiation and atmospheric radiation can just be added arithmetically and the sum used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the Earth’s mean surface temperature. NASA energy diagrams very clearly indicate that this is how they calculate the 15°C temperature from a net flux of 390W/m^2 after deducting non-radiative cooling.*
Standard physics known for over 100 years can be used to PROVE that the result of such calculations is nothing remotely like the temperature that would be achieved from a single source of radiation (such as a sun just over half the distance away) because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Furthermore, Wien’s Displacement Law tells us that the absolute (K) temperature achieved is proportional to the modal (peak) frequency. There is no way that the combination of solar and atmospheric radiation is going to have the required peak frequency, because combining radiation does not alter the frequency (or wavelength) of any of the individual rays being added together.
The fact that radiation cannot be combined in the way NASA assumed (and which is not in any standard physics text) is easily demonstrated. For example, if one electric bar radiator is placed at a distance such that it warms your cheek to a comfortable 42°C (that is, 315K) then will 16 such radiators raise it to double the temperature, namely 630K or 357°C as incorrect use of Stefan-Boltzmann calculations would imply should happen? We all know that would not be the case – nowhere near it. Yet that is what the fictitious, fiddled physics used by NASA implies ought to happen. Likewise, their physics would give temperatures above 120°C for some regions on Earth where the Sun passes directly overhead on a clear day.
So your scam is exposed as being totally false, and that is why Donald Trump will cut funding. Once he realizes that the whole assumption that greenhouse gases warm (when in fact correct physics and empirical evidence for water vapor imply they cool) you can expect all funding and associated taxes to be dropped. Other countries will follow as the dominoes fall.
By the way, the troposphere cannot possibly radiate (on average) as much as the 324W/m^2 in back radiation shown in NASA diagrams. That is what a blackbody (emissivity 1.0000) at 274.94K would emit. The average temperature of the atmosphere is somewhat colder than 2°C and the emissivity is far less than 1.0000 because gases are not solids and they only emit in several bands, not full spectrum. Besides, less than 2% of the molecules in the atmosphere radiate anything.
As a scientific researcher in physics I can assure you that Trump is RIGHT about the carbon dioxide scam. Climatologist James Hansen made a huge mistake when he guessed that the missing energy (that was obviously required to explain why Earth’s surface temperature is so much warmer than the temperature that the Sun’s direct radiation could make it) must have come from back radiation. “What else?” he thought. Decades later I discovered that the energy gets to the surface, crust, mantle and core via the non-radiative process of “heat creep” that you can learn about in my writings and nowhere else. Evidence throughout the Solar System supports my hypothesis cogently. Listen also to the first 10 minutes of this scientist-cum-senator’s speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HA3TFkwsTg
The IR-active gases do all nearly all the absorbing (19% of incident solar radiation and 15% of upward IR radiation) and radiating of energy back to Space such that it balances insolation, which it does because of what Nobel Prizewinner Max Planck explained.
IR-active (so-called) greenhouse gases HELP NITROGEN, OXYGEN and ARGON to cool, especially at night after they have been warmed by molecular collision processes during the day.
Do you want to argue that the air you stand in is not usually warmed by day and cooled by night? How the hell do you think 99% of it cools? The 99% CANNOT RADIATE, so the 99% cools by passing on its extra energy to the molecules that can then radiate the energy back to Space. That’s how the surface and the whole troposphere cool at night after the inevitable warming by day. Greenhouse gases do the cooling.
THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS
(1) You claimed an incremental rise in surface temperature can be expressed as a function of an incremental increase in carbon dioxide radiation which would normally come from a colder region of the atmosphere. Is that a reasonable summation of a key element of the greenhouse hypothesis?
(2) Assuming “yes” then I say that (to convince me of that hypothesis) I need empirical evidence that the surface temperature is a function of such radiation, because if it is not, then neither is the derivative of the temperature. Is that correct?
(3) Assuming “yes” then please explain at least one point on the graph. Doing so does not prove that the function is correct, but it at least supports it and does not disprove it. If you can’t explain even a single temperature with correct physics then I am not convinced in any way, shape or form. Is that reasonable?
(4) Assuming “yes” then please explain a typical surface temperature of, say, 15°C by demonstrating (using any relevant data about any flux) how you calculate 15°C from such typical radiative flux alone.
I would appreciate discussion of the physics only.
When they claim that a mean flux of 390W/m^2 explains 15°C (because that is the blackbody temperature) ask them if they understand that temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. Then, get them to agree that the flux varies a lot, and ask for calculations for five equal regions having 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% of the mean flux. (They will get a lower mean temperature around 3°C.) Finally, ask them why they think they can add together solar radiation and back radiation in their Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Suggest that, if an electric bar radiator is raising the temperature of an object to 350K, then, if there were sixteen such radiators and we add all the flux, Stefan Boltzmann calculations would give a temperature of 700K. Ask if they think that would happen. Assuming “no” then ask why they think they can add solar radiation and back radiation. They cannot claim to be able to do so because they have just agreed that adding the flux from all the radiators does not give a realistic temperature. Any one such example disproves their conjecture that radiative fluxes can be compounded in that way.
EXPLANATION TO Dr ROY SPENCER (and JEFF) AS TO WHY HE IS MISTAKEN
(Sent by email 14 March 2016)
Roy, Firstly, what you depend on is NOT the official IPCC explanation. Their energy diagrams very clearly imply that we can mathematically add the two fluxes (solar and atmospheric) just as if they have identical warming properties. It’s there in the figures: deduct the non-radiative cooling and you have 168+324-102=390W/m^2 which by coincidence (/sarc) has a blackbody temperature of 287.99K. This also assumes we have a flat Earth receiving a steady 390W/m^2 day and night.
The Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is far too weak to explain the observed surface temperatures in nearly all of the surface of the globe except where the Sun is nearly directly overhead on a clear day. On Venus the solar radiation reaching its surface is never sufficient anywhere.
So the rate of cooling is irrelevant. Unless you do it the incorrect IPCC way, you cannot “explain” the surface temperature at all, as James Hansen realized and thus assumed back radiation did it because he forgot what Loschmidt said about the gravitationally induced temperature gradient that explains what happens on all planets.
Secondly, there is about twice as much non-radiative energy loss and, as I said in my 2012 paper, that cooling is not affected and it can accelerate to compensate. But what determines the minimum temperature that night is the supporting temperature in all the adjoining (mostly) nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules. This is explained in my 2013 paper. Who cares if it takes an extra minute or so to get down to the supporting temperature in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours when we know cooling almost stops altogether? Do you ever wonder why?
Increasing water vapor lowers the supporting temperature (by reducing the lapse rate = temperature gradient) far more than any slowing of radiative cooling could increase the minimum temperature.
You, Roy, try to claim water vapor increases the surface temperature and lowers the upper troposphere temperature, thus making the lapse rate steeper, whereas in fact it becomes less steep, and my study (in the Appendix of my 2013 paper) shows more moist regions are indeed cooler.
Yet again, Roy (and others) I refer you to “THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” towards the end of my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
The electro-magnetic energy in radiation from an effectively cooler source (as even the Sun is, for example, just after dawn) is not thermalized in the surface as explained by Prof Claes Johnson, whose work I cited in my 2012 paper.
Just because the IR thermometer reads warmer than the surface where you are when pointed almost parallel to the surface merely means that either the air is actually warmer over there (due to weather conditions) or the thermometer is not correctly calibrated for such measurements because it “assumes” the wrong emissivity.
As I have pointed out, you simply cannot explain Venus surface temperatures (which would require radiation over 16,600W/m^2) with 20W/m^2 of solar radiation, even if you incorrectly add atmospheric radiation, because, with emissivity well below 1.00 and atmospheric temperature below that of the surface, there simply is not enough. Non radiative cooling losses would be several times the solar radiation, and atmospheric radiation could never exceed what would be required to explain a rise from about 732K to about 737K during 4 months on the sunlit side.
The radiative greenhouse conjecture is thus wrong because …
(1) You cannot explain surface temperatures with radiation reaching the surface
(2) So you cannot explain changes in surface temperatures with such radiation.
QED
There’s a AU $5,000 reward offered on my blog for the first to prove the “heat creep” hypothesis wrong. All submissions must be in the comment thread on that blog where I will reply. Read the blog and 2013 paper before commenting. Over 95,000 have visited my blog and websites, but not one has proved me wrong – so take your time and remain relevant, discussing entropy maximization for example. https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
This is my favorite one — Explain heat creep to the heat creep and allow yourself to be judged by him.
Let me be the judge for you and get your check ready.
Hi Jeff,
Dougy is now offering $50,000. His E-mail of 19th April 2017 began ” ..
Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There’s $50,000 if I’m wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because … ” (The remainder was more along the lines of his numerous blog rants about his 21st century paradigm shift) ..
For information about multitalented retired Australian businessman (photographer, medical and dental software developer, maths tutor, homeopathic health supplements salesman, life-extension consultant, evangelist, etc. etc. etc. – http://ozviews.homestead.com/sydbush.html) Douglas Jeffrey Cotton (AKA retiredphysicseducator and many many more false names) see the critical review of his booklet “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” and the subsequent comments at https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228 .
As I said there on 6th Feb. 2017 QUOTE: ..
For an idea of Doug Cotton’s many business ventures see:-
http://www.australianpracticesoftware.com/
http://www.medical-software-australia.com/about.html
http://www.acclaim-soft.com/
http://www.dental-software-australia.com/
http://www.newzealandviews.com/
http://www.oz-sms.com/
http://www.ozviews.com/
http://www.savedbythelamb.com/
http://www.slower-aging.com/
http://www.tasmania-holiday.com/
Doug makes some amazing claims, e.g. ” .. With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging .. ” (http://ageslowly.homestead.com).
Saved by the Doug, perhaps!!!!
Well, we all have to scrape a living somehow.
.. UNQUOTE.
Doug is not a scientist but he sure has tremendous energy!