Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is very precise and sensitive.
As an example of what that sensitivity can reveal about the climate system, consider Figure 1, which shows the upwelling (outgoing) longwave (LW) and reflected solar shortwave (SW), month by month, for 13 years (N=156). Since these are individual CERES datasets, their trends and values should be valid.
Figure 1. Upwelling longwave (shades of blue) and upwelling reflected shortwave (shades of red) for the globe as well as the two hemispheres separately. Cyclical seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, there are several very curious aspects to this figure. The first and most surprising issue is that the hemispheric values for shortwave, and also the hemispheric values for longwave, are nearly identical from hemisphere to hemisphere. Why should that be so? There is much more ocean in the southern hemisphere, for example. There is solid land at the South Pole rather than ocean. In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre. Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.
So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
The next thing of interest is the stability of the system. The trends in all six of the measurements are so tiny I’ve expressed them in W/m2 per century so that their small size can be appreciated … if the trends continue, in a century they may change by a watt or two. Note that despite the small spread of the measurements, none of the trends are significant.
The next thing of interest is that in addition to the values being similar in both hemispheres, the trends are also quite similar. All of the trends are very slightly negative.
Finally, despite the great difference in the size of the LW and SW signals (240 vs 100 W/m2, Figure 1), the size of the variations in the two signals are quite similar. Here is a boxplot of the three pairwise comparisons—the anomaly variations in global, and northern and southern hemisphere.
Figure 2. Boxplots of the variations in the longwave and reflected shortwave shown in Figure 1, for the globe (left panel), the northern hemisphere (center panel) and the southern hemisphere (right panel).
Since these are boxplots, we know that half of the data lies inside the colored boxes. This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.
Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.
Now, there certainly may be some other explanation for this amazing stability and symmetry of the climate despite the large differences in the geometry and composition of the two hemispheres. That’s my explanation. If you have a better one … bring it on.
Best regards to all,
w.
NOTE ON DATA AND CODE: I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code. I’ve put all the relevant functions into one file, called “CERES Functions.R”. That file of functions, plus the data, plus the code for this post, are all that are required to duplicate the figures above. I just checked, it’s all turnkey.
DATA: CERES 13 year (220 Mbytes, has all the CERES data in R format.)
FUNCTIONS: CERES Functions.R (Has all the functions used to analyze the data.)
CODE FOR THIS POST: Amazing Stability CERES (Has the code to create the figures and calculations used above.)
” I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code.”
Many thanks, I’m sure that will make it a lot easier to pick up the various things you do and contribute. (Despite the fact R is a dog to work with 😉 )
Figure 1 is truly frightening. Can we act in time?
A remarkable study.
The explanation s that there is a very stable set of control systems in the atmosphere which use CO2 as the working fluid thus reducing CO2-AGW to near zero.
The other issue is that the ‘forcing’, black body real surface energy flux and ‘back radiation’ ideas in Climate Alchemy are bad physics and must to be junked before the theory can advance.
Inferring a similar uncertainty on the incoming insolation measurement we see that TOA net flux must be +/-3 W/m^2. Or sqrt(3)=1.73 , if the errors can be assumed to be orthogonal.
The 0.85 is actually quite small in that context.
The interhemispheric difference in the Earth’s annually averaged surface temperature is only 1° – 2° C. It would be much higher if there was no meridional heat transport.
Willis wrote –
“Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.”
You really need sensible people who realize that half the planet receives solar radiation at all times and the degree of inclination determines how surface latitudes receive that radiation budget over an annual orbit or do actual imaging of this insight frighten you ? –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
Apply the same observation to the Earth as a matter of course –
http://victoriastaffordapsychicinvestigation.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/300px-axialtiltobliquity-celestial-equator-earth-has-tilted-its-axis-again-7-june-2012.png?w=600&h=465
Generally men come to terms with quantity comparisons and scales as they become adults so that they can work with topics such as climate in terms of planetary dynamics, unfortunately this hasn’t happened –
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/767871/thumbs/o-NASA-SUN-SOLAR-FLARE-900.jpg?12
These programmers have become a nuisance but they would become creative and productive were they to follow the proper principles. They are either naive or politically inept as nothing good ever comes from throwing good information after bad or disproving reckless assertions with more of the same so that all I see is an exercise in nitpicking voodoo that buries the wider population deeper into the same modeling mess.
Snap out of it for goodness sake – this issue is easy enough to resolve with decisiveness and simplicity.
I have to read more and post less.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
“Snap out of it”? You unpleasant little man, snap out of it yourself. Gerald, once again you come in to tell us we’re all a bunch of fools … but without telling us how your brilliant insights would make even the slightest bit of difference to me or anyone else.
So why are you here? Your claims have nothing to do with what I’ve written. You haven’t found a single thing wrong with what I said. But despite your having nothing to offer on this topic, just like on my last two threads, you continue to babble about how smart you are, but without ever answering the question …
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE?
I am sick of your endless meaningless mumbling about things which you think people are doing wrong, and your interminable claims about how you have the inside track on global wisdom. Tell me how your nonsense makes the slightest difference to what I wrote, and I’ll be interested. Show me where I’ve done something wrong, and I’ll be very interested.
But since you appear to be incapable of that, all you are doing is insisting that you have the god-given right to make a fool of yourself … which is true enough, you do have that right, but do you want to exercise it?
Up to you … but continuing to expose your content-free inanities so we can laugh at them doesn’t seem to be the best of plans.
w.
Thanks for the link Edim.
The importance of ITCZ is often over looked. Toggweiler has also noted 4.5 year periodic variation in atlantic ITCZ.
Since there are mechanisms which act to maintain stable degree.day integrals in the tropics a displacement of ITCZ and the magnitude of the heat transport to NH could induce a net heat input to climate system.
By applying Tisdale’s observation that the mechanisms of heat capture and a heat loss are non symmetric oscillations but two different processes, whatever induces these changes has a means to induce long term climate fluctuations.
Togweiler’s circa 4.5 years is half the lunar perigee. since tidal effects are generally of wavenumber=2 this raises the possibility that the observed 4.5 years is induced by lunar perigee variation.
this equilibrium does not exclude a warming of the lower troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere
Willis
I see all these websites where kids ask the most basic questions it is possible to ask – how long does it take the Earth to turn once and how many times does it take to turn in a year ?. Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !.
http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/How_many_times_does_the_earth_spin_around_a_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
You see,the answer is linked to the cause why temperatures rise and fall daily so that the only possible answer is to look at the orbital motion of the Earth over its 4 annual orbital cycles and then divide the 1461 rotations it takes to cover those circuits The external astronomical reference for this fact is straightforward enough,in this case,Sirius fixes the Earth’s position in space as it travels around the Sun and the extra day’s rotation known as the leap day moves the planet just far enough along its circuit to where Sirius is positioned just far enough to one side of the Sun to be seen. Of course, in ancient times the beginning and ending of a 4 year orbital cycle was not Feb 29th but on the day Sirius appeared for the first time.
Sometimes kids strike upon the issue and have more sense than adults or teachers who merely dig in their heels as you have done,the kids don’t have the proper principles in this rudderless environment even when common sense would dictate that all the effects within a 24 hour cycle correlate to one rotation of the planet –
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060822154250AAjckrq
So snap out of it and use your skills as a programmer to be creative and productive for a change,these are the most serious issues facing humanity and a result of the flaws,distortions and manipulations introduced by the original mathematical modelers.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:34 am
In other words, no, you can’t find a single damn thing wrong with what I wrote, but you don’t have the balls to admit that and shut up, so you are talking about a bunch of kids …
So go find the kids and enlighten them, Gerald, because here, you’re just a PITA.
w.
PS—After babbling for three threads and saying nothing, after not bringing a damn thing to the table and wasting all of our time with your meaningless, way-off-topic claims, you have the nerve to tell me to “be creative and productive for a change”?
Sorry, Gerald, I don’t take advice about creativity and productivity from a self-professed global expert like yourself, a man who (on this website at least) shows no sign of being either creative or productive. You have neither the history nor the standing to lecture anyone on creativity or productivity. If you do you know something about either one, you’ve never given the slightest sign of it. You want to get creative? Produce an answer to my question above.
Willis, could it be something to do with atmospheric pressure being the regulator?
Willis, Have you been back and had a closer look at the data ? You are right to be amazed at how little the difference is between NH and SH given their differences of topography. It just doesn’t seem right.
Your 2 reasons are of course valid but they do start my alarm bell ringing.
Gerard WTF are you on? That’s pure babbling.
Gees Gerald, that was a meaningless load of waffle.
Have you been at those funny mushrooms again ???
It seems you don’t have anywhere near Willis’s abilities, otherwise you would have fixed these mundane issues yourself. Time for you to do some learnin’ to catch up, it seems.
Willis wrote –
“In other words, no, you can’t find a single damn thing wrong with what I wrote, but you don’t have the balls to admit that and shut up, so you are talking about a bunch of kids …”
It is a basic human right that kids learn not only that the Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.In case your indoctrinated mind can’t handle this fact –
It is a basic human right that kids learn the proper principles which correlate the rotation of the planet with all the effects they wake up to each 24 hours.
People are too trapped inside a modeling labyrinth to remove themselves from a problem that started a few centuries ago when they asserted rotations and days fall out of step. I am letting you know that although my visit here is productive,I now know that you and this website is part of the problem and not the solution so good luck to you.
Willis, see Organized complexity in the climate system at Climate Etc.
“This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.”
Not so amazing if you consider what radiative gases are doing in our atmosphere. They cool the upper atmosphere by emitting to space energy equal to the net flux of radiative, conductive and latent heat into the atmosphere. They intercept outgoing surface IR and warm the lower atmosphere. They back radiate some IR having a limited effect over only 29% of the earth’s surface. But above all they play a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation.
You have previously described the formation of tropical clouds as “emergent phenomena”. Clouds give a visual reference for the movement of air masses. The breakaway of air masses from the surface boundary layer after dawn can also be viewed the same way. Radiative gases warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper atmosphere, adding more reduces the Rayleigh number for initiation of Rayleigh-Bernard circulation below the tropopause. Double CO2 from fictitious “pre industrial levels” and air mass breakaway may occur a few seconds sooner after dawn.
While the imbalance in the CERES data is large, incoming and outgoing radiation moving in lockstep tells a story. The atmosphere already has enough radiative gases to drive an effective vapour-condensate heat pump to space. Turn up the heat under boiling water and the water never exceeds 100C, convective circulation and evaporative cooling just speeds up. Tropospheric convective circulation is already at a speed that negates gas conduction, the adiabatic limit. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere simply speeds up tropospheric convective circulation. After the adiabatic limit has been exceeded the cooling effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is too small to measure.
“Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.”
Willis, if you would just do the experiment (incident LWIR on water that is free to evaporatively cool), you would realise just how powerful the cloud thermostat is. Kiehl was nowhere close.
I have to say I would be amazed if there was a balance of zero.
Plant life consumes energy, and the biosphere is growing.
Every movement of any tree or structure by wind causes changes within that tree or structure that are locked there for its life. The whole of Earth is constantly being eroded by energy changes, rocks crack, metals corrode. How much energy is dissipated in a large wave? Where does it go to?
No, here MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the Earth to function.
AndyG55
This is all well and good,when convictions become so narrow and people so wound up they rarely take the wider view even when the most basic planetary causes and effects are at stake.
Willis here cheerfully asserts something about the Earth’s orbit and temperatures while he can’t and won’t be drawn into the academic world which asserts that there are more rotations than 24 hour days across 4 orbital circuits.When you can’t discuss even the daily rises and falls in temperature due to our planet’s rotation you lose the ability to discuss anything meaningful.
Apologies for the poor proofreading,spelling and grammar but time to move on.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:58 am
In other words, no, you can’t find any problems with my work, but you are still babbling on about off-topic subjects.
In any case, there is no “basic human right” for kids to be taught the principles of celestial mechanics, that’s a sick joke. Millions of people have been very successful in this life without knowing any of that stuff.
I do love the way you try to impress us, though, by dressing up simple stuff as though it were complex. You can’t bear to say “directly under the sun”, or “when the sun is right overhead”. Instead, you proudly insist on calling it the intersection of the “line of the ecliptic” and the perpendicular to the “circle of illumination”.
And now, rather than say we get an extra leap day every four years, you say there is a “basic human right” that kids learn the “Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.”
Really? The problem is that kids don’t know that the earth turns once every 24 hours, and there’s a “basic human right” to know that there’s an extra day on leap year? Who knew?
Perhaps your visit here has been productive for you. I hope so.
But if you think it was productive for anyone but you, then you are deluding yourself badly.
Finally, if this website is “part of the problem”, then I encourage you to run, don’t walk, to a website that is part of the solution. Perhaps they will find something useful in what you have to say, and perhaps you can find someplace where people won’t just point and laugh when you unroll your scroll and start telling people just how wrong they are about the line of the ecliptic and the 1461 days.
Like I requested before … don’t go away mad.
Just go away.
w.
Energy, sun, going in and being absorbed by Earth and radiated back to space will eventually stabilize at one or another energy(temperature) level.
The question is also what is the average surface temp NH and SH. And how much solar energy are they holding in the Oceans and Land?
Gerald : “It is a basic human right that kids learn not only that the Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.”
Once every 24h , brilliant. How you think idea a the length of the day came about , by watching the appearance of Sirius ?
How did you get the value of 1461 rotations ( apart from starting with the answer you wanted and multiplying by 4) ?
Of course you won’t be able to answer that any more than you can answer anything else.
You know sometimes psychotropic drugs can be a great way to open the mind and free us from the mental shackles imposed by society but if one does too much it hospitals are full of acid casualties who are still out there skating around the astral plane.
“Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !”
They’re all crazy I tell you ! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Willis, don’t be so dismissive. Productive no, creative: you have to give him some credit there 😉
Not an expert here but an obvious assumption behind why the two hemispheres should be different is that there are no (near) instant flows across the Equator.
Is that true? Oceans streams cross the equator and carry different coloured surface, flora and fauna. Wind carries clouds. Even the Van Allen belts cross the Equator (not sure how that means anything).
Lots of things could smooth the effect of the difference between angle of the planet and proportion of surface which is land or ocean.
Willis: “Like I requested before … don’t go away mad.”
I fear it may be too him not to go away mad.
I repeat gerald..
“It seems you don’t have anywhere near Willis’s abilities, otherwise you would have fixed these mundane issues yourself. Time for you to do some learnin’ to catch up, it seems.”
OFF YOU GO !!!
Willis
The academic world is full of modelers like yourself who assign 1465 rotations in 1461 twenty four hour days or 4 extra phantom rotations –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA…..12..649B
This modeling cult has gotten the world into a whole heap of trouble and you want to model your way out of it but effectively it is a assertion labyrinth which buries humanity deeper in the nonsense.
It is not climate stability that is the issue but perhaps the stability of human reasoning in relation to the astronomical narrative which governs daily temperature rises and falls along with the seasonal components. When an assertion that attaches itself to the name of both Harvard and NASA comes up with an imbalance between rotations and days then that is the issue,not climate.
You may not be able to wake up to the fact that this day is another rotation of the Earth but you may now wake up each day to the fact that you and the other modelers are part of the problem fuels this race to the bottom.
Oh and Gerald, its not exactly 1461 rotations in 4 years either.
Off you go, some research for you to do.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:18 am
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:58 am
Oh, yeah, just a side note. The length of the apparent solar day is different every day following the “equation of time”. As a result, a sundial can be up to a quarter of an hour ahead or behind of the mean solar day.
In addition, that’s just the solar day. The sidereal day is shorter by 1/365.2425th of a day. This, of course, is the fraction of one day per year … which of course also means that in 4 annual circuits, it doesn’t make 1461 revolutions, it only makes 1460.97 revolutions.
Of course, out here in the real world, 99.999136% of the time, none of this makes any actual difference to any of us … but I just thought that since you have a basic human right to know these things, you might as well know that the human rights numbers you’re pushing so hard are … well … they’re wrong.
We don’t want to deceive the children, do we?
w.
And seriously,, WHAT have you been smoking..!!!!
I don’t want any of that , thanks !
Oh and Willis, let’s not forget the minor variations and the gradual slowing of the rotation.
These are of “GREAT IMPORT” in the scheme of things.. over the next 100 or years. 😉
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:30 am
I deny that allegation entirely and completely. Back it up with a quotation where I said there were 1465 rotations of the earth in four years.
You’re just making things up and putting them in my mouth. I will not stand for that. Either come up with the evidence that I said that, or retract your incorrect claim.
Or you could just continue your oafish ways and do neither one … your choice.
Be aware, however, that how you handle it when you have made a false accusation and someone calls you out on your BS and tells you to put up or shut up, well, that will reveal a lot about you as a man.
Your move …
w.
There is also a very slight wobble in the axis iirc.
Must model that because of the HUGE difference it will make.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
“Snap out of it for goodness sake”
—————————————————
Just put a sock in it for goodness sake!
Out of your depth on a wet pavement doesn’t cover it.
You are a complete waste of skin and you are breathing other peoples’ air!
When I am responsible for installing a 10m death mirror (thankfully spherical not parabolic) in a public area –
http://i41.tinypic.com/2hydstl.jpg
– I do a check of the projected solar concentration –
http://i40.tinypic.com/2n8a2s2.jpg
I do not bother with searching the web for an architectural sun plot program. I simply model the planet and sun in my CAD system and place the mirror at the correct latitude, tilt the planet, spin the planet, orbit it around the sun and compute the resulting focus pattern.
On the ground accuracy? Within 100mm.
There is nothing wrong with our understanding of the pattern of earth’s rotation, axis of inclination, or elliptical orbit.
The only thing wrong here is you. You are so far out of your depth the fish have lights on their noses!
Please go away.
Greg
Of course I have answered it. The orbital position of the Earth is fixed in space by the first appearance of Siirus after a disappearance of a few months and the number of rotations it takes to return the Earth to that orbital position.It is the only time you can use a background star and the foreground Sun to anchor timekeeping in dynamics.
Within that 1461 rotations to the central Sun, the noon cycles vary in length and were averaged out to 24 hours while keeping the value fixed to the noon Sun and cycle. The brilliance of the system is that through the Lat/Long system where the ‘average’ term gets transferred to ‘constant’ rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and 360 degrees in 24 hours.The idea being that ‘average’ and ‘constant’ serve the same purpose.
Of course the variations in length of the natural noon cycle are dependent on the two surface rotations to the central Sun each day where the orbital component of that rotation varies in accordance with the variations in the orbital speed of the planet.
Lately they tried to muddy the picture further by jettisoning the old ‘solar vs sidereal’ view for an equally stupid and distorted assertion which doesn’t even include the planet’s dynamics –
“At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours,” says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. “In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds.” NASA
A pale analogy is shifting ‘global warming’ to the intellectually suicidal ‘climate change’ to keep a corpse dancing.
The good news is that kids will not only learn how the timekeeping systems actually developed but where the system meshes and separates from planetary dynamics in order to explain why they wake up to another rotation each 24 hours. It has none of the pretension of modelers who have made a complete nuisances of themselves and fools of everyone else over the last few centuries.
AndyG55 says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:04 am
You ask “How much energy is dissipated in a large wave? Where does it go to?”.
The answer is, all of the mechanical and chemical and other forms of energy eventually end up as heat. Energy in a tree, for example, is locked in for the life of the tree … but when the tree dies, eventually it all goes back to heat. In the same way, while a raindrop is falling, it is trading potential energy for kinetic energy. But when it hits the ground, much of that energy is converted by turbulence into heat. This is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, which say that nothing is 100% efficient, there is always loss to heat.
Or as the old jingle has it:
As a result, if more energy is coming in than going out, the climate system will warm up.
Regards,
w.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:45 am
Yeah, those modelers back in 1780, using their steam-driven analog computers built of wrought iron, those nuisances made fools of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, and well, “everyone else” over the last few centuries …
I must say, though, it’s a pleasure watching you gerbilate as you lose the plot. You’re so cute when you are backing and filling …
w.
Willis Eschenbach: “Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.”
Although I’m inclined to believe those that such regulation occurs, there’s a step in your reasoning that I’m missing: I’m having trouble seeing how such regulation follows as a conclusion from the emissions data’s stability.
If surface temperature were slowly increasing because of increased CO2 and water vapor–and the temperature were not being regulated–wouldn’t the long-wave emissions from the top of the atmosphere (or at least the total radiation from there) stay the same anyway?
Willis
Just as modeling got this world into a lot of trouble there is no way to model your way out of it because modeling itself is the problem hence “academic world is full of modelers like yourself “.
The notion that daily rotation does not cause temperatures to rise and fall daily,after all,that is what the 1465 rotations in 1461 days amounts to is the only real problem and resolving it is actually an exciting ,productive and creative affair as ,among other things,people come to understand what defines global climate.
Want to see what a $17 billion dollar a year organization has to say about it –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
They have done in that statement what you have been doing,carelessly asserting something which are not backed up by basic facts.
As for ‘your move’,please don’t try to compete or stick with the hostility as I have heard it all before.It goes back to the old saying that academics are vicious because the stakes are so low and this issue is meant to appeal to those who wish a stable astronomical narrative in which to build climate research.
Actually slightly more energy must be going out than coming in, since geothermal heat is continuously being created by radioactivity. There may also be some residual heat from the early stage of planet formation, plus a little bit being liberated by tidal braking of the Earth’s rotation. In all about 0.1 wm-2.
Willis, The biosphere is expanding.
Energy must be being retained on the surface.
For the time being at least. And certainly over the period of these results.
Willis wrote –
“Yeah, those modelers back in 1780, using their steam-driven analog computers built of wrought iron, those nuisances made fools of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, and well, “everyone else” over the last few centuries ”
Only when it comes to astronomy and terrestrial sciences because when you assert something as mindnumbingly dumb as the belief that there are more rotations than days then you are doing something really wrong.
For centuries people have crumbled at the mere mention of the ‘theory of gravity’ without even knowing that Sir Isaac was building his agenda of connecting experimental sciences to planetary dynamics using the rotating celestial sphere framework which assigns the wrong number of rotations within an orbital period .By a mixture of voodoo and bluffing that not even his followers understand he conjured up modeling to an astronomical scale by distorting the greatest known astronomical insights and in this day and age it can be shown exactly that with imaging,graphics and what have you .
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun.” Newton
Newton and his followers have come as close as anyone to defying Lincoln’s adage about fooling all the people all the time and it all begins with those two basic questions – how long does it take the Earth to turn once and how many times in 4 years ?.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:49 am
AndyG55 is essentially right though – but it still all comes down to an ‘energy time lag’ effect. i.e. whatever changes there are INTO the system – these may take many years/decades/or more(?) to effect a change in the actual OUTPUT of the system due to the inherent adaptability and ‘storage capacity’ of the dynamic climate system and indeed the whole biosphere itself ?
Willis
BTW,the antecedent to modeling climate with computers was modeling planetary motions using watches and timekeeping averages so yes,modeling has been a problem since John Flamsteed first tried to model the daily rotation of the Earth by using the average 24 hour day and putting the great star Sirius in stellar circumpolar motion –
“Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-
… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…”
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Longitude2.html
You don’t see the problem and all the other things built on that catastrophe but I assure you I did as he may as well have concluded the Earth was flat.
Gerald…
I remember Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”…
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
“Snap out of it for goodness sake”
—————————————————
Just put a sock in it for goodness sake!
Out of your depth on a wet pavement doesn’t cover it.
You are a complete waste of skin and you are breathing other peoples air!
When I am responsible for installing a 10m death mirror (thankfully spherical not parabolic) in a public area –
http://i41.tinypic.com/2hydstl.jpg
– I do a check of the projected solar concentration –
http://i40.tinypic.com/2n8a2s2.jpg
I do not bother with searching the web for an architectural sun plot program. I simply model the planet and sun in my CAD system and place the mirror at the correct latitude, tilt the planet, spin the planet, orbit it around the sun and compute the resulting focus pattern.
On the ground accuracy? Within 100mm.
There is nothing wrong with our understanding of the pattern of earth’s rotation, axis of inclination, or elliptical orbit.
The only thing wrong here is you. You are so far out of your depth the fish have lights on their noses!
Please go away.
Willis,
You have found Gerald’s Petard and he has been neatly hoisted by it.
You said that “Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.”
This implies ,does it not, that although the “setpoints” are similar, the processes in the hemispheres are inconstant and variable which maintain the equilibrium ?
Thanks for the mental stimulation.
Quote all you like, when the most respected organization in the world can’t understand how the 24 hour average within the 1461 rotations of the Earth it takes to cover four orbital circumferences transfers to the Lat/Long system as 15 degrees of rotation an hour and once in 24 hours then all other concerns are secondary.
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
Like the opposition you have your wants and hates but what the people of the world do not have is a straightforward explanation for the development of timekeeping and where it meshes and separates from planetary dynamics.Without that you can forget climate or any of the other terrestrial sciences.
I notice there was no uproar at the NASA ‘fact’ and that says more than the hostility directed towards me.
Also Willis, erosion take a lot of energy, and the products of that erosion remain on the surface of the Earth. Not just the rock particles, but the chemicals.
Is all the work done converted back into energy.?
It takes massive amounts of energy to recreate those rocks.
SW out – declining by -1.0 W/m2 per century, a tiny amount but signalling either:
–> a decline in solar irradiance;
–> there is a trend from the impact of the solar cycles on this timeline or the fact the current high point of the solar cycle is 0.3 W/m2 below previous solar cycle peaks;
–> a decline in planetary Albedo, lower cloud or surface/ice or aerosols reflectance.
LW out, declining by -1.3 W/m2 per century signalling either:
–> planet is cooling off (at a trend of -0.24C per decade);
–> GHGs are doing their thing and slowing escape of LW versus the incoming solar (at the same trend of +0.24C per century or one might need to add in that less SW is also being reflected).
All in all, nothing alarming since these numbers are so small.
Can we have a WUWT reference page for anti-social blog activity? Concen trolling, irrelevant pedantry and personal abuse (disguised as “All of that poiitical persuasion are racist/sub-normal/inhuman), these are all common attacks on debate here.
But this thread is being disrupted by an “unusual” commenter.
He has not engaged with any of the points about relevance.
He has not provided any quote to back up his accusation against the original poster.
He is also talking gibberish.
This is new. I suspect an automated spambot designed to break the open censorship policies of WUWT.
But he may just be an idiot.
Konrad wrote –
“I do not bother with searching the web for an architectural sun plot program. I simply model the planet and sun in my CAD system and place the mirror at the correct latitude, tilt the planet, spin the planet, orbit it around the sun and compute the resulting focus pattern.”
You forget the second surface rotation to the central Sun which is a 100% observation certainty –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
All locations on Earth turns once to the central Sun aside from and in addition to daily rotation and this orbital feature is responsible for apparent variations in seasonal solar declination.You didn’t know that now did you ?.
I am comfortable with the insight and don’t particularly need to be hostile to those who won’t or can’t appreciate what those images dictate.
Whatever Gerald’s on, it would be perfect to be on, if one needed to clean the house.
Look,I admire this website for its moderation policies in what is supposed to be an antidote to the agenda of exceptionally poor convictions that passes itself off as ‘climate research’. The answer is not to create an even bigger modeling labyrinth and the modelers who create a sim planet but to raise the standard of climate studies above an exceptionally low level.
If people want to engage in a tree-house mentality then so be it,this is nothing new to me but mark well that the narrowing of convictions here often serve the opposite ends to which people aim at.
[Reply: It would be helpful if you woud respond to the specific points asked of you by Willis and others. ~ mod.]
Let me guess Gerald.. English is also your third language. !??
Gerald K:
I am a little surprised that you seem to be calling NASA “the most respected organisation in the world.”
Not in my book.
Or did I pick you up wrong?
It is no kindness to the mentally ill to allow them to expose their incoherence to the point of ridicule. Mr. Kelleher will undoubtedly feel triumphant and persecuted if you cut him off, but I expect not only will he not understand how he is wrong, he likely is incapable of correct reasoning in the first place. Can we have our thread back?
And of course NASA know nothing about space.
They are waiting for you to tell them how to launch the next satellite and where to put it and how to get the timing right.
Maybe you can help them put the next person on the moon or something.
You are all fine and it is nothing I haven’t seen or heard before as it moves along a predictable path. There are politics to this however it is really the technical and historical perspectives that interest me and readers do not want to look back in history and recognize errors inherited from other generations so as to move forward with the proper principles .
All men of integrity know how to turn hostile situations to their advantage and nothing goes to loss in an endeavor to be creative and productive. What football team goes out to stop the other team scoring when its aim should be to score a few goals itself and this is the conflict of interest here. If this website is designed to prove ‘global warming/climate change’ wrong then forget it as it is wasting time and doing more harm than good.
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
Gerald keeps harping on about this, but I don’t think at any time he has stated what is wrong with it.
Has anyone else worked out what he’s going on about?
Perhaps he needs to join the experts at “Princ*pia Sci*ntific Intern*tional” (obfuscated to avoid moderation), where I’m sure Do*g Cott*n would be pleased to discuss these issues.
“The academic world is full of modelers like yourself who assign 1465 rotations in 1461 twenty four hour days or 4 extra phantom rotations”
I’m with Harvard and NASA on that one. The sidereal rotation period is 23h56′ and there are ~366.25 of them in a year.
But on the raving loon’s other point I’m not so sure. Yes, the earth is at perihelion during the southern summer. But it’s also swinging by quicker.
Intuitively I’ll say that the angular velocity rises to the power of 1.5 but the solar radiation to the 2nd power. Any astronomers want to confirm my agreement with Will’s claim? (As off topic that minor point is, it has got me curious.)
lol.. You’re hilarious.
Got anything worthwhile to add about the actual thread topic ??
M Courtney: “But this thread is being disrupted by an “unusual” commenter.”
All those , including myself and Willis, who have replied to his inane comments are equally guilty, as are those discussing it without replying directly.
The internet if full of crap, the only way not to have threads dominated by crap is to ignore when it occurs, You will not stop it happening, just don’t feed it.
Gerald got a fair hearing when he first popped up with this idea and it got thoroughly discussed and dismissed a rubbish. End of storey . If we don’t want threads to be polluted by this sort of thing just ignore it. Totally.
For me the most relevant and interesting post here was from Edim
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/on-the-stability-and-symmetry-of-the-climate-system/#comment-1527516
As the atmosphere circulates from the poles to the equator the energy being received by the Earth gets mixed because air flowing away from the poles gets warmer due to increasing radiation and air flowing away from the equator gets colder due to decreased radiation.
23 hours 56 min and 4.1 sec. That’s why we have an extra day every fourth year
Willis asks:
To rescue the thread here are a list of attempts to answer so far:
• Greg Goodman says at January 7, 2014 at 12:07 am Questioning measurement error
• Edim and Greg Goodman January 7, 2014 at 1:11 am argue the mechanisms of heat capture and a heat loss are not symmetric oscillations but two different processes and that heat transport and… beyond me but it seems that transport along a meridian must occur
• AndyG55 says at January 7, 2014 at 1:46 am could it be something to do with atmospheric pressure being the regulator? (let’s be open-minded)
• Stephen Richards says at January 7, 2014 at 1:46 am basically, the two hemisphere data is so close that he is getting red flags about its believability.
• Konrad says at January 7, 2014 at 2:01 am “The atmosphere already has enough radiative gases to drive an effective vapour-condensate heat pump to space. Turn up the heat under boiling water and the water never exceeds 100C, convective circulation and evaporative cooling just speeds up. Tropospheric convective circulation is already at a speed that negates gas conduction, the adiabatic limit. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere simply speeds up tropospheric convective circulation. After the adiabatic limit has been exceeded the cooling effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is too small to measure.” Which I think is agreeing with Willis.
• AndyG55 says at January 7, 2014 at 2:04 am The biosphere is increasing so energy must be net entering the system
• Santa Baby says at January 7, 2014 at 2:19 am “The question is also what is the average surface temp NH and SH. And how much solar energy are they holding in the Oceans and Land?” Which appears to be questioning the measurements.
• I ask at January 7, 2014 at 2:23 am Are we sure we are right to expect the hemispheres to be independent
• Joe Born asks at January 7, 2014 at 3:02 am “wouldn’t the long-wave emissions from the top of the atmosphere (or at least the total radiation from there) stay the same anyway?”
• tty says at January 7, 2014 at 3:09 am Energy must be net leaving the atmosphere as geothermal energy is also going in.
• Kev-in-Uk says at January 7, 2014 at 3:21 am That this related to time-lags in the inputs and outputs
• AndyG55 at January 7, 2014 at 3:43 am also points out that energy is absorbed in inorganic geological processes.
Apologies if I misunderstood. I’m just trying to be pro-active in countering the disruption.
Gerald K:
I don’t believe you are a Troll in the usual sense, ie dedicated to causing havoc and derailing the conversation. However, I am having great difficulty following your arguments here. What I suspect is that you have spent a great deal of time thinking about these things, entirely on your own and without the benefit of constructive criticism. I think that Willis’s work triggered a response from you which is frankly baffling to the rest of us here, since it necessarily telescopes your thought processes into far too short a comment. There’s lots missing here which can only result in bafflement of the audience. Not to mention the tone, which doesn’t help.
I would recommend you work on developing your substantial thesis and find a way of publishing it, then elicit comments from folks who might be interested and have the expertise to review it. I don’t really think this forum is the right site for that primary interaction – does anyone else have any (constructive) ideas where Gerald might put out his stuff?
Stuart B
How are day/nighttime variations handled in CERES data / measurements?
What is the orbit of satellite carrying CERES instrument?
Willis – I don’t understand why these lines are so straight! There is a flat-line in global temperature these past 10 years or more, but that includes a major excursion downward by 0.5 C (2008) and upward by almost the same amount (2010) each over a period of a year or more from peak to trough. Since the only reasonable explanation for such swings relates to changes in cloud cover and either loss of LW or reflectance of SW for the cooling, and clearing clouds reducing reflectance for the warming, then how come this variability is absent from the data set – surely these swings would not be removed by taking out the seasonal variation? What am I missing here?
And have you come across the NASA GISS FD series of data…..they show the fluxes for Top of Atmosphere, Surface and mid-Troposphere for both LW and SW radiation…and that data shows variability with the solar cycle, and a major imbalance of about 4 watts/square metre at the surface through the decades 1980-2000…….presumed due to lower cloud cover (other data (ISCCP)showing a 4% decline of low level cloud during these decades); then that imbalance changed around 2001, with cloud cover returning by 2% and interestingly, global surface T then flatlining (the major dip in 2008 not with standing). When Hansen was boos of GISS, he publicly stated that the FD series was not reliable – but many people working on that data base thought they had a good handle on the areas of spurious reading and on what could be regarded as a good signal. I am not sure how the CERES data relates to that earlier data.
I think Gerald is a visitor from TimeCube.com, here to fill our eyes with a bunch of irrelevant crap.
There are some people who aren’t aware of the distinction between sidereal day and solar day, but I suspect that those people aren’t frequenters of this blog.
But here’s something shiny to investigate: iers.org
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 4:20 am
No Gerald, I still have no idea what your babbling means. Sounds that we don’t learn from the past? That would be wrong here because we offer many past events and opinions from which we hypophysis our solutions and opinions.
You really must try harder to put your thoughts into a more coherent and cogent argument. If you cannot please refrain from bombing the thread until you can.
There seems to be an echo in here – is that possible?
And how does CERES handle the measurement of SW day/nighttime region, where the reflected SW might be very difficult to measure? That region easily causes significant error in reflected SW measurements.
It’s like I’m stuck inside David Icke’s head.
Willis, is it possible the bulk of the transmission, reflection and absorbtion all take place in the atmosphere and don’t depend on the Earths oceans or land?
ok Willis, not a scientist
but I’ll bite
If you expect two things to be different but they are the same, maybe the expectation is flawed
If you expect two things to be different but they are the same something that they have in common is making them the same(probably)
rotation, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric composition, atmosheric layers, interference, back pressure
this accounting malarky seems to me to be counting ‘things’, like tennis balls coming in and different sized tennis balls leaving. are they really ‘things’
anyways, back to my day job
Wow–what Willis is talking about has no relationship to the number of days in 4 year, Gerald. Or in 20.
After a while, averages tend to diminish the denominator.
Time to move on.
(I just wonder how Warmistas can claim it’s all “settled science”; Willis has certainly exposed a number of unsettling aspects of climate in his recent posts. Very provocative!)
Willis says:
Shouldn’t be too hard. All anybody has to do is solve the equations of motion of two nonlinear fluid systems coupled on a rotating sphere and subject to differential heating, turbulent mixing, random phase changes, low frequency inputs on unknown time scales and radiative transfer processes across the spectrum. I keep hearing that this is “simple physics”.
Willis
You rightly observe that the difference between the two hemispheres is enormous and they undergo significant seasonal changes.
What about a similar hemispheral plot (month by month for 13 years) showing CO2 and humidity/water vapour?
To put all of this in perspective, surely one needs to consider, at the same time, the changes in the main GHG components since the cAGW theory rests upon these as driving energy imbalance and thence temperature change.
it seems to me that forgetting the fudging (which leads to 0.85 w per sq m warming), the take home from your two posts is that there is either something significantly wrong with the data (its measurement), or, if the data is correct, the energy imbalance is nothing more than a signal incapable of performing real work in the real environ in which it finds itself.
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
[…]
I notice there was no uproar at the NASA ‘fact’ and that says more than the hostility directed towards me.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Why would there be an uproar at a statement which is patently true?
If the earth was orbiting the sun but [i]not[/i] rotating on its own axis then there would be one “day” each year because, as it orbited the sun, every part of the earth would face the big gas ball at some point.
If the earth was rotating on its own axis but [i]not[/i] orbiting the sun then there would be one day for each rotation.
Because it is doing both, each full orbit will involve either one more, or one less, day than the rotations create on their own depending on which direction the rotation is in relation to the orbit.
In the case of the Earth, the result is that an observer on the surface will see the sun rise and set 365 times (that’s 365 “days”, ignoring the 1/4) during one orbit even though the Earth has turned 366 times on its axis in the same time.
I can only surmise that Gerald has an unusual variation of OCD. Keep that in mind when responding. However, his comments did get me thinking a little about the characteristics of the CERES orbit. I’m sure it is documented somewhere but I’m not sure where. However, it must be taken into consideration when the data itself is collected/computed. I’m sure it has been looked at many times given the huge error problem, but it certainly could induce errors bigger than what Willis has been able to find in the year to year changes. Just thinking out loud …
Following up on the biosphere changes, keep in mind that not all of the energy is turned to heat when plants die. The reason we have fossil fuels today is that some of that energy persists as the mass of dead plants/animals gets buried. I’m sure the number is quite small but since we’re dealing with small numbers here, it could be a higher percentage than one might think.
I see all these websites where kids ask the most basic questions it is possible to ask – how long does it take the Earth to turn once and how many times does it take to turn in a year ?. Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !.
Now you’re just being silly. Sidereal vs synodal decomposition is covered in college level astronomy texts and websites, partly because it is actually geometrically a very difficult concept. Furthermore, I agree with Willis that your snotty tone does not usefully contribute to any discussion, especially when you erect straw men such as this to bash vigorously (as for the life of me, I can’t see why this is relevant to climate science). The orbital variation Willis describes, however, is relevant and continues to be a puzzle to me, all the more so now that Willis has pointed out the remarkable NH/SH symmetry. That is beyond puzzling. The difference between NH and SH TOA insolation is profound — around 91 W/m^2. The NH surface albedo and SH surface albedo cannot possibly be the same as they have very disproportionate land vs sea surface areas. The temperature itself countervaries with the TOA insolation. Yet the upwelling shortwave radiation is the same withing a W/m^2?
I would have said that this is just plain impossible. It would require a massive coincidence of orbital shape and surface albedo to accomplish as a passive match. I think Willis is quite correct that it must be a dynamical process, and the only one available that I can think of offhand is cloud variation. But how do the SH clouds + surface know how to match the NH clouds + surface? That’s an interesting one, given the lags and slow transport between hemispheres…
rgb
Is it possible to see the same charts, but for each season without smoothing?
Andy G55 at 2.04am says
‘There MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the earth to function’
I am just catching up with this thread and despite Willis’s courteous and thoughtful response to the above, I think that Andy has penned the most important line that I have read in the two years since, as a layman, I started taking an interest in global warming.
Please develop your argument further Andy – it is a concept that is too important to be allowed to to lie fallow.
RGB:
Perhaps the magnetic field is important. It constrains energetic particles across the hemispheres. And energetic particles are generated in storms.
Hypothesis (or guesswork)
An increase in clouds leads to a release of highly charged particles (storms).
Some are fired by the magnetic field towards the poles.
These provide nuclei for cloud formation at symmetrical latitudes on the far side of the equator.
‘There MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the earth to function’
Old-un, it is the flow of energy that allows the earth to function – there is no requirement for any accumulation of energy, and since it cannot be transformed into anything else (laws of conservation, etc, ignoring nuclear transformations for now) then energy in must equal energy out (again, ignoring internally generated energy from nuclear activity within the Earth).
So while I think Andy G55 is correct in that in the short term (a few 100 million years or so) energy can be accumulated or lost, long term it must balance. And I suspect that in the short term, the fluxes pretty much cancel out (i.e. plant growth today closely matches plant decomposition from recent history).
Ok, so the question that hasn’t been asked of Gerald is:
What does your opinion of the planetary rotational error you express have to do with climate modeling? You have failed to show any connection? Do you have one? How can Willis, or anyone for that matter, take into account that which you have yet to explain is the issue by not accounting for what you have espoused as a problem???
Please, enlighten those of us who evidently do not have the grey matter that you posses!
Very interesting illustration of how measured data does not support modeled cAGW theory. I think outgoing LW anomaly would be increasing over the period examined if CO2 concentration had anything to contribute to the Earth’s energy budget. Others such as Joe Born on Jan 7, 2013 @ 3:02am seem to say that GHG radiation can only be unidirectional: it increases heating of the surface/ocean while being incapable of increasing atmospheric radiation to space. Can that be right?
The proof of this theorem is left as an exercise for the student.
Haven’t you guys caught on? Gerald is a bot!
Thanks Willis. Good questions.
Why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
Are they the same?
I’ll keep tuned to your inquire.
If a tree falls in the forest can anyone measure the IR it releases?
I also think it’s important to have in mind that upwelling IR and reflected solar come mostly from the atmosphere and clouds – NOT from the the surface. According to annually averaged Earth’s energy budgets, like this one:
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/components2.gif
IR_________Reflected Solar, (atmosphere+clouds/surface)
91%/9%_____87%/13%
Gerald Kelleher says:
Gerald, the difference between sidereal and solar rotation rates is not of significant importance for the energy balance on Earth. The exposure to Solar radiation and internal energy of the Earth are the only (average) sources of net input energy to the surface and atmosphere of Earth. Thus the fact that Earth rotates ~1/4 rotation more per year for sidereal vs solar would not have an effect on energy balance. The interaction does not care where the star field is, only the Sun.
“Thus the fact that Earth rotates ~1/4 rotation more per year for sidereal vs solar”
Wow – Leonard got it wrong – perhaps Gerald has a point? (Leonard, you missed one sidereal day per year).
Edim says at January 7, 2014 at 7:22 am
So it is either a measurement error or we should look at how clouds are connected across the globe.
Sounds simple enough.
“So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?”
Longwave is easy. The longwave passes through a medium called the atmosphere. That longwave is reflected back to the surface, absorbed and scattered. Over time of course it all eventually exits the atmosphere at the ERL. the effective radiating level. Above the ERL there is a control knob a governor if you like. This control knob is well mixed, that is, it is fairly uniform: this control knob is called CO2. As that C02 increases the ERL moves up to a higher colder height. When the ERL is raised, the system loses energy less rapidly as fundamental physics says it must. This results in a surface that is generally warmer ( but not uniformly warmer). So at the surface you will find patches that warm more and patches that warm less. Some of the excess energy can be stored in the great capacitor we call the ocean. But at the control surface, the ERL, re radiation to space is more uniform. You can even see this if you look at spatial variation of temperature as a function of height. Look at the temperature variation at the surface (LST) now look at 2 meters, then look at 30, the TLT, etc.
Next, you have to understand how CERES produces data.
have you read the the ATBDs?
In short, you’re looking at processed data. Until you read through all the documents and understand how a voltage at the sensor is turned into a data point, you really don’t understand what you are looking at. The assumptions, the smoothings, the corrections. It is more than a weekends effort. more than a year.
Here is an example
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/r2_2/ceres-atbd2.2-s4.6.2.pdf
Here is another example
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/r2_2/ceres-atbd2.2-s4.5.pdf
Finally, if you want to use this data you have tacitly endorsed all the physics used to derive it.
At the sensor all you have is a voltage. That voltage becomes data ( say a flux ) by applying physics. laws. When you use the data, you accept the laws. So, for intellectual consistency you need to understand those laws and make sure that they don’t conflict with other views you hold.
In short, before you attempt to use any data from a satillite you need to read the ATBDs.
You’ll be amazed at the amount of climate science physics you have to accept to use the data. You’ll also be amazed at how many end products depend on multiple data sources to compute the final data. So, for example, CERES products might depend on modis products or VIRS.. and then you need to go look at those ATBDs
The full list is here for CERES
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/atbd.php
There are only two ways that the mass of an atmosphere can transfer energy, namely, radiation and conduction.
In order to maintain radiative balance between surface and space the total combined effect of radiation and conduction must be stabilised at a level determined by the need to match energy out with energy in at any given level of insolation from outside the system.
Convection is the process whereby the system corrects itself if there is too much or too little of either radiation or conduction.
Everything flows from that.
Convection (utilising the gas laws) is the global thermostat and it achieves its effect by speeding up or slowing down to ensure that precisely the right amount of thermal (kinetic) energy is delivered to the effective radiating height in the atmosphere wherever that height might be at any given moment.
The phase changes of water, especially evaporation, act as a lubricant for the process because water vapour is lighter than air which makes it easier for convection to do its job.
Convection is not difficult in itself but its complex behaviour within the system certainly is.
steveta_uk says:
January 7, 2014 at 7:05 am
I’m not sure I can fully agree. Firstly, the explosive ‘growth’ – literally speaking – of certain flora and fauna can ‘capture’ or bind up large sums of energy. I dunno, perhaps think tropical rainforest, algal blooms, or in geological terms, perhaps the massive beds of cretaceous chalk beds or carboniferous limestone and coal beds? Again, in geological terms (multi-mya +) the biospheric energy ‘system’ may be considered in balance ‘at the time’ – but clearly, the changes from one geological era to another could have been vastly significant – so why should there be a net balance over billions of years?
As a geologist, it seems entirely logical to consider that past geological changes (plate tectonics, eruptions, etc) could and would have caused significant energy ‘shifts’ or imbalances, and therafter, associated climatic changes – think of landmass changes within the hemispheres, for example. It does not really seem likely that it would work well the other way round without very large incoming/outgoing radiation changes? Given that even the very recent ice-ages have still not really been adequately explained AFAIK, it is hard to conceive of a dynamic system that isn’t inherently variable and ‘somehow’ adjusts itself, if we make the reasonable assumption that solar (incoming) energy is essentially fixed over that timescale?
So..Earth has”thermostats” .Some call for heating, some for cooling.Each becomes more effective when the energy level goes farther from the “setpoint” .
The thermostats do not care which “room” (hemisphere) they are located in .They just go to work.
And they do a good job.
As does Mr. Willis E. Thank you, sir, have a great day!
Me thinks Gerald is just a troll, probably a paid troll and not a very good one at that. Perhaps some AGW group thought that this particular post was just too important to leave alone. What they need is for the entire comment thread being overrun with paid troll inanities. Now back to the topic at hand. It certainly seems very impressive to me that LW and SW has been that stable for the period that CERES shows it to be. That certainly looks to me like CO2 levels have close to zero effect on global radiation budget for the last 12 years. Is that a wrong conclusion to make?
Joe Born says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:02 am
Thanks, Joe, always good to hear from you. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Both the stability and the symmetry are a result of the thermoregulation. If there were no regulation, the LW and SW would wander up and down, and would be different in the two hemispheres because of the huge physical differences between the NHem and the SHem. Instead, they are both stable and equal in the two hemispheres.
As I said, if you have a different explanation, I’m all ears.
w.
Stephen Wilde, Conduction is for heat transfer in solids. What about convection (for gases), flow (for fluids)?
Oops! Ought to have read your whole post.
Doesn’t high precision with low accuracy mean you’re wrong all the time? You’re saying they can put all three darts right next to each other every time, just not where they were aiming.
Now, there certainly may be some other explanation for this amazing stability and symmetry of the climate despite the large differences in the geometry and composition of the two hemispheres. That’s my explanation. If you have a better one … bring it on.
Willis, I don’t have the answer, but here are some thoughts that may prove useful.
1. More and more it appears that the Earth’s climate system is a closed loop system.
2. Your articles on the climate engine show the possibility of gain or amplification in the system. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs about 17% of the Sun’s energy coming to the Earth. The specific heat of the atmosphere is about 200 times the specific heat of the Earth’s surface and heats and cools more easily that the Earth’s surface. This means that the atmosphere which is driven by temperature differences is the working fluid.
3. Overall temperature changes appear to change in increments and stabilize for periods of time.
4. When you have a closed loop system, you have a control input, gain blocks and a feedback loop. The control input goes into a summing junction, is amplified and the output is fed back through the feedback loop. What is important about this system is that it responds to the control input. Other inputs or disturbances that enter the system after the summing junction are reduced in effect by the amount of system gain that occurs ahead of the point that the disturbance entered the system.
5. I don’t know how you identify the control input or the summing junction; but if you can, I think that you can start putting relative importance on changes that occur in the system.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:16 am
Gerald, you lied about me above. I called you out on it, and asked you to put up or shut up—either provide some kind of proof for your claims about me, or retract them.
It appears you do not have the balls to do either one. Instead, you’ve come up with a new lie. the idea that somewhere I said that there are “more rotations than days”.
Again, I deny your scurrilous claim entirely. As far as I know, I didn’t say anything about there being more rotations than days. And once again, I say put up or shut up.
EITHER PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR FALSE CLAIMS, OR STAND CONVICTED OF BEING A HILARIOUSLY CHILDISH LYING SACK OF PORCINE EXCREMENT!
Is that clear enough for you, you libelous scumbag?
w.
Kev-in-Uk says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:21 am
I have no clue what you are referring to, and little interest in finding out. QUOTE PEOPLES WORDS that you are agreeing or disagreeing with, I have neither the time nor the interest to play “find the idea Kev is talking about.”
w.
The main question is, “is there a treand in the outgoing LWR”?
Next, “does it correlate with GHG concentrations”?
The next question, addressing feedbacks, “is there a trend in outgoing SW”?
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:40 am
Dear heavens, is that what you are on about? Above, you accused me of saying that … now it’s NASA?
In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.
To understand it, imagine if the earth always kept the same face to the sun. In a year, it would experience zero days—it would never go from dark to light and back to dark again.
But it would still make one full rotation on its axis each time it went around the sun … net result? One more rotation per year than there are days, duh.
So not only are you an intrusive, unpleasant pest.
You are also 100% wrong, and NASA is right, on the question of days and rotations.
w.
AndyG55 says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:43 am
Eventually, yep. Wind pushes the sand up higher on the beach, storing potential energy. Erosion brings the sand down to the water level again, releasing that energy. But in both directions, part of the energy goes up as heat. Yes, some of it can go into storage, even long-term storage. But eventually, it all comes back out and is converted to heat. Recall that no energy is created when the sand is moved from low to high. We’ve just transformed the energy, and changed some into heat..
Again I say, if you think that the work is NOT converted back to heat and radiated to space … where is it? If there has been even a 5 watt imbalance over the last half-million years, that’s enough energy to blast the planet to smithereens … where is it?
w.
Joe wrote in regards to the NASA sponsored ‘fact’ –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
Why would there be an uproar at a statement which is patently true?”
Thank you for reminding everyone that when that ‘fact’ expands out to 1465 rotations in 1461 days you have already lost the cause and effect between daily rotation and temperature rises and falls.
No pointing in repeating the full explanation once more which involves the sighting of Sirius to define orbital position over a 4 year/1461 rotational period or the neat trick of converting the 24 hour ‘average’ day into ‘constant’ rotation through 360 degrees through the Lat/Long system. This system has a nobility to it that the mob mentality generally can’t get to grips with and I am certainly not going to chase modelers and shove it down their throats.
When a website built around planetary temperature differences 24 hour/7 days can’t come to a decisive conclusion that yes,there are 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits as the anchor and the only way to answer the question as to how many rotations there are in a year along with the association with normal temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period then so well and good but I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a website. It is nothing personal,just historical and technical competence.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 4:20 am
Gerald, you have demonstrated that you are far from being a “man of integrity”.
If you were, you would answer my questions, you would not post your claims about what I’ve said without evidence, and you would retract your statements when they are shown to be false. That’s what men of integrity do.
Now, I’m happy for you to start doing any and all of those … but instead, you seem to be doubling down on dumb.
Your choice, like I said, if you want people to point and laugh I can’t stop you, and you’re doing a fine job of it.
Finally, you say that people calling you a liar and a man without honor is “nothing you haven’t seen or heard before” … why am I not surprised in the slightest that other people think you are a dishonorable jerkwagon?
w.
Ross McKitrick says:
January 7, 2014 at 5:49 am
Thanks, Ross. Made my morning … ruined my keyboard.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 9:04 am
AndyG55 is essentially reminding us that there is a finite ‘space’ around the world, technically its called the biosphere, yes? This contains a physical ‘amount’ of energy bound up in all its weird shapes and forms, including you and I. It includes both organic and inorganic energy forms, wind, waves, OHC, biomass, clathrates, airflows, flora and fauna, blah blah, etc, yes? If this zone (the bisosphere) is changing, either growing or shrinking in its ‘net’ energy content – this must have come from the IN/OUT energy budget somewhere, yes?
I am merely further elaborating that no-one can know what this dynamic system is doing in an overall context within the measured IN/OUT energy budget that you describe as miraculously stable, such that any time lags within said dynamic system will be highly likely to mask any small changes in the IN/OUT system, such that you will achieve the stable results as observed. For heavens sake, even a small OHC change takes many decades and hence could (and in my opinion probably is) provide an overall smoothing to the measurements being taken. In short, given the sheer size of the dynamic system (the biosphere), and the energy variation within that system, it seems highly unlikely to actually be able to measure any significant change over anything other than multi-millenial timescales.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 9:26 am
“…jerkwagon.”
_________________
I’m using that.
Willis
“In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.”
I suppose when you can’t match the day/night cycle within a 24 hour period with one rotation of the planet and why temperature rise and fall daily at your location you have problems bigger than I can handle. As a self-declared navigator may I direct you the principles of another man who had to stand out on his own against the academics in explaining part of the huge human achievement that ties the 24 hour cycle to planetary rotation and geometry via the Lat./Long system.
Be my guest and commit intellectual suicide to go along with celestial sphere modeling because the guys in the late 17th century were not careful enough in their assertions or conclusions.A star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes of an average 24 hour day within the 365/365/365/366 day framework making its absolutely and totally useless for modeling the daily and orbital dynamics of the planet.
“The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the following principles: the earth’s surface is divided into 360 equal parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of those degrees;) and it must follow, that from the time any one of those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment what o’clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is clearly discovered.” John Harrison
They even made a tv series based on the conflict with academics who just don’t seem to get it –
Take some consolation that you have a mob behind you but that is about all.
Gerald, you’re a f-ing idiot.
The clip you’ve just posted has no “conflict with academics” in it – it is purely a commercial negotiation. Jeeze.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
“You really need sensible people who realize that half the planet receives solar radiation at all times and the degree of inclination determines how surface latitudes receive that radiation budget over an annual orbit…”
Gerald, if you think this is a contribution here, or even on a terribly homes and gardens web site, you’re a long way from home. I guess that the effect an elliptical orbit has on the “radiation budgets” of this tilted planet is a little abstract for you.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
No Gerald. It frightens YOU. The Earth changes velocity as it travels from aphelion to perihelion and back again. As a result, one hemisphere spends longer in the sunshine than the other. Willis knows that. Why don’t you?
I notice that you base your immense and infallible knowledge on a psychic website, and two sites you claim to be “academic” are wiki and wikipedia. You’re not fooling anybody around here, so why not go and torment some demons in hell.
@Steven Mosher January 7, 2014 at 8:18 am
Steven, you seem very knowledgeable regarding CERES. Could you please provide links to why there is a 0.85 W/m2 adjustment, and why there is a 5 W/m2 imbalance in unadjusted data (provided that either of these is true). Thank you.
The people promoting the nonsense of human control over global climate don’t really worry as they control the education system and when you can control the flow of information you can almost rewrite history which most of you are trying doing right now. Dig in your heels if you so wish but from experience,forums never really recover from the shock of a society that won’t promote the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours nor understand the principles of 1461 rotations across 4 orbital circuits.
Turns out that now only is there a technical deficiency but also a historical one. Btw,Harrison was the first to create a set of Equation of Time tables to take into account Feb 29th which converts the variations in a natural noon cycle into a 24 hour average which in turns transfers into ‘constant’ rotation via the Lat/Long system.
“Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,erroneous – tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:” Harrison
” But indeed, had I continued under the hands of the rude commissioners, this completion, or great accomplishment, neither , nor could, ever have been obtained; but however, providence otherwise ordered the matter, and I can now boldly say, that if the provision for the heat and cold could properly be in the balance itself, as it is in the pendulum, the watch [or my longitude time-
keeper] would then perform to a few seconds in a year, yea, to such perfection now are imaginary impossibilities conquered; so the priests at Cambridge and Oxford, &c. may cease their pursuit in the affair,and as otherwise then to occupy their time.” John Harrison
Willis: Hoo-boy! What a thread! My first question after reading the post would have been: What do the sensors see? Are they looking straight down only? Or do they always read the full angle subtended by the Earth at the satellite’s altitude? If the latter, then are the sensors uniform in output across their field-of-view? After reading Mosh’s comment, I’d like to know how the sensor signal is converted to the final units.
Gerald: Those nice young men at your door in suits and ties were recommending LDS. Got it? L…D…S.
Edim, MAK: Good points.
Ross: Very funny! I’ll get right on it. Right after I read Mosh’s NASA ATBDs. They look like loads of fun. Seriously.
@Slacko: Sorry, both you and Gerald are wrong. Both hemispheres get an equal time of sunlight, but more of Southern Hemisphere sunlight (during the Southern summer) when the Earth is closer to the Sun. It is not a question of a longer time; it is a question of a higher intensity.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 9:24 am
“I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a website.”
Gerald, this is an absolutely brilliant insight. I recommend that you fully implement this insight and immediately all association with the website in question.
“Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:16 am
The people promoting the nonsense of human control over global climate don’t really worry as they control the education system and when you can control the flow of information you can almost rewrite history which most of you are trying doing right now.”
———————————————————————–
I’m even more confused at Jerry’s rantings.
Since most of us at WUWT are conservative leaning libertarian thinkers and would agree it’s nonsense of human control over global climate and would also agree the educational system is indoctrinating the children by trying to control the flow of information you can almost rewrite history.
What I don’t get still is the part about which most of you are trying doing right now.. What’s his beef with Willis’ science and WUWT?
Was he responding to an article at SkS or something at 350.org?
cn
Willis wrote –
“In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.”
Again,forums generally don’t survive when one of the principle contributors can’t begin with the normal experience that waking up each day he is also waking up to all the effects of one rotation coincident with a 24 hour period. and for a website so concerned about temperature fluctuations to promote a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance is not really concerned about climate or anything else.
Really sorry about the poor proofreading but the description of technical issues are more or less accurate in how the average 24 hour day transfers to constant rotation via the Lat/Long system,how the second surface rotation to the central Sun combines with daily rotation at lower latitudes to explain the seasons and variations in the noon cycles and other good stuff.
patrioticduo says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:54 am
Stephen Wilde, Conduction is for heat transfer in solids. What about convection (for gases), flow (for fluids)?
Convection in a gas isn’t a heat or energy transfer mechanism. It simply relocates energy and in the process It changes kinetic energy to potential energy on the ascent and the opposite on the descent.
A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
To get energy from one molecule to another it has to be via contact or near contact as in conduction, or across an empty space via radiation. Conduction occurs between a solid surface and the mass of any overlying gases.
Mr. Kelleher,
Your ramblings are the ramblings of a disturbed mind. You speak in gibberish, or tongues. Even if what you said were accurate, how would anyone know? Get some help.
“Since most of us at WUWT are conservative leaning libertarian thinkers”
speak for yourself. There is no left / right in a scientific debate.
Those who regard it as a party political issue are probably not arguing the science whichever view they take.
S Wilde: Convection in a gas isn’t a heat or energy transfer mechanism. It simply relocates energy and in the process It changes kinetic energy to potential energy on the ascent and the opposite on the descent.
A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
===
And why should this energy decide to “relocate”.
As always, systems do this in order to end up in a lower energy state. So it is not an energy neutral “relocation” as you suggest.
I agree that it very curious that both SW and LW are almost identical in north and south. It is so curios that it makes me suspicious of error, so if you have the patience for a perhaps silly question Wills; I looked into the code and just wonder what this code do:
Do you get the data for just the latitudes 0.5 North and 0.5 South, or do you get the data for all the hemispheres?
When a website built around planetary temperature differences 24 hour/7 days can’t come to a decisive conclusion that yes,there are 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits as the anchor and the only way to answer the question as to how many rotations there are in a year along with the association with normal temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period then so well and good but I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a website. It is nothing personal,just historical and technical competence.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or its relevance to anything being discussed here. Are you simply being a troll or do you have some point you are trying to make? If you don’t want to be “associated” with WUWT (and that’s the website you are referring to) then last time I looked association was voluntary and please go away. If you are worried that WUWT readers aren’t aware of sidereal vs synodic day definitions (as if this is somehow relevant to climate science) you could be right in some cases, but the simple fix is to post a link like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodic_day
and encourage individuals who are puzzled to click through and read the related page on the sidereal day, while noting carefully that the conclusion on this page, that the “day” cannot be properly related to the rising and setting of any celestrial body per se, is the best way to view things. At this point a “day” is 86400 times 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, period. We can define the period of the Earth’s absolute rotation in space in terms of this second, and we can similarly define the period of the Earth’s absolute revolution around the sun in terms of this second, recognizing that neither one will precisely be a constant because the Earth is not a perfectly rigid mass orbiting another pointlike mass in the absence of all other masses. None of which has anything meaningful to do with climate as far as I know.
If you have some connection you wish to make between somebody or other’s ignorance of technicalities in the definitions of things like “a day” or “a year” and the actual topic being discussed, please state them clearly. If you are simply bemoaning general ignorance in the world, perhaps you could start a thread devoted to that purpose. I encounter plenty of that every day and will likely not participate in an online whine about it, but perhaps someone will.
rgb
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 9:24 am
Joe wrote in regards to the NASA sponsored ‘fact’ –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
Why would there be an uproar at a statement which is patently true?”
————————————————————————————
Thank you for reminding everyone that when that ‘fact’ expands out to 1465 rotations in 1461 days you have already lost the cause and effect between daily rotation and temperature rises and falls.
______________________________________________________________
What?????
Sun comes up, it gets warmer. Sun goes down, it gets cooler again. Sun comes up, that’s one day finished – which is not exactly one rotation of the Earth on its axis.
If we’re considering astronomy, that difference can matter. If we’re considering when the sun heats the planet it doesn’t.
Now the tricky bit (may be a little advanced for you)…..
This thread is [b]NOT[/b] considering astronomy.
A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
Talk about pure oxymorons.
rgb
Joe wrote –
“What?????
Sun comes up, it gets warmer. Sun goes down, it gets cooler again. Sun comes up, that’s one day finished – which is not exactly one rotation of the Earth on its axis.”
You mustn’t have gotten the memo that the Sun doesn’t do anything -the Earth does !.
Look, I value the brilliant and intricate feature which converts the average 24 hour day into constant rotation via the Lat/.Long system and the 1461 days/rotations that fit inside an orbital circumference with the great star Sirius as the original astronomical marker for the Earth’s position in space.
Sorry,I can’t take this website seriously so good luck to you all and I mean that.
AndyG55 raises an interesting point about the influence of the biosphere on climate. The biosphere is capable of storing energy ( coal, gas, oil, timber). All jolly useful for provding heat during winters, polar vorticies, and ice ages etc..
It would be ironic if Trenberths missing heat was due to a flourishing forest in Yamal.
P.s. Dear Teacher Gail Coombs,
unable to provide a proof as this requires the full solution of the Navier-Stokes equations which have not yet been acheived ( to my knowledge)
rgbatduke says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:59 am
A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
Talk about pure oxymorons.
rgb
——————————————————————————————————-
The farce is strong with this one, Duke
(with sincere apologies to Mr Lucas)
Gerald Kelleher says:
“Sorry,I can’t take this website seriously…”
Gerald, you’re giving up? So far I’ve stayed out of this debate. But…
Your choice is to either:
a) Go to another site, which will completely agree with you, or
b) Go to an alarmist blog, which will censor what you write
Here, you get arguments. What’s wrong with that? You have made some good points. Even better, you have remained polite in the face of adversity. There’s a lot to be said for that.
If you believe what you write, then I would advise you to hang in there. Quitting isn’t a good option.
What I would advise is to answer specific points raised by others. Otherwise, you tend to be talking past them. Debate the specific issues. That way, maybe we can all learn something.
rgbI suppose when you can’t match the day/night cycle within a 24 hour period with one rotation of the planet and why temperature rise and fall daily at your location you have problems bigger than I can handle. As a self-declared navigator may I direct you the principles of another man who had to stand out on his own against the academics in explaining part of the huge human achievement that ties the 24 hour cycle to planetary rotation and geometry via the Lat./Long system.
Gerald, why are you stuck in the 17th or 18th century? I find this as irritating as the PSI claim that the work of Arrhenius or Fourier is still relevant to the question of whether or not there is a GHE. There is absolutely nothing you are saying that is not perfectly well understood and taught in any high-school or better astronomy class. There is an entire governmental organization devoted to standards (NIST). Time has never, ever, been more precisely measured — my watch (with its built in radio) keeps time within milliseconds at all times; my phone ditto, my cable box ditto, my computer shaves that to considerably less than a millisecond, and if I cared do, I could use the orbital GPS signal to track time to a few tens or hundreds of nanoseconds, without even investing in a personal atomic clock. Kids today don’t even remember what it was once like to be lucky to know the exact time to within a few minutes — only household electromechanical clocks are that inaccurate these days.
I reiterate — instead of continuing some sort of personal vendetta against Willis, which serves no useful purpose, why not take it for granted that we all do understand the difference between synodical and sidereal time and that we do not see any particularly good reason to care because you have not shown us one. If you wish to assert that GCM’s, for example, use synodic time instead of sidereal and hence make a systematic error, please defend that assertion by referencing the lines in the code or the documentation for the code that make the error. I’m perfectly happy to believe you, even — it seems like the kind of error that could easily be made — but I have no particularly good reason to think that it actually is being made, and even if it is made in one GCM there is no reason think it is being made in them all (or that it would have any meaningful effect over a span of 20-30 years if it is being made in any of them).
In the meantime, could you please stop flogging this dead, straw horse? He isn’t going to go any faster because, you see, a) he’s not living; b) he’s made of straw.
If you disagree, please show some actual connection. Don’t just repeat yourself. Otherwise I’m going to think you are a demon sent from PSI hell to torment us with non-sequitors until we run screaming from the room.
rgb
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:08 am
Joe wrote –
“What?????
Sun comes up, it gets warmer. Sun goes down, it gets cooler again. Sun comes up, that’s one day finished – which is not exactly one rotation of the Earth on its axis.”
———————————————————————-
You mustn’t have gotten the memo that the Sun doesn’t do anything -the Earth does !.
_________________________________________________________________________
That’s not only entirely facetious, it’s also scientifically wrong on at least two counts.
First: Since you’re determined to involve the “fixed stars”, the sun does an awful lot because it’s far from fixed.
Second: The convention that the earth moves round the sun rather than the other way round is nothing but a mathematical convenience. It’s entirely possible to define the entire universe with the earth as it’s stationary centre. It’s just that the equations get a little more complex that way.
Given your donkey-like insistence on denying other perfectly accepted (and useful) conventions you have no right whatsoever to rely on the one that says “the earth moves round the sun”.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:52 am
Good question, Jan. The answer is in the file called “CERES Functions.R” linked to in the head post. The “getmonths” function takes a 3-d array and two latitude/longitude points as arguments, and returns the monthly area-weighted averages of the region enclosed by the lat/long points.
getmonths=function(x, lat1 = 89.5, lat2 = -89.5, long1 = -179.5, long2 = 179.5){ themask=makemask(lat1,lat2,long1,long2) #make the mask maskarr=array(rep(themask,dim(x)[3]),c(180,360,dim(x)[3])) #convert it to an array ts(apply(x*maskarr,3,getweightedmean),start=c(2000,3),frequency=12) # return answers as time series ("ts") }The function defines a mask using the lat1, lat2, long1, and long2 input variables. Note that these input variables are assigned default values which they will take if they are not specified. These default values cover the total surface, so if nothing is specified, that’s what we get. The mask contains the value “NA” for any unwanted areas, so it gets left out of the calculation.
Now, if I call “getmonths(toa_lw_all, lat2 = .5)”, the specification of lat2 as being half a degree north latitude, in combination with the default values of the other three location variables (lat1, long1 and long2), means that the mask only includes the northern hemisphere. As a result, that call returns the monthly averages, but only for the northern hemisphere.
Note that my “getmonths” function calls two other functions I wrote, “makemask” and “getweightedmean”. See the file for details.
All the best,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:49 am
AndyG55 says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:04 am
“I have to say I would be amazed if there was a balance of zero.”
Willis, in the long run, you are correct – hey we’re now burning carboniferous age coal that had been trees and bogs, releasing this sequestered sun’s paleo-energy. But, as I understand it, we are apparently in a period of regreening and speeded up tree-growth. This has to require surplus, stay-behind energy over and above the incoming – (SW + LW) accounting of Ceres. This would be true simply because the data is short term. Whether the magnitude of the measured difference is comparable to this “use” is another question. Probably someone has an reasonable estimate of this.
Gerald, quite early on, perhaps not early enough, you said “Apologies for the poor proofreading,spelling and grammar but time to move on”. What a pity it is that you didn’t.
patrioticduo says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:50 am
“It certainly seems very impressive to me that LW and SW has been that stable for the period that CERES shows it to be. That certainly looks to me like CO2 levels have close to zero effect on global radiation budget for the last 12 years. ”
No real answers to Willis’s question, but isn’t this a reasonable conclusion?
Willis:
Your very fine observations call for serious discussion which has sadly been inhibited by a troll.
I write with serious intent to help you get the thread back on-track although I recognise that what I am about to say is likely to make you ‘blow your top’.
As he often does, in this thread Robert Brown has made an excellent post. His contribution at January 7, 2014 at 6:42 am concludes saying
I could not agree more.
And the issue certainly is “how do the SH clouds + surface know how to match the NH clouds + surface?”
Unless, of course, the hemispheres behaviours don’t match to each other but each matches to something else.
I hesitate to make the obvious point I am now about to make, but I think it cannot reasonably be ignored.
There would be no puzzle if the Jelbring Hypothesis (JH) were true.
I dispute the JH and I know you reject it completely. I am not introducing the JH to cause trouble: I think it is necessary to admit that a logical rejection of the pertinence of the JH is needed in the context of your observation.
For the benefit of those who don’t know, the Jelbring Hypothesis says the surface temperature of a planet with significant atmosphere is fixed by its gravity and the density of its atmosphere. According to this idea, all radiative, conductive and convective effects of an atmosphere adjust to provide the planet’s surface temperature such that the proportion of GHGs in the atmosphere is not relevant. This is a link to his original paper
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
Clearly, some variation of the JH would explain your surprising observation. Hence, I think it important to introduce this possibility although I think the JH is unlikely and I know you think is impossible.
Personally, I think your observation demonstrates error in LW and/or SW measurement method(s). But the possibility of some kind of JH effect should not be ignored.
Sorry, if this post ‘angers your blood’ but it is seriously intended to be helpful.
Richard
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:29 am
Gerald:
Take your extra day and celebrate your birthday twice/year. maybe you’ll eventually grow up.
To Ross’ comment that it is not simple physics, I will add that it is not simple statistics either. If you have a regulated output variable, trying to correlate input variables with it just leaves it to Willis to find out how the system really works.
“rgbatduke says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:59 am
A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
Talk about pure oxymorons.”
A flow in a fluid moves energy one from one location to another but does not transfer energy from one molecule to another.
I was referring to an energy transfer mechanism as one which moves energy from one unit of mass to another.
There was no oxymoron.
Without any objection,a website dedicated to global temperatures and their causes seen this memorable explanation –
“Sun comes up, it gets warmer. Sun goes down, it gets cooler again. Sun comes up, that’s one day finished – which is not exactly one rotation of the Earth on its axis.”
Funny,funny,funny !.
I personally consider this phenomenon a hostility towards the fact that one day/night cycle and one rotation keep in step with one 24 hour day through a clear mistake at a definite moment in history (late 17th century) and suddenly there is this 1465 rotations/1461 days imbalance.
It is not an insult,it is a fact that it is impossible to take people who are hostile to basic facts seriously and God knows there was enough time to get familiar with the original principles where Sirius acts as an orbital marker for the Earth and the number of days/rotations coincident with the Earth’s return to the same orbital position as that star is seen just far enough to one side of the Sun to be seen due to the orbital motion of the Earth. I have to go to one of those off-color websites to get the image –
http://danmary.org/tiki/show_image.php?id=30
Trust me,websites don’t recover from the trauma of being found in possession of a hideous ‘fact’ like the one which tries to mess with the principles of a 24 hour day and the rotation of the planet.Despite the riff-raff not seeing the point or some other vapid excuse or insult ,people do actually know something is really wrong.
“The first motion, named nuchthemeron by the Greeks, as I said (I, 4), is the rotation which is the characteristic of a day plus a night. This turns around the earth’s aids from west to east, just as the universe is deemed to be carried in the opposite direction.”Copernicus De Revolutionibus.
“A flow in a fluid isn’t an energy transfer mechanism. It just relocates existing energy.
===
And why should this energy decide to “relocate”.
As always, systems do this in order to end up in a lower energy state. So it is not an energy neutral “relocation” as you suggest.”
It isn’t the flow that transfers energy from one molecule to another. That transfer from one unit of mass to another is achieved by radiation or conduction. Individual molecules within a flow can gain or lose energy via work done with or against gravity but that is not an energy transfer process between molecules.
Gary Pearse says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:23 am
While you are correct about the mechanisms being slow, and about energy going into and out of storage, the numbers are small compared with the total flows. For example, there are twenty petawatts or so just being continuously transported from the tropics to the poles.
Rough numbers? Global biomass is estimated at 560 billion tonnes of carbon. Lets suppose that greening increases that by 5%, call it 30e+9 tonnes of carbon. Carbon has about 33 megajoules per kg, that’s about 1e+21 joules. Let’s triple it for good measure, we’ll say 3e+21 joules is stored in increased greenery. Now, lets assume that the greening has been going on for fifty years or so … that gives us an energy storage of 5e+18 joules per month over that time. Might be more, let’s double it, call it 1e+19 joules per month.
Now consider that the planet receives about 0.7 * 340 ≈ 240 watts/m2 continuously from the sun. This is about 30e+22 joules per month … and the monthly storage in greenery is 1e+19 joules, about three-thousandths of one percent (0.003%) of the energy coming in.
Good question, right idea, trivially small changes.
w.
Again , I’ll bring up the idea that the mechanism that balances the system is the atmospheric pressure. That, and the tendency of all things to want to equilibriate throughout the system.
The atmosphere is always striving to get that nice equal pressure/temperature gradient, but the rotation of the Earth, and the different energy transfer rates over sea and land does not allow it to ever reach that stage.
It would be ironic if Trenberths missing heat was due to a flourishing forest in Yamal.
Take a square meter of ground with an average power from insolation of 250 Watts. There are 3 x 10^7 seconds in a year, or 750 x 10^7 = 7.5 x 10^9 Joules incident on this square meter over a year. Wood has an energy density of roughly 5000 kW-hour/m^3 = 18 x 10^9 Joules/m^3. So 100% conversion would yield roughly 1/2 a cubic meter of net new-growth hardwood per square meter of the Earth’s surface. To rebalance the radiation imbalance would require roughly a millimeter of NET growth of hardwood-density biomass per square meter of surface.
I think it is unlikely that the Earth produces anything like this. Deciduous growth and cropland and grassland make basically no net contribution — the leaves, grass, crops produced are constantly being eaten or otherwise decaying and are turned back into bioenergy (and thence to heat). Lots of commercial timberland has the same problem — sure, you grow a tree for 20 years but then you cut it down and burn it, or use it to make furniture — all of which simply lags the time until its energy store is released. Actual forests probably do have a small net cooling effect (vegatative ground cover has a number of net cooling effects, this is one of them)
but probably not enough to account for the missing heat. Note well that much of the Earth’s surface area is near-desert or desert scrub or icepack or mountaintop and doesn’t contribute anything like a millimeter a year. Note well that the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
Which leads us to the more interesting question — what is the energy conversion rate of sunlight into long term biological energy stores in the ocean? In the warmer surface waters an entire ecology is supported by sunlight, lives, dies, and sifts down to the depths as a constant biological “rain”. How much bioenergy is deposited, unconsumed, on the sea bottom per square meter per year? I do not know the answer to that question. I don’t even have a particularly good way to visualize or estimate it. 1 mm/year/m^2 of land surface is pretty easy and I can relate it to things like an estimated increase in the mass of a tree per year, but how many unconsumed algae or plankton die and fall to the deep ocean floor per square meter per year? My guess is “not nearly enough” but surely there is empirical evidence.
rgb
Paul Marko says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:24 am
Good question, Paul. The problem is the short span of the CERES data. The expected change in forcing from changes in CO2 is on the order of a doubling (3.7 W/m2) by the end of the century. This works out to 0.04 W/m2 per year, or a variation of half a W/m2 over the period of record. This is at the lower end of detectability in the CERES data … but let me mull that question over. Might be some way to winkle that one out of the data.
w.
This is like climate by way of Simcity –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_(2013_video_game)
Pity the wider population don’t realize that a con became a game.
And let’s think about erosion of rocks.
Rocks are formed within the Earth under immense pressure. This is not a solar effect.
Once these rocks are lifted and exposed, (also not a solar effect) basic physic says that it must take the same amount of energy to break them down and return them to there starting point.
A considerable amount of this work IS done by solar energy.
(If there’s typos, sorry, having eye issues at the moment)
It’s not often I read a thread and learn things on two different topics at the same time. I can’t contribute to the CERES data discussion, but I can comment on the other topic
It had never occurred to me previously that there’s a difference between a day and a rotation, but the links Gerald previous provided explained it quite well. So thank you!
Not that it’s particularly relevant to my life, but I’ve always been keen to make sure terms used in a discussion are clearly defined, because I’ve seen too many arguments that have come down to two people using two different definitions for the same term. This is another such case.
The quote above makes that clear. The term “rotation” used by NASA refers to a sidereal day. That is, the amount of rotation required to have a ‘fixed star’ return to its same position in the sky. The term “day” is common used to refer to a solar day. That is the amount of rotation required to have the sun return to its same position (ignoring altitude) in the sky.
Because of the movement of the Earth in its orbit, these two similar terms are not synonymous, though casual usage will result in people using the two interchangeably. This appears to be the problem in this discussion because in the context of what Gerald has been saying, the two terms can not be used interchangeably.
Gerald’s point appears to be that it is the ‘daily rotation’ which impacts on temperature rises and falls. I would say that, assuming that ‘daily rotation’ means a day, then this is correct. It is the rise and fall of the sun (as viewed from a fixed point on the Earth) that is the primary driver of temperature fluctuations on a daily basis.
However, as defined above, ‘rotation’ is not the same as ‘daily rotation’ because the reference points (fixed stars vs the sun) are different. I would personally say that ‘rotations’ have no significance when it comes to climate science, while ‘days’ (or ‘daily rotations’) do. The 1465 rotations that Gerald mentions are irrelevant to climate science — it’s the 1461 days in the same period of time that matters because they’re based on a reference point that is significant to climate science: the Sun.
The major field of science where ‘rotations’ are important would be astronomy. For almost every other field of science, unless there is an astronomical component, they would not be relevant and it would be ‘days’ that matter (if that is significant at all).
So, I’ve learned something from this secondary discussion. I’m not sure I’ll ever find a use for this new knowledge, but it’s still nice to know.
rgbatduke says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
But, do we not know that number?
The center of the Atlantic Ridge is a “rain depth” = 0.0 depth at time = today.this_year.
By the time that new seafloor has reached the edge and been consumed (Pacific side) into a trench, or built up( Atlantic side) to a known depth of mud of the continental shelf, is not almost all that biological “mud” a stored sunlight energy record? Now, you get some Mississippi mud and Amazon mud on top of the ocean biologics and carbonates, but aren’t those also predictable?
Re: Gerald Kelleher,
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
Clearly, some variation of the JH would explain your surprising observation. Hence, I think it important to introduce this possibility although I think the JH is unlikely and I know you think is impossible.
I completely disagree, Richard.
Look, the only things that affect the upwelling SW radiation are:
a) TOA insolation
b) Albedo
c) Absorption.
One can get all fancy and talk about one layer or multilayer models, but basically sunlight comes in (dominantly SW) and is net reflected off of the system or is absorbed. Absorbed sunlight comes off as upwelling LW. I don’t even care WHERE the sunlight is reflected — it could be off of the surface of the Earth, off of clouds, off of ice. Most of the upwelling SW radiation is from reflection, most of the upwelling LW radiation is from heat absorbed from the SW radiation.
Jelbring’s hypothesis, in addition to not explaining about a zillion things, violating various laws of thermodynamics, and being directly falsified by planetary observations (all of which I’ve worked through in detail on other threads) would explain at most uniformity in upwelling LW radiation, but that’s not the point I made. It is the symmetry in upwelling SW radiation that is surprising, and that has nothing to do with the temperature.
The problem here is that it gives me a headache to try to even estimate what the cause is — especially for seasonally adjusted data. Is the seasonal adjustment one that forces the two to be equal? It easily could be. In that case it isn’t any surprise that everything is equal, the equality is due to the internal normalization applied to the dataset. One would have to look at the unadjusted data, which one has to hope to hell shows more upwelling SW radiation in the SH summer than there is in the NH summer, but presumably has less upwelling SW radiaiton in the SH winter than there is in the NH winter and figure out why/how the averages work out to be so close to the same. This has to be factored into the fact that GAST supposedly countervaries with the orbit — warmest in NH summer (aphelion) and coolest in SH summer (perihelion). If upwelling SW radiation is the same, how can one possibly explain this?
This is what models are “for” — to allow one to compute the actual integrals over the five or ten relevant variables for even the simplest toy models. But it is too difficult for me to solve in my head.
rgb
Graeme W
The funny thing is that recently they jettisoned the ‘solar vs sidereal’ junk for an equally dumb and non cyclical reference –
“At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours,” says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. “In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds.” NASA
They did this for a specific reason that will emerge next year when they try,once again,to promote the idea that their erroneous ‘leap second’ junk tied to a rotating celestial sphere conclusion for daily rotation correlates to a rotating Earth.
Not a single sign of responsibility in any subject and pertaining to any insight that creates both the calendar system,the timekeeping averages of the 24 hour day and the Lat/Long system out the great planetary cycles.
These people ‘learning’ the solar vs sidereal junk just as the jokers in the empirical community have junked it already so they can rewrite history once more.
A flow in a fluid moves energy one from one location to another but does not transfer energy from one molecule to another.
I was referring to an energy transfer mechanism as one which moves energy from one unit of mass to another.
But, since the fluid molecules are uniformly displaced as they move around in convection, transferring energy from one place to another is indistinguishable from transferring it between molecules. Suppose we start with a liter of warm air near the ground that convects up to the ceiling. It is replaced by a liter of cooler air from the ceiling that is convected to the ground. At which point, since in statistical mechanics the molecules don’t have any particular labels, we have accomplished exactly the same final state as one we might have achieved by transferring the mass between molecules.
Which is nearly beside the point. The real point being that energy transfer is always relocating existing energy, is it not? So that when you state in any context that it is not, it is, in fact, an oxymoronic (self-contradictory) statement. Convection transfers existing energy (say) between two reservoirs. So does conduction. So does radiation. In general all three are active at the same time — convecting air mixes and conducts heat to the air it mixes with, and the whole air mass warms or cools due to radiation as well. All three are important on the same timescales for various parts of atmospheric dynamics. Latent heat transport as an add-on to convection matters as well.
rgb
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am …
Vague and yet obscure, with areas of dense fog.
Gerald Kelleher,
You would do well to look at your ‘NASA fact’ until you understand it, for it is not in error. Here are some more facts you evidently have not considered, or else misunderstand completely.
1) The Earth rotates approximately 361 degrees (not 360) in 24 hours.
2) The time interval from noon to noon still averages 24 hrs.
3) The Earth is not flat.
4) The Earth orbits the sun in 365.2422 days.
5) Your fixation on Uranus is irrelevant.
6) Our present understanding is not founded on voodoo.
7) Daily temperature fluctuations are not tied to sidereal time.
8) The notion that a complete orbit counts as a rotation is not “mindnumbingly dumb.”
9) Nobody is saying that 366 rotations drags us out of step with the solar day (except you).
Steven Moshersays: “Longwave is easy…Over time of course it all eventually exits the atmosphere at the ERL. the effective radiating level. As that C02 increases the ERL moves up to a higher colder height. When the ERL is raised, the system loses energy less rapidly as fundamental physics says it must.”
Easy? Is the ERL independent of a wavelength? CO2 may be distributed uniformly in the atmosphere (are you sure it does not freeze out high enough), but I would expect H2O vapor concentration to vary steeply in freezing conditions. Why is the higher atmosphere colder? Do you actually compute its temperature? I guess we are taking some extreme simplifications here. Nothing against it, but it does not look like an easy fundamental physics.
Slacko
There is no such thing as 361 degrees,it is a notion designed by people who can and will create any assertion to serve a purpose or conclusion and particularly mathematical modelers.
There is only the 1461 rotations that fit inside 4 orbital circumferences of the Earth and the 24 hour average is created out of the observed variations for each noon cycle. The aaverage is then transferred to ‘constant’ rotation via the Lat/Long system.
There is no room whatsoever for any deviation from the fixed reference that created the necessity of the extra day/rotation known as the leap day which relies solely on the first appearance of Sirius to one side of the central Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth.
Let Willis account for supporting the notion that over the next 1461 days the temperature at his location will not react to the 1461 rotations which cause the temperature to rise and fall if he wants his 1465 rotations for the same period. That is where your ‘fact’ leads to and it is devoid of common sense,responsibility,intelligence and all those things which make us uniquely human.
The change of time from an astronomical definition to an atomic one is for a good reason. Science and technology requires standardized units. Since the length of day is not constant, it can’t be used for fine-level scientific work. A definition of time that is constant was required. This also impacts on technology, where real-time computer systems need to be able generate events at specific times. This requires a definition of time down to very fine levels, and it is at those fine levels that the problems of the inconsistencies from an astronomical definition arise.
For casual use, this doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter for climate science, either, as a general rule because climate science works with events that have a very coarse time-frame.
So the matter you’re talking about, while interesting and relevant in certain fields, is not something that impacts on climate science.
As I said in my original posts, it gets back to definitions. For casual use, people can use a definition of a day that means one apparent rotation of the sun in the sky, and divide that into 24 hours, and similarly divide the planet into latitudes and longitudes. For fine level scientific work, a more formal and precise definition of time is required that varies slightly from the astronomical one. The astronomical definitions are unworkable for certain fields of science and technology. It’s as simple as that.
All that is necessary to achieve the observed symmetry between the hemispheres is for the configuration of the convective circulation to be slightly different in each hemisphere.
Slight variations in the sizes, positions and intensities of the main convective cells are all that is needed.
Whenever the mix of conduction and radiation becomes out of line with the radiative balance between Earth and space the convective circulation changes to provide an equal and opposite thermal response.
Since there are restrictions in the free flow of energy between hemispheres I would expect the circulation response to be slightly different in each hemisphere.
The fact of symmetry is evidence in support of such a proposition.
They did this for a specific reason that will emerge next year when they try,once again,to promote the idea that their erroneous ‘leap second’ junk tied to a rotating celestial sphere conclusion for daily rotation correlates to a rotating Earth.
Gee, do you get the feeling that you keep pursuing the same non-sequitor, over and over again?
There is no grand conspiracy here. There isn’t a physicist in the world who does not understand precisely what a second is. There isn’t an astrophysicist in the world who does not understand precisely what all of these ideas are well enough to teach them in their sleep. Outside of that, nobody cares! Nobody seriously cares about leap seconds, leap years, and so on. Those are introduced in order to maintain an adequate correspondence between the calendar year, the human synodical day, and the standard second.
Please get it through your head — the second itself is the invariant standard here. I could care less about precisely how many seconds there are in a single inertial-frame rotation of the physical Earth, and whether or not this is the same as the number of seconds in the time the Sun takes to go from its maximum elevation above the horizon on one day to the maximum on the next, or the number of seconds it takes for a given fixed star to cross a meridian. In general, all three are not constants which is why physicists do not use them as the basis for clocks anymore.
That’s why they aren’t pretty numbers. A mean sidereal day, at 23 h 56 m 4.0916 s is not the same as a solar day, and due to nutation, is not constant. An actual solar day varies over an interval of almost 50 seconds over the course of a year, and a mean solar day or synodic day is derived from averaging over many such varying cycles and at this point is superceded by the standard day, 86400 seconds. The number of days in a year is 365.242199, which is not precisely 365.25 and for that matter the length of a year is not constant as orbital tidal resonances constantly speed the Earth up or slow it down a bit in its moderately eccentric orbit.
One can look up all of these numbers, they are clearly explained in any number of textbooks, nobody uses them stupidly in real science (that I know of) — NASA doesn’t compute orbits using days of any sort, they use the standard second (duh!). Obviously. Climate models use standard seconds and days AFAICT, but this is irrelevant as long as the axial inclination and eccentricity are computed using the same standard clock (as I’m fairly sure they are). Indeed, it would be dumb to use sidereal days because they don’t have the correct meridional modulus to describe the daily cycle of insolation.
So one last time — could you PLEASE provide SOME reason to have brought this entire topic up in this discission in the first place or drop it? Seriously. This is stupid. Nobody cares. Even the people that might have cared — who didn’t know about synodic vs sidereal time at the beginning, for example — no longer care. Now they know far more than they ever wanted or likely needed to, and none of it matters to anything at all they are likely to have to calculate. Those of us who might have to calculate something where it does, we know how. So LEAVE IT.
rgb
Willis, I think you’re moving in the right direction. I suspect that the reason the hemispheres are so uniform is because the atmosphere is the primary radiator, not the surface. I would suggest that the primary method of heat transfer from the surface to the TOA is convection, especially the movement of water vapor.
rgbatduke:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 7, 2014 at 12:19 pm.
Obviously, I was not clear. This probably resulted from my hesitancy to mention the Jelbring Hypothesis when what I was saying clearly relates to his notions.
The important point I was trying to make was – as my important points usually are – near the start of my comment. I quoted you, then I wrote
[n.b. bolding as in the original: RSC]
That was my real point: i.e.
the ‘coincidence’ could be that the hemispheres’ behaviours don’t match to each other but each matches to something else.
If that possibility is true then there has to be some effect which over-rides all the differences between the hemispheres.
But the only such effect published in the literature of which I know is the Jelbring Hypothesis (JH) and – as I said – I was aware of the likely response to any mention of the JH. My concern at this induced me to follow my statement (which I quote above) by overstating the matter and saying
Clearly, at that point I should have said
There would be no puzzle if something like the Jelbring Hypothesis (JH) were true.
You dispute what I did – mistakenly – say and I agree your dispute.
Importantly, I am grateful that your quote of me did not stress my error but quoted my saying
[emphasis added: RSC]
That “some variation of the JH” would be some kind of overall adjustment of the radiative, conductive and convective behaviours in the atmosphere in response to something else (Jelbring asserts the “something else” to be gravity and atmospheric density). Jelbring says such adjustment determines surface temperature. Whether or not he is right about temperatures: the possibility exists that such adjustment may modify radiative fluxes.
Indeed, you say (and I agree)
But it does have to do with clouds which form in response (among other things) to temperature.
And you continue
Again, I agree. Indeed, your saying
“The problem here is that it gives me a headache to try to even estimate what the cause is — especially for seasonally adjusted data. Is the seasonal adjustment one that forces the two to be equal? It easily could be. In that case it isn’t any surprise that everything is equal, the equality is due to the internal normalization applied to the dataset.”
Could be understood to be agreement with my having said to Willis
And I stand by my saying
Because my real point was that the ‘coincidence’ could be that the hemispheres’ behaviours don’t match to each other but each matches to something else.
In conclusion, I again thank you for your response to my post and I offer especial thanks for your drawing attention to my mistaken choice of words which obscured my meaning.
Richard
Graeme W wrote
“For casual use, people can use a definition of a day that means one apparent rotation of the sun in the sky, and divide that into 24 hours, and similarly divide the planet into latitudes and longitudes. For fine level scientific work, a more formal and precise definition of time is required that varies slightly from the astronomical one. The astronomical definitions are unworkable for certain fields of science and technology. It’s as simple as that.”
I have heard that propaganda many,many times but ultimately your views lead to being out by 4 rotations from the principles which tie the 24 hour days to the 1461 rotations inside 4 orbital circuits to the nearest rotation. Fine scientific levels of work indeed !, when the most immediate experience of planetary temperatures is the day/night cycle and you have intellectual difficulties with the single rotation that causes it,then the term ‘cult’ surfaces as it is the only human condition that lacks sense or reason.
So,we can say 99.9% of WUWT contributors can’t correlate one rotation of the Earth with one day/night cycles in those 1461 times it takes to cover 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.Take some consolation that your opponents are not much better.
Slacko
, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Radians have a specific meaning and are “natural” units. Degrees are absolutely arbitrary.
are perfectly well defined, and hence angles of greater than 360 degrees, however arbitrary the units themselves might be in terms of divisions of a circle, are perfectly well defined. So far you do nothing but spew forth racist-elitist straw men and mathematical and physical irrelevancies. I recognize this syndrome, as we get it fairly regularly here, most usually from people like Joe Postma and other PSI persons.
There is no such thing as 361 degrees,it is subhuman notion and designed by people who can and will create any assertion to serve a purpose or conclusion and particularly mathematical modelers.
There is only the 1461 rotations that fit inside 4 orbital circumferences of the Earth and the 24 hour average is created out of the observed variations for each noon cycle. The average is then transferred to ‘constant’ rotation via the Lat/Long system.
There is no such thing as 360 degrees, or degrees at all. They are a stupid (although common) dimensionless unit. There is only
There are not 1461 rotations fitting inside 4 orbital circumferences, because the year is not exactly 365.25 days long. By the time you find some integer fraction that works, you will conclude that there is nothing at all relevant or significant about the number of rotations per revolution. It is a pure accident that it is even as close as it is to a quarter integer.
I also don’t understand your “subhuman” reference. That kind of language smacks of Nazism and the worst kind of racism. Your assertion that it is “designed by people who can and will create any assertion to serve a purpose” is pure nonsense, conspiracy paranoia. It is nothing of the kind.
If you want to talk proper mathematics and the measurement of angles, angles greater than
rgb
Er… I personally think 99.9% of WUWT contributors DO correlate one rotation of the Earth with one day/night cycle. It’s only the astronomers and those involved in space science who would be pedantic enough to say otherwise. If pushed on details, most WUWT contributors would accept the technical correctness of saying that a rotation of the Earth is not precisely the same as a day/night cycle, but they would then roll their eyes and say that the difference doesn’t matter for almost all practical purposes.
Gerald Kelleher:
At January 7, 2014 at 1:10 pm you assert
That may be true.
But it is certain that 100.0% of WUWT contributors know your assertion has no relevance of any kind to anything which interests them.
And now you are informed they know that, so perhaps you will go away.
Richard
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Graeme W wrote
“For casual use, people can use a definition of a day that means one apparent rotation of the sun in the sky, and divide that into 24 hours, and similarly divide the planet into latitudes and longitudes.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I’m begnning to seriously suspect that Gerald is some sort of terrine test* entrant, and that his reply to this will bear no relation whatsoever to that assertion but will latch onto and (again) expound his misguided views on the fact that, in 1820, a day was 86,400 seconds and that Sirrius has nothing to do with it.
* Well, if I was designing a TT competitor I’d make sure it would recognise references to a TT and respond appropriately. But they may not have got it quite down paté
But it does have to do with clouds which form in response (among other things) to temperature.
But NH and SH mean temperatures are not the same and do not have the same seasonal variation. NH and SH mean surface albedo are not the same. So it isn’t clear what clouds are slaving too in order to magically adjust albedo so that the annual difference between the hemispheres disappears. Although I agree that it might be that. Willis has hypothesized this as well — that they form a negative feedback system (leaving open the question of how the hemispheres remain fine-grained synchronized). BUT — as I pointed out — this is AFTER an unspecified seasonal correction so that the entire result could be begging a question in the adjustments of the dataset, not a real effect at all.
Either way, I respectfully would suggest that none of these have the slightest relation to anything Jelbring has hypothesized, and indeed in order to form a hypothesis that explains the (reconsidered for all corrections) facts one has to actually introduce non-static relaxation timescales if the symmetry between the two atmospheres isn’t an artifact. There is no timescale at all in the Jelbring hypothesis (and it isn’t correct to assert that all static global hypotheses are variations of “gravity done it” even if one can identify something global and static that things slave to — it would only be a Jelbring variant if that something were “gravity”, and not only gravity, but gravity via PV = NkT, not gravity via the DALR, which is hardly Jelbring’s hypothesis).
rgb
Poor Gerald, but take heart, you wouldn’t be the first person driven crazy by simple relativistic misunderstanding.
The definition of a second can only be understood through the creation of the average 24 hour day and the creation of the average 24 hour day can only be understood in context of the 1461 rotational cycles that cover 4 orbital periods via the reference which fixes the Earth’s position in space.These voodoo chanters and their invalid ‘sidereal day’ assumption so while all these guys with their seriously accurate values mesmerize readers they will not go back in his to the creation of that stupid conclusion which drives these mindnumbing notions that there are more rotations than days in a year –
‘Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-
… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical..’
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Longitude2.html
The position of the Earth in space is fixed by orbital motion and the apparent motion of Sirius behind the Sun’s glare –
I don’t care if I have to shove this down people’s throat but it is the one and only time a background star can be used in tandem with the foreground reference of the central Sun in that Sirius skips its first appearance by one day after the fourth 365 day cycle which corresponds to the 1461 rotations the Earth makes to the central Sun over that period.
You need to be intelligent to engage in a conspiracy,what you ‘solar vs sidereal guys’ believe is pretty much subhuman because the expanded notion of that dumb late 17th century view turns into a perceived imbalance between days and rotations that do not happen.
For Rgbatduke,if you can’t handle the daily temperature cycles and its cause how much do you think you know about climate and temperatures .
Willis, I think you’re moving in the right direction. I suspect that the reason the hemispheres are so uniform is because the atmosphere is the primary radiator, not the surface.
For short-wave (e.g. visible light) upwelling radiation? Excuse me?
rgb
5) Your fixation on Uranus is irrelevant.
or plotted 
over more than one cycle (OMG). A typical idiot who comes in and pompously pronounces something that makes it sound like he has some scientific or mathematical grounding who probably hasn’t ever successfully completed a calculus class.
… or is it…(ba-da-boom).
Otherwise, dead on the money. Obviously the guy has never heard of equations like
rgb
I think the possibility that the SH/NH similarity is a product of the seasonal correction, as has been suggested, is a probability.
This should be able to be tested. If the uncorrected NH data is plotted against the uncorrected SH data, possibly with a lag to align the seasons, we’ll be able to see how similar the two are.
Without a lag, will the two hemispheres mirror each other around a central line? With the lag, will they align to the same extent as in the original post?
Graeme W wrote –
“I personally think 99.9% of WUWT contributors DO correlate one rotation of the Earth with one day/night cycle. It’s only the astronomers and those involved in space science who would be pedantic enough to say otherwise. If pushed on details, most WUWT contributors would accept the technical correctness of saying that a rotation of the Earth is not precisely the same as a day/night cycle, but they would then roll their eyes and say that the difference doesn’t matter for almost all practical purposes.”
99.9% OF WUWT contributors either stated or supported the notion that daily rotations fall out of step with the temperature rising and falling within a 24 hour period for ultimately that is where the now jettisoned ‘solar vs sidereal’ fiction led to –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
So here we are talking about the most immediate experience of huge temperature fluctuations across a 24 hour period with not a single confirmation that there is no imbalance between rotations and 24 hour cycles.
If you can’t understand the import of this,not just climate but the ability to reason,how a cult and mob mentality operates, historical and technical competence as opposed to historical fiction then you won’t understand why this group is currently part of the problem.
sorry, late to party, and I did not consider the SW component. however, why would there be a difference in reflectance based on hemisphere? I could see a difference based on total hemispherical insolation, but not necessarily on unit of area average. Angle of incidence?
Gerald says:
“The definition of a second can only be understood through the creation of the average 24 hour day and the creation of the average 24 hour day can only be understood in context of the 1461 rotational cycles that cover 4 orbital periods via the reference which fixes the Earth’s position in space.”
Venus has retrograde motion. It’s day moves backward.
Does that mean time moves backward on Venus?
[/s]
I hereby suggest that Gerald posts be ignored and not replied to on this thread..
Gerald , why don’t you go and start your own blog, where you can discuss your insanity with other like minded people… ie none !!!
rgbatduke wrote
“A typical idiot who comes in and pompously pronounces something that makes it sound like he has some scientific or mathematical grounding who probably hasn’t ever successfully completed a calculus class.”
When you discover the dynamical cause for the 6 month day/6 month night cycle at the South pole you will be fine,all you have to do is apply the same orbital surface rotation of Uranus to the Earth as a matter of course,a rotation that is separate from and in addition to daily rotation –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
http://victoriastaffordapsychicinvestigation.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/300px-axialtiltobliquity-celestial-equator-earth-has-tilted-its-axis-again-7-june-2012.png?w=600&h=465
So rgbatduke,you now have two day/night cycles to appreciate and two surface rotations to the central Sun account for them. Enjoy !.
I don’t care if I have to shove this down people’s throat but it is the one and only time a background star can be used in tandem with the foreground reference of the central Sun in that Sirius skips its first appearance by one day after the fourth 365 day cycle which corresponds to the 1461 rotations the Earth makes to the central Sun over that period.
You need to be intelligent to engage in a conspiracy,what you ‘solar vs sidereal guys’ believe is pretty much subhuman because the expanded notion of that dumb late 17th century view turns into a perceived imbalance between days and rotations that do not happen.
I see, so you are a Platonist, right, and think that there are natural harmonies in the spheres, so that a year is exactly 365.25 days and that any attempt to improve on 17th century measurements or proclamations is all part of a global subhuman conspiracy, have I got that all right? Also, it isn’t quite clear — am I part of the intelligent conspirators because — as a physicist, mind you, who teaches astronomy from time to time — I cannot for the world imagine a reason for their to be an integer modulus between the solar revolution period and the Earth’s proper rotational period? Or am I part of the subhuman world because I can trivially understand the difference between sidereal and synodical time and understand enough orbital mechanics to understand why things like the day, the mean orbital radius of the moon, the period and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun are all not constants at all but are varying in a computable way according to some readily understandable physical laws?
I mean, aside from my uncertainty as to whether I’m an evil conspiratorial genius, a transcendentally stupid subhuman moron, an idiot savant balanced between the two, or something else entirely (such as a reasonably normally intelligent, decently educated person — for my profession) I still have yet to see any point in this red straw herringbone-tweed dead horseman that you seem incapable of leaving alone. Obviously you are upset that the year is no longer exactly 365.25 days long because we actually invented precise clocks at some point over the last few hundred years, and I’ll bet you are equally sad that Pluto is no longer a planet — well, so am I. Pluto got a raw deal. Leap years, and leap seconds suck — especially for people born on February 29th and people who dislike presidential elections. There, we’ve commiserated about the sad state of the world together. Can we drop this and move on to something relevant now?
rgb
Mosher sez:
“You’ll be amazed at the amount of climate science physics you have to accept to use the data.”
Wait! Wait! ‘The Data is Crap’? Again ? What’s the point? If your ruler needs to be studied and its ‘process’ ‘understood’, it’s not a ruler. If on the other hand, a ruler can be used as a ruler, perhaps there’s a shortcoming on the observation end.
The ongoing lack of consistency in all things observational is having an adverse impact on the validity of conclusions.
We need McMeasurment Hamburgers, and stick with them for a few decades.
So rgbatduke,you now have two day/night cycles to appreciate and two surface rotations to the central Sun account for them. Enjoy !.
Account for what, exactly? The fact that the Earth has an axial tilt? The fact that the axial tilt precesses so that it is only by merest chance that Polaris is (approximately) the polar star? The period of precession? Milankovitch cycles in general? The coincidence between Pliestocene glaciation intervals and some of these periods? And what in the world does Uranus or Sirius have to do with anything at all?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Now if you could just return to the topic of Australia…
rgb
This will be my last post on the secondary topic of conversation.
You are correct — that is the historical definition of a second. Unfortunately, science and technology has developed a reasonable amount since 1677 and that definition is no longer sufficient. The problem with the definition is that “the average 24 hour day” is constantly changing, because the length of day is changing. It’s not changing a lot — most people won’t notice it, but for scientists and technologists that deal with events at the millisecond or shorter intervals, it’s relevant. Therefore a more precise and constant definition was required. This new definition was aligned to the astronomical one to the extent that it corresponds to the astronomical definition for 1820 (as you’ve referenced earlier).
Because it’s useful to maintain alignment with the astronomical definition, those leap-seconds mentioned earlier have been introduced.
For most people, the astronomical definition remains in use. It’s only for fine-level precision work that the scientific formal definition of a second is important.
You didn’t read my statement carefully enough. I stated that the NASA statement is correct from a pedantic point of view, but 99.9% of WUWT contributors will use the more casual definitions and would correlate one rotation of the Earth with one day/night cycle. The pedantic viewpoint is technically correct. For almost all practical purposes, though, people will use the one rotation equals one day/night cycle approach.
I’ll give you an analogy of what I’m talking about. Most people would consider that the human race is divided into two sexes: male and female. However, when trying to define these two sexes, complications arise. External appearance definitions fall down for badly injured people, or people that are in the process of having gender-realignment surgery. Chromosome definitions fall down because besides XX and XY chromosome pairs, some people have XXY chromosomes. This means that technically, there are more than two sexes in the human race if you’re using a chromosome definition. For all practical purposes, people will use two sexes and assume there are only two sexes. It is only for precise work or in specific situations that it becomes relevant that this is not a true statement of the situation.
Hopefully, this shows the difference between a precise definition and a practical definition. The precise definition has a solar day not being 24 hours. The practical definition has it as being 24 hours. For almost all practical purposes, including climate science, the practical definition (derived from the original astronomical definition) will suffice.
AndyG55 wrote –
“I hereby suggest that Gerald posts be ignored and not replied to on this thread..
Gerald , why don’t you go and start your own blog, where you can discuss your insanity with other like minded people… ie none !!!”
Maybe,as this theory that the Earth turns once in a day from direct experience received no traction in this forum which is really climate via Simcity modelers .The real cool explanation for the polar day/night cycle is something new to me but really attributable to the advantages of 21st century imaging and graphics.
For whatever reasons,forums tend to lose their appeal after this and certainly not in support of what I presented. I am big enough to admit that I do not play well with others and my descriptions can be difficult but somehow readers do absorb the sense that something went badly wrong yet can’t put their finger on it.
“So,we can say 99.9% of WUWT contributors can’t correlate one rotation of the Earth with one day/night cycles in those 1461 times it takes to cover 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.”
99.9% of WUWT Audience/Visitors recognize a Douchebag when performing. The spotlight lingers upon you, day in and day out.
Not an Ad Hom, purely observational.
Graeme W
The 24 hour system was created in tandem with the Lat/Long system out of a specific set of references which did not include stellar circumpolar motion.When those fools in the late 17th century got their hands on the first accurate watches they decided to forget how the average day links in with the Lat/Long system in order to try and make sense of the return of a star daily within the average 24 hour cycle,within the 365/366 day calendar cycle.That is all that observation is.
The guys who developed the first accurate watches would check for accuracy using the return of a star to any foreground reference but as long a person knows the observation is a calendar based observation using the average 24 hour day they will not confuse it with the normal process which links the average 24 hour day to planetary rotation and the Lat/Long system organized around rotation.
I look at these guys try to model climate using computers the way these old guys tried to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and they spawned you guys who conjure causes and effects out of thin air without any discipline or responsibility.
rgbatduke
Thank you for your informed comment about biomass absorbtion. The comment abut Yamal was meant to be mildly humorous. But you raise a salient point abot the biomass at the bottom of the oceans. In time these will be covered and convert to oil and gas over geological time spans.
The energy balance of the Earth over time will be zero ( no changing the laws of thermodynamics) but it is not instantaneous and is modified by other factors including the biosphere.
Whether by design or accident the Earth is a wonderfully self-regulating system
99.9% OF WUWT contributors either stated or supported the notion that daily rotations fall out of step with the temperature rising and falling within a 24 hour period for ultimately that is where the now jettisoned ‘solar vs sidereal’ fiction led to –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
So here we are talking about the most immediate experience of huge temperature fluctuations across a 24 hour period with not a single confirmation that there is no imbalance between rotations and 24 hour cycles.
If you can’t understand the import of this,not just climate but the ability to reason,how a cult and mob mentality operates, historical and technical competence as opposed to historical fiction then you won’t understand why this group is currently part of the problem.
Sir, are you mad? Seriously? You actually do not understand the difference between the time required for the Earth to spin on its axis and the length of a solar day? When you say “not a single confirmation that there is no imbalance beween rotations and 24 hour cycles”, what exactly do you mean?
My inclination is to direct you to the nearest orrery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery) so you can watch and count the cycles if you cannot manage the simplicity of Willis’s example of a planet that keeps its single face always pointing towards the sun (and hence has a rotation period equal to its year, much as the moon’s gravitationally locked rotation period about the Earth is more or less equal to its day) or my equally simple example of a planet that isn’t rotating at all in absolute space but that is revolving around a sun so that it has an apparent solar day equal to its year. You can do either of the latter two by using a lamp to simulate Mr. Sun and an orange to simulate Mr. Earth — either one suffices to prove that in general the sidereal day and synodical day will not be the same as it is possible for one to be infinity or zero and the other to be one. If you are clever with your hands you can even manage rotating the orange more than once as it goes around and count that as well. Not exactly an orrery — more like an orang-ery.
I’m just going to throw this out there — did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, that the world isn’t filled with the stupid or conspiratorial, but that you just haven’t got things right? The example with Mr. Orange only takes a few minutes to physically set up and understand. There are all of these marvelous pictures in astronomy textbooks that can help as well, but of course you are likely not willing to invest any money in an actual reference that could help you understand. Otherwise you would no doubt have already read things like this:
http://aa.quae.nl/en/antwoorden/getijden.html
with all sorts of interesting real science in them. Or you could look at online pictures like this one:
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sidereal.htm
that pretty much says it all, from an approximately inertial frame reference point. It explains the 360.986 degree thing (and yes, degrees suck — who cares, get over it).
I doubt that you’ll pay any attention to this — you have pretty clearly got a narcissistic personality disorder with a side helping of grandiosity going on, which is well beyond my ability to cure by simply directing you to simple pictures or presenting simple arguments. But suffice it to say that most people on the list actually do understand this — it isn’t even that difficult to understand — and that if you ever stop thinking that you have to be right because you are are, well, “you”, you can understand it too.
rgb
I’ve learned to ignore Gerald Kelleher’s incomprehensible posts and all replies to them, which really improves a comment thread’s signal-to-noise ratio. But I’m a selfish bastard, and I hate to see the intellect of people like RGB wasted on such trolls/zealots/bots when they should be wasting their intellect on me. 🙂
I haven’t seen any “Slayers” posting lately, so I assume they’ve been banned. Wouldn’t it just be simpler to ban GK, too? The only downside I can foresee is a drop in the comment stats. 🙂
[Reply: WUWT does not ban commenters for having different opinions, even if everyone else disagrees. If they start violating site Policy, that’s different. ~ mod.]
Curious George says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:36 am
(at perihelion)
Er yeah. That’s what I meant. Thanks.
I cannot understand the statement that the SH receives more solar energy than the NH because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical. Suppose the SH has its summer when the Earth is closest to the Sun, then six months later the NH will have its summer when the Earth is closest to the Sun on the opposite side of the elliptical orbit. It all evens out over one orbit.
Rgbatduke wrote –
[ I wrote] So rgbatduke,you now have two day/night cycles to appreciate and two surface rotations to the central Sun account for them. Enjoy !.
Account for what, exactly? The fact that the Earth has an axial tilt? The fact that the axial tilt precesses so that it is only by merest chance that Polaris is (approximately) the polar star? The period of precession?”
The polar day/night cycle and the separate orbital surface rotation is responsible for the appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice or did they not teach you that in academic circles.
The polar coordinates are a window into the orbital behavior of the planet as All locations turn once to the central Sun and coincident with the orbital period of the planet.
What do you think ,that a ’tilting’ Earth towards and away from the Sun causes sea ice at the poles. ! So none of you recognize the cause of the polar day/night cycle,can;t match one rotation and all the effects within a 24 hour day so you are not going to do too well when both of these motions mix together at lower latitudes and cause the seasons?
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:51 am
Gary Pearse says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:23 am
Hi Willis, I concur on this completely. Thanks for doing my homework for me, sorry for wasting your time.
I look at these guys try to model climate using computers the way these old guys tried to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and they spawned you guys who conjure causes and effects out of thin air without any discipline or responsibility.
I see, so the who argument has been a metaphor from the beginning! Well, that explains a lot. The “old guys” who did things like establish right ascension and declination as a universal coordinate systems, measured angles precisely enough to map out the distances to the nearest stars using pure parallax, and so on are clearly just like guys trying to model climate using computers, and I guess I have to come clean and admit that I was “spawned” by an unholy union of a dead astronomer and a modern climate modeller and am a cause and effect conjurer. Look, nothing up my sleeve, presto-chango and out we pull a thin dime which I drop to demonstrate gravitation, there it goes they fall for it every time. For another two bits, folks, I will demonstrate electrostatic forces in the most — ahem — “undisciplined” manner, if you know what I mean (aside — have you ever seen the way two bits of charged drier lint cling to one another, I mean come on guys, get a room) and I am definitely not responsible for the actions of the strong nuclear force and confess that even I have a hard time pulling that one out of thin air.
Perhaps you could leave behind the metaphor and get concrete. Now that we’ve established that there is nothing whatsoever relevant about any of your comments so far and climate, do you, in fact, have anything relevant to say about any specific aspect of climate science, or is “thin air” all we get there as well?
rgb
Steven Mosher says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:18 am
“Longwave is easy. The longwave passes through a medium called the atmosphere. That longwave is reflected back to the surface, absorbed and scattered. Over time of course it all eventually exits the atmosphere at the ERL. the effective radiating level.”
———————————————————————————
The ERL argument is static atmosphere nonsense. The gases in our atmosphere move and their temperature, and thereby IR emission, fluctuates dramatically with this movement, especially for rising moist air masses. Gases in the troposphere are emitting LWIR as they rise, translate and descend. There are emission peaks on ascent after dew point and on decent during adiabatic compression. “ERL” is a mathematical fiction solely designed to keep the two shell radiative model of the atmosphere alive.
But the two shell radiative model of the atmosphere was a mistake when it was first proposed and still junk science when it was reanimated in 1938. The “basic physics” of the “settled science” rely on the mis-application of SB equations to fluid bodies in a gravity field. That would be both the ocean and the atmosphere. The role of radiative gases in radiative energy loss at altitude, buoyancy loss and subsidence of air masses cannot be simply parametrised in a radiative two shell model. It doesn’t work.
When Callendar tried to re-animate AGW in 1938, Sir George Simpson had this to say –
“but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he
thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect.”
Sir George Simpson’s words are as true today as when he wrote them in 1938 and the “basic physics” of the “settled science” relies on ignoring them.
Which bit of “it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.” is not clear? “ERL” games are no use, you would need CFD, and GCMs don’t have the vertical resolution for this.
The situation is in fact even more complex than Sir George Simpson envisaged. Radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation, the speed of which alters with their concentration. And strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is what generates the observed lapse rate. No radiative gases and the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells stall and the atmosphere would trend isothermal, with its average temperature far hotter than present.
For AGW propagandists there is no way out. The critical flaw in the hypothesis was identified in 1938 and no amount of “ERL” games can cover up the mistake, and no amount of handwaving or snowstorming will make Sir George Simpson’s wise words disappear. Yes, there were a flurry of radiative-convective models after 1990, but this sorry band-aid to save AGW is useless in the age of the Internet. The claims of Doooooom! were made well before these models existed. The history cannot be re-written.
Steven, the “ERL” argument is pseudo science. You cannot use SB equations alone to solve for the temperature profile of mobile fluids in a gravity field.
rgb,
Here is a really cool orrery. You can set it to a Copernican or a Tychonean view, and the date of your choice, etc.
The polar day/night cycle and the separate orbital surface rotation is responsible for the appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice or did they not teach you that in academic circles.
I have no idea what you are talking about at all, so I guess they failed to teach me that in academic circles. Let’s just take it for granted that I completely understand the motion of the tipped earth around the sun — because I do — and hence whatever you mean by polar day/night cycle, I probably understand it as well or better than you do. Now what exactly is the “separate orbital surface rotation” as I’ve never heard of anything of the sort. Indeed, I can’t even identify which surface you might be talking about, which orbit you might be talking about, or which rotation you might be talking about. Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I obviously fail to see how it is responsible for the appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice. I always thought it was just the usual axial tilt of the Earth relative to the direction of incident sunlight producing the NH/SH seasons, sort of like it is described in astronomy textbooks and so on. You know, the kind of trivial geometry built in to every general circulation model on the planet so that this is the least of the physics they include.
But I’m sure that you can explain separate orbital surface rotations and it will all make sense.
rgb
London247 says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:15 pm
“Whether by design or accident the Earth is a wonderfully self-regulating system”.
Or, inevitability. Think of it like, say, a pile of rocks stacked up. Initially, you have stones falling down as wind, rain, and what have you disturb the pile. But, over time, the loose stones become situated so that it is more and more difficult to dislodge them. Eventually, you have a very stable pile, and few if any rock slides.
Any system left to its own tends to pile up against its fundamental constraints, in a configuration from which it becomes progressively more difficult to perturb it.
Here is a really cool orrery. You can se it to a Copernican or a Tychonean view, and the date of your choice, etc.
Very cool. And with it, one can even count synodical vs sidereal days. Although the cornell picture makes such a count pretty superfluous.
rgb
At a glance, this topic has become distressingly controversial, but I feel obliged to give my 2 cents.
The comment on the south getting more insolation than the north due to eccentricity caught my eye. That’s what I expected, but when I did the numerical integration some time ago it turned out to be false, to my surprise. Some more careful maths confirmed it.
The south is further away from the sun in winter and closer in summer. Between the geometry and the varying orbital speed, the effects cancel, and the hemispheres get exactly identical total energy from insolation over a year.
Rgbatduke wrote
“There are not 1461 rotations fitting inside 4 orbital circumferences, because the year is not exactly 365.25 days long. ”
To the nearest rotation there are 1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits by virtue that the time the Earth returns to the same orbital position using the first appearance of Sirius far enough to one side of the Sun to be seen there are 1461 day/night cycles corresponding to 1461 rotations.
You just don’t realize that the astronomical event which comes into play after 4 orbital cycles of 365 days is that Sirius will skip an appearance which is made up by an extra day’s rotation in tandem with the distance it moves to that part of its orbital circuit where Sirius is seen once more. Some climate researchers you all are !.
You show me a website where the apparent daily motion of a star against the foreground Sun is meant to serve your conclusion that the Earth turns one more time than there are days in a year !
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sidereal.htm
If you can’t put the ancient observation into dynamical form then sorry but it is not an accident that you are lost when you can’t mesh the daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period with one rotation of the planet nor explain sea ice formation from the orbital surface rotation. –
“on account of the precession of the rising of the Siriusby one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved” Canopus Decree, Egypt
Konrad says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Thank you for a very thought-provoking post.
Some climate researchers you all are !.
Oh, by the way, I’m not. I’m a humble physicist. Climate is at most a hobby at the moment. Teaching (and learning!) are more my current professions. I’d be happy to teach you a thing or two, if you were capable of learning. But I doubt that you are. I’m even pleased to be taught by you, if you have anything meaningful to teach, but I have to warn you that senseless assertions are not convincing. You’ll have to get both concrete and specific, and possibly even mathematically precise to make much progress there.
rgb
Rgbatduke
Let me get this straight – you have the daily day/night cycle, which you won’t accept, is due to the daily surface rotation of the planet and you are asking me about the orbital surface rotation which causes the polar ice to form as those latitudes swing around in a circle to the central Sun and experience 6 months of darkness followed by 6 months of daylight .
No need to hold anyone’s hand, the imaging is there to confirm that Uranus both turns South to North in its daily cycle and East to West orbital surface rotation which takes over 8 decades to complete –
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
If this website has a component concerned with sea ice then I suggest contributors start to look at the dynamic behind its seasonal formation.
If this website has a component concerned with sea ice then I suggest contributors start to look at the dynamic behind its seasonal formation.
Do you seriously think that one single person on this list doesn’t understand the connection between axial tilt and the seasons? Wow, dude, you are seriously self-deluded.
rgb
Br’er rgbatduke – I suggest you leave it be. Thanks db for that really cool orrery.
The trends seem remarkably flat despite the 6.9% annual variation in solar irradiance due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the sun. Is there an obvious explanation I’m missing ?
The near-constancy and hemispheric symmetry of both TOA LW emissions and planetary Bond albedo has been a working hypothesis in geophysics long before the advent of CERES data. In the presence of multiple heat-transfer mechanisms from surface to the atmosphere, it is a straightforward consequence of the efficacy of entropy maximization in robustly homogenizing air temperatures well aloft. Thus, despite the large differences in peak TSI at perihelion and aphelion, hemispheric land-mass, etc., the annual average planetary emissions remain nearly constant. The sooner that people on both sides of the climate debate realize that empirical fact–which flies in the face of commonly experienced near-surface variations–the less empty speculation and outright quackery will arise in trying to understand the planetary system.
Rgbatduke
I haven’t met a follower of the Flamsteed/Newton agenda who actually cared to revisit what they tried to do with the Equatorial coordinate system and Sir Isaac’s use of absolute/relative time,space and motion as a distortion of the antecedent astronomical discoveries.
Even Newton’s use of the difference in the variations between natural noon cycles and the average 24 hour cycles known as the Equation of Time is rewritten to mean something different by the early 20th century –
“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time,astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions….. The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter.” Newton
The original astronomical principle was explained by Huygens –
.and that those days, reckon’d from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers’d in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call’d the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set;”Christian Huygens
Newton was doing what most of you did here today by handling precise astronomical terms in the most casual of ways so that even though his statement refers to the fact that there is no external reference for the 24 hour day and the rotation of the Earth insofar as the ‘average’ 24 hour day serves the purpose of assuming ‘constant’ rotation through 360 degrees,that meaning was lost through the adoption of Flamsteed’s Equatorial Coordinate System.Only Mach came close without really knowing it –
“This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception.” Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
Even with an interested individual who really want to know what happened,it would take the best part of a year to explain why you can’t use the Equatorial coordinate system to prove the Earth’s motions and why a rotating celestial sphere system is homocentric and a really obnoxious foundation to consider planetary motions and solar system structure.
Humble physicist !,you have every reason to be humble.
Rgbatduke wrote
“Do you seriously think that one single person on this list doesn’t understand the connection between axial tilt and the seasons? Wow, dude, you are seriously self-deluded.”
You need a surface rotation to explain the daily day/night cycle so you need another one to explain the 6 month day/6 month darkness polar cycle plus the sea ice that forms at the poles due to that surface rotation.
If you can’t appreciate the separate day/night cycles and their separate dynamical causes then fine but ‘axial tilt and the seasons’ is no longer an answer.
That’s all very well, but how many rotations does the Earth do in 4 years? Does anyone know?
Gary Hladik says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
[Reply: WUWT does not ban commenters for having different opinions, even if everyone else disagrees. If they start violating site Policy, that’s different. ~ mod.]
Fair enough. But what if they are way off the topic or at least have not demonstrated the remotest connection with the topic under discussion?
Well not sure if Gerald Kelleher is a real person, but if he is, he is pretty stubborn and kind of stuck somewhere between 1650 and 1900. I think I have distilled his argument to three things:
1. I am happy to note that I am not the only one who finds his belief that a very trivial item creates the seasons basically he is saying the seasons are caused by the difference between solar time and sidereal time.
2. Or His insistence that the earth is not rotating on an axis but instead is rotating on two axis and this is demonstrated by how the light dark changes over time, and creates the polar climate.
3. Or His insistence that the earth is flat as far as receiving energy from the sun goes.
So Gerald is this an accurate summation of what you have been saying because I would like you to say yes so I can tear your arguments to tiny tiny pieces. I am asking this also because you refuse to actually make an argument and describe with some kind of scientific system (say calculus, physics or even math) how you are right and say someone like Willis is wrong, even though he backs up his ideas with actual math, code and data for anyone to use, and double check his work. So far all you have published here on WUWT is what my English professor used to call bafflegab!
Konrad. The ERL is pretty simple. It’s the height at which the system radiates to space. The height of the ERL is determined by the concentration of GHGs above it.
Konrad:
Thanks for taking the time and finding the reference to Simpson’s historical remarks regarding the gross inadequacy of purely radiative determinations of earthly temperatures via the S-B equation. For years I’ve been trying to alert WUWT readers to the pitfalls of such simplistic radiative algebra and to the dominant role of moist convection in transferring heat to the atmosphere. Such pointers often fall flat upon those whose comprehension of geophysical processes consists of regurgitating Wikipedia without ever digesting the rigorous treatment given by John Dutton’s classic “The Ceaseless Wind.” (The Dover reprint, BTW, retitles it “Dynamics of Atmospheric Motion.”) They prefer the library of graphic web-links maitained by the apostles of AGW.
Greg Goodman says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:48 am
“Since most of us at WUWT are conservative leaning libertarian thinkers”
speak for yourself. There is no left / right in a scientific debate.
Those who regard it as a party political issue are probably not arguing the science whichever view they take.
—————————————————————-
Greg I didn’t mean to insult anybody.
“There is no left / right in a scientific debate.” Well, I’m with you there.
Here at WUWT, Willis and many others provide very good science and debate.
How about the science of what to do about the earth’s soaring temperature due to CO2?
The president couldn’t believe putting a ‘free market’ price on carbon or creating a carbon tax will cause the temperatures to go down and the seas to recede. He surely couldn’t believe Greenland’s glaciers will stop melting and cat 5 hurricanes will cease if we give the UN $100B/yr.
My point is that it’s not just about the science.
It’s about how can they communicate better to convince us to support their goals.
Destroying eco systems with wind mills and solar panels while making bankers, politicians and their green cronies richer is not science.
It’s about money and power… and climate justice.
The science, like the scientists and the poor, are just collateral damage.
The question is “How can we keep our liberty and change their minds with the science?”
You’re correct when you say it’s not left or right. It’s do we retain our liberty and freedom or not.
Controlling carbon dioxide controls every breath we take, literally.
cn
Jaffa wrote –
“That’s all very well, but how many rotations does the Earth do in 4 years? Does anyone know?”
The consensus in WUWT is 1465 rotation in 4 years which defies experience of the daily temperature fluctuations which respond to the daily rotation of the planet.
The actual 1461 rotations in 4 years follows a specific set of observations which prohibit the introduction of stellar circumpolar motion as a reference and allows the annual motion of the Earth and the apparent motion of the background stars behind the Sun to define the Earth’s orbital position in space and specifically the brightest star out there – the great star Sirius.
We see it like this where Elnath,Castor and Pollux disappear behind the glare of the Sun as the Earth moves along its orbital circumference –
A distant view of the apparent motion of the stars we see from the surface of the Earth as it moves around the Sun is this one –
There is nothing difficult about any of this,Sirius disappears for a few months and then shows up one morning however after 4 years of 365 days it fails to appear for the simple reason that the Earth hasn’t returned to the same position in its orbital circuit for that to happen.As daily rotation is a separate motion and takes time to complete one rotation,the extra day also represents the time the Earth moves back to the same position in space where Sirius is just far enough to one side of the Sun where it can be seen.
The process to create the average 24 hour day from these 1461 days and then transfer it to `15 degrees of rotation in one hour and once in 24 hours is tricky but there is a lot of information on the Lat/Long system and how clocks solved the problem of position at sea –
Anyway,your basic question stands and should the forum change consensus in a decisive way,nobody will be more pleased than I.
steven mosher says:
January 7, 2014 at 4:31 pm
“Konrad. The ERL is pretty simple. It’s the height at which the system radiates to space. The height of the ERL is determined by the concentration of GHGs above it.”
———————————————————————————–
No there is no effective radiating level for an atmosphere in constant motion. There is however a tropopause below which almost all LWIR is being emitted to space. This is also the level that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation stops. No radiative gases = no strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation.
The “ERL” argument is a mathematical fiction needed to hold the two shell radiative model together. Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space as optical opacity diminishes with altitude. Further to this rising air masses are hotter than the air at the altitude they are rising through, and are therefore radiating more strongly than the surrounding air at that altitude.
But what about increasing concentrations of CO2 at altitude? Won’t this “block” out going IR from lower altitudes and force air above to a higher temperature? No. As pressure diminishes with altitude the chance of a radiative gas molecule that has intercepted an IR photon re-radiating before conductive transfer of energy to other gas molecules increases.
The reality is this –
Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Radiative gases will always cool our moving atmosphere. The reason is simple. The amount of energy radiative gases are emitting to space is more than TWICE the net flux of radiative energy entering the atmosphere from surface and solar radiation. Radiative gases are not just radiating intercepted radiation to space, but also all the energy the atmosphere acquired through surface conduction and release of latent heat.
Radiative gases are our atmospheres only effective cooling mechanism.
The “ERL” argument is junk science trying to claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. Given that the atmosphere has no radiative cooling ability at all without radiative gases these claims are clearly ludicrous.
Perhaps you would like to try giving Dr. Pierrehumberts 1995 bafflegab a whirl? –
“Umm, err well of course adding radiative gases to the atmosphere initially causes cooling, but, umm, err, after a certain point the unicorn/rainbow ratio goes negative and then they cause catastrophic warming!”
– But be warned if you try, the hand-waving required for this can cause serious wrist injuries.
Bottom line –
SB equations cannot be used to determine the temperature profile of moving fluids in a gravity field.
Roughly a dozen comments later, Gerald Kelleher demostrates that
Thank you. That answer was needed here.
“Cyclical season variations have been removed.”
I agree with Willis. It’s surprising that the NH and SH results are almost exactly the same. Of course the total SW+LW should be the same, but I would expect the hemispheres to differ in the proportion of SW to LW.
If the LW is the same, that implies that the effective temperature of the hemispheres is the same. This implies a mechanism which sets the global temperature regardless of the forcings, at least within some fairly significant limits. This backs up Willis’ thermostat hypothesis, and is another nail in the coffin of the Evil CO2 religion.
Finally, Willis, RGB (and others): why are you responding to Gerald?
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist….
The question, as stated, does not have a single answer. There are two potentially ambiguous terms in the question.
What is the definition of “rotations”? More precisely, from what perspective are rotations counted? Is this from the perspective of someone on the planet who is counting sunrises, or is this from the perspective of someone in space who is counting the number of times the longitude of Greenwich, England passes under the star Sirius? The two observers can give different results for the same sequence of events (as Einstein demonstrated with his Special Theory of Relativity). This is quite legitimate, because the two observers are not at rest with respect to each other.
What is the definition of “years”? Is it the a calendar year, or is it the time taken for the planet Earth to orbit the Sun once? Again, the two give similar but not quite identical answers. Also, if it is calendar years, which years are we talking about? For example, there are 1460 days in any four consecutive years that include a year that is divisible by 100 but not divisible by 400 (eg. 1900, 2100), but there are 1461 days in any other set of four years. That assumes you’re using the Gregorian Calendar If, however, you’re using some other calendar, different rules may apply.
The simplistic answer for the observer counting sunrises using a astronomical year (one complete orbit) would be 1461 most of the time, but occasionally 1460 (due to the fact that the astronomical year is just under 365.25 days in length).
The simplistic answer for the observer counting the number of times the Greenwich, England longitude passes under the star Sirius using an astronomical year would be 1465 most of the time, but occasionally 1464 (again due to the length of the astronomical year).
I hope this helps….
I may be a little late to the table here but I do have a problem with Mosher’s proclamation that the physics dictates that the atmosphere will cool slower because of the “CO2” regulator. The physics says energy in = energy out or the earth and other planets would have melted down long ago with this continually captured heat.
@Doug Jones
I call it the “Norwegian Blue” syndrome. 🙂
Gerald’s posts….simplified.
AndyG55 says:
January 7, 2014 at 6:36 pm
————————————–
Indeed.
And I blame Willis.
He kept nailing the wretched thing back on its perch.
Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space as optical opacity diminishes with altitude.”
Willis’ Fig. 1 proves this incorrect. The winds dump all their energy into the atm. bath not “directly to space.” The atm. LWIR as recorded by CERES over time which is coming from that bath is shown the same in NH and SH and in Total. The windiness is not so precisely the same over time in NH and SH weather. Willis’ Fig. 1 LWIR bath emits remarkably the same however.
Konrad 2:39pm:
“You cannot use SB equations alone to solve for the temperature profile of mobile fluids in a gravity field.
Correct. The 1st law needs to be used to compute surface Tmean including measured conductive, convective, AND radiative energy transfer into and out of the balanced control volume at the height of the thermometer field.
And once again Konrad left out Callendar’s reply for some reason:
“In replying (to Simpson), G.S. CALLENDAR said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
To me,it seems to indicate that the suction of the 3k temp of outer space is causing the heat to radiate wherever it has the best chance to radiate which would be uniformly over the surface of the globe/earth. My theory and I’m sticking to it.
Well said Doug! Apparently Gerald Kelleher doesn”t understand that the “extra day” is caused by the sidereal year of which the Astrophysicist’s are quite aware and which is explained quite plainly by NASA’s 366.25 rotations in a year as so eloquently explained by Willis!
Trick says:
January 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm
——————————————-
And Trick takes the baton from Gerald…
Best drop the baton Trick. You always, and I mean always, lose. Remember that time you argued black and blue that it wasn’t possible to drive convective circulation in a fluid column by removing energy from the top of the column? The Internet remembers.
Trick -“Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space as optical opacity diminishes with altitude.” ”
Which is of course 100% correct. Even at ground level some IR emitted by the atmosphere can exit directly to space. As the altitude of an air masses emitting IR increases, the amount of this making it directly to space without re-interception by the atmosphere increases.
Trick -“And once again Konrad left out Callendar’s reply for some reason:”
Why thank you for pointing that out. That gives me the perfect opportunity to highlight this bit of Calledars reply –
“..without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply..”
And what drives the distribution of energy in our atmosphere? That’s right, tropospheric convective circulation. And what plays a critical role in the speed of tropospheric convective circulation? That’s right, radiative cooling via radiative gases at altitude.
Now most would call that “interfering with the [..] distribution of the heat supply”.
Sir George Simpson called AGW (very politely) junk science in 1938. Nothing has changed. It’s still junk science.
Do you never get tired of losing? 😉
Also the sidereal day is distributed throughout the year so there are still only 365.25 days (turns towards the sun).
“I may be a little late to the table here but I do have a problem with Mosher’s proclamation that the physics dictates that the atmosphere will cool slower because of the “CO2″ regulator. The physics says energy in = energy out or the earth and other planets would have melted down long ago with this continually captured heat.”
Wrong. That’s not what I said.
It is really elementary.
The earth radiates to space at a given height called the ERL. It radiates at this height because the concentration of GHGs ABOVE this height are small enough to permit the free escape energy. That is, there is not enough GHGs to impede the release. At this height the system has a temperature that is a function of the lapse rate. When you add more GHGs the concentration above this altitude changes and increases. Thus the earth will radiate from a higher altitude.
To offset this the temperature below the ERL goes up until balance is reached.
This is all quite simple and well known.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
If you want a cartoon version
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld012.htm
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld015.htm
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld019.htm
Gerald Kelleher,
I’ve taken the time to read every single comment of yours. Can you please be kind enough to state your argument as clearly as possible? I know that you’re disgusted by a general misconception, and I understand that this can be frustrating. But I’m really trying to understand.
Are you saying that both a day and a rotation should simply be defined as the time it takes the earth to rotate between apogee’s of the sun? And are you saying that a calendar merely needs to add an extra day every 4 orbits around the sun at the time when Sirius fails to be visible?
I apologize if I have this wrong. I’m really trying to understand you. Please go easy on me. I haven’t been understanding the point of your quotes and videos. Can you just tell me?
Actually, doesn’t the earth radiate from all heights of the atmosphere as well as the surface? If I’m in space, I think I’d be able to see clouds, aircraft, and surface details using an IR imaging system. I assume this would be evidence that IR waves are originating from those objects and getting to my system. If IR is only radiating from the ERL height, then wouldn’t I only be able to see things at that height with an IR system?
Or is the ERL just the assumed height for mathematical purposes?
Steve Mosher, I apologize. I actually had a much longer comment that actually praised what you had to say other than this comment, “the system loses energy less rapidly as fundamental physics says it must’. I was looking for the sound bite and just had to say what I said however ill advised. What I really should have said is that the system equalizes with both that ocean capacitor and nitrogen/oxygen capacitor to balance energy in with energy out on an instantaneous basis.
I am of the belief that the temperature profile of the earth within TOA can be changed but the actual energy transfer in and out of the system can’t.
In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre.
“Underlying surface albedoes” may be different then the only albedo that matters, the actual albedo as seen from space (from the point of view of the sun, the point of view that matters). A question, we know what the theoretical albedo should be, assuming no clouds ever, what is the actual albedo, as seen from space, which is strongly effected by clouds? In theory, the sounthern hemisphere having more water should have more evaporation when hit by sunlight, more clouds, and hence an increased albedo which is thus changed to more strongly resemble the northern hemisphere. What we need is a comparison of the theoretical albedo with the actual minute to minute albedo as measured from space (because cloud albedo changes minute by minute). Is there such a measurement of actual data of albedo available? If no such measurement is available, then we are only talking theoretical albedo, and cannot really say what difference there may be in the southern hemisphere as compared to the northern.
rgbatduke says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
Thanks, Robert, your comments are always interesting. The usual font of misinformation I quoted above says that of the 560 billion tonnes of biomass, only about 10 billion tonnes are in the ocean. This seems reasonable to me, as most of the tropical oceans are blue deserts, almost devoid of life. There’s a reason for the 30 metre underwater visibility … there’s nothing living in the water.
So whatever the numbers are likely to be, my calculations above show that they will be very small.
w.
rgbatduke says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:26 pm
The seasonal correction was to remove the annual cycle, month by month, from the dataset.
I think that the reason the two are so similar is that the set-point of the thermal regulation is set by temperature. The threshold that regulates the timing of the emergence of tropical clouds is ceteris paribus a temperature threshold.
And if so, this could adjust the albedo so that the difference between the two hemispheres would be quite small. In fact, this is exactly the effect we’d expect from an threshold-based, temperature regulated albedo system.
Having said that, however … the devil is always in the details.
w.
wobble says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:11 pm
“Actually, doesn’t the earth radiate from all heights of the atmosphere as well as the surface? If I’m in space, I think I’d be able to see clouds, aircraft, and surface details using an IR imaging system. I assume this would be evidence that IR waves are originating from those objects and getting to my system. If IR is only radiating from the ERL height, then wouldn’t I only be able to see things at that height with an IR system?
Or is the ERL just the assumed height for mathematical purposes?”
———————————————————————————–
IR imaging systems are typically imaging SWIR rather than LWIR. The atmosphere has a far greater opacity to LWIR, largely due to water vapour in the troposphere. However as maximum LWIR opacity is at the surface level, for any LWIR emission above this direct emission to space increases with altitude.
“ERL” is essentially a mathematical fiction to keep AGW alive. It assumes that gases are radiating at a temperature equivalent to the average temperature of the altitude they are rising through. It totally ignores the heat pulse that occurs in rising moist air masses as they pass dew point and suddenly release latent heat. “ERL” is static atmosphere nonsense. In a moving turbulent atmosphere there is no average altitude at which “50% of radiative gases are above an average radiating level.”
A case in point, the rising moist air column in the ITCZ at the equator would have a higher concentration of radiative gases than areas north and south of this where the main radiative gas H2O uplifted in the ITCZ has precipitated out. More LWIR from far lower in the atmosphere could then make it out to space in these zones.
What the the “ERL” argument boils down to is a crazed claim that “adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.”
But without radiative gases, the atmosphere would have no radiative cooling ability at all.
This is where you end up when pseudo scientists try to apply SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm
You may not care, but those of us who are getting your BS stuffed down our throats definitely do care. From our perspective, we’d much rather you stuffed it up your fundamental orifice.
In any case, take it somewhere else, your astronomical comments are way off-topic here. If I ran the zoo, I’d give you a time-out for repeated violation of blog policy. Let me spell out for you the policy that you are boasting about breaking by stuffing your agenda down our throats:
That policy was written especially for jerkwagons like you, who want to lead the thread onto a discussion of astrophysics that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
So yes, Gerald, you’ve proven you’ll stuff your nonsense down peoples throats whether they want it or not. You just may not get to do it for much longer on WUWT. I’d take a deep breath and take a break if I were you, or you may find yourself out in the cold.
w.
Gerald Kelleher says:
“… I don’t care if I have to shove this down people’s throat but..”
Mate, the only thing being shoved down anyone’s throat, is your own foot down your own throat.
You started with foot in mouth, then just kept going……………… brilliant contortionism. !
But you certainly have the audience laughing, like any good clown. 🙂
I’ll make this short and hopefully sweet.
1 Solar year is 24 hrs x 365.2422 days equals 8,765.813 hrs.
1 Sideral day is 23.93447hrs x 366.2422 days equals 8,765.813hrs.
This is close enough at my pay grade.
Thanks, Konrad. Given the typical temperatures of earth, I thought most IR radiation was in the SWIR band. Additionally, Steve Mosher didn’t actually limit his claim to IR. He claimed that, “The earth radiates to space at a given height called the ERL.” The earth also radiates reflected, visible light, and I know for sure that visible light imagery of the earth’s surface is visible from space.
“ERL” is essentially a mathematical fiction
OK, that’s what I was thinking. It’s strange for him to be making the claim as if the radiation is actually only occurring from that altitude rather than just mathematically assumed to occur from that altitude for certain calculations.
Thanks for the explanation regarding the convection argument. I’ll have to try tackling that issue another time.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Rgbatduke wrote
“Do you seriously think that one single person on this list doesn’t understand the connection between axial tilt and the seasons? Wow, dude, you are seriously self-deluded.”
You need a surface rotation to explain the daily day/night cycle so you need another one to explain the 6 month day/6 month darkness polar cycle plus the sea ice that forms at the poles due to that surface rotation.
Gerald, are you saying that you believe the Earth is rotating on a 2nd axis so that first one pole is presented directly to the sun, then the other pole is presented 6 months later? Is this why you linked photos showing one pole of Uranus pointed sunward?
If so, have you considered that this 2nd polar rotation would cause every place on the surface of the Earth to have the noon sun pass directly overhead, that is pass through the Zenith, twice each year?
Have you also considered that such a polar rotation would mean that the the North Star would not be north except briefly twice each year?
Have you also considered that Uranus would not need to have a polar rotation to present its poles to the sun if it had a steady axial tilt near 90 degrees, which it does? That its orbital revolution would then do the job?
SR
P.S. I 2nd Wobble’s queries… Gerard, all you have to do is respond to our questions if you want to get your message out.
SR
When it comes to explaining sea ice growth at the North pole along with the 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness,the forum becomes silent on the dynamical cause which amounts to a surface rotation caused by the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun. I was half expecting someone to assert that the Earth rotates so slowly at the poles compared to the Equator that it takes 6 months to travel through night but unfortunately readers either can’t or won’t consider the actual cause which is a separate rotation to daily rotation and a motion that can be seen to a 100% observational certainty.
I have encountered the most hostile opposition to the cause of daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period coincident with the daily surface rotation to the central Sun at any given habitable location so it is hardly surprising that the annual temperature fluctuation at the polar location which requires a second surface rotation to explain (reflective of all points on Earth) is not going to be appreciated even with imaging to demonstrate it.
I won’t ask again how people are going to explain the 6 month period of darkness followed by 6 months of daylight at the poles without acknowledging a surface rotation just as they would normally do for the day/night cycle at lower latitudes.
Anyone doubt that there is a cult out there and that it is not only the opposition which are driven by hopelessly flawed convictions ?.
Tell me Gerald..
Did you ever complete junior high ?
Willis wrote –
“So yes, Gerald, you’ve proven you’ll stuff your nonsense down peoples throats whether they want it or not. You just may not get to do it for much longer on WUWT. I’d take a deep breath and take a break if I were you, or you may find yourself out in the cold.”
You are the guy who ,without a single objection,declares that there are more rotations of the Earth than there are day/night cycles. In normal times there would be no opposition to the explanation for the daily temperature response to daily rotation as temperatures pick up as a location swings back into solar radiation within a 24 hour period but this is no normal era with its 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days which expands out to 1465 rotations inside 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.
Human nature works a lot differently than you expect and the forum will respond to this information in a way other than the hostility directed towards me. The human body is built around the great daily and orbital cycles of the Earth hence they are the first things people should appreciate but unfortunately they don’t as demonstrated by your disability in the matter of the body’s response to the effects of one rotation in a day.
I told you it is nothing I haven’t heard or seen before apart from the remarkable moderation policy here and that I haven’t seen.
Gerald, will you please explain the cause of daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period? I promise that I will not oppose you, but please keep in mind that I’m not an expert in this field – so simple terms will be best for me.
(Also, I can’t understand your complaints about the opposition and cults unless I first understand what your trying to teach, so a straight forward explanation would be appreciated.)
Wobble
“Are you saying that both a day and a rotation should simply be defined as the time it takes the earth to rotate between apogee’s of the sun? And are you saying that a calendar merely needs to add an extra day every 4 orbits around the sun at the time when Sirius fails to be visible?”
Anyone care to determine the reference for the Earth’s orbital position each year other than the original one where the orbital motion of the Earth puts Sirius just far enough to one side of the Sun to be visible ?.
The Earth follows roughly the same ecliptic path as the other planets so when we see two planets close to each other,a line running parallel with both planets determines not only their orbital path but also ours –
http://wpmedia.o.canada.com/2013/12/smiley-face.jpg
There is a also an apparent motion of the background stars along the same path and Sirius is one of those stars which disappears behind the Sun due to the orbital motion of the planet,the previous animated graphics should suffice to explain this and particularly this one –
All things are worked out from this perspective including how many rotations it takes our planet to return to the same orbital position by literally counting the rotations in proportion to those 4 orbital circuits.
People are foolish,they follow the dictates of the late 17th century crowd who shoved everything into stellar circumpolar motion and destroyed the ability to appreciate the graceful motion of the planets and the apparent motions of the stars in their annual circuit so they could model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages.So there is a clash of cultures where the most vapid minds are unable to work with 21st century imaging and graphics by lunging at a rotating celestial sphere conclusion –
I doubt if you had read the first line of this response but it does give me a chance to bring up astronomical points that were lost to mathematical modelers centuries ago.
Wobble wrote –
“Gerald, will you please explain the cause of daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period? ”
You probably notice that it gets colder as darkness sets in and not until light and the Sun appear will it start to warm up ,the cause has to do with this motion –
Now,you ask the other guys how they plan to explain the same cause and effect when they aggressively assert that there are more rotations than day/night cycles.
Btw,in dealing with a cult on a pandemic scale there is no room for frustration as the issue is to open the mind to possibilities,opportunities and wider perspectives whereas modeling has confined the human condition to contending with or defending a pre-conceived conclusion. It is probably the closest I will come to a personal insult but when you have to ask what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily then be aware that the mob hostility directed towards me is a normal reaction within a cult setting –
“In all the world,, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy.” Cult deprogramming website
““In all the world,, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy.” ”
And you are holding that tightly to your chest. You own it , It is YOU ! 🙂
How are you chewing on that knee , btw?
No hostility.. just hilarity. !
Gerald K,
Labeling others as a ‘cult’ is extremely lame. This is the most wide open science site you will find. It is not inhabited by head-nodding cultists who all agree with each other — as your own comments make clear. Just because someone disagrees with your world view does not make them members of a cult.
You need to at least consider the possibility that you might simply be wrong. Name-calling is just something you can hide behind to avoid that possibility. Maybe everyone else is not wrong, eh?
I’m not sure why you phrased this as a question, but it seems as if you are claiming that “the reference for the Earth’s orbital position each year” should be “the original one where the orbital motion of the Earth puts Sirius just far enough to one side of the Sun to be visible”. Is this correct? Again, please be patient. I’m doing my best to understand.
OK, it also seems as if you’re saying that one should determine the number of rotations it takes the earth to return to the same orbital position by counting the rotations during 4 orbital circuits. Is this correct? From previous comments it seems as if you’re saying that the counted number is 1461. Is this correct? If so, does this mean that you’re saying that the earth doesn’t return to it’s original orbiting position for 1461 days? I’m I understanding you correctly?
OK, it seems as if you’re saying that the cause of daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period are caused by the sun warming the earth up by exposing it to sunlight during part of its rotation and that the earth then cools after it’s no longer exposed to the sunlight? Is this correct?
OK, I will ask the other guys this as soon as I know that I understand you properly. 🙂 Does this sentence mean that you’re saying that it’s impossible for someone to correctly explain the cause and effect of daily temperature fluctuations if they aren’t correctly determining the number of rotations of the earth? Are you saying that someone who asserts that there are more rotations than day/night cycles will be wrong about the cause and effect of daily temperature fluctuations?
Again, please be nice to me. I’m really trying to understand.
dbstealey
Two questions surfaced in this forum over the last 12 hours ,questions that were directed to me –
1 .What causes temperatures to fluctuate daily ?.
2 How many rotations are there in a year ?.
The very fact that those questions are asked in the 21st century other than in a high school setting is a reflection of a dangerous cult that emerged in the late 17th century and is almost pandemic today via the education/indoctrination system,at least in astronomy and terrestrial sciences.
Despair,frustration or exclusion are not issues,a person looking over the historical and technical vista provided by the great planetary cycles and creation is a reward in itself and as distant from this overheated contending or defending a exceptionally ridiculous conclusion using climate as a background.
So,rather than explain what causes the day/night cycle as the cause is taken for granted,the next effect is the cause of the polar day/night cycle and its separate cause along with the formation and disappearance of Arctic sea ice,something dear to readers here.
Willis Eschenbach: “Sorry for the lack of clarity.” Judging by your response, I think it was probably my comment that lacked clarity, but it probably isn’t worth your time to pursue my real problem further, so I won’t attempt further clarification.
I write here only to mention a paper, http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1482060:15/component/escidoc:1703066/JCli-26-2013-468.pdf, to which Berényi Péter invited attention over on Judith Curry’s blog. I haven’t read it myself, but it appears to be directed to the shortwave match and longwave mismatch between the hemispheres.
dbstealey wrote –
“Labeling others as a ‘cult’ is extremely lame. This is the most wide open science site you will find. It is not inhabited by head-nodding cultists who all agree with each other — as your own comments make clear.”
The judgement is just and in line with those people who deal with individual cult members experience.I can make an emotional appeal that when people wake up on January 8th they are waking up to another rotation of the planet and the same will happen January 9th and every day after that but the cult member will insist that there are more rotations than there are 24 hour days.
I can present all the references from the creation of the calendar system to the Longitude problem where the 24 hour system works in tandem with the Lat/Long system around the Earth’s rotational characteristics and the cult guys will still insist there are more rotations than 24 hour days.
I can appeal to the flaws created by the rotating celestial sphere system created in the late 17th century using time keeping averages and the calendar system in direct conflict with the 24 hour and Lat/Long system and the cult guys will still insist that there are more rotations than days.
There can be a fine difference between being a cult member and being part of an organized group with a particular ideology needed to maintain a healthy and productive society. Due to the consensus against the 1461 rotations in 1461 days,this group has fallen to the wrong side of that line and all the reactions are merely a disturbance to the narrow mindset common to those who find themselves in rut convictions in either defending or contending with the idea of human control over planetary temperatures.
Widen up the technical and historical perspective and all the fuss vanishes and researchers can start fresh but modeling got this era into trouble and it as sure as can be that the world cannot model its way of this mess we inherited from a different era.
I think a clue to Gerald’s delusions may be found in how he always refers to the “central sun”.
But even so, simple geometry shows that for any object orbiting a central object, the number of “rotations” cannot equal the number of “days”.
Perhaps Gerald should consider the moon. It clearly presents the same face to the Earth at all times, and so if you define a day on the moon by the number of Earth rises, then there are 0 days per month. And yet in the course of one month, it rotates once. Thus it has one more rotation per month than the number of “days”.
I’m having difficulting imagining any frame of reference in which this does not apply, other than a simple model of a stationary Earth, in which case there are 0 rotations anyway on any timescale.
Steveta UK
“But even so, simple geometry shows that for any object orbiting a central object, the number of “rotations” cannot equal the number of “days”.”
This more or less mirrors what the main contributor to that cult states –
Willis wrote –
“In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.”
So,the response of the website is to recycle the arguments of a person who has just declared a separation between day/night cycles and rotations as though the slate was wiped clean and it was not an issue.
When you can’t predict the number of temperature rises and fall over a 500 day period is response to the same number of rotations then the use of ‘cult’ is justifiable as a cult member is unable to correlate their experience of the effects on their bodies such as how they feel temperature within a 24 hour cycle or day turning to night with their ability to appreciate the cause,in this case one rotation of the planet.
So,instead of looking at individual hostility in this thread,I look at how Willis is back in another thread feeding off the comments of those who know no better or are inclined to the same modeling nonsense. As cults are always self-defensive as opposed to normal organizations which protect themselves to maintain a healthy and productive environment for its citizens,you may see which side of the line this website falls.
Gerald, are you unable to consider the case of the moon, as I outlined above, and tell me where I went wrong, without any reference to anything else whatsoever? Just this one example. What is wrong with it?
Gerald, your fundamental perception of addressing a monolithic website (cult) is erroneous, thus any subsequent thought is as well.
@Steven Mosher: “The earth radiates to space at a given height called the ERL.” I repeat my question: Is it independent of a wavelength? And what exactly is that height? 20km? 47.5km? 200km? If it is simple, you should have no trouble to come up with a number.
Konrad 7:20pm: Good move correcting your narrative that only IR makes it directly to space and not the winds. Try to hold on to that as the internet never forgets.
The winds as you write do in part enable the distribution of the energy in the emission bath to be smooth over time per Willis Fig. 1 and without interfering. I note you do not find fault with the science in the Callendar 1938 paper – only finding fault w/the imprecise words.
BTW, the smooth NH and SH LWIR overlap in Willis’ Fig. 1 also means observations of nature needs you to correct your interpretation that windy days over the ocean majorly affect water emissions b/c there is no difference in emissions NH to SH even though much more water surface in SH. You must have skipped reading the paper I posted for you on that some time ago.
Moderators, why is Gerald Kelleher still allowed to post his inane speculations about astrophysics and astronomy on my thread about climate stability? He has repeatedly broken blog policy with his attempts to derail the thread, and has successfully done so. You are letting him run wild despite blog policy.
HELP! Can someone shut this idiot up, or at least tell him to take it to a relevant thread?
w.
Willis
The full quote from one of your responses is –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
Dear heavens, is that what you are on about? Above, you accused me of saying that … now it’s NASA?
In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.” Willis
You believe in the assertion of 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days and as there are 1461 days in 4 orbital circuits then you are obligated to follow your reasoning to a logical conclusion that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and from there into a cult realm where even the daily temperature rises and falls in response to a rotating Earth no longer survive as a fact.
There was always a chance that people who can think for themselves and have a streak of courage and intelligence would visit this website as opposed to a website promoting human control over planetary temperatures ,not just people who can handle historical and technical details but those less likely to be susceptible to cult traits like mob rule and what have you. That window of opportunity has firmly closed and this website falls to the wrong side of the line in terms of a productive environment for discussing climate .
All the bluffing about Arctic sea ice formation which requires a dynamical explanation in tandem with the reasons why 6 months of daylight follows 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles. I will give you all a hint – the reason we have a daily day/night cycle is via a surface rotation each 24 hour to the central Sun so the polar day/night cycle requires the same thing as a component of the orbital motion of the Earth.
In any case,the website recycled your arguments without dealing decisively with this encompassing issue so it won’t recover by taking the escape route – that is the way these things work.
[Reply: Gerald, please get back on topic – climate stability – or your comments will be snipped. First and last warning. ~ mod.]
Gerald seems to be nailed to the archaic notion that the stars (Sirius, for example) are “fixed” in some way.
That, people, is being stuck in the 1600s.
Gerald, I was open to understanding your augment, but you don’t seem interested in presenting a reasonable case. Your comments seem deliberately cryptic and contain more rants than explanations. If you were really interested in
It’s a given, though, that Earth inertial rotation rate is to a decent approximation is:
2*pi*366/24*365*3600 radians per second, or 72.92 micro-radians per second.
Plug that into Gerald’s reference frame and it comes out to right at (close enough, anyway) 1465 rotations in 1461 24-hour days.
Methinks you guys are getting crossed up by terminology.
Anyway,your basic question stands and should the forum change consensus in a decisive way,nobody will be more pleased than I.
Dude, you aren’t dealing with “the forum consensus”. You are dealing with your own nearly complete ignorance of mathematics and physics. To put it bluntly, you don’t understand time, you don’t understand space, you are clueless about inertial reference frames, forces, dynamics in general, pseudoforces in non-inertial frames, the observational basis for astronomy. You aren’t stuck in even the 18th century, you’re back there in the 17th, mouthing alchemical mumbo-jumbo. The scientific method and all of its fruits elude you. If you weren’t in a state of serious cognitive dissonance, a.k.a. “denial”, you could cure much of what ails you with a year or two of study beginning with at least elementary calculus, a course in introductory physics, and perhaps a decent course in astronomy.
In the meantime, since you are obviously ignorant of Newton’s Law of Gravitation, Newton’s Laws (as the basis of frames of reference and equations of motion), conservation principles, angular or linear momentum, energy, or any trace of electromagnetic theory and are stuck referring to Sirius as being Great with a capital G as if you are some sort of astrologer — wait, you are one, aren’t you. That explains why you use figures from a psychic’s website to support your arguments. Gawds, we have a freakin’ astrologer contributing to the site!
That’s it. There’s going to be no possible way of arguing with him, because he doesn’t accept the same rules for observational truth as everybody else. I should have known when he invoked Mach’s principle. That’s one of the most dangerous and oft abused statements of any physicist, bar none. It is invariably presented in a verbal argument that vastly overreaches its antecedents and assumptions, and with a complete absence of the kind of nasty, ugly, incredibly difficult differential geometry that might constitute an actual attempt to turn the “principle” into a theory with testable hypotheses subject to some other overarching theory, such as that of general relativity. Unless it is invoked by a serious high-end theoretical physicist or mathematician, in other words, in precisely the right context, it is pretty much an unique signature for “here there be crank physics”.
This is right back to a geocentric worldview. O-M-G. Why did God bother to invent parallax, one wonders.
rgb
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:00 am
“HELP! Can someone shut this idiot up, or at least tell him to take it to a relevant thread?”
Yes, I can help.
STOP RESPONDING TO HIM!!!
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:54 am (Edit)
Well, no. That’s just airy-fairy feel-good nonsense. Things play out quite differently in the two cases.
If you are requested to take a time out for repeatedly violating blog policies after a number of requests to cease trying to highjack the thread, then we are spared your meaningless, physically incorrect, childish, naive, and more to the point, TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC babbling about the planet’s rate of rotation.
In addition, people stopping by won’t be tempted to respond to your nonsense, further hijacking the thread.
You see how it works? It’s different if you have to take a time out, because we’re not exposed to your fallacious nonsense, and it gets much quieter without you constantly trying to hijack the thread, and people can discuss the actual topic without distraction.
w.
Bart says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:45 am
Blog policies exist for a reason, Bart. I’m just asking for them to be enforced so we don’t have to try to get everyone (including people just stopping by) to not respond to Gerald.
In any case, not feeding the troll doesn’t work for beans. Near as I can tell, trolls are relatives of the crocodile, able to survive without being fed for up to six months …
w.
Bart says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:45 am
Bart, I realized after writing the comment above this one that the problem is one of misidentification. Gerald is not a troll, which is someone who infests threads solely to make trouble. Gerald is not trying to make trouble.
Instead, he is a “SIF”, a Single Issue Fanatic. This is someone who has some issue stuck in their heads, and they insist on talking about it to anyone and everyone, usually in the most inappropriate places … I would not be surprised, for example, to see Gerald drop in on a knitting website and treat all of the knitters and purlers to his theories about the mystical 1465 days.
The problem is that like Ourborous, SIFs do not require external nutrition of any kind. In addition, he seems impervious to requests to STFU. Gerald will regale us with his bucketloads of bovine excrement until he is prevented from doing so, and there is no way to starve him out. He feeds off of his own sense of self-importance, and there is no end to that food source …
w.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:48 am
“Konrad 7:20pm: Good move correcting your narrative that only IR makes it directly to space and not the winds. Try to hold on to that as the internet never forgets.”
———————————————————————————————
Good move? Correcting my narrative? Oh, please.
I have always been discussing the role of radiative gases in atmospheric cooling and driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. I have never claimed that energy leaves the planet by any means other than LWIR to space. Around 90% of this is radiated from water vapour in the atmosphere below the tropopause and only a small amount directly from the surface.
Can you point to anywhere on this or any other blog where I have claimed otherwise? No, of course you can’t.
Trick, the delay/distraction/derailment attempts just serve to highlight how little AGW believers understand, and showcase the techniques they will use to keep the failed global warming hypothesis alive.
Sir George Simpson’s criticisms of Callendars attempt to re-animate AGW are solid. They become rock solid when the critical role of radiative gases in driving the non-radiative energy transports within the atmosphere he was referring to are considered.
The reality is unavoidable.
You cannot derive the temperature profile for moving fluids in a gravity field by SB equations alone. Nor can you just parametrise non-radiative transports or use mathematical fictions such as “effective radiative levels” to try and fix the problem.
But this is exactly what the pseudo scientists tried to get away with. The evidence of two shell radiative models being the sole basis for the original claims of global warming can never be erased.
There is no net radiative greenhouse effect on this planet.
This is an ocean planet.
The only effective cooling mechanism for the oceans is conductive and evaporative cooling into the atmosphere.
The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is LWIR to space emitted from radiative gases.
Therefore the net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
AGW is a physical impossibility.
How did the pseudo scientists get it so wrong? (pre-1990)
When trying to calculate the SB temperature for the surface in the absence of an atmosphere (ignoring that the oceans would boil into space) they applied SB equations to the oceans. But the oceans are a moving fluid in a gravity field. So they got the wrong number. A desert without atmosphere may have a Tav of -18C, but not the oceans. If the oceans could exist without an atmosphere they would reach near surface temperatures closer to 80C.
How did the pseudo scientists get it so wrong? (post-1990)
They were lying and they knew it.
Konrad 1:47pm: “I have never claimed that energy leaves the planet by any means other than LWIR to space….Can you point to anywhere on this or any other blog where I have claimed otherwise?”
The internet never forgets. “Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…”
The winds don’t get directly to space to emit amounts of IR so cannot cool the atm., only IR gets directly to space for dumping energy as in Konrad’s corrected statement. The winds stay in the control volume BOA to TOA as enabler distribution of energy for the LWIR bath plotted in Willis top post Fig. 1 to be smooth in NH and SH.
“You cannot derive the temperature profile for moving fluids in a gravity field by SB equations alone.”
Concur as above. Need conductive, convective AND radiative transfer measured and input to basic 1st law in a defined surface control volume. Then surface Tmean is revealed for planets and exoplanets, and moons. Konrad continues oblivious to the correct 1st principle atm. radiative science as far back as Callendar 1938 simply writing: “AGW is a physical impossibility.” w/o finding fault with the basic science only the imprecise words.
Here, again, is how things work in basic Queen’s English; find a fault in the paper’s radiative science, or a reason Willis’ Fig. 1 NH and SH plots overlay so smoothly and discuss:
“In replying (to Simpson), G.S. CALLENDAR said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Willis
I had a look at your climate stability video and the charming rotational terms known as morning,noon, sunset and so on –
Then you have this equally charming idea borrowed from a careless conclusion using timekeeping averages created in the late 17th century by John Flamsteed –
“In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.” Willis
It is like having a flat Earth foundation for discussing everything else so yes,it is presently the only issue out there – how humanity lost the basic facts which assign cause to those effects within a 24 hour day ,effects you willingly lecture people in the video and why they keep in step day in and day out throughout the year.
You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.
As for things taking their own course,don’t worry about it,you’ll see.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm
“You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.”
It was this portion of Gerard’s ranting that I questioned him on, in order to point out the problematic consequences of his assertions and he gave me the same answer as he gave most others: none at all. I agree with rgbatduke, that Gerard does not wish to engage in a rational discussion of his assertions.
One cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who’s argument is not based upon reason. And since a forum is the place for rational discussion, that leaves Gerard out.
SR
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:49 pm
————————————
Yes? What is it now? Oh, I see. The same again…
“The internet never forgets. “Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…” “
No Trick, I have not “corrected” that statement.
It is 100% correct as it stands. The atmosphere is not totally opaque to IR. At surface level, around 10% of any IR emitted upward by an air mass will make it directly to space without being intercepted by the atmosphere. As the altitude of the air mass increases, optical IR opacity decreases above the air mass an this percentage increases.
“Concur as above. Need conductive, convective AND radiative transfer measured and input to basic 1st law in a defined surface control volume.”
But this is quite clearly what Callandar and all AGW pseudo scientists didn’t do correctly. Radiative gases play critical role in tropospheric convective circulation. You cannot adjust for just radiative flux for increasing concentrations of radiative gases without simultaneously adjusting the speed of tropospheric convective circulation, the primary energy transport within our atmosphere.
“Konrad continues oblivious to the correct 1st principle atm. radiative science as far back as Callendar 1938 simply writing: “AGW is a physical impossibility.” w/o finding fault with the basic science only the imprecise words.”
I am quite clearly finding fault with the “basic physics” of your “settled science”. I can show by empirical experiment that three critical claims of the AGW pseudo scientists are wrong –
1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong
2. radiative gases are not critical for continued tropospheric convective circulation – Wrong
3. the oceans would have a Tav of -18C in the absence of an atmosphere – wrong.
And now on to Callendar’s weasel words in reply to Sir George Simpson’s 1938 criticism –
“..but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply? But that is exactly what radiative gases are doing. By allowing energy loss, buoyancy loss and subsidence of air masses from altitude, radiative gases are playing a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells. That’s seriously interfering with the distribution of energy within the atmosphere. Callendars calculations did not increase the speed of strong vertical tropospheric circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases.
Every climate pseudo scientist before 1990 made the same mistake. Post 1990 radiative-convective papers were simply an attempt to save AGW with bafflegab and hand-waving. “effective radiating level”, “choked radiators”, it’s all tripe with no supporting empirical evidence.
Ultimately to understand why AGW is physically impossible you only need to be able to answer two basic questions –
1. What is the net effect of the atmosphere on ocean temperatures?
2. What is the atmospheres only effective cooling mechanism?
Konrad 7:01pm – Again you make no objection in particular to any basic science in Callendar’s paper. See Willis’ top post Fig 1. again.
“1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong”
CERES SH and NH LWIR overlay so you are proven wrong on this. There is much more water surface in SH, if you were right SH LWIR could not overlay NH LWIR as it clearly does.
“Callendars calculations did not increase the speed of strong vertical tropospheric circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases.”
Nor do they need to since you are wrong about: “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…”
Only the surface window and atm. emit directly to space, any air masses rising above the surface emit increasing amounts of IR directly into the atm. radiation bath; strong winds simply cannot cool the atm. by themselves since winds don’t dump their energy out of control volume directly into space.
“…radiative gases are playing a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells. That’s seriously interfering with the distribution of energy within the atmosphere.”
That’s seriously enabling distribution of energy; clearly smoothing the NH, SH, Total LWIR as observed in Fig. 1. Willis’ Fig. 1 is serious trouble for you and the internet never forgets.
Ultimately to understand that the surface Tmean can be increased and the Tmean at great height likewise decreased, all you need is Callendar 1938 showing: “…if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:37 pm
———————————————-
You state –
“Konrad 7:01pm – Again you make no objection in particular to any basic science in Callendar’s paper. See Willis’ top post Fig 1. again.”
and then quote me as saying –
“1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong”
What’s that if not a serious objection to the “basic” pseudo science of Callendars paper?
Then you try –
“CERES SH and NH LWIR overlay so you are proven wrong on this. There is much more water surface in SH, if you were right SH LWIR could not overlay NH LWIR as it clearly does.”
The data you mention has absolutely no bearing on weather LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. None what so ever.
This simple experiment that other readers can build answers the question –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Simply start with water samples at around 40C and observe the cooling rate under both the weak LWIR source and the strong LWIR source. There is no difference. Now repeat the experiment with a thin LDPE film restricting evaporation on the surface of each water sample. Now the samples cool a different rates from each other.
You can even use the experiment set up to test other materials. You can fill each test chamber with warm sand. The one under the strong LWIR source cools slower.
Again I challenge you to provide a simple experiment that others can build that demonstrates LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
You can’t do it can you Trick? And that’s typical of all AGW believers. No empirical evidence.
Go on Trick, a simple experiment showing LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Just one simple little empirical experiment.
You have got nothing but hand-waving and bafflegab have you?
Konrad 7:37pm: “You have got nothing but hand-waving and bafflegab have you?”
I’ve the CERES LWIR data posted by Willis, many modern text book cites and specialist papers on the earth system at large. All provided for you. Even Tyndall made some pure air scattering conclusions from his small apparatus that turned out not applicable to earth atm., you are in good company.
Which exact science/paragraph in Callendar paper do you object about downwelling IR not slowing cooling rate of oceans?
“The data you mention has absolutely no bearing on weather LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. None what so ever.”
The data show there is no difference SH and NH LWIR the ultimate data from the cooling rate of liquid water where there is a large difference in water surface; papers show 0 to windy conditions affect ocean emissivity by ~1 part in 100. Your small experiments do not resolve for an atm., as Tyndall’s did not in some aspects.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:21 pm
—————————————————————-
Can you provide a simple experiment showing LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool that other readers can replicate?
Yes or No?
Konrad 9:25: Yes or No?”
It doesn’t matter for resolving available measured earth system data where I am sure the 1st law & applying control volume science approach work. Willis’ discussion of CERES et. al. experiments on earth surface/atm./solar measure the control volume system of interest data needed along with surface balance; 1st law is good to input measured system data into, has stood the test of time so far. That’s basic, practical understanding of earth system, more details are in Callendar’s 1938 paper: “…if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
None of your small tests disprove Callendar 1938 which is based in part on cited testing. Expenditures for satellites have to be made & data used.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:56 pm
————————————–
The Tyndall tube experiment is a great demonstration of CO2 absorbing and re-emitting LWIR in random directions. It works –
But you can’t provide a similar simple demonstration of LWIR slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You can only provide excuses for why you don’t have to.
The reason you cannot provide such a simple experiment for others to replicate is because incident LWIR on the surface of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool does not slow its cooling rate.
But in every AGW calculation increased downwelling LWIR is claimed to have a similar effect over the oceans as it does over land.
Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate. It should be so easy. The oceans are supposed to freeze solid without downwelling LWIR.
But you can’t provide just one simple experiment demonstrating how LWIR slows the cooling rate of liquid water. Just like every other AGW believer, all you have is excuses.
Sorry but that video of the Tindal experiment is not saying anything.
The CO2 is being released from a tank under pressure, of course its going to absorb energy.
Nor does it show any evidence of re-emitting.
Notice how quickly he stops the video of the experiment.
Steve Reddish wrote –
“Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm
“You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.”
It was this portion of Gerard’s ranting that I questioned him on, in order to point out the problematic consequences of his assertions and he gave me the same answer as he gave most others: none at all. I agree with rgbatduke, that Gerard does not wish to engage in a rational discussion of his assertions.”
It isn’t an assertion,it is a 100% observational certainty but apparently readers have difficulties putting the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun in context with the unexplained cause of the polar day/night cycle –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
I am presently looking at an advisor with the ear to the President talk about global warming causing cold snaps and for all the world it looks like the very dystopian society Orwell created out of Nazi ideology –
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. ” Orwell Nineteen Eight Four
As a Christian, there is no more appropriate insight into those who do not work off a stable foundation while they go about constructing a house as they see fit with elaborate features however you guys forgot the foundations in terms of what causes the daily temperature fluctuations,what causes the seasons and particularly the polar day/night cycle,how many rotations fit inside 4 orbital circumferences of the Earth in is circuit around the Sun and things like that –
“Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” Jesus
They tried to build a house on the basis of a rotating celestial sphere geometry back in the late 17th century and that is like building on sand so I assure readers it is not a one-issue topic. Too little to late to matter among present company.
AndyG55 says:
January 9, 2014 at 1:15 am
—————————————-
Andy, the Tyndall experiment does work. I have checked this.
However the more relevant experiment is this –
http://i49.tinypic.com/34hcoqd.jpg
These two chambers are insulated and double “glazed” at the top with LDPE film.
Both are illuminated with equal shortwave.
At the base of both is a matt black aluminium target plate.
In side each chamber is a radiation shielded thermometer and circulation fan.
Each chamber is pressure regulated to 1 bar.
One chamber is filled with air and the other with pure CO2. (Note that for the depth of theses chambers the CO2 represents about 25% of the total CO2 in an atmospheric column)
Both heat at the same rate when illuminated and cool at the same rate when the SW is cancelled.
The reason?
CO2 does restict the LWIR cooling of the plate in the CO2 chamber but it also increases the LWIR cooling of the gas conductivly heated by the target plate in the chamber.
But this is a dry experiment. In the real atmosphere the cooling power of CO2 exceeds the warming power by a factor of 2.
Konrad 10:22pm: “Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate.”
The Tyndall experiment I mention is the one on scattering in pure air, not the ones on absorption/emission. Look into it yourself as an experimentalist, report what you find. The atm. air scatters and attenuates a beam where his small experiment did not.
“Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate.”
Please provide a lab experiment that measures the atm. lapse rate, both dry and moist. If cannot, then can’t back them up.
Also, please get a paper published in say Nature on the discovery that disproves the multitude of ocean emissivity papers and text books that have built up from Tyndall’s day ever improving the science. Konrad’s reluctance to do so indicates really not so confident the small experiments replicate the data measured from oceans.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:17 am… [ … ]
Someone has apparently wired around Gerald’s On/Off switch, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. ☹
Trick says:
January 9, 2014 at 6:20 am
————————————–
Still trying?
But still no empirical experiment that other readers can replicate demonstrating LWIR slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? Didn’t think so.
Nice diversion though –
“Please provide a lab experiment that measures the atm. lapse rate, both dry and moist. If cannot, then can’t back them up.”
-and I will bite because it just gives another opportunity to show how little science AGW believers actually know.
First the basic principles of the lapse rate are high school science. Take a large plastic syringe. The larger the better to minimise conductive loss. Place the plunger at the half way mark. Insert a fast response thermocouple in the open end of the syringe and seal with blue-tac. With draw the plunger and watch the temperature fall. Push the plunger back in and watch the temperature rise. The principle of the dry adiabatic lapse rate is demonstrated. No scissors involved, so it should be safe for AGW believers.
Next should be the moist adiabatic lapse rate, but first condensation and nucleation. Take a 2 L PETG drink bottle. Pour in a small amount of warm water and shake vigorously with the cap on. Turn the bottle upside down and drain the water. Next light and extinguish a match (AGW believers should get mum or dad to help with matches) and allow the smoke from the just extinguished match to rise into the bottle. Screw the cap back on tight. Now squeeze the bottle hard and hold for a few seconds until some of the heat of compression is conductively lost from the bottle. Now release the bottle and watch as a cloud instantly forms in the interior. Try again without the match. It doesn’t work as well without the smoke particles providing nucleation points for condensation.
Now on to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. These experiments can be easily conducted in the lab using apparatus very similar to what Wilson used in 1899 when investigating fog. The primary problem with these experiments is conductive loss at small scales, however modern materials help minimise this. A cloud chamber with well insulated walls with very low conductivity is used. The chamber is connected to a bellows that can be used to accurately govern the pressure inside the chamber. Dry or moist air can be tested and the lapse rate observed. When testing moist air, the lapse rate can be observed to slow after dew point. Wilson was perhaps the first to discover the importance of nucleation to the onset of condensation. This was important for cleaning up London’s air as he was able to show coal burning was making fog a far greater problem than it would normally be. Switching to town gas was a real solution to a real environmental problem. In contrast, the modern environmental solution of switching to global socialism has never be shown to work for anything.
And now Trick, the lapse rate experiment that no AGW believer wants to see conducted. The vertical circulation experiment.
Most AGW believers seem to believe that the lapse rate is a product of maths, black squid juice on the bleached and dried pulp of dead trees. But it’s not. The observed lapse rate is the product of air circulation across the vertical pressure gradient of the atmosphere. If this circulation stops (such as without radiative cooling at altitude), gas conduction would send the atmosphere isothermal.
This experiment is very expensive because of the forces involved. What is required is a centrifuge arm with an insulated gas column along its length. The column is filled with dry nitrogen. All interior corners in the gas column must be rounded to allow smooth flow. Interior thermocouples are required along the length of the column. In the centre of the column two fans are required, one facing up the length of the column, one facing down. A short plastic flow divider can be placed between the fans parallel with the length of the column.
Bring the centrifuge up to speed until a significant gas pressure gradient is generated. A lapse rate will occur along the length of the column. This is not what we are looking for. Keep the centrifuge spinning for a few minutes until the gas column trends isothermal through gas conduction.
Now start the circulation fans and watch as a lapse rate re-develops. This is how the lapse rate observed in the troposphere is generated. Circulation of gas across a pressure gradient. You should note the the average temperature in the gas column has not changed (there will be conductive loses and small input from the fans), just the temperature profile.
Now switch off the fans and keep the centrifuge spinning. The lapse rate disappears. This is what would happen if radiative gases were removed from the atmosphere.
As you can see this experiment is very expensive. While it is not necessary to generate an 800 millibar pressure gradient such as in the troposphere, a significant gradient is required. Gas conduction works against the experiment at small scale, however engineering problems involving far higher rotation speeds make larger scale difficult.
So as you can see it is entirely possible to conduct all relevant experiments showing the basic physics of atmospheric lapse rate in the lab.
But apparently the effect of LWIR on water that is free to evaporatively cool is special and different and only to be inferred from noisy environmental observations and the scribblings of climate “scientists”. Give me a break.
Nice try –
“Also, please get a paper published in say Nature on the discovery that disproves the multitude of ocean emissivity papers and text books that have built up from Tyndall’s day ever improving the science. Konrad’s reluctance to do so indicates really not so confident the small experiments replicate the data measured from oceans.”
Firstly emissivity has nothing to do with the effect of LWIR on water temperature. Nor does absorption. The figures for this are fine. The question is the effect on the cooling rate of water below the skin evaporation layer. None of satellite observations give any insight into the effect of LWIR on the cooling rate of liquid water. This is simply being inferred by climate scientists using assumptions with no empirical evidence. The fact that you cannot find just one empirical experiment showing LWIR heating water should be telling you something.
Secondly I have previously had correspondence with the editors of Nature. That was the time I told them to stop using the “D” work when referring to sceptics. That should tell you what I think of their editorial standards. Spinning off “Nature Environment” in an effort to scrub the slime of AGW advocacy from their hands is no defence. Nature’s reputation regarding climate science is dirt and will remain so until they sack those editors and start with the grovelling apologies.
Konrad 5:14pm: “This is how the lapse rate observed in the troposphere is generated.”
Centrifuge not a relevant experiment, results are from having a gravity(r) gradient. In the atm. gravity is essentially constant for the lapse. Must test for case of constant gravity. Also test a near adiabatic atm. column in a constant gravity field which will move toward non-isothermal increasing entropy to max. and not possibly become isothermal as you claim, cite Bohren 1998 Sec. 4.4 p. 161. Adiabatic column can only become isothermal in absence of gravity. Check also the relevant Poisson eqn. for lapse T(p) .NE. constant.
Nor does absorption. The figures for this are fine.
Then you now agree with ocean emissivity measurements and now better understand why Willis’ top post Fig. 1 LWIR overlays NH and SH. Maybe Callendar’s & Willis’ work is having an effect, keep up the study you will eventually concur based on 1st principle theory & experiments in atm. nature (small n).
I do remember the plunger experiment you describe at HS science fairs demonstrating P=density*R*T, work = force x distance. That is relevant.
Trick says:
January 9, 2014 at 6:58 pm
——————————————
I say –
“..I will bite because it just gives another opportunity to show how little science AGW believers actually know”
And then you go an try this –
“Centrifuge not a relevant experiment, results are from having a gravity(r) gradient.”
Like fish in a barrel….
No, not a gravity gradient, it is the pressure gradient that results that is relevant. This can be generated by centripedal force with the centrifuge arm or by gravity acting on the real atmosphere. The method does not matter, only the pressure gradient and the circulation of gas across it.
The experiment is completely relevant. The fact that you don’t understand why it works is starting to indicate why it may be hard for you to understand that AGW is a physical impossibility.
Or perhaps it’s that you won’t understand?
It isn’t an assertion,it is a 100% observational certainty but apparently readers have difficulties putting the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun in context with the unexplained cause of the polar day/night cycle
That’s just it. It isn’t unexplained. It is completely, totally, 100% understood. We have satellites that watch it happen from space. We can measure the tiny, tiny motion of the precession of the tilt axis. You are living in a fantasy world, disconnected from the need for the hypotheses you use to explain observations to hang together as a coherent whole. You also continue to use terms that mean nothing to any human being but you, such as “orbital surface rotation”. An orbit is a linear trajectory — it is basically a 1D object confined to a 2D plain oriented in a 3D space. A surface is two dimensional. I have no idea what surface you might be referring to in the same sentence as “orbital”, and since your terminology is not standard, you cannot expect anyone to even understand the precise meaning of the phrases you have invented to try to explain this to yourself.
As a Christian, there is no more appropriate insight into those who do not work off a stable foundation while they go about constructing a house as they see fit with elaborate features
As I said, living in a fantasy world. This, too, explains a lot. You believe that the entire Universe is some sort of MMORPG, that nothing is as it seems, and that a syncretic dynamic text with thousands of authors and hundreds of thousands of distinct versions extant explains it all. Your “stable foundation” for physical science is probably the fantasy that is the Book of Genesis. You aren’t 17th century, you’re stuck in the the early iron age.
Look, all I can say is that the keyboard you are using to type your response was designed and built according to principles that contradict every single one of your beliefs. If you receive medical services at any hospital, they are delivered in a way that directly contradicts the teachings of the Bible concerning the causes of disease. If you turn on electric lights to see by, the physical laws that drive them contradict your fantasy. When you watch the stars at night, imagining that they were placed there “to mark out the seasons”, your eyes are blind to the 100’s of billions of galaxies each made of 100’s of billions of stars that are visible in the night sky with amplification, most of them so distant that the light we observe is itself over ten billion years old.
Believe whatever you like in your state of cognitive dissonance — you have clearly been brainwashed by the church as a child too young to do anything about it (like so many others) but bear in mind — nature speaks its own language. Let those with eyes that can see and ears that can hear, etc…
rgb
Konrad 6:58pm: “The experiment is completely relevant.”
Delta gravity simulation in centrifuge goes from max. at the bottom of your column to delta 0g at the center of rotation, that’s quite a delta g lapse gradient AND delta pressure gradient. In an atm. column gravity is constant for practical purposes, no g gradient only a T lapse, do you not see that? Just look it up. Results from the centrifuge test, while obeying same laws of physics, are not like an atm. column. Run your experiments without it if you can, no need to introduce a centrifuge analogy except to anti-clarify.
“Or perhaps it’s that you won’t understand?”
I understand Callendar’s 1938 paper which doesn’t depend on a centrifuge delta simulated gravity field, and that you have not proven any theoretical or experimental science in the paper to be at all faulty. This is all you need to understand and against which you have not provided any simple, cogent clarifying physics argument:
“…if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Like shooting fish in a barrel with the water drained out. Go ahead, knock yourself out – find physical fault with that simple statement. I’ll doubtless understand if shown based on relevant 1st principles and clarifying experiment. BTW, your LWIR and water evaporation experiment behaves to 1st principles and results obtained have no counterargument to this statement, they simply anti-clarify. Else get it published, show where Callendar’s statement and his atm. physics explanations do have a basic fault.
Gerald K says:
“…when people wake up on January 8th they are waking up to another rotation of the planet and the same will happen January 9th and every day after that but the cult member will insist that there are more rotations than there are 24 hour days.
“…the cult guys will still insist there are more rotations than 24 hour days.
“…the flaws created by the rotating celestial sphere system created in the late 17th century using time keeping averages and the calendar system in direct conflict with the 24 hour and Lat/Long system and the cult guys will still insist that there are more rotations than days.
“…Due to the consensus against the 1461 rotations in 1461 days,this group has fallen to the wrong side of that line and all the reactions are merely a disturbance to the narrow mindset common to those who find themselves in rut convictions…”
Gerald never responded to my point that Venus rotates backward [retrograde], therefore someone on Venus could not possibly experience the same number of rotations as days. The same thing happens on Earth, but to a much smaller degree.