Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?
By Dr David M.W. Evans (republished here with permission, PDF link below)
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
What the Government Climate Scientists Say
Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.i
The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.ii
Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.iii The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
What the Skeptics Say
Figure 2: The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.iv
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.v The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.
There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.
What the Data Says
The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2even while they got more detailed with more computer power.
- How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?
- Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view?
Air Temperatures
One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”:
Figure 3: Hansen’s predictionsvi to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellitesvii.
Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.
In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased – which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.
A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:viii
Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.
Ocean Temperatures
The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.ix,x In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over three thousand Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.
Figure 5: Climate model predictionsxi of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argoxii. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C).
The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.
Atmospheric Hotspot
The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot”.
The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.
We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 70’s to the late 90’s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.xiii Here it is:
Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.xiv On the right is what the climate models say was happening.xv The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.
In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification – the amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.xvi
Outgoing Radiation
The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification in Figure 1.
Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:
Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs).xvii Notice that the slope of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.
This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.
Conclusions
All the data here is impeccably sourced—satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.xviii
The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin—it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces – and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.
Therefore:
- The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
- The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.
Some Political Points
The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media – have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.
This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050, or it doesn’t.
Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree just about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?
About the Author
Dr David M.W. Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
Inquiries to david.evans@sciencespeak.com.
Republished on www.wattsupwiththat.com
This document is also available as a PDF file here: TheSkepticsCase
============================================================
References
i More generally, if the CO2 level is x (in parts per million) then the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to the extra CO2 over the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm as 4.33 ln(x / 280). For example, this model attributes a temperature rise of 4.33 ln(392/280) = 1.46°C to the increase from pre-industrial to the current CO2 level of 392 ppm.
ii The direct effect of CO2 is the same for each doubling of the CO2 level (that is, logarithmic). Calculations of the increased surface temperature due to of a doubling of the CO2 level vary from 1.0°C to 1.2°C. In this document we use the midpoint value 1.1°C; which value you use does not affect the arguments made here.
iii The IPCC, in their last Assessment Report in 2007, project a temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 (called the climate sensitivity) in the range 2.0°C to 4.5°C. The central point of their model estimates is 3.3°C, which is 3.0 times the direct CO2 effect of 1.1°C, so we simply say their amplification is threefold. To be more precise, each climate model has a slightly different effective amplification, but they are generally around 3.0.
iv More generally, if the CO2 level is x (in parts per million) then skeptics estimate the temperature increase due to the extra CO2 over the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm as 0.72 ln(x / 280). For example, skeptics attribute a temperature rise of 0.72 ln(392/280) = 0.24°C to the increase from pre-industrial to the current CO2 level of 392 ppm.
v The effect of feedbacks is hard to pin down with empirical evidence because there are more forces affecting the temperature than just changes in CO2 level, but seems to be multiplication by something between 0.25 and 0.9. We have used 0.5 here for simplicity.
vi Hansen’s predictions were made in Hansen et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93 No D8 (20 Aug 1988) Fig 3a Page 9347: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf. In the graph here, Hansen’s three scenarios are graphed to start from the same point in mid-1987 – we are only interested in changes (anomalies).
vii The earth’s temperature shown here is as measured by the NASA satellites that have been measuring the earth’s temperature since 1979, managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH). Satellites measure the temperature 24/7 over broad swathes of land and ocean, across the whole world except the poles. While satellites had some initial calibration problems, those have long since been fully fixed to everyone’s satisfaction. Satellites are mankind’s most reliable, extensive, and unbiased method for measuring the earth’s air temperature temperatures since 1979. This is an impeccable source of data, and you can download the data yourself from vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (save it as .txt file then open it in Microsoft Excel; the numbers in the “Globe” column are the changes in MSU Global Monthly Mean Lower Troposphere Temperatures in °C).
viii IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, page xxii (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf) in the Policymakers Summary, Figure 8 and surrounding text, for the business-as-usual scenario (which is what in fact occurred, there being no significant controls or decrease in the rate of increase of emissions to date). “Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C).”
ix http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/observations/gathering_data/argo.html
x Ocean temperature measurements before Argo are nearly worthless. Before Argo, ocean temperature was measured with buckets or with bathythermographs (XBTs) — which are expendable probes lowered into the water, transmitting temperature and pressure data back along a pair of thin wires. Nearly all measurements were from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes, so geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was poor—for example the huge southern oceans were not monitored. XBTs do not go as deep as Argo floats, and their data is much less precise and much less accurate (for one thing, they move too quickly through the water to come to thermal equilibrium with the water they are trying to measure).
xi The climate models project ocean heat content increasing at about 0.7 × 10^22 Joules per year. See Hansen et al, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, page 1432 (pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha00110y), where the increase in ocean heat content per square meter of surface, in the upper 750m, according to typical models, is 6.0 Watt·year/m2 per year, which converts to 0.7 × 10^22 Joules per year for the entire ocean as explained at bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/giss-ohc-model-trends-one-question-answered-another-uncovered/.
xii The ocean heat content down to 700m as measured by Argo is now available; you can download it from ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv. The numbers are the changes in average heat for the three months, in units of 10^22 Joules, seasonally adjusted. The Argo system started in mid-2003, so we started the data at 2003-6.
xiii The weather balloon data showing the atmospheric warming pattern was finally released in 2006, in the US Climate Change Science Program, 2006, part E of Figure 5.7, on page 116 (www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf).
There is no other data for this period, and we cannot collect more data on atmospheric warming during global warming until global warming resumes. This is the only data there is. Btw, isn’t this an obscure place to release such important and pivotal data – you don’t suppose they are trying to hide something, do you?
xv Any climate model, for example, IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, page 675, which is also on the web at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html (Figure 9.1 parts c and f). There was little warming 1959 – 1977, so the commonly available 1959 – 1999 simulations work as well.
xvi So the multiplier in the second box in Figures 1 and 2 is at most 1.0.
xvii Lindzen and Choi 2009, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf. The paper was corrected after some criticism, coming to essentially the same result again in 2011: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf.
xviii In particular, we have not quoted results from land thermometers, or from sparse sampling by buckets and XBT’s at sea. Land thermometers are notoriously susceptible to localized effects – see Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? by the same author: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf.
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
There might be a couple of instances where this article can be challenged but the overall picture, evidence and conclusion would be difficult for the warmists to legitimately debate. All the world-wide carbon control responses to the projected global warming “problems” have been based on computer modelling. It is clearly shown that that modelling fails to meet reality outcomes. They can call the climate variations by any name they choose, “climate change” at the moment, but the observed changes are do not support the CAGW theories.
=======
Your link comes up page not found.
Tim Ball also has some pages on this aspect:
http://drtimball.com/2012/computers-incapable-of-modeling-climate-billions-wasted-to-perpetuate-deception/
http://drtimball.com/2011/the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-has-achieved-its-goal-it%e2%80%99s-time-to-repair-the-damage/
http://drtimball.com/2011/disastrous-computer-model-predictions-from-limits-to-growth-to-global-warming/
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-false-philosophical-footings-a-massive-deception/
From the last:
“Imagine trying to claim that in the last 50 years, most natural causes of climate change have been replaced by human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Incredible as it sounds, that’s exactly what the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done. Here is a quote from the 2007 Report:
Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result – the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming – then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change beliefs and policies.”
itsnotnova says:
“@Werner Brozek, You seemed to have overlooked the first part of my post.”
‘itsnotnova’ seems to have entirely avoided my post @7:13 pm above. That is because the conjecture that CO2 is the cause of non-existent runaway global warming has been decisively falsified. If there is any dispute in the matter, ‘itsnotnova’ must provide empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing global harm resulting from the anthropogenic rise in [beneficial, harmless] CO2.
Otherwise, ‘itsnotnova’ should man up and acknowledge that the “carbon” scare has been falsified, so we can move on to investigating the natural causes of global warming and cooling.
I’d like to thank the readers that gave me the link to Evans’ pdf about the missing hotspot, since I was under the impression that the web is filled with warmist arguments about the topic, with apparently (due to my cursory searching) no rebuttal.
It is true that googling “David Evans” gives a lot of other people with that name; the sciencespeak site where the pdf resides is not an obvious click from the Google page, and it’s sadly “stuck in 1995”. Something could be done to render that content more visible; the pdf itself is somewhat unpolished, repeating itself at times, mixing up considerations about policy and political motives with the actual science; no alternative mechanism is proposed as to what could happen to all that water vapor (but it wasn’t required to invalidate the warmist assertion!)
All in all, the “missing hotspot” argument is really very convincing. Still, it’s all about vapor feedbacks, not CO2 forcings.
But, as for the greenhouse effect, people are pointing out that there is an observed decrease in stratospheric temperatures, and this is easily thought in terms of more heat being trapped in the lower strata, in the troposphere. That would give the CO2 a prominent role in this drama, albeit lacking the required catastrophic positive feedbacks (not that I’d want somehow to rule out an expected effect of CO2 increase on temperatures; it just sounds too perfectly fit for a theory that tends to overestimate it).
Now
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/not-found-the-hot-spot/
answers this very critique in a weak way, not separating CO2 and water vapor feedbacks.
The only valid argument she gives us is mentioning ozone depletion as a possible cause for the stratosphere cooling; but this is far from a definitive answer. We’d need someone investigating about different possible causes for the stratospheric cooling.
Btw, thanks for all your constructive work in search for the truth.
Here’s a fine critique of the AR5 WG1 drafts, by a Dutch scientist/reviewer:
POST-MODERN SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY OF THE IPCC’S WG1 AR5 DRAFT REPORT
Arthur Rörsch, The Netherlands
(First edition of a working paper, submitted to local authorities)
Small PDF download, 139kB.
Brian H,
Thanks for that link, which states:
The prevailing hypothesis of the assessment report is that Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW) is occurring; this hypothesis has been under challenge for many years by numerous independent scientists. These scientists were not invited to participate in the preparation of the AR5 report.
In fact, the ‘Dangerous” appellation refers only to the danger of having the IPCC’s gravy train derailed. Further, it is disingenuous to use a subjective, alarmist, emotional, and unquantified term such as “Dangerous”. The UN/IPCC uses pseudo-scientific terms like “Dangerous” in order to lever more funds to continue their propaganda operations. It is completely unprofessional, as is the deliberate barring of opposing voices in the IPCC’s one-sided, censored debate.
. . .
itsnotnova says:
“@Werner Brozek, You seemed to have overlooked the first part of my post.”
‘itsnotnova’ seems to have overlooked my entire post, which responded to Bart but was directed at his comments, and which falsified his ‘CO2 is evil’ belief system.
Typically, when a memeber of the alarmist contingent cannot refute scientific skeptics, they ignore the facts presented hoping no one will notice. But the root word of ignorance is ignore, and we’re here to help educate the ignorant on the benefits of the scientific method, vs being spoon-fed their misinformation at the anti-science alarmist blogs they frequent.
The only real science is that which is underpinned by the scientific method; using testable, empirical, reproducible experiments, data and observations to arrive at hypotheses, and supported by total transparency of all data, methodologies, metadata and code.
[Now we’ll see if I’ve managed to draw out ‘itsnotnova’ into trying to defend his evidence-free belief that “carbon” is the primary driver of climate change…]
Werner Brozek says:
March 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Peridot says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:39
why should a tiny rise in CO2 be caused by ANY emissions now
Are you suggesting that mankind is NOT adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere by driving cars and heating homes over the last hundred years?
Yes. Otherwise the much larger emissions from the northern hemisphere in autumn from dying vegetation would have greatly increased the residual CO2 over the thousands of years this has been happening. Or do our emissions go straight up 8 miles or so and stay there while all other emissions of CO2 don’t do that? As CO2 is heavier than air why would any stay in the atmosphere? I think a physical law called Henry’s Law has something to do with it.
All this still doesn’t answer my oroginal problem: How can tiny emissions of CO2 from humanity cause any warming at all even if it added to the residual CO2 when paleoclimatologists have shown that rises in atmosphere CO2 FOLLOW rises in sea & air temperature but centuries later?
How can a few hundredths of 1% rise in CO2 lead to 1C temp. rise when 11% or 20% concentration of CO2 didn’t lead to a temperature hotter than Venus?
I’d still like an answer – really I would.
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
Excellent.
itsnotnova says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:49 pm
You seemed to have overlooked the first part of my post.
I agree with:
“The heat transfer rate depends on the temperature of both bodies. A warmer lower body (lower ocean) reduces the amount of heat transferring from above.”
“temperature of the deep ocean is in contact with upper layers. Same theory applies”
True, but how much real difference will 0.01 C make, assuming the deep ocean did warm that much?
Peridot says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:04 am
I would have to write a book to answer all questions in detail. I will just give brief answers. First of all, see:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend
Note the saw-toothed pattern of CO2. So yes, there are seasonal variations that trump the man-made portions for a few months every year. But with rare exceptions, the year to year trend is up. The only reasonable explanation is that this is due to man’s emissions.
No emissions go straight up. All gases diffuse in the same way. Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases. If it did, then we would never find chlorofluorocarbons high up in the stratosphere. Henry’s law deals with gases in liquids.
Carbon dioxide has increased by 39% since 1750 due to man. Some may dispute this and that is fine. I have no problem accepting this. The important thing is that it causes no catastrophic warming.
As for how it causes warming, there are many views at all ends of the spectrum. A number of articles from the past year would need to be read to cover it all.
Werner Brozek says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Peridot says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:04 am
——
No emissions go straight up.
Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it will not ‘go straight up’ without help.
All gases diffuse in the same way.
How?
Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases.
If they’re lighter than air it does.
“Lighter than air refers to gases that are buoyant in air because they have densities lower than that of air (about 1.2 kg/m3, 1.2 g/L). Some of these gases are used as lifting gases in lighter-than-air aircraft, which include free balloons, moored balloons, and airships, to make the whole craft, on average, lighter than air. (Heavier-than-air aircraft include airplanes, gliders and helicopters.)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter_than_air
My bold.
If it did, then we would never find chlorofluorocarbons high up in the stratosphere.
Why not? There is obviously some work being done to put them there.
“Myrrh says:
March 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases.
If they’re lighter than air it does.”
I tried. I did not succeed with you. I give up.
Myrrh @ur momisugly March 2, 4:39 pm
I see that Werner has lost patience with you, so let me have a quick try. There is a classic experiment that demonstrates diffusion in gases. (perhaps you could look-up).
Take two containers holding different species of gas(s) and connect them with a tube. Eventually the two containers will spontaneously contain an identical mixture of gases. (BTW more quickly the hotter they are). The reason is that ALL molecules in a gas have isotropic translational energy so that perfect mixing is the inevitable outcome. (they whizz around in all directions, regardless of species).
Of course a hydrogen or helium balloon will be lighter than surrounding air because diffusion is prevented by containment.
If you refuse this explanation, I will ignore any such response.
Myrrh,
Further my comment above, as further explanation, note that all those naughty molecules whizzing around isotropically regardless of species result in impacts on any containment mechanism, and hence a pressure reaction.
Werner Brozek says:
March 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“Myrrh says:
March 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases.
If they’re lighter than air it does.”
I tried. I did not succeed with you. I give up
Bob_FJ says:
Bob_FJ says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Myrrh @ur momisugly March 2, 4:39 pm
I see that Werner has lost patience with you, so let me have a quick try. There is a classic experiment that demonstrates diffusion in gases. (perhaps you could look-up).
Take two containers holding different species of gas(s) and connect them with a tube. Eventually the two containers will spontaneously contain an identical mixture of gases. (BTW more quickly the hotter they are). The reason is that ALL molecules in a gas have isotropic translational energy so that perfect mixing is the inevitable outcome. (they whizz around in all directions, regardless of species).
Of course a hydrogen or helium balloon will be lighter than surrounding air because diffusion is prevented by containment.
If you refuse this explanation, I will ignore any such response.
March 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Myrrh,
Further my comment above, as further explanation, note that all those naughty molecules whizzing around isotropically regardless of species result in impacts on any containment mechanism, and hence a pressure reaction.
=======
Well I’m not giving up just yet..
You’re both making utterly ludicrous statements, you just don’t realise it. The atmosphere is not a vacuum, it is not empty space..
What we have surrounding us is an ocean of fluid gas, weighting a ton per square foot. That’s why you’ve no conception of convection in this, you’ve been taught that the atmosphere is ideal gas empty space with the molecules having no attraction, no volume, no weight because because you have no gravity. They (AGWSF Inc) has taken all this out so you no longer have any idea whatsover of the physical world around you.
You have no concept of gravity! Which means you have no concept of weight, so you have no concept of weight of one gas relative to another.
The atmosphere around you is not empty space with ideal molecules zipping through it at vast speeds! That’s why we have sound..
Get a grip will you.
The reason water evaporates is because it’s lighter than air.
That’s why you don’t understand, can’t even see, that they’ve taken out the whole Water Cycle!
Go on – explain how clouds form!!!
“note that all those naughty molecules whizzing around isotropically regardless of species result in impacts on any containment mechanism, and hence a pressure reaction.”
With your molecules whizzing around at great speed bouncing off each other in elastic collisions with no attraction – where’s the container around us that your ideal gas molecules bounce off to give us pressure?
How do we get rain from your molecules?
You (generic) and your silly jars and quoting ideal gas laws without understanding them. You take them out of context because that’s what you’ve been programmed to do, sound bite fictional physics memes and references to out of context laws and experiments which are totally irrelevant without adequate explanation of what you’re actually seeing. Do us all a favour here, understand what I’m saying and then go and deconstruct these fictional fisics memes they’ve brainwashed into you.
Explain* what you’re really seeing when you pour ink int a glass of water, what you’re really seeing when you open a bottle of scent in a room..
You can’t see the con because you don’t have any idea, no concept at all of the atmosphere around you – it is not empty space, it is not a vacuum, SB does not apply.
– see Steven Wilde
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/#comment-891239
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/#comment-891283
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/#comment-891530
You have therefore no concept of GRAVITY. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE GAS LAWS because you have no concept whatsover of what our atmosphere of fluid gas is. We have a heavy ocean of fluid gas surrounding us, subject to gravity.
You don’t get the joke when I say “that’s why you can’t hear me”.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
“While Brownian motion of large molecules is observable under an electron-microscope, small-molecule diffusion can only be probed in carefully controlled experimental conditions. Under normal conditions, molecular diffusion is relevant only on length scales between nanometer and millimeter. On larger length scales, transport in liquids and gases is normally due to another transport phenomenon, convection.
Therefore, some often cited examples of diffusion are wrong: If cologne is sprayed in one place, it will soon be smelled in the entire room, but a simple calculation shows that this can’t be due to diffusion. If ink is dropped in water, one usually observes an inhomogeneous evolution of the spatial distribution, which clearly indicates convection; diffusion dominates only in perfect thermal equilibrium.”
Another example of what I mean by you generic having no sense of scale, extrapolating nanometre to our vast atmosphere – besides you mix up ideal gas/empty space jars and diffusion through these at great elastic speeds of volumeless weightless molecules in an empty atmosphere, you give Brownian motion as an example of diffusion, which requires a fluid medium! You don’t understand convection. You don’t have convection!
You don’t even have evaporation of water your AGWScience Fictional fisics world!
If you can get your heads around this, you’ll see that you’ve been living in a world through the looking glass with Alice, as much impossible fisics as you can imagine before breakfast. Come back. And if those who taught you are still teaching this…
“”””” @Myrrh
Maybe this can help you.
“HEAT” is transported by RADIATION, in exactly the same manner, as the dearly departed are transported to their afterlife, by coffins.
I haven’t heard that one before.. “””””
Well let me try to explain. You like many others claim (and teach) that “Electromagnetic Radiation” is one method (of three) for transporting heat; and I have asserted that is NOT so.
So Myrrh, would you agree that a “grocery shopping cart” is another method of heat transport ?
What’s that you say; “I haven’t heard that one before.”
Well of course it is true. You watch the average grocery shopping cart being wheeled out to the parking lot to somebody’s Pius , or perhaps SUV, and you will find that it is simply full of “heat”, so clearly “heat” is being transported by the shopping cart; by way of the bulk transport of heat containing matter; which therefore must be a form of convection. Well of course that heat is in the form of bread, and steaks, and potatoes, and whisky; even beer. And it is all going home to help stop the purchaser from freezing to death. So s/he will eat/drink the grocery cart contents to activate chemical reactions which will “HEAT” the body of the consumer. We call it “FOOD” but it really is to a large extent simply a stored chemical energy, which was convected out to the SUV by way of the shopping cart.
Now the shopping cart, and the bread loaf or bottle of Scotch are NOT “heat”; they are simply a conveyance mechanism by which “ENERGY” is being conveyed from one place to another; and it is only when that energy is released via chemical reactions, that “HEAT” is produced.
Shopping carts and potatoes are NOT HEAT; they simply are vehicles for the transport of ENERGY which can be used somewhere else TO CREATE “HEAT”.
Likewise Myrrh, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION is not “HEAT”, it is simply a vehicle for the conveyance of ENERGY, which CAN be converted to “HEAT” somewhere else.
The coffin of the dearly departed is simply a conveyance for the physical remains of the loved one. The passage to the hereafter happens in the minds of the remaining friends and family; that eternal life is NOT what’s in the coffin.
So back to “heat” and “light” without the shouting. Neither one of these “things” is electro-magnetic radiation. Furthermore neither one is transported directly by EM radiation.
Both “heat” and “light”, and “warmth”, and “brightness”, and “cool” are human experienced psycho-physical aspects of the interraction of certain forms of energy with the human body.
A slab of granite, or obsidian glass does not understand the concept of being warm, or frigid, or of seeing things; those are concepts of human experience.
So “light” by definition, IS visible, since it is simply the psycho-physical response of the human eye to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; it IS NOT the radiation itself which is merely the shopping cart (or coffin).
Heat, or warmth is the same way; it is something WE feel, but inanimate objects do not. The granite or obsidian can and will respond to EM energy of sufficient intensity levels and wavelengths, but it doesn’t know anything about being cold or toasty.
Now I’m sure that Phil fully understands the difference, and we scientists do tend to throw around these terms flippantly; but we need to remeber that the same words have common everyday usage that lay persons don’t necessarily understand may have very precise scientific meanings so we MUST be careful in our use of words, to avoid confusing people who may not be schooled in the science behiond it.
And Myrrh, if you can get past the trap of believing that EM radiation is synonymous with “heat” and “light”, then you will have no problem in understanding that EM radiation in the visible “light” range of wavelengths, is just as capable (in fact moreso) as wavelengths in the near or far IR range of RAISING THE TEMPERATURE of physical materials, whether it be the oceans or human flesh or granite.
A photon at 10 microns wavelength in the LWIR range; which can be efficiently radiated by a bottle of water at 300 K Temperature has only 1/10th of the energy or a photon at 1 micron wavelength which is efficiently absorbed by water in our flesh. And a blue green photon at 500 nm near the solar spectrum peak (wavelength), has 20 times the energy of that 1o micron photon from the water bottle.
That fraudulent “laboratory” experiment demonstrating a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, at probably 3,000 kelvin color Temperature, is radiating 10,000 times the power density level of the bottle of water; which bottle is quite representative of the surface of the earth which is LWIR irradiating the atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and moreover it emits plenty of 4 micron and 2.17 micron IR which CO2 also efficiently absorbs,
Bob_FJ says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Regarding your two container experiment, you did not say whether the containers were horizontal or vertical and if I understand Myrrh, that presumable makes all the difference. So I made some assumptions and some number crunching. As I often told my physics students, think of an extreme example and see where that takes you. So let us presume we have two containers that hold a mole of gas at 1.00 atmosphere and 20.000 C. Let us assume each container is 1.0 m high and that the bottom one contains a mole of radon and the top a mole of helium. (The reason I am not assuming the top has a vacuum is that I want to avoid the expansion due to cooling issue.) But for our calculations, we can ignore the helium. So at the start, the center of gravity for the radon is 0.5 m. At the end, it is 1.0 m. So we can calculate the gain in gravitational potential energy of the radon using E = mgh. Then we can calculate the drop in temperature due to this gain in gravitational potential energy using Q = mct. It turns out that in this case, the drop in temperature to raise the mole of radon 0.5 m is 0.005 C, so the final temperature drops from 20.000 to 19.995. The bottom line is that gravity is totally irrelevant here.
George E. Smith; says:
March 3, 2012 at 9:42 am
“”””” @Myrrh
Maybe this can help you.
“HEAT” is transported by RADIATION, in exactly the same manner, as the dearly departed are transported to their afterlife, by coffins.
Myrrh: “I haven’t heard that one before..”
Well let me try to explain. You like many others claim (and teach) that “Electromagnetic Radiation” is one method (of three) for transporting heat; and I have asserted that is NOT so.
And I have reminded you that you are saying something utterly opposed to all traditional, well tested and well understood physics – and as I went through in an earlier post, it is for you to adjust your thinking to this, not for you to imagine it is something different and claim you know better, just because you say so. That is absurd arrogance since you provide no proof that you have superior insight or knowledge, and, it is clearly shown that you don’t have because you claim impossible things from it, and I’ll say it again, without giving any proof.
So Myrrh, would you agree that a “grocery shopping cart” is another method of heat
transport ?
What’s that you say; “I haven’t heard that one before.”
Well of course it is true. You watch the average grocery shopping cart being wheeled out to the parking lot to somebody’s Pius , or perhaps SUV, and you will find that it is simply full of “heat”, so clearly “heat” is being transported by the shopping cart; by way of the bulk transport of heat containing matter; which therefore must be a form of convection. Well of course that heat is in the form of bread, and steaks, and potatoes, and whisky; even beer. And it is all going home to help stop the purchaser from freezing to death. So s/he will eat/drink the grocery cart contents to activate chemical reactions which will “HEAT” the body of the consumer. We call it “FOOD” but it really is to a large extent simply a stored chemical energy, which was convected out to the SUV by way of the shopping cart.
Now the shopping cart, and the bread loaf or bottle of Scotch are NOT “heat”; they are simply a conveyance mechanism by which “ENERGY” is being conveyed from one place to another; and it is only when that energy is released via chemical reactions, that “HEAT” is produced.
Shopping carts and potatoes are NOT HEAT; they simply are vehicles for the transport of ENERGY which can be used somewhere else TO CREATE “HEAT”.
As you say, they are not HEAT. Nor is the shopping cart a conveyor of heat. And you are confusing energies and matter. Moreover, you then have to bring in several more steps before you get heat. Chemical energy isn’t heat energy – for example in photosynthesis, the visible light’s energy is converted to chemical energy, to enable the plant to make sugar out of carbon dioxide and water, visible light is used to enable the process, the chemical energy produced, sugar, is not heat.
It is not until that chemical energy is used for other processes, growth, that heat is produced. The plant then releases that heat by transpiration.
And I do hate these bloody pages that are quite good until they spoil it by saying oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis! Idiotic. By-product. Plants breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide as we do, it’s essential to them.
Anyway, rant over, the shopping cart is not a conveyor of heat, it is the conveyor of matter which may contain some heat, but which it then plays no part in actually converting to chemical energy. It’s not a very good analogy, even if that is ‘what electromagnetic energy is’, because it’s still
there at the end. It isn’t driving the process, it’s energy isn’t being used for chemical change, and, it isn’t driving the process to convert the chemical energy to heat as a by-product.
Picky, yes.
Likewise Myrrh, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION is not “HEAT”, it is simply a vehicle for the conveyance of ENERGY, which CAN be converted to “HEAT” somewhere else.
Which is why you don’t understand what heat is. I have never said that electromagnetic radiation is heat. But it is your idea that it is ‘all the same energy’ “which can be converted to heat somewhere else”, and is where you’re going wrong.
As in photosynthesis, the visible light is converting to chemical energy. Chemical energy isn’t heat. It is chemical energy not heat energy, just as neither are mechanical energies.
“it is simply a vehicle for the conveyance of ENERGY”
This, I’ve worked out finally, is where you lose the plot. It IS ENERGY!
It doesn’t convey energy, it is electromagnetic energy. That is what it is.
The coffin of the dearly departed is simply a conveyance for the physical remains of the loved one. The passage to the hereafter happens in the minds of the remaining friends and family; that eternal life is NOT what’s in the coffin.
Matter is eternal, it can neither be created nor destroyed. That is eternal life.
But that’s still not what electromagnetic energy is, it is not ‘something’ carrying “energy”, it is not something carrying “heat” or “light”.
So back to “heat” and “light” without the shouting. Neither one of these “things” is electro-magnetic radiation.
This is where you’ve got it backwards. These “things”, “heat” and “light”, are exactly that, they are electromagnetic radiation.
Furthermore neither one is transported directly by EM radiation.
They are the EM radiation! One is light and one is heat.
Both “heat” and “light”, and “warmth”, and “brightness”, and “cool” are human experienced psycho-physical aspects of the interraction of certain forms of energy with the human body.
Psycho-babble gobbledegook.. Is this an example of post modern science?
A slab of granite, or obsidian glass does not understand the concept of being warm, or frigid, or of seeing things; those are concepts of human experience.
Oh what crap. They will heat up if heated. And, unless you can prove that they are not conscious of this …. 🙂
So “light” by definition, IS visible, since it is simply the psycho-physical response of the human eye to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; it IS NOT the radiation itself which is merely the shopping cart (or coffin).
Now listen carefully. Heat and Light are electromagnetic radiation. They are not being transported by this, this is what they are. They are electromagnetic radiation in the form of heat and light. Repeat that several times until it sinks in.
Just as thermal energy and heat are often confused – because they are the same thing.
Heat, or warmth is the same way; it is something WE feel, but inanimate objects do not. The granite or obsidian can and will respond to EM energy of sufficient intensity levels and wavelengths, but it doesn’t know anything about being cold or toasty.
I’ve now tried to start a reply several times… I think I’ll leave this one.. 🙂
Now I’m sure that Phil fully understands the difference, and we scientists do tend to throw around these terms flippantly; but we need to remeber that the same words have common everyday usage that lay persons don’t necessarily understand may have very precise scientific meanings so we MUST be careful in our use of words, to avoid confusing people who may not be schooled in the science behiond it.
Which is why you end up talking absolute gibberish! I suggest you stop thinking of yourself as a ‘scientist’ in this, and go back to studying basics, such as heat capacity and temperature and maybe then you’ll be able to convey the real physics and not this garbled mess.
And Myrrh, if you can get past the trap of believing that EM radiation is synonymous with “heat” and “light”, then you will have no problem in understanding that EM radiation in the visible “light” range of wavelengths, is just as capable (in fact moreso) as wavelengths in the near or far IR range of RAISING THE TEMPERATURE of physical materials, whether it be the oceans or human flesh or granite.
Well, as I have repeated asked whenever such a claim is made – effin’ prove it! Prove that visible blue light as from the Sun heats water. Let me know when you have a cup of it hot enough for a coffee – I’ll come over.
Until then, I prefer the real physical world around me to your Alice through the looking glass nonsense world.
That fraudulent “laboratory” experiment demonstrating a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, at probably 3,000 kelvin color Temperature, is radiating 10,000 times the power density level of the bottle of water; which bottle is quite representative of the surface of the earth which is LWIR irradiating the atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and moreover it emits plenty of 4 micron and 2.17 micron IR which CO2 also efficiently absorbs,
What fraudulent laboratory experiment? Incandescent lightbulbs generate 5% visible light to 95% heat, thermal infrared. That’s simply a fact about incandescent light bulbs.
There’s a whole range of lightbulbs now, we know so much more about heat and light this side of the mirror, there are lightbulbs which are much cooler, producing a huge amount of visible light and very little thermal infrared. The kind that are used in greenhouses to give visible light to the plants without heating them up… 🙂
Still, thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking, I can understand now why you’re so confused.
Easily solvable. Adjust your brain to thinking of heat and light as different forms of electromagnetic energy and you should slip back into the right gear.
It’s these different forms, such as x-rays, gamma, visible, thermal infrared, that are distinctly different from each other. They have different properties one from the other, they are different sizes, have different effects on the matter they meet. They can share some of their characteristics with other forms, for example ionising and non-ionising UV, and can be categorised by their properties, Heat and Light are two such distinctly different forms. Near Infrared comes into the category of Light, for example. As before, because it is light and not heat, near infrared is used for photography – photo means light.
It’s not the matter they meet that makes ‘energy’ into heat or light or x-rays, it is what they are before they meet matter.
They are different FORMS of electromagnetism. They are distinct entities in their own right and act and react with matter in different ways, because they are different from each other.
Heat from the Sun, is the thermal energy of Sun, is electomagnetism in the form of heat. It is this heat which acts on organic matter, heat heats it up. Light doesn’t do this. They work on completely different levels of process because of their different properties. Heat causes whole molecules to vibrate, light for the most part gets bounced off molecules in refraction and reflection and scattering, or used to drive chemical changes as in photosynthesis.
“Radiation” is one method (of three) for transporting heat; and I have asserted that is NOT so.”
It might help you re-organise your brain around this if you used the correct term. Radiation is one method of transferring heat. It is heat itself, thermal energy, being transferred, not transported. Visible light isn’t thermal energy.
Electromagnetism isn’t a shopping trolley carrying energy, it is energy itself. Which is why you end up with an abandoned shopping trolley – we don’t end up with abandoned electromagnetic waves delivering something you call ‘energy’..
Well you know what they say about leading a horse to water. Perhaps someone else with patience beyond mine; who knows the correct process for watering a 14 day camel for a trip across the desert, can apply the process to Myrrh. I’ll not be with him on that trip.
George E. Smith @ur momisugly March 4, 8:32 pm
George, I have admired your immense patience and labour with trying to get Myrrh to “see the light”, (pun intended), but let me draw a medical analogy; From my experience with two humans close to me and one of my two Jack Russell dogs, it can be very difficult to “cure” an OCD, or oftentimes impossible. (OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).
I also deeply admire the medical practitioners who try to affect such cures, although how they cope with their low success rate is a big mystery to me.
Werner Brozek @ur momisugly March 3, 11:01 am
Werner, hoping that you have not given up in disgust here:
As an engineer, I have sometimes wondered in the past if the quantum theory diffusion effect might break down under situations of low gravitational force and/or very thin gases. However, it seems to me more recently that under such fringe conditions that molecular free path lengths must increase, but whilst the interactions will reduce, the outcome of molecular mixing of different species would be unchanged.
I’ve only glanced through Myrrh’s great wisdoms, but I think that he did not understand or ignored what I meant about “containment mechanisms” for atmospheric pressure. The prime one of course is gravitational, without which we would have no atmosphere. There are of course secondary thingies such as primarily advective weather systems resulting in regional variations in pressure containment. Ho hum!
Bob_FJ;
Few cures = guaranteed employment. The same reason bureaucracies never “solve” the issues they deal with.
>:-}
Bob_FJ says:
March 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Werner Brozek @ur momisugly March 3, 11:01 am
Werner, hoping that you have not given up in disgust here:
As an engineer, I have sometimes wondered in the past if the quantum theory diffusion effect might break down under situations of low gravitational force and/or very thin gases. However, it seems to me more recently that under such fringe conditions that molecular free path lengths must increase, but whilst the interactions will reduce, the outcome of molecular mixing of different species would be unchanged.
I’ve only glanced through Myrrh’s great wisdoms, but I think that he did not understand or ignored what I meant about “containment mechanisms” for atmospheric pressure. The prime one of course is gravitational, without which we would have no atmosphere. There are of course secondary thingies such as primarily advective weather systems resulting in regional variations in pressure containment. Ho hum!
Ho hum, indeed. You review books without reading them?
The Werner Brozek’s of this argument don’t have gravity.
WARMISTS have instead, EMPTY SPACE. That’s why they use their SB vacuum to calculate radiation, because they don’t have an atmosphere. I’ll repeat that.
Warmists don’t have an atmosphere.
That’s why they have NO CONVECTION, NO WATER CYCLE! They have NO WIND! They have, instead of the heavy fluid gaseous ocean above us, EMPTY SPACE!
THEY DON’T HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE GRAVITY!
THEY DON’T HAVE GRAVITY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE REAL GASES, THEY LIVE IN AN IMAGINARY IDEAL GAS WORLD!
YOU PEOPLE REALLY PISS ME OFF.
Why don’t they have gravity? They don’t have gravity because they have a basic ideal gas world in a container. That’s all they know. They don’t know the difference between ideal and real because they don’t have real gases! That’s why they don’t know what I’m talking about.
You won’t understand my gibe about warmists having no sound in their world, because you don’t know what I’m talking about.
For warmists, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are the basic description of the imaginary ideal gas – they take literally that molecules have no volume, no weight because no gravity, no interactions, no attractions..
That’s why their supermolecule carbon dioxide can stay up in their atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years accumulating defying gravity! They have no water cycle because they have no rain, they have no rain because “Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases” as Werner has so adamantly said.
So they have no water evaporating because lighter than air, they have no carbon dioxide’s and water’s irresistable attraction for each other creating carbonic acid and coming down as rain, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid. They have no heavier than air carbon dioxide displacing air to come down to the ground unless work is being done to change that, because of all the above imaginary fisics!
Warmists live in the Alice through the looking glass land, THEY HAVE CREATED a WHOLE NEW FICTIONAL FISICS OF THEIR IMAGINARY EARTH!
They have no heat capacity because they have no effin’ molecules! They have hard dots zipping through empty space. They have no lapse rate because they have no gravity! Their ‘gravity’ is pressure from the side of the container. Their container is their imagined glass all around the Earth through which the heat of the Sun can’t penetrate! Hence their claim that shortwave heats their Earth’s land and oceans! And they seriously defend this nonsense.
You don’t know how utterly stupid warmist fisics if you haven’t bothered to read what I’ve been saying..
..THEY DON’T KNOW HOW UTTERLY ABSURD THEIR FISICS!
Warmists and warmists pretending to be sceptics mix up everything, giving properties of one thing to another, like giving the Sun’s invisible heat thermal infrared to visible shortwave. There is no internal consistency in the imaginary fisics, because they can imagine whatever impossible thing they want.
Their ideal gas molecules zip through their empty space atmosphere at vast speeds thoroughly mixing by ideal gas diffusion or, they mix by Brownian motion! They don’t have a fluid gas medium for Brownian motion! Do they care? They don’t even understand it to care. So they extrapolate from nanometre scale Brownian motion in a fluid to the whole of their empty vacuum space ideal gas gravity less atmosphere! Stupid isn’t a strong enough word for this.
Warmists believe it because they have been brainwashed through the education system into believing this collection of mix and make up properties and out of context law memes is real world physics, they show ‘experiments’ to prove it.. A scent bottle opened in a class room proves it! They have no convection, because they have no volume, because they have no gravity, because they have no…
Their molecules of gas HAVE NO PROPERTIES. That’s why they don’t understand electromagnetic waves – they don’t have properties in anything. These have all been taken out of their comic cartoon KT97 and variations energy budget.
Are the caps working? Are you paying attention to what I’m saying here?
Warmists have a completely fictional fisics which begins with their fictional ideal gas in an empty space container scenario.
And if you agree with Werner that “gases have no buoyancy” then you are no more an engineer than they are scientists. Imaginary scientists in an imaginary world.
That’s what is digusting here. You lot passing yourselves off as real world scientists and fuelling the take over of our personal freedoms by the puppet masters who created these fictional fisics memes for you. And you’re not scientists enough to see that.
Yet.
Myrrh says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:24 am
“Test #2 I have a stream of photons, each having a wavelength of 1.0 microns; now you would describe those 1.0 micron photons as “heat”.”
No I wouldn’t! That is a Light energy, not a Heat energy. Heat energy begins in mid infrared, only mid and longwave infrared are thermal.
;———————————————————————————————————————
Assuming you understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., heat is energy, then the phrase “Heat energy” is internally redundant.
Also, from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, it follows that heat is not equal to temperature.
Suppose I place a dead fish inside a metal box, and bombard it for 4 minutes with 700 Watts of 133,000 micron (or 133 mm ) electromagnetic radiation, would the temperature of the fish rise?
Note, you might already have one of these boxes in your home – it’s called a microwave oven.
Agile Aspect says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Myrrh says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:24 am
“Test #2 I have a stream of photons, each having a wavelength of 1.0 microns; now you would describe those 1.0 micron photons as “heat”.”
No I wouldn’t! That is a Light energy, not a Heat energy. Heat energy begins in mid infrared, only mid and longwave infrared are thermal.
;———————————————————————————————————————
Assuming you understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., heat is energy, then the phrase “Heat energy” is internally redundant.
Assuming you’re making some stab at understanding English since it’s clear you don’t understand the first law of thermodynamics, which is of heat, thermo – so is light energy, heat isn’t light.
Also, from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, it follows that heat is not equal to temperature.
I’ve never said it was, so why bring it in here?
Suppose I place a dead fish inside a metal box, and bombard it for 4 minutes with 700 Watts of 133,000 micron (or 133 mm ) electromagnetic radiation, would the temperature of the fish rise?
Note, you might already have one of these boxes in your home – it’s called a microwave oven.
Why not give an example of what was actually being discussed? Try cooking your fish with your remote control, let us know when it’s ready to eat..
Myrrh says:
March 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Phil. says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:26 am
Myrrh says:
February 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm
They can’t seem to stop thinking of Light as heat.
“That’s because it is! When I used green (532nm) light in my lab Laser Induced Incandescence experiment I heated soot particles to about 4000ºC.”
Yeah right, the Sun’s a laser. We’re just imagining we’re here, the Earth was burned to a crisp 4.5 billion years ago.
You seem to have some strange misconceptions as to what a laser is, in the experiment I described it’s just a stream of photons exactly at the same wavelength, i.e. 532nm in the green.
So pure green light focussed on black soot particles raised the temperature of them to 4000ºC, no mystical properties, just light (in this case visible) transferring energy. Something you mistakenly believe is impossible.