![Spin[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/spin1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle.
In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,
I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.” It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A ”favorable interpretation” means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.
Despite all the discussion and reports about weather and climate the public are unaware of even the most fundamental facts. Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.
Few people exemplify or describe the modern PR views better (worse?) than Jim Hoggan, President of a large Canadian PR company, Hoggan and Associates, in the Vancouver Sun December 30, 2005.
Want good coverage? Tell a good story. When your business is under siege, you can’t hope to control the situation without first controlling the story. The most effective form of communication is a compelling narrative that ties your interest to those of your audience. This is particularly critical when you’re caught in the spotlight; it doesn’t matter if you have the facts on your side if your detractors are framing the story. So, don’t just react. Take some time now to define your company story. Then you’ll be ready to build a response into that narrative should something go wrong.
Environment and climate suffer more from spinning than most areas and Hoggan, as Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and owner of a large PR company, has a long connection with both. He is the proud founder and supporter of the web site DeSmogBlog as he explains in his book about the climate cover-up. The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?” This wasn’t about answering the questions skeptics were asking about the science. Richard Littlemore, Hoggan’s co-author and senior writer for DeSmogBlog, revealed what was going on in a December 2007 email to Michael Mann.
Hi Michael [Mann],
I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science. (Emphasis added)
The hypocrisy is profound because nobody ever questioned Al Gore’s qualifications or financial, career or political rewards. No promoters of global warming, such as Bill McKibben, Ross Gelbspan, Seth Borenstein, Andrew Revkin or most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are challenged. Borenstein exposed his bias in a leaked CRU email from July 23, 2009 to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang. He wrote, “Kevin (Trenberth), Gavin (Schmidt), Mike (Mann), It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?” A journalist talking to scientists is legitimate, but like the leaked emails, tone and subjectivity are telling. “Again” means there was previous communication. At least Revkin left the New York Times apparently because of such exposure.
The problem began the moment environmentalism and climate were exploited for political agendas and people asked questions. If you can’t answer the questions you either admit that or initiate personal attacks. Spin-doctors use two basic types.
• The individual is named and a slur applied. These are usually false or at best taken out of context. This includes guilt by association and taking payment from an agency or belonging to a group the slanderer considers inappropriate. It is an ad hominem.
• Individuals are marginalized by putting them in a group with a term created that marginalizes by implying they are at best outside any norm. For example, despite obvious limitations of data availability anyone who asks about President Obama’s biography is called a “Birther”. Anyone who is troubled by incomplete, unclear, or illogical explanations for events is called a “Conspiracy theorist”. There is no word or phrase for falsifying information about a group. A collective ad hominem is a contradiction. Guilt by association has some application, but a term like “Birther” has a different function. It is a collective designed to discredit anyone assigned. There can be no general name because the objective is to identify the group with a specific issue. This is necessary as part of the goal of marginalizing or isolating.
Early indicators of the politicizing of climate included the claim of a consensus. The word applies in politics not science Calling people who questioned the science “skeptics” was greater evidence. “Skeptic” is negative for the public and defined as “A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.” Most think it is the definition for a cynic, “A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.” The problem is most people don’t know that scientists must be skeptics.
The epithet “global warming skeptic” was applied to me years ago and was used in questions from the media. When I explained I accepted global warming the media was surprised. They didn’t understand when I explained my skepticism was about the cause – the claim it was due to human CO2. Some labeled me a contrarian, but it wasn’t effective because few know what it means.
When the basic assumption of the IPCC hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperature stopped occurring after 1998, the attackers changed the subject and the pejorative. They raised the smearing level because they were losing the battle for the public mind. Now it became climate change and questioners deniers with the deliberate association with “holocaust deniers”.
Ironically, like all so-labeled, I am anything but a denier. My 40-year career involved teaching people how much climate changes naturally over time. The IPCC were deliberately constrained by their terms of reference to human causes and don’t consider natural changes. Rather they provide a “favorable interpretation” for their political objective to blame human CO2. It’s an interpretation a required spin to counter what Huxley called ugly facts.
Every time a problem appeared public relations people appeared and strategized a defense, usually to divert from the problem. When the emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) a public relations person was engaged. After the November 2009 leak the University of East Anglia hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization to handle the fall out. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said it was a “reputation management” problem, which he said they don’t handle well. Apparently they didn’t consider telling the truth. The leaked emails triggered a shock wave that required a top political spin-doctor. Wallis, a former editor at the News of The World, was later arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandals that led to the resignation of London Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as well as Andy Coulson, Prime Minister Cameron’s press secretary.
Michael Mann’s 2004 email to CRU Director Phil Jones was evidence of the PR battle. Confronted by challenging questions they apparently developed a defensive mentality.
“I’ve personally stopped responding to these, they’re going to get a few of these op-ed pieces out here and there, but the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about. By the way, Gavin did come up w/ the name!”
The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it? The apparent answer is they are not telling the truth and worse, know it.
I opened with a quote from Michael Crichton so it is fitting to end with his closing remarks.
Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
The problem and challenge is the population generally divides into 80 percent who struggle with science and 20 percent who are comfortable. I taught a science credit for arts students for 25 years so know the challenges. This makes resolving Crichton’s challenge of “distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”, even more difficult. It is almost impossible when professional spin-doctors are deliberately diverting, misleading and creating confusion.
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas H. Huxley
“A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree” – Dr. Leonard George.
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Genghis says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:22 pm
“How does computing an ‘average’ derive the radiative equilibrium? Hint, it doesn’t…”
—-
I, the American Chemical Society, and the University of Colorado have all tried to explain that the equilibrium temperature is calculated by setting the radiative imbalance to 0 (i.e. no change with time). If the average radiative balance over a solar day is positive, the planet warms. If negative, it cools. If zero, the planet is in equilibrium. This is just conservation of energy.
If you think all three of us are using the wrong terminology, maybe you should contact them.
—————-
I am confused, the American Chemical Society ‘computed’ the earths equilibrium temperature at 280k. I gave the S-B number at 278K (which you rejected). Not much of a difference, but significantly different than the IPCC’s 255k number.
If you agree with the American Chemical Society’s number and that GHG’s are only responsible for apx 8˚C total additional warming we may not be in disagreement.
Genghis says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“I am confused, the American Chemical Society ‘computed’ the earths equilibrium temperature at 280k. I gave the S-B number at 278K (which you rejected). Not much of a difference, but significantly different than the IPCC’s 255k number.”
—-
I objected to “the discrepancy in Mercury’s temperature that you’re claiming exists.”
In reality, the American Chemical Society (ACS) gives Earth’s back-body equilibrium temperature as 255K. It’s in the blue column in the table. The string “280” isn’t on the ACS page at all:
http://archive.is/8owZe
The LASP/CU link gives Earth’s back-body equilibrium temperature as -17C (256K). It’s in the fourth column of the table. The string “280” appears, but only as an intermediate step in in equation:
http://archive.is/foqZJ
—-
“If you agree with the American Chemical Society’s number and that GHG’s are only responsible for apx 8˚C total additional warming we may not be in disagreement.”
—-
The ACS actually calculates the GHG effect at 288-255=33C, and LASP/CU calculates it at 32C.
Genghis says:
November 8, 2013 at 2:43 pm
.
—————
You are forgetting one tiny, itsy bitsy, little thing Steven, the Earths atmosphere is largely transparent to high energy short wave radiation. Have you ever picked up a black steel tool that has been lying in the sunshine on a bright sunny day? The tool is way hotter than the air around it. Think about how that happened okay?
=====
I didn’t forget Genghis.
If the insulation isn’t there,
that admits 100% incoming energy.
When the blanket blocks 22% ever touching the tool,
energy sensors show that reduction.
I think what you’re alluding is the atmosphere causes that heat to remain.
That atmosphere, carries off energy through contact long, LONG before it would leave if radiation is the sole transport mechanism.
As SOON a that tool begins to have more heat in it than the air around, it starts handing some off through thermally conductive, physical contact.
Stopping energy from reaching an object makes the temperature go down.
Not maybe or maybe Thursday.
It doesn’t matter how many innumerates come in here and can’t tell 1 from 0, + from –
If you have an object you can heat
illuminating it with light to do so
and you immerse it in a frigid fluid gas bath
all thermal sensors embedded or attached to the surface of that object
will show a reduction in value of energy.
Again not maybe or maybe Thursday.
It’s simply the fraud of the absolute inversion
of the process of atmospheric energy handling, itself.
The frigid fluid bath
cools the warm object immersed and spun in it.
No sensor on any black tool is going to show one temp in a vacuum,
then a higher temp when immersed into a frigid, fluid, gas, bath.
Not once.
Not ever.
And no Dumb Scientist you didn’t fail to communicate your point.
Someone told you that if you attached sensors to a giant sphere and placed it in space and irradiated it with the sun, the sensors would all register a temperature T
and immersing the sphere into a frigid, fluid bath,
would make thermal sensors all over the planet, shoot up.
You’ve communicated your point perfectly well: you believe in magical gas insulation that reduces total energy to the target 22, is frigid, but makes thermal sensors show more temperature than WITHOUT that insulation.
Go get someone you think can explain the magical inversion from cooling to warming you claim is happening. Tell him you have someone who insists that if you place thermal sensors onto a sphere and irradiate it in a vacuum,
then you immerse and spin the sphere in a frigid gas bath
the thermal sensors on the surface are going to show the surface has gotten warmer.
“I wonder why my colleagues tell me not to waste my time at WUWT…”
Because you and your colleagues can’t bear the truth, and that truth is why temperatures are not rising in nearly two decades over the increase from the recent solar maximum. Get a life. You live in a sea of man-made adjustments and assumptions.
“that reduces total energy to the target 22, is frigid, but makes thermal sensors show more temperature than WITHOUT that insulation.”
should be:
that reduces total energy to the target 22,% *
is frigid, but makes thermal sensors show more temperature than WITHOUT that insulation.
above.
wayne says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm
“… temperatures are not rising in nearly two decades over the increase from the recent solar maximum. Get a life. You live in a sea of man-made adjustments and assumptions.”
—-
I put many links in the first paragraph of this article showing that Earth continues to gain heat. Not just over the last decade but also over the last two decades, etc.:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/schmitt-happer-wsj.html
This comment provides open source code to calculate trends and statistical significance (accounting for autocorrelation) and confirms that there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/has_the_rate_of_surface_warming_changed.html#94660
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 10:31 am
—————————————-
Still not getting any smarter?
Yes, yes I know. Control the language, control the “narrative” right? Wrong. The Internet is acid-dip to “narrative”. It does not matter how often you call radiative gases “greenhouse gases” they remain radiative gasses which both absorb and emit IR. Nothing you can say will change the fact that most of the energy that radiative gases are emitting from the atmosphere to space was acquired via surface conduction and the release of latent heat. The real “greenhouse gases” on this planet are N2 and O2 as these acquire energy via conduction and release of latent heat, but are very poor at radiating it.
I state -”the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm”
You foolishly try claiming -“he argues that they actually cool the surface” then amazingly provide
a link and quotes of me clearly using the word “atmosphere” not “surface” no less than 8 times!
As to “surface” , as the permanent Internet record shows, I have clearly stated many times on this blog and and others that downwelling LWIR measurably slows the cooling of the land surface, but has no significant effect over the oceans.
You have, amazingly, managed to outdo Trick at fail. It’s not like there are prizes or anything…
Truly a “David Appell” moment. It must be big shoes and red noses day today. All we need now is a bear on a bicycle and a big tent and we could sell tickets. 😉
Remember those simple physics questions about the role of radiative gases in atmospheric circulation, the ones Genghis got right? The ones Arrhenius and Callander forgot to ask? The answers should tell you that the role of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. All you need to get the answer is one extra fact of atmospheric physics –
– The surface is far better at conductively heating a mobile gaseous atmosphere in a gravity field than it is at conductively cooling it. (yes I have an experiment proving this that others can replicate)
Without radiative gases the land surface (not the oceans) may have a lower Tav than present but it is surface Tmax that is most important in terms of conductive flux into a moving atmosphere. But a moving atmosphere does not preclude the stagnation of the Hadley Ferrel and Polar cells without radiative cooling at altitude. Without strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation, the troposphere would trend isothermal (no lapse rate) with its temperature set by surface Tmax. This means a non-radiative atmosphere would run far, far hotter than our current radiative atmosphere.
Genghis says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm
—————————————-
Genghis,
yes, of course evaporation cools water, and when you run the two variants of the experiment, in the run without the LDPE film, the two samples cool much faster. The question is the divergence between the cooling rate of the sample under the strong LWIR source and the one under the weak LWIR source. The is no divergence rate when the samples are free to evaporatively cool, but when evaporative cooling is prevented, while the samples both cool slower but the divergence rate is easily measured.
I should probably have pointed out that you need to run two boxes as shown in the picture side by side, with both filled from the same 40C water source. The only difference between the boxes is the strength of the IR source. Do one run with both samples free to evaporatively cool, and one with both samples evaporatively restricted by LDPE film.
Essentially this is just the LWIR version of the old hair dryer trick –
Q. how do you heat a plastic bowl of water with a hair dryer?
A. point the hair dryer at the side of the bowl, not the surface of the water.
Hot air or LWIR, it doesn’t matter, the physics of the skin evaporation layer remains the same.
Konrad says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:24 pm
“… I state -”the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm” You foolishly try claiming -“he argues that they actually cool the surface” then amazingly provide a link and quotes of me clearly using the word “atmosphere” not “surface” no less than 8 times! As to “surface” , as the permanent Internet record shows, I have clearly stated many times on this blog and and others that downwelling LWIR measurably slows the cooling of the land surface, but has no significant effect over the oceans.”
—-
Mainstream science recognizes that adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere warms the surface (land or ocean) but cools the stratosphere. That’s consistent with this 5 minute explanation of the greenhouse effect, which might sound familiar to anyone who’s been reading my comments:
http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1907/how-co2-warms-the-climate-ray-pierrehumbert
If you agree with the physics summarized in that video then you haven’t said anything controversial. You seem to reject the fact that greenhouse effect operates over ~70% of Earth’s surface, but I’m sorry for misrepresenting ~30% of your statement.
—-
“Without strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation, the troposphere would trend isothermal (no lapse rate) with its temperature set by surface Tmax. This means a non-radiative atmosphere would run far, far hotter than our current radiative atmosphere.”
—-
In equilibrium, energy in = energy out. Without greenhouse gases but holding albedo constant, Earth’s surface would be at ~255K to balance energy in with energy out. That’s because the surface would actually be the effective radiating level. The real Earth with greenhouse gases can only radiate from its effective radiating level because the atmosphere is opaque to long wave IR. In other words, the effective radiating level is currently where it is (~6km above Earth’s surface- land or ocean) because that height is above most of the CO2 “insulation”. When the Earth’s climate is in equilibrium, the effective radiating level has to be at ~255K, or about -18C, otherwise energy isn’t conserved.
Removing all the radiative gases from our atmosphere would make the surface (land or ocean) become the effective radiating level. To achieve equilibrium, the land/ocean surface temperature (even assuming albedo remains constant) would plunge to about -18C. In reality, the oceans would freeze even at the equator, making the planet much whiter and thus even colder. A new Snowball Earth would be born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
Was that what you meant by “far, far hotter than our current radiative atmosphere”?
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 7:18 pm
———————————————-
“Mainstream science recognises…” Bwahahahaha! Would this be the same “Mainstream science” that believes that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce its radiative cooling ability? The same “Mainstream Science” that has developed 113 climate models, all of which have utterly failed against empirical observation?
The use of the term “Mainstream Science” is a blatant “call to authority” technique, and wholly unscientific. Something McKribben, Flannery or Appell would do.
As to “snowball earth”, equally laughable. For that to even be possible, incident LWIR would have to have the same effect over the oceans as it does over land. I have shown how simple it is to run an experiment to prove that liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is not effected by LWIR. No amount of typing from you can prevent others from replicating it. It proves that not only would the oceans not freeze over under a non-radiative atmosphere but also that Trenberths missing heat is not hiding at the bottom the deep oceans with his credibility.
I challenge you to provide a simple experiment comparable to this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
-that shows incident LWIR is in any way capable of heating liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool or slow it’s cooling rate. This should be easy for a scientist. There are only a few ways to fail the challenge –
1. Find an excuse why you don’t have to – fail
2. Criticise the experiment shown without showing your own – fail
3. Point to the maths of emissivity without empirical evidence – fail
4. Point to non lab based noisy empirical observation – fail
5. Show experiments that other readers can’t easily replicate to check – fail
That should be simple for a scientist, dumb or otherwise. A simple empirical experiment showing incident LWIR on the surface of liquid water heating it or slowing its cooling rate. After all it is a fundamental claim of the “snowball” earth hypotheses. It wouldn’t be like climate scientists to advance a hypothesis with no empirical basis now would it?
Konrad, I’ve obviously failed to communicate once again. Take it easy.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 9:26 pm
————————————-
Well in these, the last days of the AGW inanity, one has to take it a bit easy 😉
For sceptics, Schadenfreude is rising to dangerous levels. It seems every single public figure of the Professional Left was hiding behind the one stalking horse and they have all left a permanent record of vilifying sceptics on the Internet. None of them seem to have a viable exit strategy. The shrieking panic as they try to flog their dead stalking horse back to life could cause sceptics to die laughing…
As to communication, this is the Internet. Some of it is for now, and some for readers in the future 😉
Konrad 5:16pm – It is Callendar. Followed by more & extensive vitriol w/o any science content.
Top post: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.”
I see no cites from Konrad supporting, defending the Konrad 6, no text book ref.s supporting Konrad work distinguishing reality from propaganda. For Konrad, science and scientific method has left the room. Not one new text book on the atm. confirms main conclusion from Konrad manifestly uncontrolled experiments. Nor should they.
Nature reasonably confirmed Callendar 1938 Tmean anomaly Fig. 2, Table 6; modern text books and research papers extend his work, build on his experimental cites. Cite even one text book that concludes ““The net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm” and I will go get it. Until then, without truthful cites traceable to 1st principles, Konrad is just another top post PR spin doctor deliberately deceiving public about global warming and climate change.
Trick says:
November 8, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Yadda, Yada Yadda…
====
Don’t take it so hard, looptard.
You’re a hick who believes in magic gas who left the reservation.
You can’t answer any questions that don’t involve frantic appeal to authority, which of itself admits you don’t think you’re qualified to analyze the elements under discussion.
====
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Konrad, I’ve obviously failed to communicate once again. Take it easy.
======
You haven’t “failed to communicate.”
You tried to claim, adding molecules to the atmosphere reducing the total energy reaching the earth,
increases the total energy reaching the earth.
It’s simply that it’s on it’s face,
obviously,
not even remotely possible.
Which would explain why in the desert the surface heats more rapidly, and to higher temperatures in the daytime and cools more rapidly and to lower temperatures at night than a place of similar latitude that has significant amounts of H2O in the atmosphere.
Trick says:
November 8, 2013 at 10:53 pm
—————————————
Sadly it looks like Trick has just punched one too many cones. That last post was verging on the unintelligible.
Here’s another trick, Trick. A nylon stocking placed over the nozzle of the vacuum cleaner is a safe and effective way of collecting the contents of a cone lost to the carpet by poor shoddy control 😉
“Konrad is just another top post PR spin doctor deliberately deceiving public about global warming and climate change”
Nice try, but as I have indicated to “dumb scientist”, I already have precautionary measures in place to avoid death by laughing 😉
Now here’s a tissue, wipe off the rabid foam and start again….
Dumb Scientist says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Genghis says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“I am confused, the American Chemical Society ‘computed’ the earths equilibrium temperature at 280k. I gave the S-B number at 278K (which you rejected). Not much of a difference, but significantly different than the IPCC’s 255k number.”
—-
In reality, the American Chemical Society (ACS) gives Earth’s back-body equilibrium temperature as 255K. It’s in the blue column in the table. The string “280″ isn’t on the ACS page at all:
http://archive.is/8owZe
——-
The ACS very clearly computes the Earths Equilibrium temperature at 280k. They give it in bold twice.
“Tequilibrium = 280K [(1-A)/a2]1/4
OR
Tequilibrium = 280K [1-A]1/4/a1/2”
At this point Dumb Scientist you are once again changing definitions, now to ‘Blackbody equilibrium’ and you have failed to answer my first basic question.
SInce you aren’t honestly dealing with the issue, i have no choice but to say adios.
Konrad says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Essentially this is just the LWIR version of the old hair dryer trick –
Q. how do you heat a plastic bowl of water with a hair dryer?
A. point the hair dryer at the side of the bowl, not the surface of the water.
Hot air or LWIR, it doesn’t matter, the physics of the skin evaporation layer remains the same.
———–
Air flowing across the top of the water dramatically lowers the temperature of the water through evaporation and convection. You can test this by blowing across the top of a boiling pot. So a heat gun blowing hot air across the surface of the water heats and cools at the same time.
The way you heat a bowl of water with a hair dryer is to stop the fan and just aim the heating element at the water. It will heat up nicely and ruin your hair dryer, but that is the price we pay for science : ) LWIR can heat the water easily.
I will continue this conversation with you on some other thread, soon okay?
This thread has become too long and cumbersome for me.
Steven R. Vada says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm
I think what you’re alluding is the atmosphere causes that heat to remain.
That atmosphere, carries off energy through contact long, LONG before it would leave if radiation is the sole transport mechanism.
As SOON a that tool begins to have more heat in it than the air around, it starts handing some off through thermally conductive, physical contact.
Stopping energy from reaching an object makes the temperature go down.
—————-
Relax, take a deep breath, I am on your side : ) Figuring out this stuff is actually fun.
Let me remind you that dry air is a great insulator, it conducts very poorly. That is why it makes a good insulator between two window panes, and that is also why the hot tool actually gets hot and isn’t quickly cooled by conduction to the air first. Your analogy would be correct if the tool was in water. Water is a very good conductor.
The tool gets hot because of radiation from the Sun and it primarily cools by radiation. The atmosphere doesn’t really play much of a role, the tool would get just as hot on the moon : )
I will leave you something to think about. Why don’t the warmers measure the actual surface of the earth instead of the air about 6 feet above the surface? What are they actually measuring? Also remember this, the average temperature of the surface of the ocean is 22˚C and the average temperature of the air 6 feet above the surface is 15˚C.
I will catch you on another thread. : )
Konrad 12:11am:
Once again Konrad offers plenty vitriol but no science based rebuttal to Callendar 1938 which has stood the test of time and which solidly refutes Konrad’s spin doctor contention: “The net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm”
A spin doctor is defined in top post as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.”
******
S.R.Vada 11:28pm, 12:47am et.al.: “…go find someone who can explain, in their own words, how their religion has a frigid fluid bath, causing the heat sensors on the surface of an object immersed in it, to show temperature RISE on that surface. Notice how much it’s pure crickets on that?”
Some ears (like mine) cannot hear the crickets chirping in certain freq. bands, your ears can’t hear the crickets of Callendar 1938 and subsequent text book theory of IR active gas effects on earth’s global near surface atm. Tmean. Or please offer a science based rebuttal to that paper not spin doctor stuff.
“…you can attach temperature sensors to a warm rock, spin it, immersed, in a frigid, fluid, gas bath, and those heat sensors show more heat than before immersion in the frigid bath. Just explain it.”
1st Law:
Energy in – energy out = m*Cp*DT/dt
If energy in&out balances, DT/dt=0 meaning no temperature change with time. “Adding the frigid, fluid, gas bath” to a rock keeps energy in the same and reduces energy out meaning DT/dt becomes positive until near surface Tmean changes to once again reach energy in&out balance where DT/dt becomes 0.
2nd Law: Sun to earth atm. & surface energy flow SW, lapse rate shows a surface to atm. LW energy flow to deep space sink therefore in compliance.
These are cricket freq.s SRV ears cannot hear so few bother waste energy chirping to warn of their presence.
Genghis says:
November 9, 2013 at 5:26 am
“The ACS very clearly computes the Earths Equilibrium temperature at 280k. They give it in bold twice. “Tequilibrium = 280K [(1-A)/a2]1/4…” At this point Dumb Scientist you are once again changing definitions, now to ‘Blackbody equilibrium’ and you have failed to answer my first basic question. SInce you aren’t honestly dealing with the issue, i have no choice but to say adios.”
—-
Again, that’s on the LASP/CU page, not the ACS page. Again, that’s an intermediate step because you have to plug in the albedo (A) and distance from the Sun (a). It’s an equation, not an answer. Again, plugging in Earth’s albedo and distance from the Sun yields 256K.
Your accusation of dishonesty is unproductive.
Massive delusional fail : into outright claim,
to be trying to explain
a frigid bath
making thermal sensors rise.
——-
Trick says:
November 9, 2013 at 6:39 am
1st Law:
Energy in – energy out = m*Cp*DT/dt
If energy in&out balances, DT/dt=0 meaning no temperature change with time. “Adding the frigid, fluid, gas bath” to a rock keeps energy in the same and reduces energy out…”
This clown just came in here and told us,
he proved that when you immerse a warm sphere into a frigid bath
it gets warmer
than it was before
you immersed it in the
frigid fluid
gas bath.
It appears that “Big Oil” is abusing the mentally ill, having them participate in political blogging, posing as Magic Gassers; so people think that’s how crazy they ALL are.
Sad thing is, I think we all know “Big Oil” isn’t paying this guy.
He’s actually what Septical Science sends over here to “defend the science. With math.”
=======
[mumbles] “Let’s see here… explain… the thermal sensors on a warm sphere, immersed and spun in a frigid gas bath, showing the entire sphere warmed due to immersion in, the frigid, gas bath.”
[mumbles] yes.. yes. Cancel the ten there, … add that divided by… this…
ah-HaH! ADD that ten BACK here, and…
[speaks clearly and articulately]
“…There’s the math! Right there! I proved it!”
=======
That’s the intellect that’s been in here arguing with people for three days.
He told us he just proved, immersing a warm object into a frigid gas bath made it warmer.
“There’s the math, check it for yourself,” he says.
There’s the math,
check it
for yourself.
LoL
– – – – – – – – –
Tim Ball,
I was stimulated by your well-constructed critique of the propaganda (PR & spin doctoring) used to attempt to influence our culture on views of climate behavior.
In your above quoted paragraph I see the conclusion of your essay. And I have a fundamentally different conclusion from your essay.
Science is merely one of several derivatives of the homo sapien’s voluntary choice to use its reasoning capability with focus and discipline. The fundamental problem is not deficiency by many (your 80%) in science, the fundamental problem is the non-use of one’s reasoning capability in any focused and disciplined way. The cause of that has nothing to do with science. Your essay is a corollary to a larger problem which is the one that allows PR and spin-doctoring to be effective.
John