Guest essay by Jan Kjetil Andersen
As Willis describes in his article on December 21, the atmosphere can be seen as a gigantic heat engine, i.e. a machine which convert thermal energy, namely temperature, into mechanical energy, namely wind.
It may seem a bit strange to view the weather system as a kind of machine and compare it with engineered constructs like an automobile engine, but it is sound physics because all such systems are bound by the same fundamental physical laws and they utilizes the same basic phenomena to create movement from heat.
A heat engine cannot convert heat directly to mechanical energy since that would break the second law of thermodynamics. What are needed are temperature differences. The greater temperature difference the greater effect of the machine. The amount of the energy in the temperature difference that is converted to mechanical energy is called the machines efficiency.
And here we have a very interesting, but less known fact of heat engines; the maximum theoretical efficiency decreases with increasing temperatures. This is interesting because it negates the conventional wisdom and often cited myth that a warmer climate leads to
more storminess, like the claim in the Guardian “a warmer planet has more energy to power stronger storms”, see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/27/climate-change-extreme-weather-2010.
Let us therefore take a look at the theoretical foundation of this effect. This is described by Carnot’s theorem.
Carnot’s Theorem says that the maximum efficiency drawn from a heat engine is the temperature difference between the warmest element and the coldest element divided by the temperature of the highest element.
Expressed as a formula it says: Emax = (Th-Tc)/Th.
Emax is the maximum efficiency
Th is the high temperature element measured in Kelvin
Tc is the cold temperature element measured in Kelvin.
The Carnot cycle is an ideal reversible cyclic process involving the expansion and compression of an ideal gas, which enables us to evaluate the efficiency of an engine utilizing this cycle.
For an interactive demonstration of the Carnot heat engine cycle, courtesy of the University of Virginia, click on the image:
Three important effects can be seen from Carnot’s theorem. The first is that a temperature difference is a necessary condition for converting heat energy to mechanical energy such as wind.
The second effect is that even if we had a perfect heat engine with zero internal friction; it would not achieve anything close to 100% efficiency. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a heat engine operating between 300 K and 600K is for example 50%. The efficiency of a real machine would of cause be considerably lower.
This is why our car engines only operate at about 25% efficiency. The warm element for a car engine is the exploding fuel inside the cylinders and the cold element is the air intake.
The best coal fired power plants have about 40% efficiency and the best gas powered about 55%. The cold elements for those plants are the coolant water, and those with highest efficiency utilize cold seawater as coolant.
Warming gives less efficiency
The third effect is as mentioned above, that, for a given temperature difference between the warm element and the cold element, the efficiency will decrease if both elements heat equally much. On cold days one can see a discernible effect of this in car engines; because the air intake is colder, the engine gives somewhat more power and higher efficiency.
This is also why some turbo charged engines have intercoolers. The turbo gives higher effect, but a non-intentional side effect is that it also increases the temperature in the air intake which will reduce the efficiency. The intercooler reduces the temperature increase introduced by the turbo.
The same effect applies to the wind formations in the atmosphere. Consider the summer temperature in the northern hemisphere; the cold element is the Arctic with a temperature of approximately 0 Celsius and the warm element is in the tropics with approximately 35 Celsius.
The Carnot theorem gives a maximum efficiency in this temperature range of 11.36%. If the temperature increased with 1 Celsius all over the globe, i.e. the difference changed to 1 Celsius in the Arctic and 36 Celsius in the tropic, the maximum efficiency would sink to 11.32%.
This is a minuscule difference, but the point is that it is a decrease, not an increase as the conventional wisdom will have it.
Less temperature differences on the surface
In addition to the effect of higher overall temperatures, the temperature differences will also be smaller. It is quite uncontroversial that the largest effect of global warming is on the cold polar winters and the smallest on the hot tropical summers.
![GFDL_CM2p1_SfcTemp_JJA_DJF_A1B_wht3200x2000[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/gfdl_cm2p1_sfctemp_jja_djf_a1b_wht3200x20001.png?quality=75)
However, to be fair, this is not all there is to this. Some climate models tell that the temperature differences in the upper troposphere will increase and this may have larger effect than both the reduced differences on the surface and the higher temperatures.
No settled science there.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dp says:
December 29, 2013 at 8:23 pm
A real heat engine does work external to the engine. The so called “heat engine” that is the earth climate system does not. I think therefore it is a miscalculation to call the earth’s climate system a heat engine. All the solar energy that makes it work has to leave the system so the system doesn’t heat up. Any earthly heat engine scenario is, ultimately, latency in that heat removal process meaning the earth heats up. That is the alarmist position. The earth’s climate system is certainly dynamic and moves energy around but I think it falls well short of a classic heat engine/Carnot cycle model.
++++++++++++++
The point of the article, I think, is that weather extremes or work done by a hotter planet would tend to have a less efficient environment by which to do work because the delta T decreases associated with a warmer planet earth. No where in the article did I read that this had anything to do with driving global climate temperatures. So, while I am not disagreeing with what you believe, I think your implication is unfounded with regard to this article.
One of the early criticisms/premises originally brought up was reduced Carnot efficiency and the general murmur among the Magic Gas/Light crowd was the slowing of the conveyor, would allow heat to build up all along the way, as well as creating “super storms” in warm areas.
dp says:
December 29, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Dp, can you show me any reference in support for this definition?
Because I think it is misleading. A heat engine use heat to create mechanical energy. I-e- movements, that is all there is to it.
You may look it up in the classical textbook by James Senft. You find it in the first sentence in the free preview on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Mechanical-Efficiency-Engines-James-Senft/dp/0521169283/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388388251&sr=1-1#reader_0521169283
/ Jan
My link above came out like an adverisement for this book with “buy it” button, that was not my intention.
/Jan
I see in haste of blogging I said a couple of things not true as written, one of them being that water is the main driver of the circulation cells, when I meant to say water’s radiation to space at the altitude it does, is a main agent controlling size, therefore rates, of energy handling, of the circulation cells.
The circulation system’s different than if the water didn’t radiate where it does, and the circulation system’s different than it would be if the water didn’t change phase as well.
Water’s energy/pressure characteristics in fact shape the lower troposphere a lot, and your claim of course was that it’s energy release altitude’s effect, is negligible.
It’s a refrigerant flowing amid some other coolants.
If it didn’t boil off, amid the other coolants, radiate & return how it does,
the entire area it’s activity impacts,
would handle energy differently.
There was something else I said – about whether actually Konrad was saying the radiation of the water “drove the system harder” as in “more volume.”
I said,
he had said, that’s the case- but I didn’t see him say that.
I inferred then projected my take rather than what I’d seen him say.
I have seen Konrad speak about this some; and I am under the impression he is a
cold atmosphere proponent. I don’t think he believes in warm atmosphere religion where the algebraic polarity of an icy bath simply reverses because some scammer wished it did.
=======
The reason I interjected is specifically tailored around having seen people say
the energy handling/release characteristics of water
aren’t important regarding it’s actions as refrigerant, in lower troposphere energy handling.
What? Yeah.
Everything about the realm in which the refrigeration cycle operates
is important,
except the energy handling/release characteristics of the refrigerant. Maybe.
Maybe not. So I realize I “blogged in haste.”
However not so much haste
I tried to tell people in a region where refrigerant
is an important handler of energy
handling of energy, in that same region,
has little at all to do with the energy handling and release characteristics
of the refrigerant.
That’s just not possible on it’s face.
The size of the space you refrigerate with the water
is directly dependent on where the water releases energy.
TB says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:35 am
Yes it does TB, and I think your argument is beside the point.
My point is to show that the potential for converting thermal energy to mechanical energy is reduced when both the cold element and the warm element heat equally much.
If there were no temperature differences on the Earth’s surface, and no heating, there would not be much wind either. But when temperature differences and solar heating exist, the atmosphere will start to move. A fundamental cause is that heating of a gas makes the volume to increase and therefore start a fluctuation.
But for a given temperature increase, say 10 C, the volume will increase more if you start with a low temperature than a high one.
An increase from 0 C to 10 C make the volume increase by 3.66%,
an increase from 10C to 20C make the volume increase by 3.53%
The higher the temperature is, the lower the increase in volume will be.
This reduces the potential for wind when all temperatures increase equally much. When the lowest temperatures increase more than the higher, as will be the case for the Earth’s surface, the potential will be further reduced.
/ Jan
Bill from Nevada says:
December 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm
No, it’s not unbelievably complicated, TB.
“It’s a cold bath of thermally conductive coolant compound, nitrogen, and oxygen.”
No, it’s a system on incoming SW radiation stirred by a spinning Earth on a complex surface of water, mountain, snow etc, after which is emitted to space as LW.There are feedbacks and drivers, chicken and egg. Not to mention (on the weather scale) enormous chaos.
“It’s been shot with some phase change refrigerant to augment the circulation, which is water.
That’s how complicated it gets. I was born in 1961 and had that much locked down by the time I was 13 or so,”
Did you scan through that link (you’d do well to understand that at 13) – forget the curly d’s there should be enough one-syllable words and pretty pictures for the average man to realise it’s NOT that simple.
“so yeah I’ll go ahead and claim my general grasp of what makes the atmosphere function like it does has been fully realized since then.”
You’d be wrong. And I’m waiting for you to flail about in me denying you know nothing about you profession while I ignorantly argue I do, cos I’d had it figured out by 13.
“Konrad said the radiative effect drove the system.”
So what, he’s wrong. If he was right then Global NWP models wouldn’t work …. Hang on maybe you/he have it right. They didn’t do well the the Atlantic Hurricane season, did they?
“You denied it did and said models and texts do, too.”
Correct because it is not a Driver.
Bill, I’ll try one more time..
I take it you agree that the Earth’s spin causes moving air in the NH to turn right. Yes?
So imagine you are coming out of your local football terraces and merge into a stream of people in a narrow belt moving at right angles. Are you not forced to slow as people around you merge into that stream?
That’s called convergence Bill, and as the air can’t go up (capped by the tropopause) … it SINKS, to for the belt of sub-tropical highs around 30 deg N/S.
It just one half of just about the most important mechanism driving our atmosphere – the other is divergence. It is these two things that (acting in the region of jet-streams especially) greatly affect the atmosphere/weather below. Convergence aloft causes divergence below (HP). Divergence aloft causes convergence below (LP). It is this sucking/blowing effect that drives the atmosphere – ALONG with convective uplift. Radiative cooling aloft is NOT a driver. It happens but air would move the same way without it.
“Regardless of who admits it the loss of the heat by the water
causes it to change phase.”
I don’t/haven’t argued against that for one second. But it is only one side of the equation.
“This augments upward convective process considerably.”
Correct – but once the air is up there it moves (in the HC) as I’ve described.
“So yeah: your claim that because you don’t recall it “in texts and models” means it’s not important as a driver’s just wrong.”
You’d better tell that to the rest of World’s Meteorologists the, not just me – a Nobel’s in the offing.
“It is a significant contribution to the overall circulatory contribution by water.”
It is Bill, but only a part.
“Feel free to act like there’s some way for you around that if ya want to I’m not gonna go around and around about it, everybody can see who’s been saying what.”
Of course “I feel free to act like there’s no way round it”. Because I’m right.
I’m sorry, but you don’t gain anything like a complete understanding of the Earth’s climate system without being taught/learning in the job. And to turn up at your Doc’s and argue black is white that your heart isn’t the blood’s pump, your bladder is – against him, is staggering. In order to learn you need to be receptive to being taught and to do that we do indeed need to “appeal to authority” – as that is what students do at college/university, and that scientists do – because they don’t invent science on a whim. It comes from scientists/thinkers before them.
Newton said “If I have seen so far. It is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”.
It was good enough for him Bill.
Why not you?
PS ( I’m in no way a giant BTW – just trying to get across basic Meteorology).
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
December 30, 2013 at 8:21 am
You are getting very close.
For a planet with no atmosphere both the height at which the S-B equation is satisfied and the effective radiating height are together at the surface.
Consider that conduction raises off the surface the height at which the S-B equation is satisfied.
In contrast, the radiative capability of the atmosphere raises off the surface the so-called effective radiating height.
Note that the two heights are then different.
Wind is then required to ensure that the energy at the S-B height is moved to the effective radiating height so as to maintain radiative equilibrium for the system as a whole.
You may be regarding winds as horizontal movements but in fact those horizontal movements actually enable vertical movements of energy so that gravitational potential energy (PE) at the S-B height can be shifted down to the effective radiating height and converted to kinetic energy (KE) at the effective radiating height for radiation to space.
That is what s going on.
Neat or not ?
Jan said:
“My point is to show that the potential for converting thermal energy to mechanical energy is reduced when both the cold element and the warm element heat equally much”
The S-B height is the warm element.
The effective radiating height is the cold element.
The closer together they are the less wind (circulation) there will be and the further apart they are the more wind there will be. That confirms your point.
When they are together at the surface there is no atmosphere and no wind.
For a non radiative atmosphere they would be at maximum width apart with lots of wind.
For an atmosphere with radiative capability they will be closer together with less wind.
The water cycle acts as a ‘lubricant’ so, whatever the distance apart, less wind will be required than would otherwise be the case.
Now, we need to figure out what makes the two heights vary relative to one another and I say it is the sun from above affecting atmospheric chemistry and the oceans from below affecting atmospheric latent heat content both of which are magnitudes greater than changes in radiative capability.
In any event if one only changes the atmosphere’s radiative capability with all else remaining the same then all that will happen is a change in the relative heights for the S-B level and the effective radiating level that will change the amount of wind with a minimal, if any, change in surface temperature.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
December 30, 2013 at 8:21 am
TB says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:35 am
The Earth’s climate is an open system – with a constant input of energy from the Sun and a constant emission of that energy to space after conversion into terrestrial IR. Therefore the efficiency of the conversion does not matter.
Yes it does TB, and I think your argument is beside the point.
It’s all the point Jan.
When comparing the Earth’s climate to anything – we recognise, say, that it is an orange. That being the case, we compare it to another orange, or at least a tangerine. Certainly not a banana.
What matters is that that is what comes as energy in must go out.
If it doesn’t we heat up.
The efficiency of the climate system matters not a jot (in how it uses that energy to cause weather).
As it is merely the mediator in the exchange of Solar absorbed > LWIR emitted to space.
All the inefficiencies/vagaries/cycles within weather (~30 years) do not alter the basics of Energy in must equal energy out…. Or we’re in trouble.
Weather, or your “Carnot engine” is just the internal chaos of the system, when measured at the fill up/exhaust bit of Earth (TOA) the chaos disappears. Like water boiling in a pan on a stove. Put a known amount of heat into it and it will reach boiling in a known amount of time (with known starting conditions). That is, it does not matter how the water churns around in the pan (weather) as that’s internal chaos and the end result, say 100C in 99 sec, is predictable.
TB said:
“Like water boiling in a pan on a stove. Put a known amount of heat into it and it will reach boiling in a known amount of time (with known starting conditions). That is, it does not matter how the water churns around in the pan (weather) as that’s internal chaos and the end result, say 100C in 99 sec, is predictable.”
And that 100C is set by atmospheric pressure on the surface.
I contend that, similarly, atmospheric pressure determines the energy cost of evaporation and so in turn determines the energy that the oceans can hold in the long term subject to shorter term internal ocean variations.
The ultimate factor that determines the amount of energy that the earth system can hold on to from any given level of solar input is set by the density of the mass of the atmosphere.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-setting-and-maintaining-of-earths-equilibrium-temperature/
TB says:
December 30, 2013 at 10:22 am
TB, when we discuss whether the Carnot theorem matters or not, it is crucial that we agree on what it may matter for. I was discussing the weather, or more specifically the wind, in this article, but you say here that the weather doesn’t matter.
As in your example above, I’m not interested in the “end result” as you call it above. It is, to use your example again, how the water churns around in the pan (weather), that I am discussing.
/ Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
December 30, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“As in your example above, I’m not interested in the “end result” as you call it above. It is, to use your example again, how the water churns around in the pan (weather), that I am discussing.”
Fair enough Jan – but the title to this thread is “Climate as a heat engine”.
I take climate to mean, as in long term (>~30 years). Such that we eliminate weather cycles and reveal long term heating/cooling trends.
Returning to my OP is enough to appreciate the meteorological argument (and not with regards reduced jet strength) for extra energy being supplied to the atmosphere via LH release due increased absolute humidity.
TB says:
December 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Yes, of course climate is the theme, but I am discussing the consequences for the weather in the long run when some underlying factors are changed.
A storm is a weather phenomenon, and what I am discussing is that the forces which create the storm will weaken when the temperatures increase and the differences are getting smaller. The eventual temperature increase is of cause a long time climate phenomenon.
/ Jan
TB says:
“I take climate to mean, as in long term (>~30 years). Such that we eliminate weather cycles and reveal long term heating/cooling trends.”
OK then, let’s look a the real long term trend.
NO acceleration whatever in global temperatures. Therefore, the rise in CO2 over the past century and a half has had NO effect at all. QED
TB just can NOT admit that the empirical evidence falsifies his world view, can he?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2013 at 10:34 am
TB said:
“Like water boiling in a pan on a stove. Put a known amount of heat into it and it will reach boiling in a known amount of time (with known starting conditions). That is, it does not matter how the water churns around in the pan (weather) as that’s internal chaos and the end result, say 100C in 99 sec, is predictable.”
And that 100C is set by atmospheric pressure on the surface.
I contend that, similarly, atmospheric pressure determines the energy cost of evaporation and so in turn determines the energy that the oceans can hold in the long term subject to shorter term internal ocean variations.
The ultimate factor that determines the amount of energy that the earth system can hold on to from any given level of solar input is set by the density of the mass of the atmosphere.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-setting-and-maintaining-of-earths-equilibrium-temperature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stephen, I’ve had a scan through your paper. I don’t think you’ll be surprised that I don’t agree with it.
Quotes from same…
“That is the point at which the oceans reach an equilibrium temperature and it is that ocean
temperature which then controls the temperature of the air above and NOT the Greenhouse
Effect. The real arbiter of the Earth’s equilibrium temperature is instead what I have termed
The Hot Water Bottle Effect.”
SST’s and heat stored in the oceans certainly do affect atmospheric temperature. That is largely why we have the current “pause” – 8 years BTW – as there has been a preponderance of La Ninas.
Don’t agree with the (lack of) GHE – that is adding heat to the oceans (see below).
“Water boils away at 100 degrees C so in other words the process of evaporation removes
from the local environment (in the form of latent heat) over five times the amount of energy
required to induce that evaporation.”
No, the LH of evaporation comes from the local environment – has too. It isn’t magicked from the ether. Evaporation will extract the LH requirement from the water or air below/above, most from the warmer. So it takes away the LH from the surface and deposits it via condensation aloft. Result zero net gain/loss from the climate system.
“However over the Earth as a whole the water is
nearly always warmer than the air (due to solar input) so inevitably the average global energy
flow is from oceans to air via that latent heat of evaporation into the air and the energy
needed is taken from the water. This leads to a thin (1mm deep) layer of cooler water over the
oceans worldwide and below the evaporative region that is some 0.3C cooler than the ocean
bulk below. The evaporative process extracts energy faster from the oceans than it can be
drawn up from below and added from above otherwise that cool layer could not be present.
That 1mm deep 0.3 cooler layer is a critical diagnostic indicator but as far as I can tell it has
never been recognised as such. It is disturbed by diurnal and seasonal variations and by
changes in wind speed but on average over time it is a permanent fixed feature of our ocean
surfaces.”
You are thinking entirely radiatively here Stephen. You mention conduction (not quoted) in passing, but it plays a much larger part than you give it credit for. Yes, there is surface evaporation but as the surface skin is cooled via LH evap then so the temp differential between ocean skin and air is reduced. (as you say by ~0.3C). Ergo the conductive part of the equation is reduced. So letting less heat through from the more turbulent mixed layers below to heat the atmosphere in contact with the ocean. In effect a small warming blanket is created by the evaporating skin to the water below
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
Stephen, across the 71% of the Earth’s surface that is ocean/water the surface pressure will average the same at any given moment or at least over the course of a short period of time. Therefore any atmospheric effect on evaporation will cancel out, and anyway an insulation effect will take over.
Also ARGO float data show ocean temps rising at many (even abyssal) levels – so where is the rise coming from if you theory is correct?
“Many are pointing out that the feedback from more energy in the air seems to be negative
(more convection, rainfall and clouds in particular) rather than positive and the observed
climate shifts over the past ten years (more atmospheric ‘blocking’ events causing the surface
pressure systems to shift around more and producing more meridional/equatorward jet
streams) seem to be confirming that view since the temperature trend is increasingly
diverging from that expected from more CO2 emissions.”
I’m sorry, I don’t agree that –ve feedbacks dominate over +ve.
Lets look at it logically…
Earth varies between nice and comfortable temps inter-glacially to ice age conditions (via changes in orbital characteristics).
If feed-backs where largely –ve how would we ever get out of an IA?
You are saying that rising temps lead to falling temps or at least a regulation of them.
So in an IA what will amplify ocean then air temps if the feed-backs weren’t mainly +ve. We know they have flipped quickly and CO2 has tracked them mirror-like. You do accept CO2 is a GHG? Therefore amplifying temp rise. Descent into an IA is explainable even with -ve feed-backs – just via increased albedo, but how do we get out of an IA with –ve ones? At least as quickly as evidence shows?
Yes, I agree that we are seeing more meridional flow, but why should that alter temperature trends since if cold air flows away from the Arctic (say) then the Arctic must warm relative to when it kept that cold air. Similarly a meridional flow induces warm air north to balance the equation in a hemispheric sense.
Also why would it give more cloud? Colder air is drier, so as that moves south over warmer temps in winter its convective cloud infill will be minimal/zero over land giving a net cooling anomaly. Over sea broken convective infill, therefore net warming anomaly. Warm air moving N in winter will produce low cloud via cooling/condensing, hence net warming anomaly over both land/ocean. In summer cold air moving S will be highly convective over sea (net cooling anomaly) but dry with limited convective infill still over land giving a net warming anomaly. Warm air moving north in summer tending to cool/condense over ocean giving net surface cooling, balanced by net warming over land. So I see no net feedback either way. (NB in all of the above I speak as of radiative balance NOT temp levels).
I see in haste of blogging I said a couple of things not true as written, one of them being that water is the main driver of the circulation cells, when I meant to say water’s radiation to space at the altitude it does, is a main agent controlling size, therefore rates, of energy handling, of the circulation cells.
The circulation system’s different than if the water didn’t radiate where it does, and the circulation system’s different than it would be if the water didn’t change phase as well.
Water’s energy/pressure characteristics in fact shape the lower troposphere a lot, and your claim of course was that it’s energy release altitude is nominally negligible.
It’s a refrigerant flowing amid some other coolants.
If it didn’t boil off, amid the other coolants, radiate & return how it does,
the entire area it’s activity impacts,
would handle energy differently.
There was something else I said – about whether actually Konrad was saying the radiation of the water “drove the system harder” as in “more volume.”
I said,
he had said,
that’s the case-
-but I didn’t see him say that.
I inferred then projected my take rather than what I’d seen him say.
I have seen Konrad speak about this some; and I am under the impression he is a
cold atmosphere proponent. I don’t think he believes in warm atmosphere religion
where the algebraic polarity of an icy bath
simply reverses because some scammer wished it did.
=======
The reason I interjected is specifically tailored around having seen people say
“the energy handling/release characteristics of water
aren’t important regarding it’s actions as refrigerant,
and convection boundary assignment, in lower troposphere energy handling.
What?
Yeah.
Everything about the realm in which the refrigeration cycle operates
is important,
except
the energy handling/release characteristics of the refrigerant. Maybe.
Maybe not.
So I realize I “blogged in haste.”
However not so much haste
I tried to tell people in a region where refrigerant
is an important handler of energy
handling of energy, in that region,
has little at all to do
with the energy handling and release characteristics
of the refrigerant.
That’s just not possible on it’s face.
The size of the space refrigerated by water
is directly dependent on where the water releases energy.
TB,
I am grateful to you for the time you spent reading my article and I note your comments.
I could deal with each point in detail but do not wish to derail this thread.
I think you would have an uphill struggle convincing anyone that the system response to a change in internal forcing elements is not negative.
I’d be interested to hear Jan’s take on my posts at 8.56 am and 9.36 am which appear to support his thesis but place it in a broader context.
TB has apparently failed to see what I asked him so I’m re-posting it so everyone can be sure TB has had the opportunity to defend his religion. I knew as soon as I saw him trying to deny the effect of water on shaping global circulation he was going to be saying crazy things so I went over to another thread that’s current now and sure enough, he’s denying science: denying it hasn’t warmed for 17 years, when everybody else on earth but apparently him, Trenberth and Mike Mann don’t know that.
Here’s the re-post:
TB my post from some time back got lost and I see you’re very concerned about being viewed as competent to understand a hot rock,
in a stream of cold nitrogen and oxygen.
You’ve already expressed surprise anyone else knows the atmosphere’s a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath refrigerated by sets of global convection cells exploiting phase change refrigerating action of water.
How in the world you can claim you’ve been around atmospheric energy since 1974 and not have heard that I find that not unusual: I find it just plain bizarre.
I’m not in the field of meteorology.
The reputation of my field is fully intact and unruined by scandalous revelation even the top professionals can’t read a thermometer.
I’m an Electronic Engineer. Specifically the area called Radiation Communications and Controls.
Whenever someone identifies themselves me as part of the field
whose foundations have been rocked by revelations many so called professionals and ‘scientists’
believe in glaringly unreal impossibilities,
I think you should know the fact you admit you’re a meteorologist and yet seem to be so perplexed leads me to think I should just ask you straight out, if you believe in the tenets of Green House Gas Effect ‘warm atmosphere’ pseudo-science.
If you don’t fine but if you do, then you’re going to have to tell others your stories about the magic heater because I’m not going to listen to it.
(1)As a professional claiming understanding of the science of atmospheric energy do you believe possible the illumination of a sphere, spinning in vacuum until it’s temp is stable, being immersed into a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, causing every heat sensor on the sphere surface showing temperature increase?
Because in the real world: in real science like I practice – that’s impossible and no other field even claims it to be anything but prepostrous. Nevertheless many in climatology/meteorology have been seen saying,
they believe in a magical frigid nitrogen oxygen bath, which makes objects hotter than if they weren’t placed into a frigid bath at all, and hotter even than if they were kept heated, in vacuum.
If you answer yes to this critical question you need to know, your answers had better sound good because you’re immediately in the perpetuum mobim realm.
(2)Do you believe it possible to heat a sphere in vacuum then suspend reflective media (H2O/CO2) between sphere and illumination source, reflecting away 20% energy in, causing sensors on the sphere surface to show more energy to them,
than when there was more energy to them?
Again: an answer of yes immediately marks you as one whose conversation will not make sense if you try to refer to such magical glitterings.
(3)Do you believe it possible to heat a sphere in vacuum then suspend more reflective media
(H2O/CO2) than before such that 25% energy in is reflected away,
raising outputs of energy sensors yet again, so they show more energy in at 75%
than when there was more energy in at 80%?
This one’s an extension of the second but if you believe possible one you believe the other.
=======
In real scientific fields like mine no one believes in this junk; in fact just one “Yes I do!” answer immediately marks you as unable to fully comprehend the chain of events that occur when someone places a rock heated in vacuum, into a stream of cold nitrogen/oxygen compound.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion you believe in all the above. If that’s not true then by all means let me know but I’ve got a feeling you’re going to be just changing the subject to anything but what I want to talk about.
Whether or not you really grasp what the atmosphere operates as.
You feel free to go get whoever you think you have to have near you so you feel safe TB.
Then answer the questions.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I have read through both your postings and your paper Stephen. You take up big questions here, and many of your explanations are good and logical, but I am sorry to say that I have many objections to it.
But since it is such a big discussion to go into, I think I will leave here. Perhaps we can take it up in another thread.
Regards
/ Jan
Bill from Nevada says:
December 30, 2013 at 3:21 pm
TB has apparently failed to see what I asked him so I’m re-posting it so everyone can be sure TB has had the opportunity to defend his religion. I knew as soon as I saw him trying to deny the effect of water on shaping global circulation he was going to be saying crazy things so I went over to another thread that’s current now and sure enough, he’s denying science: denying it hasn’t warmed for 17 years, when everybody else on earth but apparently him, Trenberth and Mike Mann don’t know that.
Here’s the re-post:
TB my post from some time back got lost and I see you’re very concerned about being viewed as competent to understand a hot rock,
in a stream of cold nitrogen and oxygen.
You’ve already expressed surprise anyone else knows the atmosphere’s a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath refrigerated by sets of global convection cells exploiting phase change refrigerating action of water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing surprises me with regard to what the D-K syndrome can effect Bill.
“How in the world you can claim you’ve been around atmospheric energy since 1974 and not have heard that I find that not unusual: I find it just plain bizarre.|”
I’ll trump you on that cos I’m the expert, sorry.
“I’m not in the field of meteorology.”
Exactly.
“The reputation of my field is fully intact and unruined by scandalous revelation even the top professionals can’t read a thermometer.”
You are fortunate my friend as your profession has not been politicised and hence skewed out of all proportion via ideology.
“I’m an Electronic Engineer. Specifically the area called Radiation Communications and Controls.”
Very good – I’ll give you due respect for that and refrain from asserting that you are flailing when I’m asserting that I figured out radio propagation at age 13.
“Whenever someone identifies themselves me as part of the field
whose foundations have been rocked by revelations many so called professionals and ‘scientists’
believe in glaringly unreal impossibilities, I think you should know the fact you admit you’re a meteorologist and yet seem to be so perplexed leads me to think I should just ask you straight out, if you believe in the tenets of Green House Gas Effect ‘warm atmosphere’ pseudo-science.
Me perplexed. Incredible. I’m the expert. Not you. Like you’re the expert on Radio communication here not me!
Like I said, you need to investigate to learn – not take it as read that you cracked it at age 13.
Give me some published papers that agree with you. I can give you any number from my side.
“If you don’t fine but if you do, then you’re going to have to tell others your stories about the magic heater because I’m not going to listen to it.”
Not magic – just empirical meteorology. What is you don’t/can’t understand about Coriolis/convergence aloft INEVITABLY causing divergence below. That all the world’s Met organisations incorporate into NWP models?
“(1)As a professional claiming understanding of the science of atmospheric energy do you believe possible the illumination of a sphere, spinning in vacuum until it’s temp is stable, being immersed into a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, causing every heat sensor on the sphere surface showing temperature increase?
Because in the real world: in real science like I practice – that’s impossible and no other field even claims it to be anything but prepostrous. Nevertheless many in climatology/meteorology have been seen saying,
they believe in a magical frigid nitrogen oxygen bath, which makes objects hotter than if they weren’t placed into a frigid bath at all, and hotter even than if they were kept heated, in vacuum.”
You are being preposterous, and arrogant to boot in assuming you know more than a retired professional of 32 years. Why, in a sane world would that be probable?
“If you answer yes to this critical question you need to know, your answers had better sound good because you’re immediately in the perpetuum mobim realm.”
It’s not a matter of belief my friend – it just is. And I don’t give jot whether my answers “sound good” to you because your psychological make-up makes that impossible for me to achieve. Nor do I aim to.
“(2)Do you believe it possible to heat a sphere in vacuum then suspend reflective media (H2O/CO2) between sphere and illumination source, reflecting away 20% energy in, causing sensors on the sphere surface to show more energy to them,
than when there was more energy to them?”
Incorrect appreciation of the GHE. GHG’s absorb IR from the Earth’s surface then re-emit it, some of it making it back to the surface again – thus SLOWING the rate of cooling and NOT heating it. Have you not noticed ice/frost melting when cloud cover appears of a winters night? Same thing that CO2 does (to a tiny but sig degree) as well (triatomic molecule – look it up). It even happens with thin cloud at 6 miles up – seen it countless times professionally (actually a complete pain in the a*** as a lot of work was generated as a result in alerting ice management companies re ice/not ice). It just does, it’s a basic of the Universe.
“Again: an answer of yes immediately marks you as one whose conversation will not make sense if you try to refer to such magical glitterings.”
Again that comment marks you as one with a stunning D-K syndrome who refuses to address the science nor (typically) has any respect for someone who has knowledge of same.
Why don’t you ask Anthony if Convergence drives the descent arm of a HC? He’s a Meteorologist like me. He may disagree on the “degree” but I’m pretty sure he accepts a GHE.
“(3)Do you believe it possible to heat a sphere in vacuum then suspend more reflective media
(H2O/CO2) than before such that 25% energy in is reflected away,
raising outputs of energy sensors yet again, so they show more energy in at 75%
than when there was more energy in at 80%?”
No GHG’s don’t reflect – they absorb/emit LWIR and not reflect solar SW.
More GHG’s in the atmosphere increase the “insulation” effect.
“This one’s an extension of the second but if you believe possible one you believe the other.
=======
In real scientific fields like mine no one believes in this junk; in fact just one “Yes I do!” answer immediately marks you as unable to fully comprehend the chain of events that occur when someone places a rock heated in vacuum, into a stream of cold nitrogen/oxygen compound.”
Arrogance again – refer that comment to Anthony will you, I’m sure he’ll be pleased to know his profession is not really scientific. BTW, I studied Control engineering for 3 years before training in the UKMO. Hence my respect for that profession which is spectacularly countered by your contempt.
“I’ve got a sneaking suspicion you believe in all the above. If that’s not true then by all means let me know but I’ve got a feeling you’re going to be just changing the subject to anything but what I want to talk about.”
I’ve answered all of the above and you will find all my answers repeated in text books – you know, like the text books that you learned radio communication from, those equations are like those in meteorology (empirically proven to be true ) and are not up for contention. Sorry.
“Whether or not you really grasp what the atmosphere operates as.”
Whether you grasp your extreme arrogance and ignorance + insults to your host.
Bill from Nevada says:
December 30, 2013 at 3:25 pm
You feel free to go get whoever you think you have to have near you so you feel safe TB.
Then answer the questions.
Excuse me??
[snip – OK that’s it – this is just another slayer rant complete with insults. You’re done here – Anthony]