DISCLAIMER: There are still many unanswered questions about this model. I provide this essay for the purposes of discussion, but I give no pro or con endorsement – Anthony
Guest essay by David Archibald:
Back in July, David Evans released his Notch-Delay Model which uses Total Solar Irradience (TSI) to predict climate up to 10 years in advance. Soon had previously derived a possible mechanism for the 10 year delay that he found between TSI and tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. This is the lower panel of Figure 4 from his paper:
To test the hindcast match of the Notch-Delay Model, the model was stopped at December 1991 for the TSI data up to that point and at two year intervals thereafter up to December 2012 for a total of 12 prediction runs. The predictions produced were then plotted on the UAH lower troposphere anomaly record up to August 2014:
There were two big departures in the 1990s due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the 1998 El Nino. Just after that el nino, the model predicted the period from 2000 to 2004 very well with a tight grouping of forecasts corresponding to the shape of the temperature profile. From 2004 to the end of the decade, the model forecasts then dispersed with average temperatures generally above what the model forecast. The run of El Niños during those years would have played a part in the divergence. The prediction from 2004 gave an early, accurate forecast of the temperature peak in 2013 as it would have incorporated the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 in 2003.
The prediction from 2006 was the first indication of a sharp temperature fall this decade with a 0.4° fall over the last three years of the forecast. This predicted temperature decline would have been due to the sharp fall in the Ap Index in 2005. In the following prediction using data to the end of December 2008, the forecast decline increased and steepened up to a 0.8° decline over four years. The subsequent model runs of 2010 and 2012 are similar with a predicted flattening out between 2018 and early next decade.
Barring major volcanic eruptions and El Niños, the Notch-Delay Model’s resolution looks like it is of the order of 0.3° or so. That resolution matches the inter-annual variation in temperature over the last couple of decades. The next couple of years will show if it can predict major swings in climate from TSI data. If so, and I expect it to be successful, it is a major advance in climate science. Thanks to Soon and others, we were aware of the lag between solar activity and climate. David Evans’ Notch-Delay Model is the first practical application of that knowledge to quantify future temperature response to changes in solar output and will assist with planning.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That resolution matches the inter-annual variation in temperature over the last couple of decades. The next couple of years will show if it can predict major swings in climate from TSI data.
I love to read model predictions, and I always hope for model success. I shall await the updates eagerly.
I find it amusing that it does not match any of major El Ninos but matches all of major La Ninas.
We’ll see in three years if these predictions had any merit. In my opinion it is very unlikely that the temperature will decrease in the predicted way but I would be very pleasantly surprised if it did.
Be careful what you wish for.
This contains the Evans prediction, I think:
There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records.
The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years.
The second in Napoleon’s time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasn’t led to cooling…yet.
The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years.
So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017.
The cooling will be at least 0.2°C, maybe 0.5°C, enough to undo global warming back to the 1950s.
The carbon dioxide and ND solar theories have been in agreement over the least century due to generally rising carbon dioxide and solar radiation, but now they sharply diverge. Only one of them can be correct, and soon we’ll know which one.
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
If the criterion does not occur then the ND solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away.
If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.
From http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.htm – The Notch-Delay Solar Theory
(New Solar climate model: natural influences can explain the recent global warming).
I’m sorry, the correct link is http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
>> But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years
Evans is obviously wrong here. The time lag of the system is an attribute of the system, not of the input function.
If D Evans had tested his theory against CET or even Australian RAW data from 2-3 reliable reliable raw data records (Refer to J Mahorasy’s recent posts concerning this), it might make more sense. All other temperatures records have been adjusted. BTW Armagh (central Irish temp record also reliable)
Thanks Eliza. The Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset is here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
But I think it is only a proxy for global temperatures.
September (SIDC) SSN = 87.6 (monthly non smoothed) up on August (74.7)
Note that the SC23 peaked around 14 years ago, the major solar slowdown.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNbf.gif
we shouldn’t underplay its possible effect on the global or at least the N. Hemisphere’s climate (may turn out to be irresponsible to have done so) where the vast majority of the human population lives.
Even if temperatures drop to 1960s, let alone to the early 1900’s, present levels of energy supply availability would be far bellow what would be required.
Building power stations, fracking reserves search, etc. should be order of the day.
There were two big departures in the 1990s due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the 1998 El Nino
============
One can understand that volcano eruptions cannot be included in forecasts, as yet. But to explain away lack of conformance to reality of a recurring event like El Nino makes this model as suspect as other Climate models that can explain observations post facto.
Thanks Jo, Dr. Evans.
I have published an article on Dr. David Evans – The Notch-Delay Solar Theory, 2014.
The English version is at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm (Black on white) and http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm (Red on black).
The Spanish version “Dr. David Evans – La Teoría Solar Ranuras-Retraso, 2014″ is at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClimaBW.htm and http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm
Correction I meant .15% not .015% for solar irradiance changes in my earlier post.
David, thanks for the post. You say:
I have never, ever seen the release of the information necessary to replicate the “Notch-Delay” model. Not to use the model, you understand. We have the model and we can do that, as you (or someone) has done.. But we need to be able to replicate the TRAINING of the model, and AFAIK we don’t have the information necessary to do that.
So when you say “the model was stopped at December 1991” … what was the training period for the model? What data was it trained on? The full dataset? The first half of the dataset? The last half?
JoNova said that the bozo-simple test had already been done, the test where you train the model on half of the data and then run it on the withheld other half of the data. She also said they were going to release those results, but as far as I know, those results were never released either. So we have neither the information necessary to build and test the model, nor the results from the tests the authors admit were done but which remain unpublished..
So if you or anyone else is under the misapprehension that what David Evans, Joanne Nova, and you yourself are doing is science, I fear I must disabuse you. It will become science when they release, not the model, but the method used to build and test the model. Until then it’s just apocryphal stories, just an advertisement and not a study at all …
w.
PS—When David Evans first posted the theory, I and others said, but where is the information necessary to build and test the model? We were assured over and over that these folks were going to release all of the information soon, very soon. And they were going to release their test results soon, very soon.
When the model itself was published, we repeated our requests for the information necessary to investigate the calculation and setting of their nine or eleven tuned parameters, and for the results of their own testing of the model that JoNova said was already done.
As far as I know, so far we’ve gotten none of that missing information. Call me crazy, but my rule of thumb is that when someone is hiding something … it’s because they’ve got something to hide.
It appears Willis that patience is not something that you possess in abundance. But that surely is not a problem is it . . . at least for the rest of us?
I presume that you did follow closely enough to know that the model was revised following the period of on-line review.
You’re not crazy ; you just can’t wait. 🙂
Farmer, you totally misunderstand my position. I’m not impatient. I don’t care in the slightest if David and Jo never comply with the norms of transparent, honest science by publishing their data and code. I’m not waiting for them, I’m not holding my breath until they publish. If they don’t want to be scientists, that’s up to them, and it’s no business of mine
I’m just pointing out that at present it’s still not science, no matter how much lipstick they put on it, or how much patience you have …
w.
As I have pointed out, the TSI input used is not correct, but since the process by which the model is derived is not described in enough detail [or even given by a program, which would be the usual procedure], then, as Willis points out, we cannot test the model with the correct input data. I have asked Evans to [using his secret sauce] derive a model using the correct TSI, but to no avail.
“I’m just pointing out that at present it’s still not science,”
That’s fair enough. And nobody is claiming that it is science. It’s an open question I think ; can the climate be modeled so as to yield some sort of useful prediction. It’s a really interesting question.
” but to no avail.”
So far Lief. All in good time . 🙂
farmerbraun says
So … now you’ve taken to prognosticating the future? Your “prediction” is as vague as one from Piers Corbyn. How on earth could you possibly know that Leif will get his answer “in good time”? We’ve already waited a good long time, and there is no sign of answers to either his question or mine.
In fact, you sound just like an alarmist warning us of sea level acceleration and other disasters. All of these, we are solemnly assured by folks just as full of themselves as you are, will appear “in good time” … but like the listeners to Chicken Little, some of us are getting bored with empty warnings.
So how about this. How about David Archibald and his minions such as yourself stop flogging this dead horse until the “good time” arrives? You’ve agreed it’s not science … so why are he and you pushing it before it is ready for prime time?
So, as they say, “laissez le bon temps roulez!” … and do come back and notifiy us when they do.
w.
Yeah O. K. Willis ; everything should be done within a time-frame dictated by you.
And you will be the judge of whether or not a conjecture can make it to the stage of a testable hypothesis.
It’s your world. 🙂
But it’s possible that we have a point of agreement here:-
farmerbraun October 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Good heavens, is my writing that unclear? I didn’t dictate a time-frame, I’ve set no deadlines, that’s pure fantasy.
I just pointed out that they still have not released the data or the code.
Say what? I’ve said nothing about a “testable hypothesis”, I defy you to find anywhere I’ve discussed testable hypotheses in this thread.
I’ve merely said “no data, no code, no science”. Why not? Because without the data and the code we can’t understand and explore what someone has done. More to the point, it makes their work unfalsifiable, and thus not scientific in the slightest.
I’m sorry that you don’t seem to like that fact, but science requires transparency, which means you put out all the information, all the data, all the code, so that people can examine and investigate what the original investigators have done.
That’s how science works— no transparency, no science, and to date, we haven’t gotten that transparency from David and Jo.
Best regards,
w.
I’ve been reading about this with interest for a time. It is not without merit. The thing we need to work on and verify are time lags. (Inductive — dynamo?).
For cooling lets say discharge lags or magnetic decay. I also believe there’s been too much interference with “adjustments” to hand us an honest result for these recent years. A good lag will kick in and the house of AGW cards will tumble.
Here’s some graphs of interest.
Lovely wiki Solar variation which looks like the climate 🙂 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
WFT Solar and HADCRUT3 global unadjusted
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Hard to state any case saying there is no component involved here.
– – – – – – – – –
I look forward to the process that goes forward with David Evans’ Notch-Delay Model.
Reality matching is not wiggle matching.
Reality matching is science.
John
“””””……Heat is defined as the transfer of energy, so solar radiation is definitely heat. You need to use words by their scientific definition, otherwise, you risk making up your own science……”””””
Well I certainly agree that we need to use words by their correct scientific definition. So perhaps you could give us a reference to your assertion that : “Heat is defined as the transfer of energy.”
In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).
If that is true, then an Exxon Tanker truck is heat, by your definition, since it certainly is transporting energy, and lots of it, so the Temperature rise due to all that heat, must be readily observable. How much would you expect to observe, with say a 10,000 gallon tanker truck, full of gasoline ??
But then maybe you have been working at this a lot longer than I have, so you might have encountered sources, that I haven’t known about.
George,
You’re confusing the “transfer of energy” with the “transportation of fuel”.
“Heat is defined as energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the systems.” Sonntag, Richard, Introduction to Thermodynamics 2nd Edition, Section 4.7 Definition of Heat, page 76
“heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object.” (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat)
Wikipedia: Heat, in physics, is a fundamental process in which an amount of energy flows spontaneously from hotter to colder objects.
Physicist James Clerk Maxwell, in his 1871 classic Theory of Heat.. ..Maxwell outlined four stipulations for the definition of heat: It is something which may be transferred from one body to another, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
Referring to radiation, Maxwell writes: “In Radiation, the hotter body loses heat, and the colder body receives heat by means of a process occurring in some intervening medium which does not itself thereby become hot.”
No response George?
I let a couple of days go by to let it sink in. I’m having a hard reconciling the following statement with reality:
“In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).”
What kind of job is a “Professional Physicist”? Are you working at one of the very few national laboratories? What’s your specialty? I’m trying to imagine what kind of job or background you could have to be a “working Professional Physicist” and be ignorant of thermodynamics, Maxwell, etc. You seemed pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to come up with references to the definition to “Heat”. It’s been 33 years since I took college courses, but I simply reached over and grabbed my textbook on Thermo from back then. I’ve got 99 problems, but forgetting the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn’t one of them.
Well VE you are doing a lot of guessing. I never suggested, or imagined that you couldn’t come up with a definition of “Heat” (noun) or many of them. And I actually have work to do (yes as a Professional Physicist in Industry) , so I don’t spend all of my time here reading your dissertations, so I am not confusing anything with anything else.
So I read up on one of your learned sources.
“””””….. Heat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a type of transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one. For for other uses, see Heat (disambiguation).
Page move-protected
In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system……”””””
“”…In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. …””
”””In physics, heating is …””
Last time I studied English language (in 1954) This would be described as a definition of >> HEATING <> HEAT << a NOUN ; ie person, place, or thing.
This definition of "HEAT" (Noun) will get you laughed out of a 4h club discussion on how to raise and care for your New Zealand White Rabbit. No such animal exists in New Zealand or ever has.
And a tanker truck, is transporting "Fuel" as you say, which is a source of stored chemical energy; just as a photon is a source of stored Electro-magnetic energy. Hydrocarbon molecules are as inert, and sedentary as are photons, but each is capable of doing work when released, either by interacting with matter in the case of the photon, or initiation of the oxidation process, in the case of the molecule.
NOTE: """….other than by work or transfer of matter. …""""
That is a part of YOUR approved definition of HEAT (noun)
Also note, that most people claim that HEAT (noun) can be transported by conduction, CONVECTION, and radiation.
YOUR fabled wiki definition specifically EXCLUDES CONVECTION as a means of transport of energy , BY TRANSFER OF MATTER.
Photons or EM waves are a means of transporting energy, without involvement of ANY matter. They know absolutely nothing about Temperature or Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a macro property of systems. A photon is NOT any macro system that knows anything about thermodynamics or heat.
""""….What kind of job is a “Professional Physicist”? Are you working at one of the very few national laboratories? What’s your specialty? I’m trying to imagine what kind of job or background you could have to be a “working Professional Physicist” and be ignorant of thermodynamics, Maxwell, etc…..""""
A professional physicist is a person who works professionally (for money, rather than gold medals) working on or solving problems or making things, using the various skills of Physics.
My undergraduate degree, actually had THREE majors in Physics; plus TWO in mathematics.
One of those PHYSICS majors was in fact RADIO-PHYSICS, as in Maxwell's equations and the various processes of Electromagnetic field generation, propagation and detection, Electronics, including digital and analog circuit design, antenna theory and EM wave generation and detection.
My regular PHYSICS major included ALL of the usual components of Physics: HLSE&M&M
Heat, Light, Sound, Electricity, and Magnetism, and Mechanics. The third was Mathematical Physics, which is all field theory and vector analysis and the like.
Well it's been 60 years since I took college courses (I was top of the class in English; my worst subject), and I lost every one of my college and University text books, in a box that was supposed to have gone on a boat, but never came off. So I have to remember a lot of stuff in my head. Wikipedia, is clearly an unreliable source of information since they specifically EXCLUDE convection (transfer of matter) from their definition of HEAT / heating.
But I still do remember a little bit about thermodynamics.
As for a specialty, I don't have one of those; that would take a PhD which I don't have.
But then I don't have a Resume either, and never have had, so I guess my specialty is whatever those people who know me, ask me to work on for them; as a professional for money of course.
My most recent professional physicist work for money, was finished just yesterday, over at NASA AMES on Moffet Field in Sunnyvale CA. No not actually for NASA, but a medical equipment company with that address; so I was doing optical modeling and simulations of a medical instrument device they are making, which uses optical and opto-electronic components. I'm told that they now want me to come back and work on the analog circuitry problems that the device has. Well dang if that thing doesn't actually have a real electronic thermometer in it as well, in fact it was a big part of the screw-ups in the optical system.
Quite often, Electronic engineers work on such problems (analog circuitry), but sometimes they don't know anything about the physics behind it. Luckily, I do.
But why did you ask ?
Energy can be transferred, without ANY Temperature gradients involved or even any Temperature definable. What is the Temperature of a 2.0 electron volt (eV) photon travelling from Jupiter to the earth ?? What about a 2.0 eV photon travelling from the sun to the earth; what Temperature does it have ??
Only National Lab, I ever worked at was the DSIR in Wellington NZ, but that was just a summer vacation job.
NEVER worked at any academic or government lab in the USA. I do believe I actually said already, that I worked in Industry; that's the capitalist system, that creates the products, that make the profits, that provide the taxes for the politicians to waste on the Government labs. (doing useless things like laser implosion to try and create thermo-nuclear energy.) Or climate research ! They don't apparently know about Earnshaw's theorem, which by the way, I learned about in school, and don't need to reach for a textbook to refresh
Wikipedia evidently can't even keep the parts of speech in the English language straight, confusing nouns and verbs as if the definition of one, is the definition of the other.
There are plenty of folks, who simply say, that HEAT is NOT a noun !
>> YOUR fabled wiki definition specifically EXCLUDES CONVECTION as a means of transport of energy , BY TRANSFER OF MATTER.
It’s not my definition. This is getting humorous that you ascribe to me the definition of heat, for which none other than James Clerk Maxwell is famous. Did you read this part:
“The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation”
So, convection is not excluded. Transfer of matter is referring to a system losing or gaining mass. If one pumps air into a container, it will get hotter, but it’s not because of Heat (energy transfer).
>> Energy can be transferred, without ANY Temperature gradients involved or even any Temperature definable
Two stars of equal temperature shine at each other. No net energy transfer takes place. A star and a planet shine at each other. A net energy transfer takes place.
Look, your argument is not with me, it’s with the laws of physics, which are quite precise about energy transfer. Energy-final = Energy-initial + Heat + Work + Mass-transfer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transfer)
Well VE, I’m wondering why you would believe any of the rubbish I wrote down there (up there) about “my specialty.”
I could write anything at all, and whether you believed it or not, is as much a question of YOUR credentials, as of mine. You would have to know enough, to know whether my claim was even credible.
Well I mentioned a number of “specialties”. How do you know that isn’t all poppycock.
What if I said for example, I could design and build you an integrated CMOS photo-diode detector, and current amplifier (not a trans-impedance amplifier), with a current gain of 500 at a 3dB signal bandwidth of DC to one MHz, and a 20:1 S/N ratio sensitivity of 750 pA.. And by design, I mean start with a silicon wafer, and design ALL of the required layers, and process diffusions and/or Ion Implants, for my own desired linear CMOS process, and even do all those process steps myself. Well probably not in the latest INTEL micro-processor process. That would not let me get a 1/f noise corner frequency of 50 Hz, which I would want for my circuit. Is any of that even possible.
Maybe I could make you some tuning fork quartz crystal oscillators, on a 50 micron thick Quartz crystal wafer, in either NT cut, or preferably an XY bar mode. Is that real. Why would you believe anything I might claim; well you won’t find it on Wikipedia, which WAS your choice of “HEAT” definition; not mine.
Why stay with silicon? Perhaps I could make you an integrated circuit on a GaAsP Epitaxial layer on GaAs substrates, that would emit light for you. What if I said, I would grow that epi layer myself, and of course also the single crystal GaAs substrate ingot. Well why not claim I could also build the two different reactors to do grow both of those materials, and also design the process controllers, to run those processes.
You see there’s no end to the extravagant claims, I might make, because you ask what is my specialty.
What does it matter what my specialty is; or yours for that matter. Even asking amounts to an ad hominem argument. Just take my posts on the subject of the thread as they are. You have no need to know just what MY credentials are; they aren’t relative to my posts.
As to your two stars shining equal amounts of radiant energy (photons) at each other. Suppose I instead send a He-Ne laser beam at 632.8 nm at one of your stars; maybe your star is at 6,000 K. Why don’t I also shine it onto one of those dead asteroids out there for good measure. Now tell me again how I am going to get my laser beam back from both of those objects in accordance with the second law of thermo-dynamics. Well I only sent the laser beam for one second. My location isn’t even pointing in the same direction, when either of those return laser beams get back, so I’m not going to receive ANY return power. My planet, is not infinitely thermally conductive, so even if the return land on the other side of the planet, I will never get anything to equilibrate to.
I’m sure my laser sent out photons, and I’m quite certain they, or some of them reached both the hot star and the cold asteroid. One is hotter than the earth, and the other is colder.
And I do have all of the available, in print texts of the work of James Clark, Maxwell. Of course I also claimed that I studied all of that at a university. No way you could actually check, whether that is true, or if I even have the books; or any books on thermodynamics.
Is electricity “HEAT” (noun) ? I know you can make heat with it, if you have a resistor handy. You could also make light with it, instead of heat. Well actually, you would have to turn the electricity into EM radiation at some photon energy between maybe 1.5 and 3.0 electron volt, maybe with one of those devices, I claimed I could design and build. But then you would have to look at it, because “light”, is all in your head; it isn’t electro-magnetic radiation either.
Have you ever wondered why we measure EM radiant energy or power, in joule, or watt units, but we specify “light” in talbot or lumen units, and intensities in terms of candela, rather than watt/steradian, that we use for EM radiant energy ?? Light is NOT EM radiation; it isn’t even energy; it’s entirely a psychophysical fabrication of the human eye/brain system. But we still call some EM radiation “light” as if it was real. Same thing for heat.
So I’ll ask you. What is the upper and lower frequency/wavelength limit values for EM radiant energy.
I know for example, that the fictional black body radiation, has limits from zero frequency, up to zero wavelength, which would correspond the infinite wavelength, to infinite frequency. Nobody ever observed all of that of course.
And we do have a bit of a problem there, with black body radiation, in that in arriving at his BB radiation formula, Planck asserted, quite arbitrarily, that his “quantum” of energy should have an energy (photon energy) equal to hf, or hbar(omega) if you like your frequencies in radians per second, rather than in hertz. Well oops, I see a problem The photon energy becomes infinite at the zero wavelength end of the black body spectrum.
I thought the Planck radiation formula was supposed to avoid the “ultraviolet catastrophe” that the Raleigh Jeans radiation formula gives for radiation at zero wavelength or infinite frequency. The Planck photon energy can still be infinite.
Ah you say, we never observe infinite frequency (zero wavelength) photons. Well nobody ever did, back in the day of Sir James Jeans, either. Planck’s radiation formula, is entirely theoretical describing something that nobody ever observed, or can observe, because no real physical material can ever emit real black body radiation, or even absorb all of it, if such a thing existed.
Well of course that is just my opinion VE. But if you are more comfortable with the totally anonymous Wikipedia authority, that is fine with me.
And you still don’t have the foggiest idea, what I really do, or what my “specialty” is. Why would you care ??
I wonder if there really is a person who can actually do all of that rubbish up there. I can assure you though, that I am NOT, the George E (lwood) Smith, who was awarded part of the 2009 Nobel prize in Physics for his part in the invention of the CCD photo-sensor (charge coupled device). I didn’t do that. There are actually some people (I know two; maybe three) who know both of us.
Our credentials don’t matter. The only thing that matters is scientific understanding and the scientific method. You questioned the scientific definition of Heat. You stand corrected.
>> I’m sure my laser sent out photons, and I’m quite certain they, or some of them reached both the hot star and the cold asteroid
Fundamental to thermodynamics is that it’s about NET energy transfer. AGW fanatics make this mistake as well. Some EM energy is coming from the asteroid, or we would not be able to see it. However, the NET energy transfer (Heat) is from earth and your laser to the asteroid. The star has a NET energy transfer to the earth.
>> Wikipedia, is clearly an unreliable source of information since they specifically EXCLUDE convection (transfer of matter) from their definition of HEAT / heating.
First of all, my first source was my college textbook on Thermodynamics. Second of all, I already explained to you that the Wiki definition did NOT exclude convection:
“The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
So, convection is not excluded. Transfer of matter is referring to a system losing or gaining mass. If one pumps air into a container, it will get hotter, but it’s not because of Heat (energy transfer).
>> What does it matter what my specialty is; or yours for that matter. Even asking amounts to an ad hominem argument. Just take my posts on the subject of the thread as they are.
If I had said “agree with me because I have credentials and you don’t”, the logic fallacy would be “Appeal to authority”, not ad hominem. However, I never did that. You were the one who claimed credentials as a “Professional Physicist”, so it was you who was making an “appeal to authority”. You said “In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).”
I first dealt with what you wrote by providing multiple sources establishing that Heat has been scientifically defined as I described since 1871. Later, I questioned your veracity because it was hard to imagine someone working as a “Professional Physicist” for 50 years and being ignorant of basic scientific definitions.
However, when you say “Light is NOT EM radiation; it isn’t even energy”, you basically disqualify yourself from further discussion about science.
“””””…..If I had said “agree with me because I have credentials and you don’t”, the logic fallacy would be “Appeal to authority”, not ad hominem. However, I never did that. You were the one who claimed credentials as a “Professional Physicist”, so it was you who was making an “appeal to authority”. You said “In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).”……”””””
Well I’m sure that a reader of this discussion, would find on re-reading, that it was YOU who specifically requested “my specialty”. so don’t come with your appeal to authority. You asked me a specific question about ‘my credentials’. I told you and everybody else that I had no such specialty. I also said as you re-iterate here: ““In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).”……”””””
That is a simple statement of fact. If you don’t believe it, then it is up to you to show other readers, why you doubt what I said.
How many old and new papers and texts, did you cite, in YOUR appeal to authority, as to what “heat” is; even including ones dated before “the quantum” was even postulated, let alone And you DID cite Wikipedia, and that reference did specifically exclude the
transfer of material (convection) in their definition of heat. I cut and pasted their very words verbatim.
As for what is and is not “light”, I will take the definition provided by The Commission on Colorimetry, of the Optical Society of America, as my definition. And you can find that in the definitive book on that subject; The Science of Color.”
I noticed you conveniently omitted to note my question as to why “light” entities are specified in a completely different set of notions, than anything that has to do with energy. There are no joule or watt or other energy related quantities that are used to specify “light”. I told you, talbot, lumen, and candela, and some others are the units used to specify, various “light” properties, and if you don’t know that, then it is you that should disqualify yourself from discussing physics. None of those units relate to energy or power, they all relate to psychophysical responses of the human eye, which alone, can “see” light, and those units are the result of countless studies of the human eye behavior.
And I have never said or intimated anything about your credentials, other than to say that any statement, that I might make about MY “specialty” or “credentials”, would also become a “read” on your credentials. If I said my specialty was “nuclear physics”, well you might, or might not, be able to make a decision, based on the discussions, and YOUR knowledge, whether that was credible or not.
If you want to continue to believe that EM radiation is heat, that’s fine with me. I’m not the director of anyone’s beliefs.
If they are the same thing, they should be interchangeable. They are not. Conversion between them is not symmetrically bi-directional.
As was pointed out over a hundred years ago, radiation is slowly losing the battle against heat. The universe is slowly freezing to death. Luckily for us that process is slow enough to not bother us, and we will not run out of usable energy in the lifetime of our solar system.
george e. smith Oct 6, 10:05, refers to, VickingExplorer Oct 3, 11:11
I’m not qualified to coment..
db..
And those frequency/wavelength limits requested, were of course for the EM radiant energy that IS heat, and NOT something else.