Undeniable Truths

Out in the webiverse someone asked me “Willis… do you consider yourself a denialist?”

Mmmm … an excellent question, with an answer which likely won’t go the direction that they think.

First, the term “climate denier”, or in this incarnation “denialist”, was specifically chosen for its overtones of “Holocaust denier”. It is used as a pejorative term for anyone who disagrees with any aspect of climate science, usually without any attempt to say what the person is “denying”.

Now, I know for a fact that the Holocaust was real, because immediately after the war my grandmother, the Captain’s daughter, was in charge of several camps for “displaced persons”, most of whom were Jews who had been in the slave labor camps and the extermination camps. She saw all of that almost while the crematoria were still warm … she talked with the people who’d suffered intolerably. Her testimony, along with a mountain of other testimonial, documentary, and photographic evidence, establishes the truth of the existence of the Holocaust far, far beyond reasonable doubt.

Here’s the sneaky part. The link between “climate denial” and Holocaust denial lies in what is said to be denied. The clear implication in both cases is the claim that the person is denying THE TRUTH. They’re not not saying people are denying some mere supposition. They’re not claiming that “climate deniers” are denying some half-baked theory.

The clear claim is that both “climate deniers” and Holocaust deniers are denying THE TRUTH.

Now, this is mondo sneaky because this framing entirely pre-empts the discussion of what might or might not be true about the climate. It does this by subtly but strongly implying that THE TRUTH about the climate is already established.

Riiiight …

Not only are they saying that THE TRUTH about climate is established, but the further claim in calling someone a “climate denier” is that the person using the term 1) knows THE TRUTH, and 2) knows that the person is “denying”, not just scientifically disputing but “denying”, some specific part of THE TRUTH.

And the final hidden claim is that THE TRUTH is not just established, but it is as solidly established as the undeniable truth that the Holocaust occurred.

So when a person calls someone a “climate denier” or a “denialist”, they are implicitly asserting that the following are true and valid statements:

• THE TRUTH about the climate has been established.

• THE TRUTH about the climate is as solid and fact-based as THE TRUTH about the existence of the Holocaust, i.e. it is 100% undeniably and inalterably true and backed by a mountain of evidence.

• They know THE TRUTH about the climate.

• They know that the person they are calling a “denier” doesn’t simply disagree about a specific scientific idea, but instead they “deny” something that is obviously and demonstrably THE TRUTH.

All of that makes the use of “denier” an underhanded attempt to get people to believe that climate science is settled … and that is absolutely not THE TRUTH …

It is also a term with very ugly overtones. As a result, I and others have repeatedly asked decent people to cut it out, because it is both untrue and insulting.

The response has clearly revealed that I greatly overestimated the number of decent people among the climate alarmists …

The proper term for folks that disagree with various aspects of the mainstream climate scientists’ claims about the climate is “skeptic”. They are properly skeptical of the unproven idea that the temperature of the earth is greatly affected by the CO2 going from three-hundredths of one percent to four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere.

That might indeed be true, although I don’t think so … but at present it is assuredly unproven.

Now, it has been shown that when CO2 increases, it increases the atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation, and thus increases the amount of thermal radiation from the atmosphere, about half of which heads downwards towards the surface.

But it has NOT been shown that this increase in radiation is perforce accompanied by an increase in the surface temperature.

However, me, I don’t consider myself a skeptic. Instead, I consider myself a heretic, meaning that I do not agree with the current underlying fundamental assumption of how the climate works.

That underlying assumption involves what is called “downwelling radiation” or “radiative forcing”, meaning the radiation headed down towards the surface. This is the sum of solar radiation plus thermal radiation from the atmosphere and clouds.

The assumption is that if the downwelling radiation increases, the surface temperature perforce has to rise. Not only that, but the temperature rise varies perfectly linearly with the increase in radiation. If you double the change in radiation, it will supposedly give you double the change in temperature.

Now, intuitively you’d think that would be true, that the more radiation that hits some surface, the warmer it would get. We’re told that it’s just “simple physics”. And indeed, for a simple physical system like a block of iron that’s basically true.

However, the climate is an immensely complex system, with important phenomena occurring on a time scale from nanoseconds to millennia and physical scales from nanometres to planet-wide.

Not only that, but according to the Constructal Law as well as Le Chatelier’s Principle, the climate actively responds to the changing conditions by moving towards the status quo ante. We see this in the endless twists and windings of lowland rivers. They are always changing, jumping out of their beds and cutting new channels … but the overall length of the river hardly changes at all. Constructal law at work.

So as an example of the thermal response of another complex system to increased radiation, consider how much your core body temperature rises when you walk from the shade into the sun. Thermal input, aka “downwelling radiation” has gone up by hundreds of watts per square metre and the core body temperature has … done nothing …

The reality is that complex systems cannot be analyzed using just “simple physics”.

So no, I do NOT believe what almost everyone in the field believes, which is that global temperature is a linear function of the amount of incoming radiation. I say that the climate responds to changing radiation input just as the body responds to changing radiation input, by shifting and evolving in such a fashion as to negate the effect of the increase in radiation.

The climate is best modeled as a heat engine. Why? Because at the most basic level, that’s what it is. Like all heat engines, it has energy coming in at the hot end (the tropics) and is rejecting energy at the cold end (the poles). Like all heat engines, it turns energy into mechanical motion. The climate heat engine turns solar energy into the mechanical motion of the various circulations of the atmosphere and the oceans. The frictional resistance to these mechanical motions of ocean and air is equivalent to a brake on a heat engine.

And here’s the interesting part.

Over the last century, the average temperature of the planet-sized heat engine that we call the “climate” varied up and down from its century-long average by about one-tenth of one percent … and as a man who has been involved with a number of heat engines, I can say that that is shockingly stable.

This is particularly true when you consider a couple of things. First, the existence of the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” means that the global surface temperature is well above what it would be if there were no atmosphere. (For an explanation of how the greenhouse effect actually works, which has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses, see The Steel Greenhouse, People Living In Glass Planets, and The R. W. Wood Experiment.)

Second, the clouds reflect about forty percent of the available sunlight back into space. This is a huge amount of energy, about a hundred watts per square metre.

So our temperature is balanced well above what it would be without an atmosphere. And even with that, clouds are shedding some 30%  of the available energy back into space, so it could be much, much hotter … but it’s not. Thus, the temperature is controlled by nothing more solid than clouds, winds and waves … clouds and winds and waves that come and go … and despite that, the global temperature only varied by ±0.1% over the 20th century.

So I don’t study what almost all climate scientists study, which is why the global average temperature varies so much.

I study why it varies so little … which is why I describe myself as a heretic rather than a sceptic.

Here, life in the lockdown continues … if being free to work in my shop and wander through acres of protected forest out past my back yard can be fairly described as being “locked down”. I truly cannot conceive of, and I have great compassion for, what lockdown means for a family of four in some city apartment building, with both parents out of work and rent coming due …

As I’ve said since it started, end the American lockdown now. It is injuring and killing far more than the virus is, particularly at this late point in the game.

I do think, however, that we are coming to the end of both the coronavirus and the BLM riots. So I leave you all in hopes of a much brighter future for my granddaughter above, and for you and all of your family,

w.

As Usual: I ask that when you comment, you quote the exact words that you are discussing. This avoids most of the misunderstands that are so rife on the intarwebs.

The Math: For those interested in the faulty math behind the fundamental equation falsely claiming that temperature is a linear function of downwelling radiation, see my post The Cold Equations.

368 thoughts on “Undeniable Truths”

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Folk, I’ve dealt with Zoe Phin before. I encourage people to click on her link and quietly visit her site without disturbing her by replying, as her beliefs are … well … beyond belief. She claims she is a BS denier, but that can’t be true, because if it were, she’d have vanished like Ouroborus long ago …

I don’t mean she is a bad person, she definitely is not, she seems smart and pleasant. I just mean that her ideas are only loosely tethered to reality and she defends them with … let me call them “curious” interpretations of how the world works, as you’ll soon discover for yourself if you fall down the rabbithole that is her site.

My best to all, including Zoe,

w.

• @Willis – I don’t think that most of the people here need to be exposed to the full craziness. We can tell from just the leakage.

I completely agree on not replying, however. When there is time, it is more useful to skewer the dangerous cranks. Ms. Phin is in the same category as the UFO, pyramid, or crystal people – nuts, but harmless.

• dmacleo says:

wait…crystal people in the ufo’s DIDN’T build the pyramids??

• Bob Tisdale says:

“Crystal people”???? Somehow in my seven decades on this planet I’ve never before heard mention of “crystal people”. Though I had met a young lady called Crystal once in a…….but that’s a not a story appropriate for WUWT.

Stay safe and healthy, all.
Bob

• MarkW says:

For someone who claims to have over turned nearly every branch of physics, she is quite reluctant to actually submit a paper. Surely at least one Nobel would be hers for the asking.

• Craig says:

Indiana Jones reference.

• philincalifornia says:

Bob T, I’m guessing you didn’t watch the democratic presidential hopeful debates? I quite liked her actually.

• John Endicott says:

Do the crystal people work for the lizard people or vice versa?

• fred250 says:

Except that you assume your radiation from the cold end is into zero K to get your 557W/m² radiative energy transfer, also ignoring that you are putting 750W/m² in at the hot end to make a temperature of 75ºC

You should be looking at NET radiation transfer.

If for eg, the air at the cold end was 50ºC, there would be no net radiation transfer at all.

Your mis-application of SB rules makes you seem like you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

• MarkW says:

Zoe once told me that if you pumped energy into an object, there would be no change in the temperature of that object, since according to her, only heat does work, heat flow does none.
She seems to have settled on the notion that heat in motion becomes a completely different thing from heat itself.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Zoe posted: “. . . and then attempts to smear me.”

You mean as in his comment above: “. . . she seems smart and pleasant”?

Your protest against that characterization is duly noted.

• Willis is upset that my empirical evidence trumps his ideological mathematics.

Willis believes that eggs on a frying pan are only hot due to “downwelling” IR. The hotter the eggs, the more downwelling IR.

He doesn’t believe hot objects FIRST emit radiation to cold places, but rather they are hot because radiation came from the cold.

• dmacleo says:

pass. she just uses these comments to drive traffic to her site.

• Oh please … I have pole dancing videos that could drive more traffic, if that’s what I wanted it.

• jon Jewett says:

Do you have a link for the pole videos??

• MarkW says:

Be careful, in some jurisdictions those videos would qualify as child porn.

• Nope. I’m married. The chase is long over.

• MarkW says:

• No, I’m a just a good wife.

• gbaikie says:

I like the rabbit hole.
I contend that geothermal heat warms our cold ocean- which has average temperature of 3.5 C.
To borrow an expression of “the heat disappearing in the Ocean”
I would if detonate a 1 megaton nuclear bomb at a depth of 4000 meter ocean depth- the energy of the bomb, disappears.
And would suggest an exercise of converting Ocean floor geothermal heat in the number of nuclear 1 megaton bombs it equal in a year’s time period over the entire ocean floor.
And I would say what happens near the ocean floor, stays near the ocean floor.
It’s said that 75% of all volcanic activity of entire earth surface occurs
on the ocean floor. But if cruising along on a boat, it’s disappeared.
Or 1 megaton bomb is rather insignificant to energy of hurricane or the energy of a large volcanic eruption.
So I don’t think a furious amount volcanic activity or the massive heat nuke gets to the surface in short period of time, nor the trickle of “normal” geothermal heat gets to surface anytime soon- I say it takes at least century of time. Though one could also say that it never reaches the surface- it’s mugged, stabbed, and ambushed- but such crimes should not be ignored.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

gbaikie August 9, 2020 at 2:12 pm

I like the rabbit hole.
I contend that geothermal heat warms our cold ocean- which has average temperature of 3.5 C.

I hope that while you are “contending” you realize that no one I’ve seen estimates the geothermal heat flow into the ocean at more than about 0.1 W/m2.

Now, per square metre, on average the ocean both absorbs and radiates about 15 megajoules of energy in a 24-hour period. The ocean absorbs the 15 megajoules/m2 more during the day than during the night, and and re-radiates, conducts, and convects away the same 15 megajoules of energy more during the night than the day.

Geothermal heat flow into the ocean is on the order of … 0.009 megajoules per day. Less than one tenth of one measly percent of the total heat flow.

I’m sorry, but that trivially small amount of energy is lost in the noise and is immaterial to the energy balance.

w.

• Willis,
And don’t forget to understand …

http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

And watch videos at the end of

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

Wow that cooking pan sure gets hot … just as hot as the stove. Conductive heat flux goes to zero!

Willis, this is not rocket science. If geothermal heat flux from Earth core to surface was ZERO it would mean the surface is as hot as the core. The smallest CHF yields the greatest temperature, yet here you are mocking a small number.

Willis, please get behind me and promote my breakthrough research. Your ego will thank you later.

• gbaikie says:

“I hope that while you are “contending” you realize that no one I’ve seen estimates the geothermal heat flow into the ocean at more than about 0.1 W/m2.”
Correct, I am using that value.
And how much per square km and in week of time?
.1 times million times 604,800 seconds = 60,480,000,000 joules of heat. Then, times by surface area of the ocean.
How many nukes bombs does it equal per week? Could that many nuclear bombs occurring over decades add near .01 C to our 3.5 C ocean?

–Now, per square metre, on average the ocean both absorbs and radiates about 15 megajoules of energy in a 24-hour period. —
True, but the energy of a nuke would be mostly gone in less than 1 second.

–The ocean absorbs the 15 megajoules/m2 more during the day than during the night, and and re-radiates, conducts, and convects away the same 15 megajoules of energy more during the night than the day.
Geothermal heat flow into the ocean is on the order of … 0.009 megajoules per day. Less than one tenth of one measly percent of the total heat flow.–

That might matter if you were arguing with Zoe.
Instead, I think the temperature of entire ocean controls global climate.
Or we in Ice Age **only** because our ocean temperature is 3.5 C.
In millions of years of our present Ice Age the ocean temperature has in the range of 1 to 5 C.
And our Ice Age has cycles of Interglacial and Glacial periods
of +100,000 years of duration

This Ice Age is due to Plate Tectonic activity giving us our current arrangement of continents and ocean topography- and it has a lot to do with our arctic ocean, where cold arctic water falls into our Ocean’s basins.
Which is also related to major warming feature of modern world, known as the Gulf Stream which adds about 10 K to Europe’s average yearly surface air temperature.

Kind of like short term buying for a long term loss.

Anyhow, the geothermal heating is not going to get us out of our Ice Age, but rather it’s a aspect or feature of our Ice Age.
And as Zoe might agree, geothermal heating would prevent us from turning into Snowball/Slushball Earth.
Zoe might say it makes it completely impossible, and I would tend to agree.

• MarkW says:

Zoe continues on this fanciful journey where energy in motion doesn’t exist.

• Mark,
Energy is mass in motion.

You’re claiming the need for mass in motion in motion?

What does your redundant stupidity even mean?

• MarkW says:

Energy can be converted into mass, and mass can be converted into energy, but energy is not mass.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“Willis, please get behind me and promote my breakthrough research.”

Okay, I had not realized Zoe was a comedian.
That changes everything.

• gbaikie says:

Can geothermal heat perturb climate?
W. T. Roach
Crowthorne, Berkshire
….
–The oceanic GH budget

If the total GHF released through the ocean
floor (about 3 x 10^13 W) was all retained by the
oceans, a mean heating rate of order 1 degC per
6000 years would result. This heating rate
would ‘warm out’ the oceans in about 10^5 years
– a period comparable to the time-scales of
climate change induced by slow variations in
the shape of the earth‘s orbit, first investigated
by Milankovitch…–
Other parts of paper:
— GHF in geothermally inactive areas was about 60MWm-2, with no significant difference between continents and
the ocean floor, but values of GHF up to a factor of 5 above background values were found near mid-ocean ridges. —
And:
–On geological the-scales, the global GHF
through ocean ridges may fluctuate by as much
as an order of magnitude, and episodes of greatest hydrothermal flux correspond to times
when tectonic plate boundaries are undergoing
major changes in their configuration (Owen and Rea 1985). The early Eocene (about 50 million years ago) was such a period of increased volcanic activity. This period is linked
by Owen and Rea with increased CO, in the atmosphere leading to global warming, but they make no mention of any possible effect of increased GH release on the thermal structure of the oceans.–
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1998.tb06333.x

• Willis Eschenbach says:

gbaikie August 11, 2020 at 6:45 pm

Can geothermal heat perturb climate?
W. T. Roach
Crowthorne, Berkshire
….
–The oceanic GH budget

If the total GHF released through the ocean
floor (about 3 x 10^13 W) was all retained by the
oceans, a mean heating rate of order 1 degC per
6000 years would result. This heating rate
would ‘warm out’ the oceans blah blah blah …

Yes. And if the same amount of energy was all retained by my body, it would raise my temperature by thousands of degrees … SO WHAT! The heat is NOT “retained by the ocean”.

The geological heat flux, as Mr. Roach agrees, is on the order of a tenth of a watt per square metre.

Meanwhile, every day the ocean is absorbing about HALF A KILOWATT PER SQUARE METRE averaged over a 24/7 basis … and of course, since the ocean temperature is approximately at steady-state, that means it is also losing about half a kilowatt per square metre on a 24/7.

The geothermal heat flux merely increases both the energy gain and the energy loss by about two hundredths of one percent … be still, my beating heart.

Regards,

w.

• gbaikie says:

Yes. And if the same amount of energy was all retained by my body, it would raise my temperature by thousands of degrees … SO WHAT! The heat is NOT “retained by the ocean”.

The paper argues it is retained by the ocean.

Of course I was arguing that does before read this paper today- but there nothing in particular, I disagree with in the paper.

Though my broader argument, that ocean temperature is global climate is not anywhere to found in the paper.
And author seems more interested changes to climate caused by geothermal heating. And tend think of geothermal heating in terms as a “balancing factor”, and generally a missing part in Earth’s energy budget, though author does mention that in beginning of paper:

…” Therefore, climate modellers make no allowance for geothermal heat flux (GHF) in current climate models (e.g. Peixoto and Oort 1992). While this exclusion of GHF is
justified for land surfaces (even in volcanic eruptions), what happens to GH entering the deep ocean?

The residence time of deep-ocean water has been estimated to be of order 3000 years (Woods 1984), and raises the question as to whether a slow accumulation of trapped GH
might have thermal and dynamical consequences for the ocean – and perhaps, therefore, for climate – on some time-scales? ”

And I am talking about long time scale, I think global climate is long time scale. And we are measuring weather- which valid in terms of global climate, only in the sense trying to find a long time scale signal within it.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

gbaikie August 11, 2020 at 8:11 pm

Yes. And if the same amount of energy was all retained by my body, it would raise my temperature by thousands of degrees … SO WHAT! The heat is NOT “retained by the ocean”.

The paper argues it is retained by the ocean.

You need to use common sense. On average, half a frickin’ kilowatt per square metre is going into the ocean at all times. That’s 43,000,000 joules per day. The same amount is leaving the ocean at all times.

The geothermal heat flow into the ocean is 6,900 joules per day. That is TWO-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE MEASLY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FLOW.

So … how is the ocean gonna know it should retain that 0.02% of the total flow?

Of course I was arguing that does before read this paper today- but there nothing in particular, I disagree with in the paper.

…” Therefore, climate modellers make no allowance for geothermal heat flux (GHF) in current climate models (e.g. Peixoto and Oort 1992). While this exclusion of GHF is
justified for land surfaces (even in volcanic eruptions), what happens to GH entering the deep ocean?

Geothermal heat has been entering the ocean for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Since the ocean is basically at steady-state, that means that the same amount of heat must have been leaving the ocean for millions of years … if it weren’t leaving as fast as it is entering, as you point out, it would have boiled away long ago.

And since it is only 0.02% of the total heat flow into and out of the ocean, the GCMs are absolutely justified in ignoring it. The GCM time horizon is about 80 years, out to 2100. Even if every bit of the geothermal heat were magically retained by the ocean, in 80 years the difference would still be immeasurably small.

With your permission, let me expound a bit on how I go about analysis. When I analyze some complex system I like to divide the variables into three rough groups that I call first-, second-, and third-order effects.

On my planet, first-order effects are things that can change the input or the output of some system by 10% or more. So clouds are a first-order effect regarding the amount of incoming sunlight.

Second-order effects are things that make a difference of from 1% to 10%. So black carbon on polar ice is probably a second-order effect on ice coverage.

Finally, third-order effects are things that make a difference of less than 1%. These I often ignore in any but the finest-grained of analyses. Often in climate these effects are not measurable because they’re lost in the noise. Curiously, a doubling of CO2, with a change in downwelling radiation of say 4 W/m2, is still only a third-order effect in the half-kilowatt of radiation constantly bombarding the surface.

It was this consideration that first led me to question the orthodoxy. In a system with a half kilowatt per square metre passing through it at all times, it just didn’t seem like changing the input to 504 W/m2 by doubling CO2 could make that much difference.

In closing I note that the amount of geothermal heat flux is both stable in the century timespan, and is two entire orders of magnitude weaker than a third order effect as I define above … which is why it’s almost invariably left out of the global energy balance.

Too small.

My best regards,

w.

• gbaikie says:

“The geological heat flux, as Mr. Roach agrees, is on the order of a tenth of a watt per square metre.”

As I agreed, as everyone agrees, even Zoe.

“Meanwhile, every day the ocean is absorbing about HALF A KILOWATT PER SQUARE METRE averaged over a 24/7 basis … and of course, since the ocean temperature is approximately at steady-state, that means it is also losing about half a kilowatt per square metre on a 24/7.”

Well religion of the greenhouse theory, currently proclaims the warming of the ocean is 90% of all global warming.

Or they don’t believe the ocean is at a steady state- as the human emission, the story goes, is almost entirely warming the ocean depths.
I am not a fervent believer, but I believe global warming is about 99.9% warmed ocean.
But, we are in an Ice Age and that means our ocean is quite cold. And it’s going to stay quite cold for quite awhile- despite the equivalent heat of millions of nukes exploding in the ocean depths.

–The geothermal heat flux merely increases both the energy gain and the energy loss by about two hundredths of one percent … be still, my beating heart.–

Strange, that CO2 is about four hundredths of one percent, it’s measured increase is about 1.2 hundreds of one percent and during same time of measuring of that, how many nuke bombs in equivalent heat has been absorbed in the ocean from oceanic geothermal?
I am not even sure the increase in CO2 will get to two hundredths of one percent.
We get nothing from the geothermal heat, and we get more food, and global greening from this CO2 level increase.

Well, it not true that in long term, we get get nothing, because given enough time without the geothermal heat and it’s equivalent heat of billion of nukes exploding in the ocean depths, Earth might be in a Slushball global climate, rather than being in our present Icebox global climate.
Such coldness, could freeze your heart.

• gbaikie says:

–Geothermal heat has been entering the ocean for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Since the ocean is basically at steady-state, that means that the same amount of heat must have been leaving the ocean for millions of years … if it weren’t leaving as fast as it is entering, as you point out, it would have boiled away long ago.–
Oh, I am dreadful sorry. I did not mention that it quite possible an even smaller amount might not reach the surface.
Or the ocean getting colder, from cold arctic deep water, so the some portion of Geothermal heat goes to zero, because warming this cold water.

Strange thing is, we aren’t measuring the amount cold water, nor have measure the ocean geothermal very well either.
But one find papers about how Pacific basin is getting colder.
Try searching for it, here it is top of search:
Researchers find bottom of Pacific getting colder, possibly due to Little Ice Age
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-bottom-pacific-colder-possibly-due.html
I am not saying all basins are colder or warmer, just they measure the Pacific basin getting colder. Or that kind of stuff happens.
So last I checked they don’t have a number for amount cold water falling per year or whatever.
–Concluding Remarks
It is remarkable that fundamental questions about Arctic circulation — as basic as water pathways and physical driving mechanisms — remain unanswered at this time. —
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/arctic-ocean-circulation-going-around-at-the-102811553/
“By: Rebecca Woodgate (University of Washington, Seattle, WA) © 2013 Nature Education
Citation: Woodgate, R. (2013) Arctic Ocean Circulation: Going Around At the Top Of the World. Nature Education Knowledge”
Maybe by now, it’s been done- I know they are currently a lot stuff up there.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Note that the bottom of the ocean is the coldest part of the ocean.
The closer you get to the bottom, the colder it gets.
It is below freezing at the bottom in some parts of the ocean, and does not seem to be appreciably warmer even a few tens of meters away from the searingly hot black smokers and other such hydrothermal vents.
There are oodles of bathymetric temperature profiles of the various ocean, freely available with a quick search.
One can see where the cold water is coming from, and it would be obvious if there were plumes of warm water originating at the bottom anywhere.
One can also find similar charts of salinity, density, etc.
Here is a link to a few ocean cross sections, top to bottom, starting with one that transects a line from the southern part of Iceland, straight down the central Atlantic, all the way to about the Falkland Islands or so, with the last link a repository of such transects:
https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ocean-temperature-vs-depth.png?w=797&h=445

Straight across the Atlantic, including the mid ocean ridge:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/woce/woce_v3/wocedata_2/ewoce/gallery/whp/A5_TPOT.gif

Website with archives:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/woce/woce_v3/wocedata_2/ewoce/gallery/whp/eWOCE_Tables.html
There is some heat from the interior, but it is tiny in magnitude.
The reason is simply…stone is a terrible conductor or heat.
This is why it is always the same temp in a cave, and why stone walls three feet thick make a building about the same.
It is why in places like Florida, after 6 months straight of weather that never gets below 75° F, we can have frost on the grass hours after the first cold front of the year passes, even though the ground is very warm.
Even in places like Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, which sits above a large accumulation of magma, tens of feet of snow accumulate in a typical Winter. In fact, there can be and often is ice and snow within feet of steaming mudpots and other geothermal features that are basically permanent pools of boiling how water
https://fthmb.tqn.com/ct9BTNgP6ftPGuoylW-BQULWZtY=/2126×1412/filters:fill(auto,1)/GettyImages-470635659-5895a8925f9b5874eed57dde.jpg

Geothermal…not even enough to melt snow a few feet from active geothermal features in perhaps the most geothermally active spot on Earth, and right above thousands of cubic kilometers of molten rock, only a few kilometers down:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-39736M3JXfw/VLoTkDbyitI/AAAAAAAAC7E/K2j6CtJgkOM/s1600/magma-pocket-200-miles-below-suface_thumb.jpg

• gbaikie says:

W. T. Roach says: “Therefore, climate modellers make no allowance for geothermal heat flux (GHF) in current climate models (e.g. Peixoto and Oort 1992). While this exclusion of GHF is justified for land surfaces (even in volcanic eruptions), what happens to GH entering the deep ocean?”

Willis Eschenbach saus: “And since it is only 0.02% of the total heat flow into and out of the ocean, the GCMs are absolutely justified in ignoring it. The GCM time horizon is about 80 years, out to 2100. Even if every bit of the geothermal heat were magically retained by the ocean,
in 80 years the difference would still be immeasurably small.”

So, got somewhere around 240 watts per square meter on average entering Earth and 200 watts on average leaving. And .02% of 240 watts per second is 0.048 watts.
And Roach says .06 watts per square meter is average amount of geothermal heat emitted from non hot spot areas of earth whether it’s land or ocean floor.
What W. T. Roach seems to concerned about in terms of models is even a smaller subset of more intense geothermal heating, and agrees one can ignore the volcanic hotspots on land and other regions which on average emit .06 watts.
Or he has tossed out or dismissed 30% of Earth’s land areas.
One of the things he is concerned about is high order of unknown, regarding the region of ocean floor, he is most concerned about and is discussing in regards
to this idea it should be included in models:

“There is now much evidence that GHF in hydrothermal circulations may be of order 1-10 Wm-2 within a few kilometres of the axes of geothermally active submarine ridge areas – much greater than was at first thought – and exceeds that conducted through the earth’s crust for a distance of several hundred kilometres on either side of these ridges.”

Personally I find focusing on only 80 years in regard to global climate, as process involving idiots and waste of tax dollars. It is only political or religious issue and has nothing to
do with science.
So, I would agree with W. T. Roach that if want to make GCMs, one should focus on scientific issues, and you might make progress in these models, which to date have failed to make any kind of progress.

I should include what Roach says about it:
“There are three main questions:
1: Can GH flowing through the ocean floor generate enough circulation to
perturb the principal ocean circulation – the dynamical aspect?
2: What is the balance between GH entering the ocean and GH eventually dispersed into the atmosphere from the
ocean surface – the thermal aspect?
3: Depending on some consideration of these questions, could GH significantly
perturb climate and, if so, on what time-scale?”

• gbaikie says:

Nicholas McGinley says:
“It is below freezing at the bottom in some parts of the ocean, and does not seem to be appreciably warmer even a few tens of meters away from the searingly hot black smokers and other such hydrothermal vents.”

Nor few km away from searing hot detonated 1 megaton nuclear bomb. Though the shockwave could be problematic. Also similar story if put the exploding Krakatoa
eruption of 1883 AD in the ocean deep.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Well, what seems significant to me about events like Krakatoa, are that they are mercifully rare.
Even nearly140 years later, on the other side of the Earth, people know exactly what one is talking about just to mention that name.

As for being a few kilometers away from a 1 megaton nuclear bomb exploding…I think it would be a real bad day even from much further than a few kilometers.
I have no personal experience, but according to some people who claim to know:

“The AsapSCIENCE video considers a 1 megaton bomb, which is 80 times larger than the bomb detonated over Hiroshima, but much smaller than many modern nuclear weapons (more on that later).
For a bomb that size, people up to 21 km (13 miles) away would experience flash blindness on a clear day, and people up to 85 km (52.8 miles) away would be temporarily blinded on a clear night.
Heat is an issue for those closer to the blast. Mild, first degree burns can occur up to 11 km (6.8 miles) away, and third degree burns – the kind that destroy and blister skin tissue – could affect anyone up to 8 km (5 miles) away.”

Those are dramatic events to be sure, and release huge energy very suddenly and in a localized fashion, and the heat from the interior of the Earth comes to the surface in the vast majority of places and the vast majority of the time very slowly.
Which is what I thought was being discussed.
But go to anyplace that the Sun is shining directly down, and you can feel it heating you very substantially within seconds.

• gbaikie says:

“As for being a few kilometers away from a 1 megaton nuclear bomb exploding…I think it would be a real bad day even from much further than a few kilometers.”
wiki:
“In general, surrounding a bomb with denser media, such as water, absorbs more energy and creates more powerful shockwaves while at the same time limiting the area of its effect. When a nuclear weapon is surrounded only by air, lethal blast and thermal effects proportionally scale much more rapidly than lethal radiation effects as explosive yield increases. ”
Searched largest deep ocean volcanic explosion:
“Havre – the world’s largest deep ocean volcanic eruption
“In July 2012, the Havre seamount exploded, with a volcanic eruption that was one and a half times the size of the Mount
Helens eruption in the United States.”
But seems less than 1000 meter deep.
Something, I didn’t know {the 3000 meter limit}
“At a depth of ~4 km, researchers found fresh, unweathered, jagged, glassy fragments of rock (pyroclastic deposits) spread out over an area of ~10 km2 around a series of small volcanic craters on the Gakkel Ridge (figure 1). According to WHOI geophysicist Rob Reves-Sohn, chief scientist of the expedition, as quoted in the 14 August 2008 issue of Oceanus, “These are the first pyroclastic deposits we’ve ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible….
Although only a small fraction of this vast volcanic terrain has been visually surveyed or sampled, the available evidence suggests that explosive eruptions are rare on mid-ocean ridges, particularly at depths below the critical point for seawater (a depth of ~ 3,000 m)”
https://tinyurl.com/y3czjea4

–Those are dramatic events to be sure, and release huge energy very suddenly and in a localized fashion, and the heat from the interior of the Earth comes to the surface in the vast majority of places and the vast majority of the time very slowly.
Which is what I thought was being discussed.–
Yes.
But was thinking that even with extreme deep water volcano event we would not detect it at surface. And picked 4000 meter because it’s around average ocean depth. But perhaps we don’t commonly get such violent eruption below 3000 meter, as said above. But even 2000 to 3000 meters depth it would seem to require fairly large eruption to notice it at the surface.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“My best to all…”

Even me, I wonder, whilst Spockishly raising one eyebrow?

As for smart and pleasant, evidently these words do not have so fixed a meaning as I had previously understood.

In any case, the above explanations in which THE TRUTH is referenced are, in my estimation, exactly correct.
The problem is, at this point there are very few people for whom even the most accurate explanations of these subtleties make any difference.
One might as well try to explain what is wrong with such phrases as “The Science”.
It seems likely that nearly everyone capable of understanding the explanations already know what is wrong with such verbiage.
It is those who have been buffaloed into being told what to think that are the ones that need reaching.
I suspect The Truth may come to such people not by detailed explanations of the finer points of logical argumentation and/or psychological manipulation, but by a “frying pan upside the head” realization that the Warmistas are completely full of crap.

• Willis E.
Is the purpose of this article to deny that you are a climate denier?

Do you officially deny being a denier, or are you a secret denier, pretending you don’t deny at sll?

In addition, everyone here can see that Zoe is flirting with you, so you ought to tell her you are happily married and are not interested. The science arguments between you two are a false front we can all see through. heh heh

• leitmotif says:

Well said, Zoe.

Willis’s BS on back radiation is a constant source of mirth for me on this generally excellent blogsite.

Climate alarmism continues to exist because of lukewarmers like Willis.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Leitmotif, come back when you have an actual scientific objection to my work. Quote what I said and show how it was wrong.

Because right now, all you’re giving us are ugly personal attacks.

w.

• leitmotif says:

I don’t need to provide evidence for your BS, Willis.

Where is your evidence for the existence of the warming effects of back radiation?

Feldman et al 2015?

Lukewarmers will support you , though.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

leitmotif August 9, 2020 at 6:06 pm

I don’t need to provide evidence for your BS, Willis.

Actually, I was asking you to provide evidence for YOUR BS, but either way, you are correct. You don’t every need to present a single fact, provide a single link, or give any evidence in support of what you say.

And the value of your unsupported anecdotes, opinions, and stories to a scientific site like this will be judged accordingly …

w.

• Rick C PE says:

You can find the evidence of what is being called “back radiation” in any thermodynamics textbook or engineering handbook. It is embodied in the formulation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law : Qr = eh ec sigma A (Th^4 – Tc^4)

This calculates the net energy flow between parallel surfaces – one hot with emissivity of eh and absolute temperature of Th, and the other with emissivity of ec and absolute temperature of Tc. The term “- Tc^4” accounts for the back radiation. Sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Note that for the two bodies to remain at different temperatures an energy input to the warm body equal to Qr is needed as is a loss from the cold body. With no external source of energy gain or loss, the cool body will warm and the warm body will cool until their temperatures are equal at which point the net radiant exchange will be zero. However, both bodies will continue to radiate.

• leitmotif says:

“You can find the evidence of what is being called “back radiation” in any thermodynamics textbook or engineering handbook. It is embodied in the formulation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law : Qr = eh ec sigma A (Th^4 – Tc^4)”

Butchering the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to include back radiation is evidence of nothing. The S-B equation is meant to represent the power emitted by a body at temperature T to a sink at zero K. Nothing more.

• leitmotif says:

I think Willis has just spit out his dummy.

• IanH says:

Leif,

Your claim herein that SB includes atmospheric radiation is complete BS, there’s nothing in SB that cares about atmosphere, indeed it applies to any body with or without one. What is needed is albedo to determine the actual energy being absorbed for re-raditation.

IanH

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

leitmotif posted: “Butchering the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to include back radiation is evidence of nothing. . . . The S-B equation is meant to represent the power emitted by a body at temperature T to a sink at zero K.”

Actually, the math is straightforward (although Rick C PE did not present it correctly). Assuming two parallel plates of equal area, the hot one with emissivity eh and instantaneous absolute temperature Th, and the cold one with emissivity ec and instantaneous absolute temperature Tc, and assuming radiation only to-from the opposing faces :
Qh = eh*sigma*A*Th^4, power emitted by hot body (theoretically) to a 0 K sink,
Qc = ec*sigma*A*Tc^4, power emitted by cold body (theoretically) to a 0 K sink,

so these can be mathematically combined to yield:
Qh-Qc = sigma *A*(eh*Th^4 – ec*Tc^4),
or in the special case that ec ~ eh: Qh-Qc ~ eh*sigma*A* (Th^4 -Tc^4)

In these last two equations, given the foregoing assumptions, it is completely reasonable and appropriate to refer to Qc as being “back radiation” that impinges on the hotter of the two surfaces.

No “butchering” is involved, only misunderstanding over how thermal radiation occurs between two objects at different temperatures.

BTW, an instantaneously cooler body can, and will, always radiate energy to a nearby instantaneously warmer body . . . the cooler body does not “know” that the warmer body exists. That is, radiation being emitted is not a direct function of radiation being received, only the instantaneous emissivity, radiating area and body temperature at the time of radiation.

• DMacKenzie says:

RickC PE
Yup, that’s what I took in Engineering school, and the prof used to say “don’t forget the Tcold^4 term or you’ll have to transfer to the Physics department when you fail this course”. I’m thinking today he might have said the “Environmental” department instead of “Physics”

• The crucial aspect of measured down welling radiation is how it is calibrated. It is calibrated against temperature, with an associated radiative fudge factor. The net result is that if the IR instruments temperature increases, so does IR. And the reverse. So can somebody plse explain how robust an IR measurement is or would be if it wasnt calibrated against temperature?

• John Shotsky says:

When I was in the business of designing infrared thermometers, there was a shutter inside, a pyroelectric detector, and a temperature sensor for the detector itself. When the shutter opened, there would be a measurable change in detector response. By knowing the temperature of the sensor, and knowing the response of the sensor, the temperature could be derived. There was also a setting for emissivity, so that could also affect the reading. They were used by electrical workers to measure the temperature of telephone pole transformers, since they can overheat and explode. They used to have to clime the pole – with these, they could simply point and ‘shoot’ from the ground.

1. I see you still believe in the theory of conservation of heat flow. It doesn’t exist.

Conservation of Energy != Conservation of Energy/Heat Flow

Climate scam relies on pseudophysics.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Zoe, if you have a block of steel at a steady-state temperature, can the energy flow out of the block of steel be different from the energy flow into that block of steel?

I mean, the steel is not creating any energy. So I’m not seeing how at a steady-state temperature the flow out out of the block can be different from the flow into the block … which in other words means that the flow of energy is indeed conserved.

w.

• There’s your problem. You think you must conserve heat flowing in and heat flowing out. That’s not conservation of energy, that’s conservation of heat flow, a non-physical concept.

You can’t understand the idea that the energy in a spot is just the energy in a spot.

Energy is just matter in motion. It’s already a type of flow. I don’t know why you feel the need to equate a flow between locations. Why are you equating differences?

Thermal equiblibrium is never possible in your scenarios. It can’t exist in your world because you think there must be some equality of flow between hot and warm and warm and cold.

Temperature is not determined by heat flow in = heat flow out, it is determined by just energy THERE.

• gbaikie says:

–Temperature is not determined by heat flow in = heat flow out, it is determined by just energy THERE.–
Yup.
Though it’s a trick or short cut to use “heat flow in = heat flow out” in sense if know either, you “roughly” know the other.
But watts in and watts out has nothing to do temperature- and doesn’t apply to any planet.
But it gives clues, if Earth is absorbing and emitting about 240 watts per square meter, that tell me, Earth is absorbing huge amount of energy.
But it seems your view tends towards, Earth is emitting a huge amount energy.
And others go, 240 watts emitted from Ideal blackbody in a vacuum is -18 C and our very thin layer of surface air {50 km away from vacuum under 10 ton per square meter of air] averages 15 C, why is there the difference?
It can only be caused from trace magical gases.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

When a nuclear bomb explodes, the energy released comes from the release of nuclear binding energy.
This is the same as the source for the Sun’s (and every star’s) energy output.
Please explain how the mass defect in atomic nuclei represents “mass in motion”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Mass_defect

Your explanation of energy as being simply “mass in motion” is as nonphysical a concept as I have ever heard.
Photons have zero rest mass, and yet contain energy, so how exactly do they represent “mass in motion”?
A rock sitting on the top of a mountain has potential energy, and yet this is not due to it being in motion.
Chemical energy is stored in the covalent bonds between atoms in a molecule, and yet this atoms do not have to be in motion relative to each other for this energy to be present.

In the example noted by Willis, when heat flows into an object, there is a corresponding increase in the internal energy of that object, whether or not that fact comports with any idea someone may have to the contrary.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

It is of course possible though, for energy to flow into an object without the temperature increasing, such as if the energy is stored in chemical bonds, or stored as some other form of energy that is not part of what we measure as temperature.

• “Photons have zero rest mass”

They are never at rest.

“potential energy, and yet this is not due to it being in motion.”

That’s why the word POTENTIAL is in front. It’s not energy yet.

“Chemical energy is stored in the covalent bonds between atoms in a molecule, and yet this atoms do not have to be in motion relative to each other for this energy to be present.”

The “bonds” are electrons (matter) in MOTION.

“when heat flows into an object, there is a corresponding increase in the internal energy of that object”

Sure. Yet radiation is based on temperature, i.e. kinetic energy. The heat flux ADDs to what emitted, it doesn’t define what is emitted.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Nicholas McGinley August 10, 2020 at 10:32 am

It is of course possible though, for energy to flow into an object without the temperature increasing, such as if the energy is stored in chemical bonds, or stored as some other form of energy that is not part of what we measure as temperature.

True, Nicholas. That’s why I specified a block of steel, to avoid those complications and side-tracks.

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

““Photons have zero rest mass”

They are never at rest.”

That is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
You are dodging.
Most unseemly.
If photons had a rest mass, they could not move at the speed of light.

““potential energy, and yet this is not due to it being in motion.”

That’s why the word POTENTIAL is in front. It’s not energy yet.”

Untrue.
Another completely unphysical belief you have.
Potential energy is in fact energy.
Are you suggesting that an object that begins to roll down a hill is suddenly acquiring energy it did not have before it started rolling?
If a stick is propping up a rock on a hill, and I removed the stick without touching the rock, from where does it acquire the kinetic energy is has as it rolls down the hill?
Obviously the energy was already present, it has simply been converted into another form.
Potential energy is one kind of energy.
Whether it messes up your “groundbreaking research” or not.

““Chemical energy is stored in the covalent bonds between atoms in a molecule, and yet this atoms do not have to be in motion relative to each other for this energy to be present.”

The “bonds” are electrons (matter) in MOTION.”

Wrong again.
This is why you need an actual education to know what you do not know.
Electrons are not in motion when bound to atoms, and the energy of covalent bonds is not present as extra kinetic energy of the electrons.
Orbitals do not mean electrons are “in orbit”.
This is a common misperception amongst the uneducated.
Electrons exist as a probability function…they do not have any knowable location and momentum vector. Any attempt to ascertain one of those parameters, means you will not be able to know as much about the other.
A simple proof of the fact that electron orbitals are not actual “orbits”, can be seem in the shape of certain orbitals. A p-orbital has the shape of two tear drop shaped lobes. An electron has a 50% chance of being in each of the lobes at any given time, but since the area between the lobes has a zero probability of the electron being there, it can never “move” from one lobe to the other.
D-orbitals have lobes that are at some distance from each other.
Study some quantum mechanics if you want to know what you are talking about regarding electrons.
The energy in covalent bonds has nothing to do with motion of electrons.
The bonds are based on the overlap of orbitals and the electronegativity of the atoms involved.
Neither concept has anything to do with the motion of electrons. The underlying concepts are based on energy levels.
Electrons are not little balls in motion around the nucleus of an atom.

“Yet radiation is based on temperature, i.e. kinetic energy.”

Malarkey.
When a radioactive atom decays and emits radiation, it has nothin to do with temperature.
Hot uranium atoms do not undergo spontaneous decay any faster or slower depending on the temperature of the uranium.
If they did, we would never be able to figure out anything using radioactive decay, such as intervals of time, because if this were true, one would have to know what the temp of those atoms was for the entire interval.

Your conceptions are based on ignorance, not knowledge.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

What Nicholas said much better than I could … ☝️

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“… to avoid those complications and side-tracks.”

And I actually offered this caveat for the same reason.
🙂

• Nicholas McGinley says:

BTW…Zoe, you skipped this one:
“When a nuclear bomb explodes, the energy released comes from the release of nuclear binding energy.
This is the same as the source for the Sun’s (and every star’s) energy output.
Please explain how the mass defect in atomic nuclei represents “mass in motion”?”

I suspect it is because even you do not have any sophistry agile enough to climb this mountain.

• I don’t know what your problem is, Nick. That energy is matternin motion is not a controversial statement.

Energy is measured in Joules.
A Joule is a kg*m^2/s^2

Hmm, there is mass, distance, and time wrapped up in a joule.

How is energy not matter in motion?

Whatever “gotcha” you’re trying is bound to fail. My definition is entirely uncontroversial.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

You are very confused.
Now you want to talk about some imaginary agenda I have, as if one much have some motive to correct BS, beyond a desire to not let BS get the last word, and thus confuse other people.
A joule is a unit of energy, and one definition of energy is the ability to do work.
It takes energy to do work, but that does not mean that all energy represents work being done.
For one thing, you are mistaking a unit for the thing the unit measures.
For every one of the parameters given in that definition of a joule, one could perform substitutions and get some other set of parameters.
Energy equals mas times the speed of light squared.
The speed of light is a velocity, but what is a velocity squared?
Is that some type of motion?
Name something that moves at a velocity measured in meters squared per second squared?
What exactly is a second squared?
Another way to write what a joule is, is to say it is a mass times a distance, times an acceleration.
But mass times distance is not a defined physical unit.
Neither is a velocity squared.
Nothing physical corresponds to what you are asserting.

There have been people who asserted that mass is something like “frozen” energy, but this was just some made up thing to say, not a physical reality.
Same with energy being mass in motion.

Velocity squared is a motion, exactly how?

• I still don’t know what your problem is. You disagree that energy is matter in motion.

So you think energy is …

1) Non-matter in motion
2) Non-matter in non-motion
or
3) Matter in non-motion

Surely all 3 other possibilities are absurd.

You can’t replicate a joule by any other means. There’s a mass, and there’s a velocity.

Velocity squared may seem strange to you, but non-motion has a velocity of zero. That term would cancel. But it’s not canceled.

You’re trying to hard to refute basic physics and common sense. What for?

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Kinetic energy of an object is defined as equal to one half it’s mass times the square of it’s velocity.
But that is only one component of the total energy the object has.
There is also it’s potential energy.
What Einstein did is to show that the total amount of energy in any object is the product of it’s rest mass times the square of the fastest velocity that any object in the universe can travel, although that is not how he said it…it is how I am saying it, today.
To understand the derivation of Einstein’s revelation, which is actually a mathematical one, one must consider that it started with a consideration of what is known as the “rest energy” of an object, which corresponds to it’s rest mass.
If, as you suppose, energy is actually “mass in motion”, what does it even mean to speak of a rest energy?

• Einstein’s conjecture of “rest energy” is some type of an argument?

‘the “rest energy” of an object, which corresponds to it’s rest mass.’

E=mc^2

Zero mass has zero energy. There’s your correspondence.

Any mass not moving also has zero energy.

Einstein’s rhetoric is not exactly hard science. It’s fluff.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Zoe Phin August 10, 2020 at 4:36 pm

Einstein’s rhetoric is not exactly hard science. It’s fluff.

I’m tempted to say we’ve reached peak Zoe, but I fear that she’d take it as a challenge …

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

I personally have never had the impression that Einstein was in any way a rhetorician.
This appears to be a textbook example of a breakdown into psychological projection.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“…we’ve reached peak Zoe…”

I take your point, and idiomatically the characterization is quite apt.

However, I tend to think it is more grammatically accurate to refer to “trough Zoe”.
So then the question becomes…how low can she go?
I cannot decide if I am more amazed or more creeped out by her scientifical limbo dance.

• MarkW says:

Nicholas, this is Zoe’s style. Rather than debating the points you raise, she just repeats here argument, totally flummoxed that you don’t agree with her.
After two or three rounds of just repeating her arguments, she stops and just starts telling you how stupid you must be because you fail to agree with her.

• MarkW says:

Potential energy is a mass, not in motion. It is energy, it is not nonsense.
Chemical energy is non-mass in non-motion. It is energy, it is not nonsense.

• MarkW says:

“I mean, the steel is not creating any energy. So I’m not seeing how at a steady-state temperature the flow out out of the block can be different from the flow into the block … which in other words means that the flow of energy is indeed conserved.”

If flow out equals flow in, then the flows balance, they aren’t “conserved”. Nor does the fact that when flow out equals flow in, temperature stays constant prove that when the flows aren’t balanced that temperature must stay the same.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

MarkW August 11, 2020 at 10:12 am

If flow out equals flow in, then the flows balance, they aren’t “conserved”.

Mark, the idea of “conservation of energy” basically says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. And for that to be true of a block of steel, at a steady-state temperature the flow out of the block MUST equal the flow in.

Nor does the fact that when flow out equals flow in, temperature stays constant prove that when the flows aren’t balanced that temperature must stay the same.

I think you mean that “when the flows aren’t balanced that temperature must change”, as written it makes no sense.

You’re not real familiar with these concepts, I take it.

If the flow in is equal to the flow out, the thermal energy within the block (i.e. it’s temperature) CANNOT be increasing or decreasing. If that were true, it would mean that energy is either being created or destroyed within the block … and we know that can’t happen, so yes, the temperature MUST stay the same.

Similarly, and for for exactly the same reasons, if the flows are unbalanced, the temperature MUST change, because energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Natural laws are funny that way … they don’t care if you, I, or Zoe believes in them.

w.

• John Shotsky says:

Heat flow in a metal only occurs when there is a difference in temperature between two points. Heat flows to the cooler end. But heat does NOT flow out of the metal, unless you mean the thing the metal is sitting on. Heat radiates from the metal, it isn’t a faucet. Heat one end white hot and understand that what you are seeing is visible radiation. Further down, it is red, which is also visible. Further yet, and you see no color, but I suggest not touching it… The only ‘flow’ is from the warmer point to the cooler point. And radiation is not defined as a ‘flow’.
However, the metal WILL heat the air if it’s warmer than the surrounding air, and that air will rise via conduction. So, the metal has three modes of dispensing energy – radiation, conduction and convection. Not flow.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

John Shotsky August 11, 2020 at 11:06 am

But heat does NOT flow out of the metal, unless you mean the thing the metal is sitting on. Heat radiates from the metal, it isn’t a faucet. … The only ‘flow’ is from the warmer point to the cooler point. And radiation is not defined as a ‘flow’.

Gotta love the certainty … here is a definition of what is known as “radiative flux”:

Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux (or sometimes power flux density), is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.

And what does “flux” mean when it’s at home?

flux
/fləks/
the action or process of flowing or flowing out.

So if “radiation is not defined as a ‘flow’” as you claim, and a “flux” is a flow … then what the heck is “radiative flux”?

Sorry, John, but radiation is absolutely a flow.

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“However, the metal WILL heat the air if it’s warmer than the surrounding air, and that air will rise via conduction. So, the metal has three modes of dispensing energy – radiation, conduction and convection. Not flow.”

I think this is not well stated.
The metal will heat surrounding air by conduction, and that air will then rise by convection, although it might also or instead be moved away by advection if the space has a flow of air going through it.
Any molecules of air in direct contact with the metal will undergo heat transfer by conduction, and a flow of air will hasten this process by bring a new supply of cool air into contact with the metal surface.
The coil in a forced air home heating system behaves this way. The coil is warming the air, and the inner surfaces of the space containing the coil, by conduction and radiation respectively (though there might also be some direct heating of air molecules by the thermal radiation from the coil) and all of that heat is then carried to the space being heated by the flow of air from the blower.

Just sayin’.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Flux literally means “to flow”
The etymology is from the Latin word “fluxus”, which means “flow”.

• John Shotsky says:

Steady flow into the block? Not needed. Everything, and I mean everything, that is above zero K emits radiation, period. No additional input energy needed – It is called radiation because everything radiates. That is how infrared cameras can even work. There is a heat flow out of metal at all times, regardless of whether there is a heat source to provide energy to the metal.

• Rainer Bensch says:

You left out: … and by doing this it immediately becomes cooler.

If you want to keep the temperature the same you will have to replace the energy that was radiated.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Exactly, Rainer.
John, according to Zoe, the block of metal, or whatever, can only emit photons of radiation if there is an object in the path of those photons to intercept and absorb it, otherwise the photon can not be emitted.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

It/them photon/photons

• That’s right, Nicholas.

You can’t derive Planck’s Law using corpuscular theory of light.

You can only do it with waves. Waves that are bounded by matter on both sides.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Just above you explained chemical energy in terms of electrons in motion.
As if they are little balls in an orbit.
But electrons are waves too, just like photons.
Unless one tries to detect them, in which case the wave function collapses and they behave like little balls.
If you shine a light through two slits in a screen, and measure the pattern on the wall behind the screen, you get an interference pattern which could only happen if the photons were waves.
But if the wall consists of detectors, one finds that each photon hits one discrete point on the wall.
If one places detectors at the slits, one finds that the photons always pass through one slit or the other…never both.
And when you place the detectors at the slits, the interference pattern disappears on the wall.
Electrons behave the same way.
What this experiment does very clearly is to demonstrate the limitations in the inability to predict experimental results.

It sure sounds like you have a poor understanding of the historical underpinning and origin of quantum mechanics.

• Rainer Bensch says:

…can only emit photons of radiation if there is an object in the path of those photons to intercept and absorb it, otherwise the photon can not be emitted.

I like to disagree. How do the photon know when a suitable target is on its path when it arrives there?

• “How do the photon know when a suitable target is on its path when it arrives there?”

How is Planck’s Law derived?

Not with the particle theory, but with STANDING WAVES bounded ln both sides.

Sophists constantly make your claim. They can’t derive Planck’s Law with their particle theory, but once having done it with bounded waves, they then substitute the particle theory and claim it’s real.

What does a wavelength mean to a particle?

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Funny how Zoe makes reference to sophistry when making her facile comments which simultaneously show her lack of education and her willingness to just plain make stuff up.
But uneducated brats who are too ignorant to have any awareness of their lack of knowledge never have explanations for the things they cannot understand, they are simply unaware of them and so pretend they do not exist.
Actual scientists know that any explanation of the nature of reality must account for all observations to be valid…you cannot simply ignore things like the photoelectric effect or the Compton Experiment.
We have devices in everyday use which simply could not work if quantum mechanics were not a thing.
The weird thing is, even a cursory look at the the historical sequence of events back when these principles were being elucidated shows conclusively that Zoe has not a single clue what the hell she is talking about.
In short, her sophistry is not even wrong.
It is, quite simply, abject nonsense talk.

• >>
What does a wavelength mean to a particle?
<<

Apparently, quantum mechanics isn’t your strong suit. The de Broglie relation for the wavelength of an electron is:

$\displaystyle \lambda =\frac{h}{p}$

where h is Planck’s constant, and p is the momentum of the electron. The wavelength of a photon is:

$\displaystyle \lambda =\frac{h\cdot c}{E}$

where h is Plank’s constant, c is the speed-of-light, and E is the energy of the photon (a massless particle, by the way).

Jim

• Nicholas McGinley says:

The available evidence seems to indicate that Zoe is in fact a quantum mechanics denier.
She seems to be stating quite plainly that there, in her view, is no such thing as the wave particle duality.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

John Shotsky August 9, 2020 at 6:18 pm

Steady flow into the block? Not needed. Everything, and I mean everything, that is above zero K emits radiation, period.

Thanks, John. While this is widely believed, and as far as I know it’s true for all solids, it is not entirely true. The monatomic “noble gases”, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, neither absorb nor emit thermal radiation at earthlike temperatures.

And it is NOT “called radiation because everything radiates”. The word long predates the discovery of solids emitting thermal radiation. “Radiare” is actually the Latin word that means “to radiate”.

w.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Willis posted: “The monatomic ‘noble gases’, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, neither absorb nor emit thermal radiation at earthlike temperatures.”

Well, there is this: “Monatomic gases such as the noble gases of helium, neon, argon, krypton and radon have no vibration modes and therefore no emissions except those due to their ionization and de-ionization. The spectrum of monatomic gases is [sic] therefore involves only discrete frequencies such as shown below for helium.” — http://www.applet-magic.com/thermalradiation2.htm Unfortunately, the referenced graph in that article does not extend to the far infrared (say 3 – 70 microns wavelength) spectrum associated with Earth-like blackbody temperatures in the range of 210-310 K.

But this is somewhat countered by: “The Atomic Spectroscopy Data Center of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently compiling spectra and energy levels of the noble gases. A review of the literature has shown that there is no comprehensive experimental description of the infrared spectrum for any of the neutral gases. In response, we have made high-resolution observations of the spectra of Ne, Kr, and Xe in the region 0.7 μm to 5.0 μm with the 2 m NIST Fourier transform spectrometer. The observations provide precise new wavelengths and relative intensities and resolve questions concerning lines that were previously multiply classified.” — https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1238/Physica.Topical.100a00120 (paywalled)

Any spectral lines observed at 3-5 μm would say that as least some noble gases can radiate to some degree at at Earth-like temperatures, albeit excitation for such radiation may be (photo-)ionization driven.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Gordon, it took me a while but I finally tracked down your second paper. It indeed is looking at IR absorption while the gases are ionized. And this might have some tiny trivial absorption up in the ionosphere …

But for normal conditions here at the surface, the monatomic gases neither emit nor absorb IR.

w.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

We are in complete agreement.

• Trick says:

Gordon 7:43pm, you were more correct to begin with at 2:20pm, Willis has long held the misconception that the noble gases neither emit nor absorb IR at STP. If that were true, the Planck distribution formula would need a modification to show identically zero intensity radiance for matter at some frequencies and some temperatures as it does not currently do so. The Planck distribution & long exposure measurements show illuminated noble gas emissivity is very feeble in the IR – it is not identically zero.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Trick, actually no. Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a BLACK BODY in thermal equilibrium at a given absolute temperature T, when there is no flow of energy from the environment back to the black body.

Diffuse gases are not black bodies and cannot even be approximated as being black bodies. It is as simple as that.

• It’s too bad that Mr. Eschenbach’s excellent post is being marred by Zoe Phin and now the troll “Trick.” It can only go downhill from here.

Jim

• Trick says:

”Diffuse gases are not black bodies and cannot even be approximated as being black bodies. It is as simple as that.”

No material thing is a black body Gordon. Yet black body radiation exists to calibrate emissivity of real objects. Diffuse noble gases are matter, all matter radiates at all temperatures, all frequencies as shown by Planck’s ideal distribution of radiation intensity never being identically zero. Experiments determine this emissivity factor applied to calibrate Planck’s ideal function into reality on all states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

Those experiments with long exposure times demonstrate the monatomic gases do emit and absorb IR, however feebly. This was a rich source of funding in the 1930s, 40s as quantum mechanics was being fleshed out and largely forgotten but you can find the original research in the stacks at your local college library (or on electronic records of them).

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Trick posted “No material thing is a black body Gordon.”

Actually, take a block of graphite having a relatively large internal cavity with a relatively tiny hole drilled from the outside surface into the inner cavity. Such a thing is certainly a “material thing”. Now place that block of graphite in a furnace where temperature can be controlled and held at an essentially constant temperature, something like a kiln for firing ceramics, and let that block come to thermal equilibrium with the furnace.

If one then uses a spectroscope and optical power meter (i.e., wide spectrum radiometer) to image the spectrum and power distribution of energy emitted solely out of the drilled hole, one will obtain a energy/wavelength spectrum that, for all intents and purposes, is EXACTLY like a theoretical black body. Why isn’t it considered as a “grey body”? Because the inner cavity isotropically reflects and smooths all energy emitted from the cavity’s surface, thus eliminating surface emissivity and angle of incidence factors (i.e., diffuse emission & reflection as a function of material composition, specular reflections, and surface texture) that otherwise cause most real objects to be properly classified as “grey bodies”.

This is all pretty basic physics stuff . . . easily found on the Web.

Also, there is this: “Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the black hole event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation )
Astronomers have confirmed that black holes exist as “material things” beyond any reasonable doubt.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Trick also posted “Diffuse noble gases are matter, all matter radiates at all temperatures, all frequencies as shown by Planck’s ideal distribution of radiation intensity never being identically zero.”

Again, not true.

As the following quotes extracted from “Blackbody Radiation in Optically Thick Gases?’ by Pierre-Marie Robitaille (ref: http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-38-07.PDF ) point out:
1) “In this work, the claim that optically thick gases can emit as blackbodies is refuted. The
belief that such behavior exists results from an improper consideration of heat transfer
and reflection. . . . Once reflection and translation are properly considered, it is simple to
understand why gases can never emit as blackbodies.
2) “Finkelnburg advocated that optically thick gases can also produce blackbody radiation, since he did not properly consider reflection and energy transfer within a gas. Real
gases can never meet the requirements for generating a blackbody spectrum, as they possess both convection and reflection.
3) ” Planck insisted that blackbodies have rigid walls.
4) “Gases can easily support convection. That is why no gas can ever behave as a blackbody, even when ‘optically thick’.
5) “As previously emphasized, condensed matter is absolutely required for the production of a thermal spectrum.”

• donb says:

Radiation from matter can occur from the nucleus, individual electrons, or electron bonds. That from the nucleus is higher energy like gamma rays. Radiation from electron bonds occurs from energy changes in those bonds. Obviously, mono-atomic atoms cannot have such radiation. Radiation from individual electrons can occur when a (generally) outer shell electron changes its energy level, or is even ionized.
All such radiation is quantized and thus occurs only at specific energy.

• Trick says:

”This is all pretty basic physics stuff…”

Yes, after the completed very hard, long work of physicists around 1900. Gordon has ably described the production of blackbody radiation. The graphite block though is not a black body as none exist. A graphite block was not needed, arbitrary opaque material will do.

A real body is placed inside an opaque cavity held at constant temperature, at standard laboratory pressure on earth. Such a body is uniformly illuminated by blackbody radiation. Experimenters made use of one of these contraptions to develop the Planck distribution, details of the device, the instrumentation, lab and temperature range (dry ice to super-heated steam) can be found for free on the internet: H. Rubens und F. Kurlbaum, Sitz. Ber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin vom 25. Okt., 1900, p. 929. Ann. d. Phys. 4, p. 649, 1901.

”not true.”

Gordon, the publication you cite agrees with me that no black bodies exist, in discussing the special case of a gas writing: “That is why no gas can ever behave as a blackbody” and “In its proper formulation, the law which governs radiation in arbitrary cavities [14, 15] under the limits set by Max Planck [2,3], combines the laws of Kirchhoff [4,5] and Stewart [16] (see Eq. 1 and 9 in [15]).”

My best guess here is you are writing whatever Finkelnburg [17] advocated is “not true”. I haven’t read that ref. 17 so fill me in.

I agree with your cited paper: “Real gases can never meet the requirements for generating a blackbody spectrum” which is true, nothing can. There are no exceptions. None. Meaning there is no matter ever found with emissivity=1, even the noble gases were found to have emissivity less than 1 back in the 30s,40s.

• Trick says:

donb, in a gas, the constituent particles are moving, the frequency of the illumination is shifted by the velocity, and the frequency of the emission is likewise shifted.

• donb says:

Trick,
Yes there is a small Doppler effect on frequency. This occurs because a molecule can share some energy with translational motion in real time.
A larger effect is the fact that many bonds (e.g., the CO2 15 micron) actually spread over a broad energy (frequency) band, where the absorption probability goes down rapidly as frequency shifts away from 15u.
As the 15u CO2 absorber grows in concentration, those outlying quantum energies become relatively more import, and the 15U absorption band considerably widens. Weather satellites take advantage of this effect to look at different altitudes in the atmosphere.

• gbaikie says:

“I mean, the steel is not creating any energy. So I’m not seeing how at a steady-state temperature the flow out out of the block can be different from the flow into the block … which in other words means that the flow of energy is indeed conserved.”

The lunar night side of the at 100 K emits 5.67 watts per square meter.
I assume {everyone assumes] that energy came from sunlight- rather than moon’s internal heat. But in terms of using that energy, if was from internal heat- it would make big difference.
If steel was make from carbon 14, the radioactive steel is different kind heat- it’s a energy source at high temperature.
Anyhow, geothermal heat is from radioactive energy generation and it’s from high temperature molten rock.
But heat from nuclear reactor or burning coal- a joule is a joule. But they are quite different animals {coal doesn’t have meltdown}.
But not my argument, the source doesn’t matter as long it goes constantly for centuries or thousands or tens thousands of years.

But it kind of related idea that stored heat in ocean could be scary.
Or 1 K increase in average temperature of ocean is equal {in terms of joules heat] to 1000 K increase in Earth’s atmosphere temperature.
That could sound scary, but a 1 increase in ocean temperature is not vaguely dangerous, it can not warm the atmosphere to 1000 K, it warm atmosphere to temperature the ocean is at. But if melting ice is scary, it will melt ice- or it’s scary.

• DMacKenzie says:

“Climate scam relies on pseudophysics”….says Zoe the illywhacker…..having learned how to make misinformation sound factual from Joe’s Climate of Sophistry site. Odd similar name….

2. Chaswarnertoo says:

In truth, reality lies.

• n.n says:

Reality as we perceive it, which is limited in both characterization and calculation, yes. The fidelity of our insight into reality is established in a semi-stable system with processes that are generally bounded, but may exhibit sudden and unpredictable change (“chaos”). This is why science is, with cause, a philosophy and practice in a limited frame of reference, the near-domain, separable from other philosophical constructs and logical domains.

• Pat Frank says:

n.n, “This is why science is, with cause, a philosophy…

Theory in science is subject to the verdict of experiment. Physical theory is non-axiomatic. Science is not philosophy.

• gbaikie says:

philosophy is not science.
Science is dependent upon philosophy, philosophy is an art- as is singing, or building a machine, or painting picture. Science is a method, or discipline. Praying is method or discipline, as is a battle plan.
Science follows rules, rules established by philosophy/religion.
And we could say, knowledge is magic {the only “real magic”}.
Magic used to predict the future, is what science is attempting to acquire.
If Science does not assist/help in pursuit of predicting the future- it’s not working as it was intended.

What drives science is encountering the unknown- exploration, drives science. This universe is unknown, probably {I am guessing} will always be unknown.
Exploration is more or less, human crashing into something- which sort of a mysterious thing which humans have a tendency to want to do.
Anyhow, science has enabled us, to build and live in a more magical world.
And hopeful will allows us to leave planet Earth- and allow us crash into other unknowns.
Science could allow the construction of a bridge to heaven {and some regard that as blasphemous {and I think we need better religions}}.

• Pat Frank says:

Science departed forever from philosophy and religion when it made theory dependent on experiment.

Galileo instigated that irreversible departure. The gulf can never be bridged.

• Charles Rotter says:

How do you know that Dr. Frank?

• Charles Rotter says:

How did Stillman Drake know?

• I deny that always wrong wild guesses of the future climate are real science.

Climate alarmists are science deniers and computer game addicts too.

Given a choice, I would prefer to live in an interglacial during a period of mild global warming.

That’s what we have.

So I am happy.

Although I would prefer more warming here in southeastern Michigan.

The leftists are always miserable about something.

The leftidts always ridicule and character attack others who are not miserable about the same things.

I have written to President Trump about my plan to deport all US leftists to France, or Denmark, so they can finally be happy.

And then the rest of us can get on with enjoying our lives without those pesky leftists.

• Rick says:

What have you got against Europe.

3. Scissor says:

Yes, eventually, the insanity dies down or changes into something else. COVID looks to be receding, ever so slowly.

Interesting times.

4. n.n says:

Nazi vs Nazi, then judgments, labels, and euphemisms galore. Perhaps we can return to first principles, and create a third way that clears the field for both left and right of the political spectrum, which are themselves consensus positions taken from constellations, where left favors central organization and the right favors distributed organization, and every other characterization is, at best and worst, inferential or creative.

• philincalifornia says:

It’s already been done n.n. Have a read of Tony Blair’s work on the third way aka phony-socialism/champagne socialism/crony capitalism – probably the real reason he was ostracized, for telling tales out of school. For example:

5. max hugoson says:

4th Power Law between Temperature and IR Radiation? If the incoming radiation has 1% more trapped in, and the overall temperature of the black body earth is 333 K, then the Temperature rises by 0.8 K which is 0.25% on the absolute scale. Not a linear relationship.

6. Look a the thermometer and ask, where does the warm or hot air come from, conducted by low and high pressure systems around Europe. It’s nothing downwelling from what and where ever.
Less night cooling because of clouds, ok, for the rest, that’s weather, and in case of a heat wave, even a week long one, with clear skies and much sun is not a question of CO2, but that the air is coming from Sahara, f. e.
IF you have around 12 h sunshine, houses and streets catch the heat and release it over night, so no clouds, no CO2 is necessary to have even hot nights, thanks UIH.

If in the mountains you have an agglomeration of big rocks, hot enough to grill your meat, what I did, than you have warm nights too.

• Curious George says:

Clouds cool the surface during the day, and heat it at night. If you have around 12 hours sunshine, you have no clouds. In deserts you have hot days and cool nights.

• Curious George says:

oops … heat it at night.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Fixed. I hate both typos and Biden moments, from me or anyone …

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

This gives me an idear…
Maybe you and Zoe could settle your differences using The Biden Method: Whoever wins a pushup contest, is right.

7. J Mac says:

RE: “So as an example of the thermal response of another complex system to increased radiation, consider how much your core body temperature rises when you walk from the shade into the sun. Thermal input, aka “downwelling radiation” has gone up by hundreds of watts per square metre and the core body temperature has … done nothing …

The reality is that complex systems cannot be analyzed using just “simple physics”.

Excellent, easily understood analogy for complex systems and emergent phenomena acting as self-regulating heat engines. ‘Sweat’ and attendant phase change evaporative cooling is an emergent phenomena for human bodily thermal control, just as cumulonimbus clouds with their reflective tops, shade below, and phase change evaporative cooling properties are emergent phenomena driven by changing daily and seasonal solar energy flux. Thanks, Willis!

8. Joe Prins says:

Always like your comments and observations, Willis. As an addendum, ” clouds, winds and waves” statement is presumed to include all the different aspects of this earth’s climate. The icy poles, the lakes, rivers, axial tilt and a million other influences that determine climate.
All the best to you and yours.

9. John Tillman says:

Over the past 650 million years, Earth’s estimated average surface air temperature has ranged from -50 C in the Marinoan glaciation Snowball to 28 C during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.

Our current ice age will eventually end. Solar output gains one percent per 110 million years. Unless intelligent beings move or shade Earth, the planet’s surface will become too hot for complex life in around 500 million years.

Some billions of years later, the Sun will go red giant, probably engulfing Earth’s present orbit.

• Some billions of years later, the Sun will go red giant, probably engulfing Earth’s present orbit.

And it’s our fault, follow the science 😀

• John Tillman says:

Consensus “climate science“: whatever happens is bad and our fault.

• Scissor says:

Nancy Pelosi will be long gone by then.

• MarkW says:

We hope

• John Tillman says:

Cockroaches are almost indestructible.

• Mumbles McGuirck says:

“the Sun will go red giant,”

Racist! You should say
“the Sun will become an indigenous astral object of size”

Please consult the Babylon Bee for the new ‘woke’ astronomical terminology.
😛

10. Chris Greatrix says:

There is no need for any Greenhouse effect. If you use an emissivity for clouds of 0.7 (this is roughly right on Earth) and assume that clouds form an effective “surface” for emission the energy balance of all worlds with an atmosphere is between 0.1 bar (Venus) and 1.2 bar (Titan).

The Earth’s effective emissivity is higher than 0.7 as the surface can emit directly, I estimated 0.9 which gives an energy balance at 0.53 bar.

The surface temperature is then defined by the balance temperature plus the effect of the lapse rate. No need for any greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

I don’t understand why you think that cloud “form an effective surface for emission”, but the greenhouses gases in the atmosphere somehow don’t … particularly when we can clearly see the effects of the absorptivity and emissivity of cloud-free air in the satellite measurements of upwelling radiation, and have been able to for decades.

w.

• Chris Greatrix says:

That is how it works for the gas giants. There is no “hard” surface so the only “surface” is the clouds that represent evaporative cooling from the lower layers. For the Earth why do we expect a balance at sea level? Surely the atmosphere is part of the surface and carries heat upwards so we would expect the balance to be somewhere part way up. The bulk of the greenhouse effect might be the lapse rate from where the balance actually is.

I have looked at the energy balances for every world in the solar system that has an atmosphere and the energy balance is in a very small window of pressure despite the vast range of size and chemistry.

Though emissivity is often assumed to be 1.0 with reference to an approximation to the Earth’s surface I can find no justification for this being applied anywhere else. Clouds on Earth are known to have a range of emissivities with a mean somewhat lower than 1.0. Of course I have no evidence that 0.7 is correct for sulphuric acid in CO2 (Venus) or methane in hydrogen (Jupiter), I’m simply copying a value that seems appropriate to Earth.

Assuming 0.7 emissivity for clouds the Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have a balance between 0.6 and 0.4 bar though this does depend on some internal heat for Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune though the value for Jupiter is less than current estimates (closer to previous estimates! ). That’s a very small range and is consistent with the height of the clouds in the atmospheres.

If you are aware of measured emissivities for other worlds please post up, I’ll be happy to include them in future sums.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Thanks, Chris.

It’s not clear to me what you are doing. It seems that you are determining some imaginary elevation where the total amount of downwelling radiation is the same as the amount of upwelling radiation. As you might imagine, even if you could calculate it, it would be different at every location on earth.

But even with that, at the top of the actual atmosphere, by definition the upwelling radiation has to equal the downwelling radiation, since the earth is basically in steady-state.

So do you have a link to what it is that you are calling the “energy balances” of the various worlds, and how they are calculated?

Thanks,

w.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Considering how hard it seems to be to get a handle on the energy balances right here on Earth, which is relatively close by (for some of us, anyhow), and for which we have umpteen gajillion sensors and satellites and measuring devices…it would seem to be very unlikely anyone has very clear measurements of the other planets.

• Chris Greatrix says:

My approach is to determine what the energy balance temperatures (standard formula for planets) is and then find the atmospheric pressure at that temperature.

Assuming that the emissivity of Earthly clouds can be read across to other worlds I get a very narrow range of pressures that seems to coincide with the cloud tops everywhere. Yes, the pressure/elevation does not represent a physical surface, it is obviously a mean value or effective value for the purposes of the math.

The conclusions I’ve come to is that atmospheres are part of the surface of a planet so we would expect to find the balance temperature above any hard surface. Also that balance point is close to the higher clouds. My hunch is that hot gas rising and evaporative cooling from lower layers makes the region between the clouds and the tropopause a natural exit point for the bulk of emitted heat. A further conclusion is that any greenhouse effect is smaller than commonly stated and may be zero.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

So do you have a link to what it is that you are calling the “energy balances” of the various worlds, and how they are calculated?

Chris Greatrix August 10, 2020 at 11:52 am

My approach is to determine what the energy balance temperatures (standard formula for planets) is and then find the atmospheric pressure at that temperature.

Chris, apparently you did not read the question, or perhaps it was not clear. I’m looking for things like a definition of the “energy balance temperature”, what the “energy balance temperature” of the Earth is, what units it might be measured in, what instruments are used to determine it, what the uncertainty of the measurements might be, and how it might have been measured on Jupiter … google isn’t helping.

Regards,

w.

• Chris Greatrix says:

Formula for a planet’s energy balance temperature
(Solar irradiance * (1 – Bond’s Albedo) / (4 * Emissivity * SB Constant ))^0.25

So for Venus
(2604*(1-0.77)/(4*0.7*5.67E-8))^0.25=248K

That temperature occurs at circa 0.12 bar or about 63km above the surface. That corresponds to the upper clouds.

The surface temperature is then defined by that plus the lapse rate effect
248 + 63 * 7.8 = 746K which is pretty close.
there is a paper on lapse rates (with virial theory) by Ivan Kennedy

Some of the data needed is easy to find online, pressure-altitude data is harder to get for some worlds and as for emissivity for other worlds, forget it, the only approach is to come up with a plausible value.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Chris Greatrix August 10, 2020 at 3:05 pm

Formula for a planet’s energy balance temperature
(Solar irradiance * (1 – Bond’s Albedo) / (4 * Emissivity * SB Constant ))^0.25

Huh? That’s just the Stefan-Boltzmann equation applied to the amount of radiation making it past the albedo reflections. Often that’s called the “brightness temperature”, here’s a web definition:

Brightness temperature is the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation as the targeted body in a specified spectral band.

For the earth, (Solar irradiance * (1 – Bond’s Albedo) / 4) is about 240 W/m2. The corresponding brightness temperature is about 255K, or -18°C. However, your idea that there is one altitude of clouds that have that temperature on average isn’t true. It ranges from about 7 km altitude in the tropics down to about 2 km in the arctic winter.

The surface temperature is then defined by that plus the lapse rate effect

This is where your logical error occurs. You calculate a “brightness temperature”, and you figure out how high in the atmosphere that temperature occurs. You then add in the lapse rate and say that this “defines” the surface temperature.

To demonstrate the error, suppose you miscalculated the brightness temperature. So when you look at the altitude where that incorrect brightness temperature occurs, guess what you find?

The surface temperature is STILL the same number, the sum of the incorrect brightness temperature plus the lapse rate. And since you get the same answer for surface temperature no matter what brightness temperature you use … you perforce must be doing it wrong.

You’re using a circular argument. Lapse rate + surface temperature yields the slope of the lapse rate, and as a result, any point on the lapse rate slope less the lapse rate to that point gives the surface temperature.

w.

• Chris Greatrix says:

Your objections are completely valid however you have missed the point I was making.

The energy balance occurs in a very narrow range of atmospheric conditions when you consider all the worlds in the solar system that have atmospheres. Venus is a bit on the lower side for pressure, Titan on the high side, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are very close at about 0.3 to 0.6 bar which also coincides with the higher clouds.

Consequently my conclusion is that worlds with atmospheres have a balance temperature that is more dependent on pressure and evaporation (clouds) than anything else. As the differences in size, depth, pressure, chemistry and even if there is a surface or not are so vast this observation appears to be telling us something important.

I am not choosing whatever pressure/altitude corresponds to the balance temperature, I’m showing you that that balance temperature seems to occur in very consistent place and that place, not sea level, is where the baseline is for Earth.

11. The right question to ask is, who is the real denier.
If I look at what f.e. PICI in Potsdam (aka PIK) is publishing, it’s often so far from the truth and facts, that it’s not a lie to name them deniers. 😀

12. peyelut says:

Willis, Is the following analogy correct?

Then: Atmosphere = 999,997 silver dollars + 3 wooden nickel dollars

Now: Atmosphere = 999,996 silver dollars + 4 wooden nickel dollars

Don’t light a match, we might go up in flames . . . . .

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Mmm … CO2 has gone from 300 ppmv to 400 ppmv.

“ppmv” is parts per million by volume.

So I fear that your analogy is not correct. However, don’t let that that discourage you from putting your ideas out there. I once had to write a whole post entitled “Wrong Again”, from memory because Mosher found a fatal flaw in my work, not going back to find out who it was … and as if that weren’t enough, a year later I had to write another post entitled “Wrong Again, Again”.

It’s one of the reasons I write for the web—my errors won’t usually last over a couple of hours under the bright light of the marketplace of ideas. Being willing to admit when I’m wrong has been hugely effective in keeping me from wandering down blind alleys. It also let people know that I’m being honest with them.

w.

13. Ewin Barnett says:

The truth is that the climate is continually changing. The first question is to what extent is any change harmful to human habitation, the second to what extent it is harmful to the biosphere, and the third is to what extent is human activity causing the climate to change in a harmful way.

If the climate was not changing based on natural forces, there would not have been any glaciation.

14. CD in Wisconsin says:

Willis, I think you are wasting your time using facts, science, logic and reasoning to argue with climate alarmist believers. You must remember the old adage that Conservatives think, but don’t feel and Liberals feel but don’t think.

Leftist alarmist believers operate with their emotions and not their brains and intellect. Once the climate scare mongering alarmists have successfully gotten into the heads of those who now believe and have triggered a strong emotional response in them, the believer is hooked….he or she is a faithful member of the cult. They do not bother using their intellect to critically analyze what they are told. It becomes strictly a matter of religious faith.

Of course, they will only accept that which provides confirmation bias for what they have emotionally embraced regarding climate alarmism. The mind is closed to anything which questions the Holy Faith. Even a non-scientist (lay person) like me who has a basic understanding of how scientific discourse is supposed to work understand the problem with failure to properly apply scientific analysis to the issue of climate change. You don’t get to the truth by not asking questions and challenging the credibility of the hypothesis or theory.

You are basically committing religious heresy or Orwellian thought-crime here Willis. If Biden wins in November, I would keep an eye out for Big Brother’s climate thought police if I were you. The warning that Orwell left us with his novel “1984” is more real today than a lot of people probably believe.

• Thom says:

A perfect example is that “you are a racist,” and if you won’t admit you are a racist, it is further proof of your racism. If you agree in part, and refuse to accept the entire proposition, then you are part of the colossus and cannot be redeemed.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

It’s an ugly trap, Thom, you’re right. My response lately is to give them a link to this post that I wrote before all the modern RACIST!! madness.

Then I ask them to point out the RACIST!! parts in that post … to date, not one response.

w.

• MarkW says:

It’s not that conservatives don’t feel, it’s that conservatives prefer to limit their actions to those that will hopefully make the situation better. Liberals on the other hand will jump on the first simple solution that comes to their minds under the belief that we’ve got to do something.
When a liberal sees a conservative who refuses to go along with whatever insanity they are pushing at the moment, they just assume that our inaction is due to us not caring.

• CD in Wisconsin says:

Mark:

I have always subscribed to the school of thought that the way we think and look at subjects like climate change is genetically wired in us with our DNA. Conservatives are DNA wired so that the intellect is more dominant where Liberals are DNA wired for emotions to be more dominant.

That is why I say that when alarmist climate scientists get into the heads of Liberals (especially a less well-educated one) and succeed in triggering a strong emotional response, those Liberals are hooked and become faithful members of the climate cult. From what I’ve seen, young people are very susceptible to the climate alarmist narrative, and I suspect it is because their brains at that age are (as I like to put it) still under construction.

On the other hand, a well-educated Conservative (with the intellect being more dominant) will withhold an emotional response and question whether the alarmist climate scientist has his/her science correct, especially if the Conservative understands how scientific discourse is supposed to work. The emotions play much less of a role.

If we all want to get along better in this world, we need to learn to use equal amounts of all three things from the Wizard of Oz: Heart, brains and courage.

• Derg says:

CD I am by no means as intellectually qualified as many here on WUWT, but I was always conservative and skeptical growing up. My father was a union man, but I never “got” his line of thinking.

Today, my father thinks more like me, so there is hope for humanity 🙂

• Richard says:

They have come to believe because we can change nature (pollution, deforestation, toxic contamination), that we can change how nature works. The complex interaction between land, seas, and atmosphere. Which we are just beginning to understand how much we don’t know. If the science is settled, shouldn’t all the climate models look the same and jive with reality?

15. Wolf at the door says:

Thanks for the post Willis ,interesting and most informative.Forgive me when I say that I believe, however,that quoting Le Chatelier’s principle weakens your very strong argument.As I understand it ,Le Chatelier’s principle only applies to closed systems at equilibrium which demonstrably is not the case with the atmosphere.

• TonyL says:

Close, but not quite.
Consider: A closed system at equilibrium. Le Chatelier’s principle has nothing to do. Sooo….
The classic formulation as it is taught: Then we perturb the system in some way and see how adjusts to come back into equilibrium. OK, fair enough.
Back in the real world:
The constraints are fairly open. You must have a thermodynamic system which *can* get to equilibrium, at least theoretically. This rules out non-thermodynamic systems like photochemistry (remember photographic film?). Also ruled out are irreversible reactions like combustion.
So what we end up with is a fairly broad definition of a thermodynamic system where all the laws of thermodynamics still apply. So the atmosphere easily qualifies.
Now consider a steam engine (piston or turbine). It is way out of equilibrium and open with respect to energy flow. Yet it works according to all the usual thermodynamic laws. *Bonus points* No matter how far out of equilibrium it is, it always finds it’s way back when the heat is turned off.

16. James Clarke says:

Excellent, Willis. I see in your argument the revelation of post- modern influences on science. In the past, science was defined as a pursuit of truth, but post-modernists deny Truth and view everything in terms of social power as the only relevant reality. While they deny Truth, they are not opposed to using a concept of truth as a weapon to gain power.

Calling climate crisis skeptics and climate heretics “deniers”, requires both the speaker and the listener to have an understanding of ‘Truth’ (the Holocaust happened), while the speaker most simultaneously hope that the listener doesn’t realize that they don’t really believe in the Truth. They believe in social power. It is clearly not true that the pursuit of the Truth (science) is settled, and any claim that it is denies reality. Clearly, the climate crisis advocates are the deniers of Truth, while climate skeptics and heretics are still openly pursuing it.

As they use a concept of truth they do no believe in against those who seek it, perhaps we should be using what they believe in against them. It is just difficult for me to think like that.

17. Ethan Brand says:

Whenever I am contemplating someones comments on a particular subject, my first triage as to the amount of energy/effort/attention I am willing to expend in said contemplation, I use the following rough guides:

1) If “they” are using and or are accepting of comments like “denier”, “stupid”, etc for anyone who does not agree with them, I pretty much stop right there. Over decades of discussion, I have pretty much found that you are not going to get anywhere, so I save my energy.

2) If “they” use the work “believe” more than very casually in any scientific/engineering/medicine and other more or less “hard” sciences (defined by me as subjects where there is actual physical consequence of being wrong/incorrect). For example “Do you believe that pesticides are killing you?”. Pretty dicey whether to continue…but there might be some hope (weird pun intended).

3) If “they” refer to the New York Times, a Moore documentary, etc or similar mass information sources….really ought to walk away…but, could still be salvageable.

4) If “they” respond to my comment by stopping for a moment, looking thoughtful, or better yet, give you a sideways glance….hallelujah…an interesting and useful conversation might just be in the making.

Any time I am tempted to give the “alarmist” viewpoint another serious look….I always have to ask my self the basic question” Are “they” changing the proportion of use of #1, #2 and #3 in their arguments/position? If not, why not? Unfortunate answer? Probably because its the best they’ve got. Sad. If at some point the “alarmist” disavows #1 and minimizes #2 and #3, then I will contemplate buying more “T” shirts and selling my water front property…:)

Regards,
Ethan Brand

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Thanks, Ethan. For me those reasonable rules don’t really apply, for a curious reason.

I’m not writing for the person I’m writing to.

Why?

Because I am consciously writing, not for that one person, but for the lurkers. My target audience is a group I call “scientifically interested lay people”.

As you point out, those people using those terms like “denier” are much less likely to be persuaded by logic, math, or science … but the lurkers are listening to both sides of the argument and making up their own minds.

So I’m willing to engage with some pretty extreme folks, because I see it not as me talking with them, but as a public demonstration of both of our views, abilities and styles … and I have perfect confidence in the abilities of the lurkers to see the pluses and minuses of both sides.

Best regards,

w.

• Richard (the cynical one) says:

Lurker. So that’s what I am. I like it. And, Willis, though I can’t wrap my old brain around a good deal of what you write, I get the gist of enough of it to enjoy the meals. Thanks.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

More than welcome, Richard.

w.

• Ethan Brand says:

Hi Willis, thank you for the reply.

I note that I generally use my “rules” to triage what attention I might give to a particular comment. I completely agree with and see what you are generally doing, and note that you are quite skilled and effective at it. I think we both seem to agree that the most effective long term method of engaging with purveyors of seemingly intransigent opinions/statements is to encourage the use of an intellectual mirror…ie introspection. Pointing out to someone that the use of the word “denier” in, the context of science debate, is likely a sign of fundamental weakness in their position and is part of a long term strategy to encourage introspection. I hold that effective introspection, that is, the ability to seriously and rationally question ones own thoughts and opinions is actually a very difficult skill to obtain, much less improve. Without it, meaningful discourse is impossible. The most valuable other skill I have all too slowly nurtured is patience. Patience and introspection are unfortunately not very satisfying in the short run. They really don’t fit into our very well developed evolutionary “fight or flight”…ie pick a side and get on with it! What we are really talking about is the nexus of the “scientific method”, which is diametrically opposed to the “fight or flight” method. We will likely forever be getting the equivalent of severe head aches trying to reconcile the two. I optimistically hold that “we” are surely making progress, but the timescale is not particularly satisfying for an individual (hence the virtue of patience…).

Best Regards,
Ethan Brand

18. Stevek says:

The term climate denier is not a scientific term as it is not well defined. If a term is not well defined then it is simply not possible to argue for or against it.

In order to have a real scientific debate what we are debating must be rigorously defined.

The left argues based on emotion and simply rejects any scientific evidence that contradicts their emotions. The only way to change their minds is to use some type of argument that they agree with emotionally. I believe the reason older people tend to be more conservative is because they develop more control of their emotions, this is a form of wisdom.

19. Joseph Zorzin says:

Question: have “climate researchers” quantified the extent to which the urbanization of the planet has contributed to somewhat warmer temperatures? After all, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t the only big change to the planet in the past few centuries. All of the construction of cities and roads and parking lots and urban sprawl, etc. must be contributing substantially to warming because all that cement and asphalt heats up a lot more than the green environment. Just yesterday I stood in a parking lot waiting for my significant other to complete her shopping. I was roasting standing there. Once we got home I surprised at how much cooler it was- we live in a rural area- lots of trees and lawns. All this urban development must be contributing to the warming but how much? I should think it would be easier calculating than determining the effect of carbon emissions on the temperature.

• Bruce Cobb says:

It’s easy to forget how vast our planetary system is, including all land, the oceans, and atmosphere. UHI obviously contributes some very slight amount to warming, but not enough to be even worth considering, putting it in about the same category as any possible warming from man’s CO2. Of much more concern though, is the effect that UHI is having on the temperature record, skewing it upwards. This, of course, is very useful for the Alarmists. We appear to be in a warming phase, not unlike the Medieval Warm Period roughly 400 years long, between 900 – 1300 A.D., though the warming this time may be somewhat short-lived. It is quite possible we could see cooling in the coming decades.
The question then will be if the Alarmists will simply go “See? It’s climate change! And our CO2 is responsible. The only solution is solar and wind, and everyone huddle together in tiny spaces in cities, eat green goo and beetle guts, and collect that monthly subsistence check from the government”.

• Wolf at the door says:

TonyL-Apologies for the late reply-Needed sleep!Of course a steam engine chugging away is an open system.Entropy increases considering engine and its surroundings -Second Law happy.But when you switch it off and it “finds its way back”,you have “cheated!” The ball game’s over as you have stopped the reaction.The engine cools down until its temperature reaches that of its surroundings but equilibrium is a dynamic process.
Back to the real world.The atmosphere is a chaotic non – linear dynamic system interacting with oceans etc as we all know.It can never reach equilibrium theoretically or practically.So Le Chatelier is not applicable,as the atmosphere is neither a closed nor even an isolated system.
Le Chateliers Principle is a predictive tool for simple (relatively easily reversed ) chemical reactions in a closed system.It is not explanatory and therefore not helpful in this case.

• MarkW says:

Urbanization does cause warming.
Fortunately the total percentage of the earth’s surface that has been urbanized is too small to make much of a difference.
Unfortunately urbanized areas are where the vast majority of the surface stations are located.

• Joseph Zorzin says:

How about the billions of acres of former forest and natural grasslands converted to agriculture? I should think this is another factor, no? Forests and natural grasslands should be better at keeping the temperature under control than agricultural land that is often disturbed.

It seems reasonable that the total acreage converted to urbanization is small- but, it would be a good idea for climate scientists, if such creatures exist, to actually come up with the numbers of such acres and a theory as to the effect on warming.

I’m not suggesting we should reduce population to bring back natural landscapes- only that CO2 is not the only factor- if in fact there is actually enough warming to be concerned about.

• MarkW says:

“Forests and natural grasslands should be better at keeping the temperature under control than agricultural land that is often disturbed.”

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Agricultural land is often irrigated, which has a moderating effect on temperature.

20. Robert Davis says:

Well said Willis. I like the heat engine coming back in the discussion, being a retied Power Engineer. The offer still stands to buy you a pint at the docks here on Florida’s west coast.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Thanks, Robert, looking forwards to the pint.

Regarding the heat engine, have you read Bejan’s work on the question? I’d be interested in your comments.

w.

21. commieBob says:

Dr. Michael Mann is the denier in chief because he denies natural variability. In that sense, he is a true climate denier.

So, there’s the way around ‘their’ dishonest framing of the issue. There are science and climate deniers. I’m not one of them. I believe in science and the climate both. The deniers are the ones who deny the existence of naturally changing climate.

• Tom Abbott says:

I don’t think Michael Mann denies natural variability, I think he hides natural variability. I don’t think he believes his Hockey Stick represents the truth. I think he knows what it represents: Science fiction.

• commieBob says:

True. Maybe in the beginning he believed his clap trap though.

Mann sued Ball for saying that Mann should be in state pen not in Penn State. He then dragged the suit out for an inexcusably long time until the judge pitched it out for that reason. Mann’s problem is that, by refusing to provide discovery, and avoiding appearing in court under oath, he has given rise to adverse inference. As far as I can tell, and none of the lawyers on WUWT have contradicted me, we are free to infer that Mann and his hockey stick are frauds.

This rule applies not only to evidence destroyed but also to evidence existing but not produced by the party as well as to evidence under a party’s control but not produced. … The adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive. link

22. David Blenkinsop says:

What! Willis Eschenbach, a heretic! The global average temperature varies so little!

How dare you!

23. dmacleo says:

my objection to the denier label has nothing to do with horrors of the past but solely due to the fact its 100% a lie as used against me.
I have never denied climate change, would be a lie to do so.
I DO deny the push that mankind is responsible for all, or a large part, of it and I DO deny that CO2 is super harmful.
so I am a denier, I have no qualms being labeled as such.
just use the label correctly when calling me one.

24. Joel O'Bryan says:

I’m figuring on a Roaring 20’s with 4 more years of Trump Train steamrolling the Left’s lies and their attempts to label me a Denier. They are the deniers of science and truth. And they know it.
The People are silently sitting at home watching major US cities run by Democrats in turmoil and violence. And the Democrats calling for Defund the Police is as they know beyond Insane. It is Bolshevik-style anarchy and madness with a sinister plan. And American want nothing to do with that, even if they have to bend aknee to mob in public.
The cracks in their Cancel Culture efforts are already showing and growing by the day, even within their own ranks. The Left’s bulwark of speech suppression thus is about to collapse in spectacular fashion after Trump thumps their puppet candidate Dementia Joe.

• Joel O'Bryan says:

I like to post this internet meme, again and again. It captures across every culture, for both men and women of every nationality or race, what is happening right now. The Left and their grabbing for Power via pandemics and rioting they are willing to dump the Climate Scam for more immediate grabbing raw political power. It has always been about raw political power.

(plus the young lady in red is just plain smokin’ hot, and she obviously knows it… )

• TonyL says:

It is a good meme. First Rate.

25. Robert Hope says:

You’re a good man Willis.
A person of fortitude.
Peace.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Back atcha, dawg …

w.

26. “average temperature of the planet-sized heat engine that we call the ‘climate’ varied up and down from its century-long average by about one-tenth of one percent”

Presumably referring to degrees Kelvin?

• Willis Eschenbach says:

It’s the nature of heat engine analysis, Ralph. All of the formulas are in Kelvin. If you use anything but Kelvin you get wrong answers. Same with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation relating temperature and radiation, which is used all through climate science—it only works in Kelvin.

w.

• John Tillman says:

The kelvin is not referred to as a degree. The degree Celsius has the same magnitude as a kelvin.

27. Gregory Woods says:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the common meaning of ‘climate’ and ‘denier’. And I prefer to use these words as defined in any English language dictionary. Would anybody deny the existence of water? Would anybody deny that ice ages existed? Who denies that climate doesn’t exist? For all intents and purposes, there is no such person as a ‘climate denier’. You can parse and de-construct all you wish. Anybody who uses the term ‘climate denier’ is in the same catagory as using the word ‘carbon’ while referring to CO2: Deliberately ignorant…

28. Boff Doff says:

“It is used as a pejorative term for anyone who disagrees with any aspect of climate science”
With all due respect no it is not. It is used to slander anyone who even questions the narrative promoted by the Climate Establishment.
Their claims are not science in any accepted sense of the word. Propaganda is the word.

29. John F. Hultquist says:

First, toward the end you mention your own situation versus that of a family of four in an apartment.
We live in a rural area, retired with no lack of funds, house paid for, cars paid for, and food on the shelves and in the freezer. We know people not so blessed. Some as you describe, some having lost, or are now about to lose their businesses, and the well being (wealth) they have worked hard and long to achieve. [We are in Washington State]
Yet, the officials that instituted Panic2020 have not suffered a bit from their panic directives. When they have been stripped of their wealth and income my anger will stop increasing.

Second, and not that it really matters:
You: ” . . . by the CO2 going from three-hundredths of one percent to four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. ”

This past week, I was looking at RCP8.5 and discovered their supposed CO2 concentration in 2100 is 936ppm. Many papers report using RCP8.5 because it is (falsely) said to be the business as usual scenario. Your choice of “four-hundredths” is the current situation. I realize Dooms Day had to be moved to now because not much traction was achieved with 2100. So, psychologically you are correct because people do think Earth is dying now [“we have XX days to save the planet”].

30. A certain periodical may run an article tomorrow attacking this article. It would claim that the picture at the top of this one is “conclusive proof” that the implications of “climate denier” label are valid and justified.

31. Thom says:

A perfect example is that “you are a racist,” and if you won’t admit you are a racist, it is further proof of your racism. If you agree in part, and refuse to accept the entire proposition, then you are part of the colossus and cannot be redeemed.

32. Walter Sobchak says:

Constructal Law: The law’s author: Adrian Bejan’s daughter Cristina, is a poet, playwright, and historian, Buy her books:

Green Horses on the Walls
https://www.amazon.com/Green-Horses-Walls-Cristina-Bejan/dp/1646622154/

“Green Horses on the Walls” is a collection of poems that Cristina A. Bejan has written over the past ten years. … Bejan writes about her Romanian heritage, the inherited trauma of communism, love, mental health and sexual assault. The poems capture Bejan’s tortured love affair with the country her father escaped in 1969: Romania. Like so many exiles and migrants around the world, there is a compulsion to return and to leave the homeland … And finally this is a book about love: family love, love of ancestors, mindless youthful mistakes, the realities of American dating, forbidden love, and finally true equal miraculous love.

Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Fascism-Interwar-Romania-Association-dp-3030201643/dp/3030201643/

Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Fascism-Interwar-Romania-Association-dp-3030201643/dp/3030201643/

In 1930s Bucharest, some of the country’s most brilliant young intellectuals converged to form the Criterion Association … members included historian Mircea Eliade, critic Petru Comarnescu, Jewish playwright Mihail Sebastian and a host of other philosophers and artists … Bejan asks how the far-right Iron Guard came to eclipse the appeal of liberalism for so many of Romania’s intellectual elite …

33. Mr. says:

My problem with the climate zealots is that they demand I accept their whole “package” or be labeled as a “denier”

By “package”, I mean the tacked-on assertion that wind & solar power generation, backed by batteries for energy storage, will be the solution to curbing CO2 emissions and therefore “fixing” the climate.

Now, I wouldn’t mind if the “CO2 as control knob for the climate” debate went on as an academic exercise for as long as it takes to resolve the issue. That’s not going to affect anyone’s hard-won standard of living.

But at the same time, the climate zealots are demanding that while research into CO2 effects continues, our tried & proven energy systems (coal, oil, nuclear) must be discarded immediately and replaced with patently inadequate alternatives (wind, solar, batteries). At enormous cost and impact on environments and standards of living.

So, zealots, don’t label me as a “denier” – call me a “realist”

34. Pat Frank says:

I do think, however, that we are coming to the end of … the BLM [and Antifa] riots.

I do hope you’re right, Willis.

Our Republic is under existential attack. The leadership of the Democratic Party has clearly colluded in violent sedition.

Their push for open borders and non-citizen voting repudiates the Constitution and every notion of citizenship. Antifa and BLM do the same; their seditious violence is unfettered in overwhelmingly cities under a Democratic mayor. The connivance is apparent to all.

In that view, they are unfit to govern.

As Lincoln said, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

So, I do hope your inference holds, Willis, that the division becomes civil, the turmoil ends, and that our Constitutional Republic, our America, stands and remains with us.

• Joel O'Bryan says:

We’ve got to vote them out of office and take away their keys to power.

But if this continues and the Bolshevik-Democrats consolidate more political power over us, we’ll eventually be faced with having to shoot our way out of their tyrannical hold because People today are too asleep at what is happening.

It is no coincidence that Demo-Bolsheviks like Senator Sanders and NY Mayor DeBlasio are admirers Castro’s work in Cuba and the Chavez-Maduro tyranny in Venezuela. That is what they want to bring to this country. Both men are prominent members of the Democratic Party and have a substantial core follwoing that inspires the ANTIFA thugs doing what they are doing in some many Democrat-run cities while they continue to drive that party further to the Marxism they admire.

• Drake says:

Well put Pat.

The US system is again on a tipping point. I was sure we were done for in the LAST presidential election. Hillary is as much of a Marxist as was Obama. If the election had gone their way, the Supreme Court would be a full blown activist court and our rights would be no more.

This will be the SECOND most important presidential election of MY lifetime. The actions of the Democrat controlled states and cities and the radicals they support have clearly defined the future of this country if Joe wins. The choice can not be more clear.

If Joe wins the american people will have made the choice. When the Democrat party holds the House and the Senate, Schumer will, as leader, eliminate the 60 vote cloture rule and he and Pelosi will pass whatever they want.

If TRUMP! wins and the Republican party retakes the house, it will be time for McConnell to remove cloture and change the entire federal funding apparatus, returning to the states welfare, medicaid, etc. and returning to a minimalist federal government. Block grant the funds to each state, reducing the amount by 20% each year so that the states will actually be different in their social programs. At that point people could truly vote with their feet, moving from high tax overly generous states to a state that expects citizens to work for a living and remove non-citizens from the welfare rolls. This is how the federal system was supposed to work.

I know it is but a dream, but a beautiful one.

Drake

35. John Shotsky says:

“Not only that, but the temperature rise varies perfectly linearly with the increase in radiation. If you double the change in radiation, it will supposedly give you double the change in temperature”
If I understand what you have written, it is wrong. Radiation FROM a body is not linear with temperature but a function of the 4th power of the increase. It is perhaps the most perfect thermostat in the universe. ANY warming of the earth’s surface causes the surface to respond immediately with a massive increase in radiation toward space, immediately removing that heating. It is virtually instantaneous.
Having designed and commercially sold infrared thermometers, I can testify that the thermal laws work.
The greenhouse ‘hypothesis’ is a hundred plus year old mistake. You cannot heat the earth with atmospheric radiation captured FROM the earth itself. It CAN’T happen, because the earth won’t warm – it will radiate at a higher rate until equilibrium is again reached.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

John, over the short global average surface temperature range in question, present temperature plus a couple degrees either way, it is close enough to linear that the linear approximation is valid.

13°C = 380.15 W/m2

17°C = 401.86 W/m2

Average W/m2 = 391.01

Convert back to celsius = 15.02°C

As you can see, the error in that range is only two hundredths of a degree C, lost in the noise. That’s why the linear approximation is used. My main objection isn’t the linear assumption, it’s that the underlying idea that radiation roolz temperature that is wrong.

As to the “greenhouse effect”, please read the three posts I linked to above. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate any thermodynamic laws.

w.

• leitmotif says:

“The greenhouse ‘hypothesis’ is a hundred plus year old mistake. You cannot heat the earth with atmospheric radiation captured FROM the earth itself. It CAN’T happen, because the earth won’t warm – it will radiate at a higher rate until equilibrium is again reached.”

Don’t worry John, it’s just more BS back radiation nonsense from Willis.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

leitmotif August 9, 2020 at 6:00 pm

“The greenhouse ‘hypothesis’ is a hundred plus year old mistake. You cannot heat the earth with atmospheric radiation captured FROM the earth itself. It CAN’T happen, because the earth won’t warm – it will radiate at a higher rate until equilibrium is again reached.”

Science by assertion. Yeah, that’s totally legit.

w.

• leitmotif says:

“Science by assertion.”

I thought that was your forte, Willis.

I’m still waiting for some experimental evidence for the existence of back radiation. Let’s see what you’ve got.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

leitmotif August 10, 2020 at 2:54 am

I’m still waiting for some experimental evidence for the existence of back radiation. Let’s see what you’ve got.

Seriously? Is your google-fu that pathetic? A quick search for “downwelling radiation measurement” yields HUNDREDS of scientific studies like the following:

ATMOSPHERIC DOWNWELLING LONGWAVE RADIATION AT THE SURFACE DURING CLOUDLESS AND OVERCAST CONDITIONS. MEASUREMENTS AND MODELING

All-Sky Downwelling Longwave Radiation and Atmospheric-Column Water Vapour and Temperature over the Western Maritime Arctic

Downwelling Longwave Irradiance at the Ocean Surface

Note that these are not models or guesses. They are reports of actual measurements of downwelling longwave radiation.

OR you could by a cheap stand-off IR thermometer and point it at the sky …

A method to measure total atmospheric long-wave down-welling radiation using a low cost infrared thermometer tilted to the vertical

What you can’t do, leitmotif, is claim that something measured daily around the planet by both scientists and automated instruments from buoys etc. doesn’t actually exist … well, actually, you can and you have claimed it doesn’t exist, but that just makes people wonder which rock you’ve been living under that you don’t know about the existence of downwelling longwave radiation.

w.

• Willis,
Why can’t you undetstand that just because “scientists” label something “downwelling” doesn’t make it so?

Where’s their measurement of radiation from the instrument to the sky? Why is it the same?

Just because a blanket THEORETICALLY sends you 522 W/m^2, doesn’t mean you’re hot because of the blanket. YOU sent it 522 in the first place.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Zoe Phin August 10, 2020 at 10:54 am Edit

Willis,
Why can’t you undetstand that just because “scientists” label something “downwelling” doesn’t make it so?

Where’s their measurement of radiation from the instrument to the sky? Why is it the same?

Just because a blanket THEORETICALLY sends you 522 W/m^2, doesn’t mean you’re hot because of the blanket. YOU sent it 522 in the first place.

Thanks, Zoe, been there, read that. Twice. To make sure it really said what it said.

The US Department of Energy has a research facility called the “Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Research Facility”, commonly known as the ARM Research Facility. What they do, as the name states, is measure radiation coming down from the atmosphere. It’s an interesting site, take a look.

Here’s their description of their main instrument:

The atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer (AERI) is a ground-based instrument that measures the downwelling infrared radiance from the Earth’s atmosphere. The observations have broad spectral content and sufficient spectral resolution to discriminate among gaseous emitters (e.g., carbon dioxide and water vapor) and suspended matter (e.g., aerosols, water droplets, and ice crystals). These upward-looking surface observations can be used to obtain vertical profiles of tropospheric temperature and water vapor, as well as measurements of trace gases (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, and methane) and downwelling infrared spectral signatures of clouds and aerosols.

Now, of course, Zoe says that these scientists are all stupid fools who are actually measuring radiation from the ground and mistaking it for atmospheric radiation …

… although Zoe never gets to the question of how measuring ground radiation allows these same stupid scientists to verifiably do things like measure trace gases, aerosols, water droplets, ice crystals and the like.

There is an entire industry out there figuring out new and more accurate and wider spectral-width and increased spectral resolution instruments to measure downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. Millions of dollars are being spent on the entire enterprise end to end.

But noooo … Zoe says that not one of the hundreds and hundreds of people involved in inventing, manufacturing, testing, and use of these various measuring instruments, and no one involved in the analysis of the results of measuring atmospheric radiation, knows what she knows, the secret truth, which according to Zoe is:

NOT ONE OF THOSE INSTRUMENTS, NOT ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS, IS ACTUALLY MEASURING ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION. THEY ARE MEASURING GROUND RADIATION, AND MISTAKING IT FOR ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION

Here is her very scientific illustration showing how this works:

I leave you to consider how, IF Zoe were right, ground radiation could be successfully used to measure ice crystals, GHGs, and water droplets as is routinely done by the ARM facility.

w.

• Willis,

“who are actually measuring radiation from the ground”

Never said that. Learn to read.

Never said that. Learn to read.

‘The US Department of Energy has a research facility called the “Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Research Facility”’

If you actually examined their method you would see that their “downwelling” IR is just IR from the instrument to the sky.

An infrared camera can also detect objects colder than it, because the camera sensor is what is transferring heat. There is a negative voltage registered.

Why can’t you think?

sig(Thot^4-Tcold^4)

You think Tcold is some sort of energy source in the sky that is sent down to an instrument. It’s not. Tcold is a product of Thot, from the surface (not including direct solar absorption of the atmo).

It’s amazing you never questioned why ARM project never reports upwelling-from-the-instrument IR. Surely the instrument has a temperature. They don’t report it because IT is the same (and the actual) “downwelling” IR.

Learn to think.

• Does Willis also think Antifa is anti-fascist?

It’s in the name, right? So it must be true. The fact that they engage in same street tactics as the fascists can be ignored. The real fascists are those protesting lockdown orders.

Just as antifa is fascist, “downwelling” IR, is just a measurement of heat transfer from the measurement instrument to objects in the sky, that is: upwelling-from-the-instrument IR, not to be confused with upwelling-from-the-ground IR.

My diagram is very straight forward. If Willis can’t communicate my ideas correctly, what does that say about him?

• Ed Bo says:

Willis:

What cracks me up about Zoe’s arguments here is that the FLIR (forward-looking infrared) camera she uses to support her claims work on the same fundamental principle as the pyrgeometers she claims are being used completely incorrectly by the science establishment.

Each pixel in the FLIR attains a temperature that is a function of the difference between the incoming infrared intensity and the outgoing intensity. The electrical resistance changes with temperature, and this can easily be measured. These results are compared to a reference sensor not exposed to the external radiation. This is the same process that the pyrgeometers use.

(Zoe also makes the mistake of not realizing that to derive temperature values from the radiation measurements, you need to know the emissivity of the object. But that is another subject for another day…)

• “Each pixel in the FLIR attains a temperature that is a function of the difference between the incoming infrared intensity and the outgoing intensity. The electrical resistance changes with temperature, and this can easily be measured. ”

Yes! You can measure heat flowing from hot to cold.

Cover the whole surface of the Earth with pyrgeometers. Can the atmosphere get infrared without passing THROUGH the pyrgeometers? Ignore direct absorption of solar energy by atmo for this.

You will quickly learn the importance of upwelling-from-instrument IR.

The problem is people like you think the cold atmosphere is some sort of energy source twice as strong as surface insolation resulting from that weaker insolation not being able to escape.

You use “downwelling” IR to make your case. But this “downwelling” IR just theoretical backradiation actually caused by REAL front radiation.

• Ed Bo says:

Zoe:

Every time you post, you make another egregious error that shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in any facet of the discussion.

You say: “Cover the whole surface of the Earth with pyrgeometers. Can the atmosphere get infrared without passing THROUGH the pyrgeometers?”

You just demonstrated that you have no experience at all in making experimental measurements. One of the key things one learns early on is that you have to evaluate (and minimize) the impact of the measuring device on the system being measured.

A single pyrgeometer will have no detectable effect on the earth-atmosphere system it is measuring, because the overwhelming majority of radiation in all directions goes around the device. In your thought experiment about covering the whole surface of the earth with these devices, you are completely altering the system you would be trying to measure!

This is Lab Science 101, and you are obviously completely ignorant of it!

• Ed,

“the overwhelming majority of radiation in all directions goes around the device.”

You don’t think a globe covered in pyrgeometers can still conduct and then radiate?

lol. Wise people know that these measurement instruments only REALLY measure upwelling IR and net IR. “Downwelling” IR is a derived quantity with a philosophic bent.

• Ed Bo says:

Zoe:

Are you seriously taking your own schematic diagram of upwelling and downwelling radiation literally — that it’s only straight up and straight down? Have you never heard of the Lambertian distribution of radiation?

You ask: “You don’t think a globe covered in pyrgeometers can still conduct and then radiate?”

As usual, you miss the point completely. The point is not whether they could conduct and then radiate, but that they would completely change the properties of the system they are supposedly trying to measure.

To repeat, a single pyrgeometer has no detectable effect on the system, but your idea of a complete blanket of these sensors changes the system completely. Not a difficult concept.

You say: “Wise people know that these measurement instruments only REALLY measure upwelling IR and net IR. “Downwelling” IR is a derived quantity with a philosophic bent.”

Do you feel the same about a tire pressure gauge or a vacuum gauge? Both measure the net pressure — the difference between ambient atmospheric pressure and the pressure of the vessel. Is the absolute pressure in the vessel simply “a derived quantity with a philosophic bent”? Seriously?

• Ed,
I believe greater pressure will drive lesser pressure.

You believe lesser pressure is the key to understanding why greater pressure is so great. I think that’s dumb.

My diagrams are simple to understand. If you want to believe in two thermal dead ends, it’s up to you. Personally, I think it’s stupid.

• Ed Bo says:

Zoe:

Let’s take the case where you are drawing a vacuum and trying to measure with a gauge the extent of the vacuum you have drawn. You say: “I believe greater pressure will drive lesser pressure.”

So atmospheric pressure on the sensing diaphragm will push it more than the partial vacuum you are drawing. OK. But by your logic, the extent of the vacuum — the reduced but non-zero pressure in the vessel — does not affect the measurement at all.

Similarly with the pyrgeometer, does the reduced but non-zero downwelling radiation from colder altitudes affect the sensor temperature and hence resistance at all? It’s the same principle of a differential measurement.

• Ed,

Just because a blanket THEORETICALLY sends you 522 W/m^2, doesn’t mean you’re hot because of the blanket. YOU sent it 522 in the first place!

The 522 W/m^2 of “downwelling” IR from a blanket covering you is not what you should be focused on.

• Ed Bo says:

Zoe:

If you make a purchase and get $15 change back from the$20 you hand the cashier, are you wealthier than if you got no change back?

36. Curious George says:

Is it possible to know the TRUTH about climate, and to have no clue about weather at the same time?

37. Edward Joseph says:

I explain it simply to simple people and children this way:
The Earth adjusts itself to remain the best temperature for life.
Water evaporates from the ocean to make clouds. The more heat you have, the more clouds are made.
Sunlight produces the most heat on Earth. So blocking the sun’s light lowers the temperature of the Earth.
The more clouds, the more sunlight is blocked, cancelling out the heat that created more clouds in the first place.

38. Jim Willis says:

We choose truth over facts!

• Joel O'Bryan says:

Dementia Joe didn’t even realize after he said it how stupid and absurd that was coming out of his mouth. He is that far gone. And the marxist-media let him get away with it. We’re totally flucked if Dementia Joe wins in November. Dementia Joe would just be the Bolsheviks puppet President until they can replace him with his Marxist VP.

• James Clarke says:

I just watched the movie version of ‘1984’ the other day. After seeing it again, I realized that Dementia Joe’s comment about choosing truth over facts actually makes sense in that dystopian world. The party could not control all the facts, but they definitely had a very tight control on the ‘truth’. Joe Biden is suffering from dementia or he he is Big Brother in disguise.

• Nick Graves says:

It was Winston Smith ‘s job to correct the historical data.

I am re-reading it atm… For a laugh.

39. Natural climate change deniers.

40. HotScot says:

The whole concept of ‘climate denial’ is preposterous, not merely because it’s a concocted slur against those who question the science of the whole concept, but because there are people making shed loads of money from terryfying the uncritical and weak willed.

Unfortunately far to many sceptics fall sucker to using the terms adopted and distorted by the cult of climate hysterics which embolden the nonsense peddlers.

The term ‘climate’ was coined to teach schoolchildren about varying weather conditions unique to particular areas of the globe. There is no such thing as a uniform global climate.

The best one might nail it down to is an average global temperature, which, as Willis points out, is akin to meaningless.

I mean, what is a global average temperature useful for unless described into actual effects on humanity?

We may observe a 3 degree C rise in surface temperature across the Antarctic over a year, but as the average temperature there is, perhaps -20C, that 3C isn’t going to cause snow and ice to melt. Nor are Argo buoys, ships, or satellites prolific or accurate enough to detect meaningful ocean temperature rises, or falls, to a meaningful degree, simultaneously, at a moment in time, across every metre of ocean on the planet.

Nor does anyone live on the Antarctic (other than a handful of scientists) so what effect does it have on any of the rest of the world.

Oh yea, I almost forgot, that rising sea levels will affect all of us. Like were dumb enough to stand in the same spot for a few thousand years waiting for meaningful evidence of the Antarctic melting and flooding our homes.

Oh, but what about the children?

Well, iftheyre dumb enough to stand on the shore for a few thousand years, and not move inland, they deserve to still be standing on the shore until the seas rise above their heads. We might consider them as Darwin Award candidates.

41. sonofametman says:

I had an interesting discussion with chap who was a member of Extinction Rebellion, as they protested outside the offices of an investment manager here in Edinburgh a while ago. He was all too eager to apply the term ‘climate denier’ to me. I argued that the term ‘denier’ was a slur, based on the association with Holocaust denial. I tried to persuade him that my perspective was that I simply disagreed with the hypothesis what very limited change we see, when compared with the historical records and slightly-further-back proxy data, can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2. He simply couldn’t get his head round the concept of glacial/inter-glacial cycles, and the magnitude of change involved. Even as I left their little protest, he still tried to use the term ‘denier’. I’ll give him some credit, he did try to have a discussion, but it was an uphill struggle for me against a clear catastrophist mind-set.
He’s not alone. I have had ‘educated’ middle-class ladies refer to me as a ‘climate denier’, and was told once curtly “that’s just not up for discussion”. So, people who think of themselves as smart, are so hooked on their ideas that they can’t respond with, perhaps, “Oh, why do you think that?”. I’m always interested in why people think what they do, I find it disappointing when they don’t return the favour.

42. Smart Rock says:

I do think, however, that we are coming to the end of both the coronavirus and the BLM riots.

When I compare the reactions of most governments in the industrialised world to the original SARS and the H1N1 flu with the unfolding disaster of covid19, it makes me very concerned about the next new flu virus that we can reasonably expect (presumably from China) in a few years. Politicians have learned to choose the “experts” with the most extreme predictions of doom and the most extremely authoritarian proposals to avoid said doom. Because they fear doing the wrong thing and because they feel the need to show “strong, decisive leadership, blah blah blah….” to ensure “public safety”. And they use fear to get people to accept draconian restrictions on their lives, for a time. Which they mostly do, for a time. It worked fairly well, for a time. The next one will be worse (not the virus; the response), and it will be accepted even more readily than the 2020 lockdowns. That’s my worry.

BLM riots are probably in the waning phase of the current cycle, that’s true. Last year we had extinction rebellion riots in a few major cities, where the organisers learned that they could get away with a lot of public nuisance, without fear of retaliation from police. This year, they exploited this new-found freedom when they hijacked a genuine protest about police who egregiously brutalised an unfortunate petty criminal to death. And they pushed the limits of public disturbance into previously unimaginable territory, where they could destroy property, even destroy lives, without the slightest worry about being arrested or charged by the police. Meanwhile, police have harassed, arrested and charged what most of us would call normal people, who were just trying to protect themselves and their property from what the mainstream media call “peaceful protesters”.

The next antifa cycle will be worse again. That’s my worry. Call me Cassandra.

I could go on at length, but you get the idea. What we call “civil society” and “democracy” are being slowly demolished before our very eyes. It’s a multi-pronged attack: the climate movement is part of it, Antifa-Occupy-ER-BLM movement is part of it, and the absurd but multi-faceted “woke” movement is part of it. They (the forces of darkness) are winning, “we” are caving in without much of a fight, and the future won’t be pretty.

• Mr. says:

Smart Rock, if “an unfortunate petty criminal” is a reference to George Floyd, be clear that he was no “petty criminal”

His last stint in jail (his 9th criminal conviction & jail sentence) was a 5-year stretch for this –

“He “forced his way” into a woman’s home after lying about being “with the water department,” then “placed a pistol against… [her] abdomen,” according to the complaint. Floyd and his 5 companions “demanded to know where the drugs and money were,” but were told that there were neither in the house. They proceeded to take jewelry and the victim’s cell phone. In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to 5 years in jail.”

• MarkW says:

The coroners report found that Mr Floyd died due the drugs in his system. Once again, they are rioting based on nothing but lies.

43. Leitwolf says:

The problem here is not “simple physics”, but the violation of logic and physics, and the lack of intelligence within the audience. Otherwise everyone would long have known what I am to tell..

Earth receives some 240W/m2 of solar radiation, post albedo. A large share of those 240W/m2 are getting absorbed by the atmosphere (not by the surface), yet they get indiscrimately added to Earths energy budget. Cause.. why not? Obviously it would be a mistake to measure the amount of solar radiation warming Earth alone at the surface (some 161W/m2 ..right?).

With “back radiation” however, we only consider what we measure at the surface. But most “back radiation” is getting (re-)absorbed within the atmosphere already. If we took all this “back radiation” into account, we would find there is a thousands of Watt/m2 “heating” the planet, which leads to an obvious problem – and facilitates understanding.

If “back radiation” heated anything, we would all get fried! Thank god “back radiation” is just part of ubiquitous ambient radiation, which heats nothing! And of course ambient radiation is a function of temperature, not the opposite way. Btw. this does not deny the “GHE”, which just has nothing to do with “back radiation”.

• leitmotif says:

Willis won’t like you using quotes when mentioning back radiation, Leitwolf.

• Fraizer says:

leitmotif:
Why don’t you say something useful or just go away? You are not even a fun troll.

• leitmotif says:

“eitmotif:
Why don’t you say something useful or just go away? You are not even a fun troll.”

Oh, Fraizer, you’re no fun.

I take it you agree with Leitwolf then since you made no comment?

44. Rick C PE says:

A few years ago I spent considerable time searching for the answers to two questions regarding climate change theory.

1. Does warming result in more or less clouds?
2. Do clouds during the day reduce warming by more than clouds during the night reduce cooling (or vice versa)? In my view the effects are very unlikely to be equal.

The conclusion I reached was nobody knows. This conclusion was reinforced recently by Dr. Pat Frank’s paper on climate model uncertainty related to the +/- 4 w/m^2 energy balance uncertainty related to cloud cover effects.
Our ignorance of the net effect of clouds on global climate makes the whole discussion regarding CO2 and fossil fuels moot since we cannot rule out the possibility that all observed global temperature variability is caused by variability in cloud cover. I do agree with Willis that the most remarkable thing about the earth’s climate is its stability.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Rick C PE August 9, 2020 at 2:38 pm

A few years ago I spent considerable time searching for the answers to two questions regarding climate change theory.

1. Does warming result in more or less clouds?
2. Do clouds during the day reduce warming by more than clouds during the night reduce cooling (or vice versa)? In my view the effects are very unlikely to be equal.

Good questions. In order, the TL;DR answers are:

1. Depends

2. Yes.

1. In some areas of the planet, clouds go up with increasing temperature (red areas below). In other areas, they go down with increasing temperature (blue areas below). Overall, they pretty much cancel each other out.

2. The CERES dataset agrees with earlier estimates that the average net effect of clouds is a cooling of about 18 watts per square metre.

w.

• Leitwolf says:

Hi Rick

This is exactly what I have been researching and the answers are there. First of all clouds are warming all over, the CRE (cloud radiative effect) is indeed positive. It is not just a question of day/night cycle, but also about season. For instance, a way simplified, clouds are cooling in spring and warming in autumn. Second the CRE is positive for low altitude clouds, but even more so for high altitude cirrus clouds, which has huge implications on contrails.

The “data” Willis is quoting below are a “false friend” if you will. ERBE and CERES are NOT(!) satellite data, but models with highly speculative outputs. The are likely the most prominent example for fake science.

45. boffin77 says:

hi Willis,
1) Like you, i am a skeptic, not a denier
2) you persuaded me years ago (here, at wuwt) that analysts should consider the possibility that there is a Control system at work. I have seen no reason in the ensuing years to rule this out. The prime candidate for control mechanisms involve H2O, which can:
– trap energy (when a vapour) or
– reflect energy (when condensed as a cloud or frozen as ice) or
– provide damping (when in liquid form as an ocean)(sorry about the unavoidable “damping” pun).

3) To address this, may I begin by quoting you from above:
“a) Now, it has been shown that when CO2 increases, it increases the atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation, and thus increases the amount of thermal radiation from the atmosphere, about half of which heads downwards towards the surface.
b) But it has NOT been shown that this increase in radiation is perforce accompanied by an increase in the surface temperature.

4) I have (for many months) looked at CO2 impact, using MODTRAN and Sobolev’s equations.
The only small spectral area where CO2 influences energy release from Earth to space is around 13 to 17 microns. Water vapour influences energy release in exactly the same way as CO2, but across wider spectral regions, so it provides useful intuitive understanding. Clear summer nights in the Florida Keys are warmer than clear summer nights in Colorado, even if the daytime temperature was exactly the same, because the Keys are humid and Colorado is dry. You can look up in the sky in Florida and feel the warmth on your face. Perhaps this shows why 3(b) is true?

Water vapour and CO2 transmit and reflect/re-radiate energy something like a Space Blanket with holes punched in it. The holes get smaller as the amounts of H2O or CO2 get larger, causing more heat to be reflected and causing the Earth to warm up.
There are two ways to increase the amount of energy radiated to space:
– reduce the humidity or the CO2 (thus making the space blanket holes bigger), or
– make the Earth hotter (thus making the thermal radiance brighter, and pushing more energy through the existing holes)

My opinion is: given that Water Vapour has so much more leverage than CO2, on the Earth’s temperature, we need to understand water vapour day-to-day dynamics before we can claim any understanding of the impact of CO2.

46. Warren says:

The left has reached critical mass.
There’s no turning back, only delay.
Most senior politicians are ex lawyers.
They’re flanked by wealthy donors.
Every year the average American suffers a loss in real monetary worth.
Trump won’t help you he’s one of them in all but a few key areas.
So what do you think is going to happen?
You know what’s going to happen; you just can’t admit it.

47. Jopo says:

The Denialist are the ones who burn books and censor science. There is your denialist

48. Waza says:

Willis
CAGW or climate alarmism involves lots of components.
For the purpose of this comment, I will break down to three components.
A. Climate change science.
B. Climate changes damages.
C. Climate change actions.
Your article only discusses A above.
If someone only disagrees with a sub component of either B or C they are also labeled a denier.
Example statement from B. PLants will benefit from extra CO 2 – a true statement
Example statement from C. The poor will be impacted by increased electricity prices – true statement

49. donb says:

Willis,
IR radiation upwelling from Earth’s surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and then re-emitted, some of it as downwelling IR toward the surface. Mostly this is an energy loop, which neither cools nor warms the Earth.
Greenhouse warming occurs when IR escaping to space is reduced in flux – for that IR escaping Earth is the only way Earth cools. By the Stefan-Boltzman relation, the RATE at which a greenhouse molecule emits IR depends on its temperature. IR emitted from the surface and not absorbed by atmospheric gases is emitted at a rate equivalent to Earth’s surface temperature. IR emitted to space by greenhouse gases however, is emitted at a lower rate determined by the colder temperature of its emission height, which typically is high in the atmosphere.

That is the process that produces warming, not the upwelling and downwelling IR.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

People seem to think I post links for fun. Don, READ THE STEEL GREENHOUSE!!! It explains how the greenhouse effect doesn’t require an atmosphere to work … so obviously, your explanation which requires an atmosphere must be wrong.

w.

• Willis,
Ideological mathematics is not physics.
Conservation of heat flow is not physics.

Math can be used to model the unreal.

Math doesn’t care that your unphysical equations need to balance so you end up with one side hotter to do it. It doesn’t happen in real life.

• MarkW says:

“Ideological mathematics is not physics.”

That thar is funny.

• donb says:

Willis,
Your “model” is interesting and worth some comment.
First, I assume that your steel shell has an emissivity of 1.0, and not its true value of about 0.8 (oxidized, not polished). Otherwise the shell would have to be heated even hotter in order to emit IR at 235 watts.

Of course, the steel shell heated on the inside transfers its energy to the shell outside mostly via conduction. In that regard it is analogous to the Earth’s crust, where internal radioactive heat conducted to the surface establishes a temperature gradient because heat emission at the surface is faster than the heat can be transferred through the crust.
IR transfer in Earth’s atmosphere is quite different, and your steel shell is an imperfect model for Earth’s atmosphere.

So, let’s assume that the steel shell is very thin, say only a few molecules thick. Heat would be conducted through it very quickly.
Now when a molecular electron bond (say H-O in water, C-O in CO2 or Fe-Fe in steel — metals don’t have typical bonds but partly share their electrons) absorbs an IR, two things can occur. That energy in the bond can be rapidly transferred into other bonds, or the bond can itself emit an IR. In e.g., CO2 such an IR emission requires about one second. However, in an atmospheric gas near STP, molecular collisions occur much faster (by orders of magnitude), and as a consequence most IR absorbed by a gas molecule is transferred into kinetic energy of the surrounding gas. Given the nature of metal (Fe) bonding, IR energy absorbed could be expected to very, very quickly equilibrate.

What would transpire when that Fe shell was uniformly maintained at some uniform temperature by the 235 w/m2 it received from Earth?
It would radiate IR from both inside and outside, both to space and back to Earth. To cool Earth, it would have to radiate 235w to space and it would radiate 235w down. So you are correct. The shell would have to be maintained hotter than Earth in order to sustain 235w loss both outward and inward.

Thus, as you say, the shell would act to warm a planet much as would a greenhouse gas. And just as I comment above about greenhouse Earth, that IR going to the Fe shell and coming back down is an energy loop. That energy is NOT what would warm the Fe shell planet, but rather the fact that the Fe shell and the planet surface would have to be maintained at a higher temperature in order to lose the energy the surface receives. So half of the extra IR emission from the now warmer surface would transfer to the shell and then to space, balancing the energy received, AND the other half of that extra surface IR emission (resulting from the higher temperature of the surface, NOT any extra heat from below) would transmit to the shell, back to the surface, back to the shell, etc. – an energy loop.

Your model makes my point above about energy loops, although the mechanisms are different.
Without that Fe shell, the planet’s surface temperature would not be elevated.
And without those greenhouse gases releasing IR to space at a slower rate because of their cold location, Earth’s temperature would not be elevated.
Energy loops do not warm the surface.

• “where internal radioactive heat conducted to the surface establishes a temperature gradient because heat emission at the surface is faster than the heat can be transferred through the crust.”

Just a little emphasis: a T gradient is established because of a density gradient.

• donb says:

ZP
Density variations in Earth’s crust has little to do with heat flow through the crust. Rock composition has some effect. When the Earth’s surface temperature is maintained at an average of ~15C and the deep crust at say a few hundred C, a temperature gradient naturally develops. IF that surface energy were not lost from the surface, the surface would eventually warm to the deep crust temperature. But then, without means of losing heat, the Earth’s interior would also continue to warm.

• 15C is not in some sort of “maintenance” mode. It’s a product of geothermal and solar. As a product it is maintained, but only as a result of a gradient, not its cause.

Cold doesn’t tell hot what to give it to create a gradient.

Q = m*Cp*dT

The m is mass. The mass in a fixed sections of volume can create a gradient.

Stready state heat flow through a density gradient will create a T gradient. This happens from yhe core to the surface, and from the surface to the atmosphere.

• donb says:

Willis,
I am not aware of any planets with an Fe shell, much less ones that are warmed further by one. Absent that knowledge, I will continue to assume that Earth is warmed by gases.

50. Peter says:

Back in 2006 when I started studying this, my wife and I went on a trip which included Glacier Bay in Alaska. We were given a map by the park service which included data from old navigation charts documenting the melting of that 65 mile long glacier which originally completely occupied the bay. It had started melting prior to the year 1800 when earth’s population was about 1/7 of today and transportation was by horse, foot, and wooden sailing vessel. It was around 85% gone by 1900, prior to the invention of the airplane, a dozen or so years before the mass production of the automobile, and with population around 1/4 of today.

If we caused that melting, tell me how we are going to stop it today considering all of the above. If not, prove to me that what did cause the melting is not the same as what has caused any warming since 1900.

By the way, on the current Glacier Bay website I could see no indication of the melting data which I still have on copies of the literature I was handed back in 2006. I wonder why it has disappeared. Interesting!

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Zoe Phin August 9, 2020 at 5:23 pm

Willis,
You still believe this is basically wrong?

Zoe, what I still believe is that you are either too arrogant, too stupid, or too uncaring to QUOTE THE EXACT DAMN WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING as I’ve requested over and over.

This is a perfect example of why I insist that people quote what they are talking about. You are alleging that somewhere, sometime, I said that the Britannica heat block conduction diagram is wrong … an underhanded allegation that I deny entirely.

Now, IF you can find where it is that you claim I said that the Britannica diagram is “basically wrong”, this would be the time to bring it up … and if you can’t find where I said that, this would be the time to apologize for flat-out lying about what I said.

And in either case it is time for you to grow up and show the common decency of quoting what it is you object to. I’m sick of your handwaving accusations without either any link to what I said or any scrap of evidence that I was wrong.

w.

• Oh Willis,
I don’t need to quote you commenting on this specific diagram. You’ve made it abundantly clear that the flow from A to B “must” equal the flow from B to space to the right.

Don’t you dare claim otherwise right now.

• James Clarke says:

Oh Zoe,
You really aren’t a rational human being, are you.

You cannot equate Willis’s discussion of the complex energy balance of the Earth’s climate system with a diagram containing two different blocks with different temperatures. The diagram shows a very simple linear system and a very simple linear process. It falls far short of being a model for the Earth’s ocean/atmospheric system. It’s as if Willis wrote an article on who will win the World Series and you accuse him of denying the physics of a ball hitting a bat. Reality is a lot more complex than extremely simple diagrams.

• James,
Willis believes emergent radiation = conductive heat flux.

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

With a constant heat source, I’m still correct. As the EVIDENCE shows.

This recent diagram is not a constant heat source. I use this diagram as bait. When Willis wants to show I’m “wrong and stupid” he always takes the easy bait. He evades the hard evidence, but takes the easy bait.

But even in the easy bait, emergent flux != conductive heat flux. I can explain both scenarios. Willis can’t.

• John Endicott says:

Zoe, If you are going to make a claim about what Willis said or believes, yes you do need to quote him. If you can’t quote him saying what you claim he said/believes, after being called on it, that just shows you CAN”T back up your claims. Making you either a liar or a fraud (or both).

• Uhuh
What Willia believes is well known.

• John Endicott says:

If it’s so well know, you have no excuse not to quote it. You don’t quote it, so you lose credibility. Bye Felicia.

• leitmotif says:

Willis believes only a few unicorns are causing only a little damage in the forests rather than the alarmist view that forests are overrun by malevolent unicorns causing havoc.

Willis is a lukeunicornist.

• MarkW says:

It really is sad how some people, when they have lost on facts, lost on science, lost on logic, have only insults to fall back on.

• John Endicott says:

to paraphrase from an old legal aphorism: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the Science is on your side pound the science. when neither is on your side pound the table. The resorting to insults is mere table pounding. It’s as sad as it’s telling.

• leitmotif says:

“It really is sad how some people, when they have lost on facts, lost on science, lost on logic, have only insults to fall back on.”

• MarkW says:

I know you are, but what am I?

Yet again, schoolyard taunts seem to be all you have.

• F1nn says:

Insults and ad hominem are loosers way to say “you win, I loose”. It´s actually a compliment.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Zoe,
A rationale, objective person would note that the Britannica figure that you linked is titled “heat bock conduction” and makes no reference to radiation or “radiative heat transfer” or to convection or “convective heat transfer”. Furthermore, Willis presented the actual figure that you referenced, and you might take the time to note that there are no arrows showing “heat flow” off the blocks by means of radiation or convection.

Clearly then, your referenced diagram cannot apply to anything other than an idealized, purely conductive heat transfer gedanken experiment. For example, the “purple blocks” end-state on the right has the note “. . . and heat flow stops” which, in the real world, would mean blocks A and B have zero radiation, and therefore constant temperature, for time going forward to infinity.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion of heat transfer process as they relate to the real world (let alone Earth’s energy balances and/or forcing functions), drop the harping on purely theoretical stuff—that is, there is no process in the physical universe that involves ONLY conduction—and try to argue with rational, appropriate understanding of the totality of the physics involved with the subject matter under discussion.

That is all.

• Oh really, Gordon?
Most sane people would not think this is a gedanken experiment, but something they have observed in real life!

Have you attended 7th grade chemistry?

Although radiation is not mentioned it was there in the classroom.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

Zoe, please cite one—just one will suffice—example of a “real life” situation of pure conduction in the absence of radiation or convection. You will need to search far and wide, given that all solid bodies (i.e., “blocks”) emit thermal radiation at temperatures above absolute zero and there is no such a thing as a perfect insulator.

But of course, you already knew those facts, didn’t you?

By the way, the block conduction example from Britannica that you referenced is all about thermodynamics and has nothing to do with chemistry.

I will await your response . . . but not for too long.

• Britanica lack of mentioning convection and radiation doesn’t mean the blocks will not come to thermal equibrium in their presence. You just assume their lack of mention is really important to the problem.

I learned it in 7th grade chemistry before lesson was repeated in 9th grade physics.

I took 3 physics and 2 astronomy classes at uni. I aced them.

I have two experiments here that Willis ignores:

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Zoe, you are lying through your teeth when you falsely claim that

I have two experiments here that Willis ignores:

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

The VERY FIRST DAMNED COMMENT ON THAT PAGE IS FROM ME, so your claim that I “ignored” it is just more of the rancid lying bile that you endlessly spew forth.

Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Your endless puerile lies and your astounding ignorance are overpowering an otherwise interesting discussion. You have your own blog where you can discuss your ideas all day long. I implore you, go there, go somewhere, don’t go away mad, just go away.

w.

• “The VERY FIRST DAMNED COMMENT ON THAT PAGE IS FROM ME, so your claim that I “ignored” it is just more of the rancid lying bile that you endlessly spew forth.”

Wow, Willis. The fact that I post A comment from you is proof that you are not ignoring the results of two later videos?

That’s some ingenious mental gymnastics right there!

I’m not mad at you, Willis.

Conservation of heat flow! What a joke.

51. Olen says:

What could be more precise than the statement the science is settled? If true it leaves no room for denial. Yet a lot of people aren’t buying it because of lack of proof and not seeing the change claimed. If the science was settled it would be more than 95 percent certain and that is a high mark.

Laying shame on opposition is no way to win an argument yet the global warming crowd use it like a conditioned response.

• James Clarke says:

Newtonian physics was about as close to settled science as science gets, right up to the time it was shown to be incorrect. No scientist worth their salt would ever proclaim that the science is settled. When you hear that, you are listening to a politician or an advocate, and you would be wise to hold on to your wallet.

52. donb says:

But without energy flow into the metal, its temperature will drop until it reaches equilibrium with its environment, which for space is quite cold. Effectively its energy loss would stop if it reached absolute zero.

53. Everybody hopefully knows that

Temperature in this spot = Average translational kinetic energy in this spot.

But there are pseudoscientists that believe that

Temperature in this spot is function of Average translational kinetic energy in some other spot – Average translational kinetic energy in this spot = Average translational kinetic energy in this spot – Average translational kinetic energy a 3rd spot.

You got that?

You need to ignore common sense and basic physics and embrace conservation of heat flow. Once you set up unrealistic math equations, you will see the source needs to heat up to balance your nonsense math equation. Math can make molecules move faster! Gotta preserve the flow!

• MarkW says:

“Temperature in this spot = Average translational kinetic energy in this spot.”

Thermal energy has nothing to do with kinetic energy.

• Gordon A. Dressler says:

“Temperature in this spot = Average translational kinetic energy in this spot.”

Zoe, did you even bother to read—more importantly, understand— the Wikipedia article that you referenced?

It states: “The equipartition theorem of kinetic theory asserts that each classical degree of freedom of a freely moving particle has an average kinetic energy of kBT/2 where kB denotes Boltzmann’s constant. The translational motion of the particle has three degrees of freedom, so that, except at very low temperatures where quantum effects predominate, the average translational kinetic energy of a freely moving particle in a system with temperature T will be 3kBT/2. Molecules, such as oxygen (O2), have more degrees of freedom than single spherical atoms: they undergo rotational and vibrational motions as well as translations. Heating results in an increase in temperature due to an increase in the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules. Heating will also cause, through equipartitioning, the energy associated with vibrational and rotational modes to increase.”

Perhaps you missed the class in one of your three uni physics course that described the total energy of molecular gases being related to absolute temperature by E = 5kBT/2, not E = 3kBT/2.

There are far, far more molecular gases in real life than there are atomic gases.

And need I mention that in solid substances, there are no translational kinetic energy modes, just rotational and vibrational modes that yield temperature as a function of energy content?

Now, you were saying something to another poster about “unbelievable stupidity”? Mirror time!

54. Roger Knights says:

“The proper term for folks that disagree with various aspects of the mainstream climate scientists’ claims about the climate is “skeptic”. ”

First, skeptic has positive comnnnotations, so the media and the warmist side will never agree to use it. Second, we “skeptics” are actually heretics—i.e., not mere doubters (the AP’s preferred term), but active disbelievers.

The only term that its fairly neutral (although still a bit negative), accurate, and that the media will accept, is “climate contrarian.”

55. Tom Abbott says:

From the article: “All of that makes the use of “denier” an underhanded attempt to get people to believe that climate science is settled”

I think that sums it up nicely, Willis That’s exactly what the word is, and why it is used.

• Nick Graves says:

Agreed.

However since the term remains semantically nonsensical, the claim falls over ab initio.

Colourless green alarmists woke furiously and all that.

56. Steven Mosher says:

“The assumption is that if the downwelling radiation increases, the surface temperature perforce has to rise. Not only that, but the temperature rise varies perfectly linearly with the increase in radiation. If you double the change in radiation, it will supposedly give you double the change in temperature.”

except that is not the theory

1. The sun warms the planet
2. GHGS control the RATE at which the planet cools

Control either and you control the final temp.

BACK radiation is an EFFECT of the increased GHGs
but it is not the CAUSE of more warming

yes I know some people explain it that way, but they are being rather imprecise

• fred250 says:

“GHGS control the RATE at which the planet cools”

Which they don’t.

So your assumption is wrong from the start. !

• Fred Flinstone,

No, Mosher is finally 100% right about something.

CO2 high in the atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates 15-micron radiation. More CO2 increases the height at which the atmosphere becomes transparent to 15-micron radiation, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates freely to space, thus lowering the amount of energy lost to space. The problem is no one can calculate the magnitude of this effect.

• Why, do you think I said something funny?

• John Shotsky says:

First of all, once a photon is absorbed, it is gone. It is never ‘reradiated’. When absorbed, the energy level of the absorbing molecule is raised. It can then radiate a photon OR, it can bump into one of its 2400 nearby non-radiating molecules and transfer energy through the collision. What do you think happens first?
Why do people make the stupid assumption that CO2 ONLY radiates or stays in a high energy state. Impossible.

• John Has Had Too Many Shotskys,

Lower in the atmosphere a molecule of CO2 which absorbs a photon quickly Thermalizes it, as it collides with a neighboring molecule. Higher in the atmosphere it usually re-radiates, as the density is much much lower up high. This is basic physics. Back to school for you….

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Steven Mosher August 10, 2020 at 2:55 am

“The assumption is that if the downwelling radiation increases, the surface temperature perforce has to rise. Not only that, but the temperature rise varies perfectly linearly with the increase in radiation. If you double the change in radiation, it will supposedly give you double the change in temperature.”

except that is not the theory

Steven, I fear that your comment makes no sense. First, you claim that what I said is “not the theory” … not which theory? Not whose theory? What I said is certainly an accurate description of how many, many people think about the climate. It is encapsulated in the fundamental equation at the heart of modern climate science, which incorrectly states that

∆T = lambda ∆F

where T is temperature, F is forcing, and lambda is a constant called the “climate sensitivity”.

The paragraph of mine that you quote above is merely a translation of that mathematical equation into English … so I have absolutely no clue what you are on about.

Now, as you point out, if you wait for half a century the level of GHGs may change … so what? My description still stands for the current situation—increased downwelling radiation is indeed claimed to perforce warm the surface.

Finally, you say:

BACK radiation is an EFFECT of the increased GHGs but it is not the CAUSE of more warming

Umm … here’s a story about that …

“One of Mullah Nasruddin’s students asked, ‘What is fate?’

Nasruddin answered, ‘An endless succession of intertwined events, each influencing the other.’

‘That is hardly a satisfactoryanswer. I believe in cause and effect,’ retorted the student.

‘Very well,’ replied the Mullah, ‘look at that,’ pointing to a procession passing in the street. ‘That man is being taken to be hanged. Is it because somebody gave him a silver piece and enabled him to buy the knife with which he committed the murder; or because somebody sold him the knife; or because somebody saw him do it; or because nobody stopped him?’”

As the Mulla Nasruddin once commented, anyone looking for both cause and effect in the same story is not following the story …

w.

• The atmosphere cannot warm itself, nor can it warm the surface. The Sun warms both. The surface and the atmosphere both radiate to space. CO2 does effect just how much energy leaves the atmosphere due to radiating to space, thus controlling the COOLING.

• John Endicott says:

Steven, I fear that your comment makes no sense.

Willis, you just described 99% of the English major’s drive-by posts. Frankly why anyone takes him seriously anymore at this point is a mystery.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

I take Mosh seriously because he’s wicked smart, well educated, has interesting ideas, and was a major contributor to the Berkeley Earth project … and I hate his “drive-by” commenting style.

Anyone who thinks Mosh is just an “English major” is not following the story.

w.

• John Endicott says:

He may once have been all those things. He’s long since devolved into drive-by nonsense that’s not worthy of being taken seriously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the one who is not following the story.

• Steven Mosher says:

you realize that the some people say Willis is a just a massage therapist?
and steve mcintyre is just a mining executive
and Anthony is just a weatherman?

Not me.

why?

cause I look at their work

Some folks judge other by their credentials.

you know the shit you cant check.

Me, I look at willis’ actual work, Mcintyres actual work, Anthonys actual work.

I dont ask for their resume or report card or ask them where they bought their sheepskin

call me a skeptic of credentials.

• John Endicott says:

Mosh I look at your “work” ie your vapid drive-by posts. As long as you continue with your drive-bys, the only recognition you’ll get or deserve is your “credentials IE English-major. Don’t like it? then shape up.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

And how long does it take for a quanta of energy to go from the surface, to a point high in the atmosphere, get absorbed, reemitted back towards the ground, and then be intercepted yet again and reemitted into an upward direction?
The speed of light is very fast, even at the reduced velocity of photons in air.
The delay is a tiny fraction of a second.

Besides for all of that, saying that GHG control the “final temperature” assumes that all else remains equal…IOW, it assumes that a warmer surface has no other means to become cooler, and so will just stay warmer.
But this is obviously false, for several reasons.
For one thing, a warmer surface will radiate more intensely, and this effect is instantaneous.
And a warmer surface will have more evapotranspiration of moisture, taller and more intense and more frequent thunderstorms, etc.
And on top of all of that…thermalization of photons is a two way street. CO2 can be excited to a higher energy state by molecular collisions and emit a photon. In any parcel of gas molecules, some are moving far faster than the average velocity of the molecules, simply owing to random collisions.

The fact is that at night, air will almost always cool to near the dew point, and there is plenty of excess capacity for cooling at night, if the day wound up getting slightly warmer than it otherwise might have. Heat is not “trapped”.

When Steven said this:

“1. The sun warms the planet
2. GHGS control the RATE at which the planet cools

Control either and you control the final temp.”

…even if one assumes that items #1 and #2 are exactly and always correct, the last sentence does not follow from the first two.
There is no “final temp”, for one thing.
And the statement would only be true if there was no other process taking place (clouds, evaporation, etc), or acceleration of cooling, on a warmer surface, and also would only be true if the cooling capacity of the surface was maxed out.
None of these things can be taken a priori as true.
The ability of the surface and of the atmosphere to radiate energy into space is nothing like maxed out at any given place and any given time…let alone for the planet as a whole.
In the Arctic, the long nights and dry air ensure any energy transported to those latitudes will quickly make it’s way to space. And there are two belts of dry air centered on latitudes 30° north and south with plenty of excess cooling capacity.

Even leaving aside any logical or factual discussion of physics, we have more than enough historical evidence to know for sure that CO2 has not, is not, and never will control the temperature of our planet.
And no reason to think the Earth is anything like “too hot” anyway.
And no reason to think that warmth is detrimental to life.
And absolutely no reason to suppose that the small amount of atmospheric CO2, which is the building block of the entire biosphere, is a dangerous thing to have more of.

• gbaikie says:

–And how long does it take for a quanta of energy to go from the surface, to a point high in the atmosphere, get absorbed, reemitted back towards the ground, and then be intercepted yet again and reemitted into an upward direction?–
Very short period of time.
But radiant energy mostly does not go up and down- it goes in random direction. So, a “for a quanta of energy to go from the surface, to a point high in the atmosphere”. Such quanta of energy is rare. But let’s say it’s 10% of radiant energy [or 10% chance} and then the part “get absorbed, reemitted back towards the ground” again it’s very low chance, it would be radiated towards the ground. And finally, “and then be intercepted yet again and reemitted into an upward direction?” well there about 100% chance it goes in upward direction but low chance of it being in near vertical direction.
“Besides for all of that, saying that GHG control the “final temperature” assumes that all else remains equal…IOW, it assumes that a warmer surface has no other means to become cooler, and so will just stay warmer.”
Yes. spectrum of IR light is transparent to our atmosphere, so can cool radiantly directly into space. If surface warmer than air, one get convection heat transfer. And if surface is water {or ice], it can evaporate- a type convectional heat transfer.
Since our planet is mostly ocean surface, and ocean absorbs most of energy from sunlight… the tropical ocean is Earth’s heat engine, warms the rest of planet, largely by evaporation heat transfer. Another way it’s heat engine, is the tropical waters are transported poleward. Though the warming of land in not just limited to tropical ocean zone {within tropic of Cancer and Capricorn} but in tropics which is 40% of Earth surface area, has more 1/2 sunlight that reaches Earth surfaces. But tropical ocean has high average yearly surface temperature of 26 C or it has “summer time type sunlight” all year round.
Said differently, global land temperature is 10 C, global ocean is 17 C, though if exclude tropical ocean the 60% of rest of ocean averages about 11 C.
And in terms of control, one say it this 60% of rest ocean that can more variable. And 60% of rest of ocean is controlled by average temperature of entire ocean- which currently averages to about 3.5 C.
Or everyone knows we in Ice Age, and reason we are in an Ice Age is because we have a cold ocean. But even colder ocean or warmer ocean, doesn’t control tropics- “just” 60% of the rest of the world.

• Steven Mosher says:

“The paragraph of mine that you quote above is merely a translation of that mathematical equation into English … so I have absolutely no clue what you are on about.

Now, as you point out, if you wait for half a century the level of GHGs may change … so what? My description still stands for the current situation—increased downwelling radiation is indeed claimed to perforce warm the surface.”

No thats a common misunderstanding in POPULARIZED simplified versions.

The presence of any GHGs will cause downwelling radiation. It’s an effect of the property of the
the GHG molecules. And if the atmosphere were isothermal ( no negative lapse rate) more GHGS and more back tradition would not warm the planet

the “warming” of the planet comes from a slow down in the rate of cooling at the top of
the atmopshere.

https://youtu.be/6kGY76DrIoA?t=519

• Steven Mosher says:

Here

learn

this

by

heart

Nothing to do with downwelling IR

For example.

IF you had a POSITIVE lapse rate and added more GHGS you would get more down welling IR
but you would not get a temperature increase.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Steven, I “learned that by heart” two decades ago.

However, I’ve also shown in “The Steel Greenhouse” that the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” can work without an atmosphere at all.

As a result, what Dressler is explaining is not how the greenhouse effect works. Instead, he’s explaining the EFFECT of the greenhouse phenomenon on the atmosphere.

But the basic reality is that whether there is an atmosphere or not, if some of the energy is absorbed on the way out, with the absorbed energy radiated both up and down, the surface has to heat up to maintain the balance, duh. And it works perfectly well with no atmosphere and thus no lapse rate.

Now, since I’ve known this for a couple of decades … why are you telling me this basic shit?

As you said, here, learn this by heart—DON’T CONDESCEND, AND DON’T PRETEND YOU CAN TEACH ME WHAT I’VE KNOWN FOR DECADES. Not a good look on you.

w.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Steven, I said that modern climate science believes that if GHGs increase downwelling IR, that the temperature must increase as expressed in the following equation:

∆T = lambda ∆F (Eqn. 1)

where T is temperature, F is forcing, and lambda is a constant called the “climate sensitivity”.

You say:

No thats a common misunderstanding in POPULARIZED simplified versions.

No, it is the equation discussed at length in one of the more cited climate science papers, Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system by Steven Schwartz, 176 citations.

The equation is also embodied in the concept of “climate sensitivity”, which is taken to be the constant “lambda” in Equation 1 above. If you accept the concept of “climate sensitivity” you are buying into Equation 1 … that’s what “climate sensitivity” means, that temperature change is a linear function of forcing change, and thus if forcing changes temperature perforce must change as well.

w.

• W.,

So since Schwartz says so, and 176 quote him, it must be true?

How can the atmosphere heat itself? There is no heat source, what we engineers call “Availability.”

The entire Trenberth comic strip with the atmosphere shooting hundreds of watts per square meter towards the surface is a botch. All Matter radiates All the Time, in All Directions. If some one would like to contradict me by mentioning that matter at Absolute Zero does not radiate, then show me some matter at Absolute Zero. There is none, not that I know about.

Up high the Atmosphere is cool, down low the Surface and the Atmosphere are warmer, but somehow the cool atmosphere at the TOA can warm the surface? No, the only thing that happens up high is that the C02 up there absorbs 15-micron radiation, preventing it from reaching Space, and containing this Heat, which is Energy no matter what you say about lakes, in the Atmosphere. Then the lapse rate takes over.

Mosh is correct.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Michael Moon August 12, 2020 at 8:05 am

W.,

So since Schwartz says so, and 176 quote him, it must be true?

I never said that, nor anything like that. In fact, I said that the fundamental equation he derives is NOT TRUE.

This is why I ask in every post for people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING!!!

But nooo, Mr. Moon is far too noble to do anything like that. He knows that the polite request is just for mere plebians, it doesn’t apply to a wonderful member of the elite like himself.

Piss off. Not interested. You don’t want to play nice, you can go play with yourself.

w.

57. About 30 years ago, “Holocaust denier” was used to describe historian David Irving who denied the scale of the Nazi Holocaust of Jewish people. As such, Holocaust denier is a synonym for both racist and fascist. The term climate denier was invented by Mark Lynas with the intension of associating climate realism with racism and Fascism. The point is to polorise the climate issue into 2 sides. To force everyone to one side or the other: “climate consensus” and everyone else. The term denier comes from pop psychology, and refers to individuals. Denialism is a fabrication of the Left and refers to groups.

58. Dajake says:

“… despite that, the global temperature only varied by ±0.1% over the 20th century.”
Is that Fahrenheit, Celsius or something else?
Thank you

• donb says:

Global temperature decreased by ~0.2 deg-C over 1880-1910, increased by ~0.4-0.5C over 1910-1940, decreased by ~0.1C over 1940-1970, and increased by ~0.7C over 1970-2000.
It revealed a somewhat cyclic pattern that cannot entirely be explained by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., CO2).

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Dajake August 10, 2020 at 6:38 am Edit

“… despite that, the global temperature only varied by ±0.1% over the 20th century.”

Is that Fahrenheit, Celsius or something else?
Thank you

If you are looking at percentages, or if as in this case you are analyzing a heat engine, you must, have to, have no choice but to use Kelvin. None of the equations work in any other units.

w.

59. Gyan1 says:

The denier label is a psychological warfare technique to get people to dismiss anything someone so labeled has to say without consideration. It is an attempt to shame people into cognitive dissonance so they won’t look at the empirical evidence supporting the skeptic’s positions. It’s being used successfully to dismiss scientific truth.

60. Murphy Slaw says:

I think the alarmist side is in a frenzy because there is a good chance of big money on the way. The drought could end on November 3.

61. mkelly says:

From Encyclopedia Britannica:
“In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”

The above is from an article about the Younger Dryas. GHGs can’t control anything!

62. The atmosphere cannot warm itself, nor can it warm the surface. The Sun warms both. The surface and the atmosphere both radiate to space. CO2 does effect just how much energy leaves the atmosphere due to radiating to space, thus controlling the COOLING.

63. Schrodinger's Cat says:

The more one learns about climate science, the more one realises that the checks and balances, interactions and feedbacks are highly complex at one level yet obvious and simple at another. This is partly why technical discussions on WUWT rarely come to a conclusion agreed by all, or even a clear majority. There are always uncertainties, unknowns, experiments that cannot be performed and evidence that cannot be demonstrated.

This is what makes these discussions fascinating and frustrating. It is often a challenge just to articulate adequately a technical proposal in a manner that others can grasp. This is where, you, Willis, have an advantage, you are good at communicating complex concepts.

The reality is that our climate is very complex and poorly understood. We know enough about bits of it to be
reasonably sure that some ideas are correct and others are wrong. As we learn more, we update and modify these views, but we admit that we just don’t know as much as we would like. I think I have just described how many alleged climate deniers who frequent this site behave.

The Real climate scientists, in contrast, know exactly how everything works. The science is settled. They model it in great detail. They claim that the models work very well. They have all the answers and ignore all the questions that they consider unimportant. Many of them resort to unscientific actions, such a data manipulation, cherry picking and misleading claims, usually aimed at manipulating the public while brazenly ignoring more informed critics. This causes the rest of us to wonder why objective scientists paid for by the public are trying to mislead us.

So, who do you believe? If you are a left wing activist, longing to save the planet, redistribute wealth and bring mankind under control, climate change is the ultimate gift. If you are one of the other lot, you really need to get your act together because you are losing the PR battle.

64. c1ue says:

Cheers, Willis, for another great writeup.
The one saving grace of the present situation is that the transparently self-serving interests behind cancel culture. CAGW and “expert” coronavirus pandemic handling are all getting reality handed to them in “undeniable” ways.

65. WR2 says:

“Over the last century, the average temperature of the planet-sized heat engine that we call the “climate” varied up and down from its century-long average by about one-tenth of one percent … and as a man who has been involved with a number of heat engines, I can say that that is shockingly stable”
————–
Temperatures are on an arbitrary scale. one tenth of one percent of an arbitrarily scaled number makes no sense.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Sorry, WR, but that’s simply not true. All of the calculations for heat engines have to be done in Kelvin, because the OTHER temperature scales are arbitrary. Kelvin is not arbitrary (other than the size of the units which is immaterial), because it starts at absolute zero.

Best regards,

w.

• WR2 says:

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Units in Kelvin are on an arbitrary scale too, nothing to do with it having absolute zero set at 0K. If instead the Kelvin scale was defined such at absolute zero is 0K but the triple point of water was 10,000K(instead of 273K), then your percentage change calculation would be much lower, yet physically it would be the same situation.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

WR2, I encourage you to do the actual calculation using a variety of lengths for one kelvin. The percentage change is totally independent of the units. It depends solely on the zero point.

Example. Say in Kelvin the temperature goes from 100K to 110K. Obviously, a ten percent increase.

Now let’s measure it in NuKelvin, where one NuKelvin = 10 Kelvin.

In NuKelvin (NK), the same temperature measurement now goes from 10NK to 11NK … obviously, a ten percent increase in either Kelvin or NuKelvin.

Best regards,

w.

• WR2 says:

You’re right, my bad, the scale wouldn’t matter, but % variation of temperature relative to absolute zero is still a very odd way of talking about temperature. Small percentages are meaningless, it’s the variation in degrees, not % that matters.

• John Endicott says:

Which degrees? Celsius? Fahrenheit? As you pointed out, those things are arbitrary. A 10 degree change in Celsius doesn’t mean the same as a 10 degree change in Fahrenheit.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

WR2 August 11, 2020 at 8:39 am

You’re right, my bad, the scale wouldn’t matter, but % variation of temperature relative to absolute zero is still a very odd way of talking about temperature.

It only seems odd because you haven’t dealt with the world of thermodynamics before. In thermo, like say when you are analyzing the performance of a heat engine (which might or might not be the climate), Kelvin is the only game in town.

Small percentages are meaningless, it’s the variation in degrees, not % that matters.

Sorry, my friend, but I fear you are out of your depth here …

w.

66. John A says:

Willis, your citing of your own article “The Steel Greenhouse” onlu confirms the notion that you don’t know what you’re talking about and in true Trumpian fashion, has “doubled down” on being objectively wrong on radiative thermodynamics and laws of physics you clearly don’t understand.

I called it at the time as garbage and it remains garbage and I guarantee you will get no bona fide physicist to think or say otherwise. Other commenters called it nonsense but you ignored them as well.

i can only conclude that you just simply don’t care whether you’re wrong or not, because you’ve got carte blanche to be the anti-expert of anti-experts and have a ready made audience of people who don’t care what reality actually behaves like just so long as Donald Trump remains President.

You’re flat-out wrong about COVID-19, completely wrong about hydroxychoroquine and have made mistaken prediction after mistaken prediction with no checks or balances, including a humdinger where you claimed that the pandemic in the US was over by May and the lockdown was useless and then states opened back up and lots of people got infected and died because the President, like you, hates expertise in all of its forms and doesn’t sweat the learning required because that’s too much hard work. Oh and masks make you look bad.

Echochambers are wonderful things. You’ve got your megaphone and no-one is going to stop you.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

John, that was astounding. You went through all of that whole long list of places where you claim I was wrong, wrong, wrong without once:

• QUOTING MY EXACT WORDS as requested, or

• Pointing out one single scientific fact that you say I got wrong, or

• Providing the slightest scrap of evidence to support your spittle-flecked rant.

You lose.

w.

PS—Oh, and it seems that the President is living rent-free in your head … you even bring him repeatedly into scientific discussions which have zero to do with the President. In your place I’d evict him …

• John A says:

Please Willis, every second article is about Trump’s beliefs and your unwavering fascination with him. Why else would there even be a discussion about the merits of hydroxychloroquine unless President “Anti-Expert” had been promoting it?

I pointed out at the time that in “Steel Greenhouse” blog post you had got everything wrong about radiative physics and others agreed. Did you check your scientific claims? Erm, no.

You also claimed that the pandemic was over in the US and the lockdown a failure. And then it accelerated as States opened up too soon and lots more people got infected and died. Mea culpa? Nope.

The only reason that you bring up these anti-scientific discussions at all, is because you live in a delusion that Donald J. Trump knows what he’s talking about on any subject, when it’s plain to everyone else that he doesn’t. The only reason you attack Dr Anthony Fauci, who has forgotten more epidemiology than you or I will ever know, is because you use Trump as a scientific authority on anything.

Just today we have this gem from President Dumbass: “In 1917…the great pandemic certainly was a terrible thing where they lost anywhere from 50 to 150 million people. Probably ended the second world war. All the soldiers were sick.”

Just remember that its Joe Biden who is supposedly the one with dementia.

• c1ue says:

Sorry, but you are totally confused and have latched on to Willis for your latest bout of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Among the laughably lame repetitions of CAGW orthodoxy:
a) You assume Willis is denying that warming is occurring.
In reality, CAGW is a chain of beliefs of which only the first 1 or 2 are legitimate – which Willis notes above. 1) More fossil fuels = more CO2 2) more CO2 = more heat retention 3) more CO2 heat retention = higher temperatures via positive feedback 4) higher temperatures are bad – more people die, disease, crop failure, land flooding, more storms etc etc
3) and 4) (and onwards) are totally unproven and don’t even have empirical evidence.
b) You assume Willis is a Trump fan. He may or may not be, but he has never injected politics into his posts – unlike your rant (which Willis correctly described as spit-filled).
c) You almost certainly haven’t read this far, but if you do – Willis was talking about HCG long before Trump was. And as a potential preventative measure – not a magic bullet.
Anyway, welcome to WuWT; no doubt you will want to return to your cancel culture, limousine liberal internet ghetto now.

• beng135 says:

John A — the new troll in town? TDS much?

• John Endicott says:

As Willis often requests: quote him. Please show us one quote from Willis where he shows an “unwavering fascination with him”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Willis talk about Trump pro or con. His posts are mostly apolitical, contrary to what your TDS-addled brain thinks.

• MarkW says:

I can’t remember, even one time where Willis has even mentioned Trump.

As to whether or not Willis has positions that happen to be the same as Trump’s, I haven’t investigated.

Regardless, agreeing with someone is not evidence of “unwavering fascination”.

I would say that the person who has an “unwavering fascination” towards Trump would be JohnA.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

John A,
Any of us can point out that the only reason to believe the malarkey spewed by warmistas, green energy advocates, or any stripe of doomsday climate catastrophists, is because they are slavishly devoted to the Democratic party, or whatever the left wing party might happen to be in another country.
We can all say that we have been down this road so many times there is no need to rehash it, the case is proven beyond all doubt long before now.

But no such pronouncement carries much weight in a discussion, because it is another way of saying, in the case of the former, that the only reason for anyone to think anything in particular, is because of political considerations, and in the case of the latter, that the discussion is closed and settled long since.

It is peculiar that warmistas can simultaneously declare a subject closed and settled, and also demand perpetual funding for a never ending plethora of redundant “studies”.
Peculiar as well, that they can recall everything anyone has ever said when convenient for their argument du jour, but at other times demand that every argument and every assertion ever made, be backed up with links and documentation, even if it is the ten thousandth time the same subject has been discussed.

There are occasion discussions on the subject of politics here, and there will be more of them than usual as we get closer to the election.
I look forward to your participation in those discussions when everyone is focused on politics and personalities. But right here and right now, yours is yet another transparent effort to deflect, obfuscate, change the subject, and otherwise engage in the same tired playbook as we have all grown very weary of.

67. Back in 1956 Gilbert N. Plass discovered that atmospheric CO2’s 15 micron radiation absorption wavelength exists in a hole in the H20 absorption wavelength, causing him to go off on a tangent and conclude that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, coining the term “climate change”.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

The term “global warming” was coined in 1975 by Wally Broecker.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

After the global environmental leftists at the U.N. took over the field, they founded the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE in 1988 in league with their fifth column in the U.S. headed by Al Gore. Realizing by then that “trapping” IR in the sky doesn’t do anything for the temperature back at the surface, they began pushing the CO2 back radiation hoax, that CO2 doesn’t trap IR but reemits it back to the surface where it heats things up.

This is where the greatest hoax in modern science got started. It’s still going strong despite being totally based on fake physics because 15 microns has a Planck temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, which isn’t even heat. Hence CO2 can’t absorb or emit heat. Only the Sun heats the Earth’s surface. All the real heat caused by solar radiation (-50C to +50C) is cooled by natural processes of convection-evaporation and radiation. The U.N. IPCC picked the wrong getaway driver. This hoax’s days are numbered, despite their machine’s colossal political momentum wielding it as their ultimate leftist tool to end capitalism.

An associated hoax is the claim that without atmospheric CO2 supplying 33C of temperature the Sun alone couldn’t keep the Earth from freezing. This can’t be true since CO2 can’t melt an ice cube, and indeed the real reason there is a 33C increase in surface temperature over an atmosphere-less Moon was derived long ago by Maxwell and Feynman, not by using radiation physics, but by using statistical mechanics, and is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and not dependent on “trapped IR radiation” in atmospheric CO2. Each day the excess surface heat is either radiated or convects toward space, in the latter case pulling cooler air down to take its place until it dissipates by converting to work to expand against decreasing pressure. The permanent lapse rate just moves extra solar heat along a conveyor belt to space.

https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/physicist-richard-feynman-proved.html

The CO2 climate issue is really that simple. Weather is what’s so complex nobody can predict it.

• MarkW says:

Unless it’s absolute zero, everything has heat.
Just because something is cold by our standards, doesn’t change that.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Again, I fear your lack of familiarity with the subject is betraying you.

All heat is energy.

All energy is NOT heat.

Here’s a passable definition:

Heat is the form of energy that is spontaneously transferred between two substances at different temperatures. The direction of energy flow is invariably from the substance of higher temperature to the substance of lower temperature. Heat is measured in units of energy, usually calories or joules.

So: unless it is at absolute zero, everything contains THERMAL ENERGY, but not heat. Heat is a spontaneous flow of energy from hot to cold.

Best regards,

w.

• Trick says:

”So: unless it is at absolute zero, everything contains THERMAL ENERGY, but not heat. Heat is a spontaneous flow of energy from hot to cold.”

Willis, if everything contains thermal energy, but not heat, then I ask how can heat be a spontaneous flow of energy from hot to cold FROM everything since everything contains thermal energy, but not heat?

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Trick, perhaps an analogy will help. Let’s replace “energy” with “water”.

Now, consider a lake. A lake contains water. Is it a stream? No. Does it contain streams?

No. Just as with heat, which is a spontaneous flow of energy from hot to cold, a stream is a spontaneous flow of water from high to low.

Just as a stream is a FORM of water, heat is a FORM of energy. It’s energy which is spontaneously flowing from hot to cold.

And just as a lake contains water but does not contain streams, a physical body contains energy but does not contain heat.

I hope that clarifies it.

w.

• Trick says:

Willis’ lake contains water. Willis’ stream contains water. Lake and stream share a boundary. Water can flow between them without water suddenly being called a different name only for an instant at lake/stream boundary. This is the case in thermodynamics also.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Trick August 11, 2020 at 5:10 pm

Willis’ lake contains water. Willis’ stream contains water. Lake and stream share a boundary. Water can flow between them without water suddenly being called a different name only for an instant at lake/stream boundary. This is the case in thermodynamics also.

You just got your last explanation from me. Your name is very appropriate. I was tricked. I foolishly thought you wanted to learn something.

Pass.

w.

• Trick says:

Seriously. Willis, I always do want to learn something but where any def. of heat is different than Clausius’ undeniable truth gold standard, there is no increase in amount learned on the topic of heat. I thought you would better answer my question and learn something about the nature of heat in commenting to help MarkW and TL Winslow advance learning on the topic. Appears so far my thought was misplaced.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

I ask how can heat be a spontaneous flow of energy from hot to cold FROM everything since everything contains thermal energy, but not heat?

The fact that you ask this clearly demonstrates that you don’t have a clue about what heat is. So I tried to explain it to you. In response, you said:

Trick August 11, 2020 at 5:10 pm

Willis’ lake contains water. Willis’ stream contains water. Lake and stream share a boundary.

So far, so good.

Water can flow between them without water suddenly being called a different name only for an instant at lake/stream boundary.

I have no clue what this means. Streams are a FORM of water. Heat is a FORM of energy, just like potential energy and kinetic energy are different FORMS of energy.

You asked, is there heat in the block? NO. There is thermal energy in the block. If that energy radiates out into the universe it’s called radiant energy.

And if a cooler block is put next to the first block, there will be a SPONTANEOUS flow of energy from warm to cold. We call this particular FORM of flowing energy “heat”.

Trick August 11, 2020 at 7:20 pm

Seriously. Willis, I always do want to learn something but where any def. of heat is different than Clausius’ undeniable truth gold standard, there is no increase in amount learned on the topic of heat.

You have clearly demonstrated that you really, truly don’t understand what heat is … and now you want to lecture us on some “gold standard”???

I love it when someone refers to some mythical “gold standard” but doesn’t have the common decency to LINK TO WHATEVER IT IS THEY ARE BABBLING ABOUT.

If you want to learn something as you claim, then why are you lecturing us and telling us you already know THE TRUTH about heat? Break out your “gold standard” and we’ll talk about it.

w.

• Trick says:

”Streams are a FORM of water.”

Liquid water in a gravity field takes on any form Willis, a river, a lake, a beer bottle. This is irrelevant.

”but doesn’t have the common decency to LINK TO WHATEVER IT IS THEY ARE BABBLING ABOUT.”

To talk about it, I see Willis throws down the caps lock and I notice did not have the common decency to link to his 11:17am heat def. either. Clausius ought to be familiar name to research for anyone commenting on the topic of heat such as Willis. So, I entered into google search string: Clausius definition heat

The first hit has a link to Clausius searchable book, which I searched, string: heat is

On page 18, I found Clausius writing for the motion of the particles in a body: “heat is a measure of their vis viva”. I quickly found vis viva means kinetic energy, in this case a measure of the body’s constituent particles total kinetic energy, a basic category of energy, the other basic category being potential energy. That research took less than 2 minutes, but I knew what I was doing. Took me longer to write.

For your cooler solid block put next to your first solid block “there will be a SPONTANEOUS flow of energy from warm to cold” is more physically accurate written: there will be a SPONTANEOUS gross exchange of energy, net from warm to cold as solid block constituents remain in place exchanging gross KE both ways until steady state. That “both ways” for gross KE is the key concept to grasp out of this discussion.

Neither block contains heat (per your 11:17am), both contain thermal energy, so my question becomes why do “We call this particular FORM of flowing energy “heat”.”? What increased physical understanding clarity does that add? Once you accept & grasp Clausius’ heat def. is more clear physically than your unattributed def. at 11:17am you can think/comment way more clearly and accurately about atm. thermodynamics. Or not, commenters have free choices.

All this expansion boils down (ex Clausius def.) to my 5:10pm earlier comment where water is used for energy as did Willis.

• I see that the Trick troll has returned with his thermodynamics confusion of heat. His fools gold standard is nonsense.

1) Trick correctly (or used to) understand that energy can neither be created or destroyed–but it can be changed into other forms.

2) Trick seems to understand that heat is a boundary phenomenon. That is, heat only appears at the boundary of a system–a system doesn’t contain heat. That means that heat added to system can do two things–either increase the internal energy of the system or leave the system by some other energy route, such as work or chemical potential, or both.

3) Because a system doesn’t contain heat (according to Trick), there is no way to extract heat from a system. (Notice Trick forgot about item 1).

If we heat a steel bar in a blacksmith’s fire until it is red hot and place it on an anvil, Trick believes the following:

1) because the bar contains no heat, you can pick it up and not get burned;
2) because the bar contains no heat, it doesn’t glow red.
3) because the bar contains no heat, there is no convective air flows around the bar.
4) and because the bar contains no heat, it is impossible for the bar to cool down.

You should stop feeding the Trick troll. His knowledge of thermodynamics is mostly nonsense and very Zoe Phin-like.

Jim

• Willis Eschenbach says:

I give up, Trick. I’ll just leave you with some definitions, each from a separate and distinct website.

Scientists define heat as thermal energy transferred between two systems at different temperatures that come in contact.

Heat may be defined as energy in transit.

Heat is energy transferred between substances or systems due to a temperature difference between them.

When energy is exchanged between thermodynamic systems by thermal interaction, the transfer of energy is called heat.

Heat is energy transferred between substances or systems due to a temperature difference between them. As a form of energy, heat is conserved that means it cannot be created or destroyed. It can however, be transferred from one place to another. Heat can also be converted to and from other forms of energy.

[Heat is] the transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase.

In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.

The term “heat” has a special meaning in thermodynamics: it is a process in which a body (the contents of a tea kettle, for example) acquires or loses energy as a direct consequence of its having a different temperature than its surroundings. Hence, thermal energy can only flow from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. It is this flow that constitutes “heat”.

Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object.

Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred between two systems by virtue of a temperature difference.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Heat is a particular form of energy, distinct from thermal energy, kinetic energy, or potential energy. It is the form of energy that flows spontaneously between two systems. Period.

Don’t bother responding, I’m not interested in your bizarre fantasies about how the world works …

w.

• Trick says:

”Are you starting to see a pattern here?”

No. I notice that every one of those definitions of heat is different. Every. One. When a commenter uses the term “heat” which def. on your list, exactly, am I supposed to go to? How do I know that is the one the author meant if I don’t ask the comment author?

That ought to raise your suspicions & look for a better defn. source from a grandmaster. Anyone can call MY source Clausius def. of the heat term bizarre fantasy if they must, however that def. is the one I will use when someone invokes the term “heat”. It’s a good way to test if any author knows/understands thermodynamics well enough to use the term consistent with Clausius defn.

• Trick says:

Jim correctly writes: ”a system doesn’t contain heat.” which agrees with Willis (“everything contains energy, but not heat”) then Jim continues: “heat added to system can do two things” – I ask Jim where was the heat added from if “a system doesn’t contain heat”?

Jim then erroneously writes what Trick believes, I’ll use Willis’ written words for the other items to correct Jim, here energy is meant thermodynamic internal energy:

If we increase the temperature of a steel bar in a blacksmith’s fire until it is red hot and place it on an anvil, Willis 11:17am actual writing correctly implies the following:
1) because the bar contains enough energy but no heat, you can pick it up and get burned;
2) because the bar contains enough energy but no heat, it glows red.
3) because the bar contains enough energy but no heat, there is convective air flow around the bar.
4) and because the bar contains energy but no heat, it is possible for the bar to cool down to the room temperature surroundings after removal from the fire.

• Ed Bo says:

I like this explanation from Oxford professor Peter Atkins book “Four Laws That Drive the Universe”. The whole (short) book is highly recommended, especially for those who have not formally studied thermodynamics.

“In everyday language, heat is both a noun and a verb. Heat flows; we heat. In thermodynamics heat is not an entity or even a form of energy: heat is a mode of transfer of energy. It is not a form of energy, or a fluid of some kind, or anything of any kind. Heat is the transfer of energy by virtue of a temperature difference. Heat is the name of a process, not the name of an entity.”

“Everyday discourse would be stultified if we were to insist on the precise use of the word heat, for it is enormously convenient to speak of heat flowing from here to there, and to speak of heating an object. The first of these everyday usages was motivated by the view that heat is an actual fluid that flows between objects at different temperatuares, and this powerful imagery is embedded indelibly in our language. Indeed, there are many aspects of the migration of energy down temperature gradients that are fruitfully treated mathematically by regarding heat as the flow of a massless (“imponderable”) fluid. But that is essentially a coincidence,it is not an indicator that heat is actually a fluid any more than the spread of coonsumer choice in a population, which can also be treated by similar equations, is a tangible fluid.”

• Trick says:

Very good find Ed Bo, Atkins is the closest to Clausius’ heat defn. I’ve seen in a while. Still, he is a bit conflicted in writing heat is not an entity then writing this heat nonentity can transfer. Thermal energy transfers by virtue of a temperature difference is an improvement even on Atkins but still not quite up to the gold standard.

The measure of total thermodynamic internal (thermal) constituent KE reduces in a body, stays the same, or increases in a thermodynamic process. No entity transfers.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Some guy named Joule wrote about a few different kinds of “heat”.
He defined the terms “latent heat” and “sensible heat”:

“In an 1847 lecture titled “On Matter, Living Force, and Heat”, James Prescott Joule characterised various terms that are closely related to thermal energy and heat. He identified the terms latent heat and sensible heat as forms of heat each affecting distinct physical phenomena, namely the potential and kinetic energy of particles, respectively. He described latent energy as the energy of interaction in a given configuration of particles, i.e. a form of potential energy, and the sensible heat as an energy affecting temperature measured by the thermometer due to the thermal energy, which he called the living force.”

https://archive.org/details/scientificpapers01joul/page/n1/mode/2up

68. Mike says:

• “on a cold night, the temperature inside remains slightly higher.”

Higher compared to what else? A different glasshouse nearby?

• Mike says:

Compared to not putting on the cloth.

• Mike says:

”Higher compared to what else? A different glasshouse nearby?”

I forgot to mention it has internal heating. Without that the temp would be the same as outside, shade cloth or not.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

You would get an even larger effect if instead of shadecloth, you stretched a sheet of clear (or black) poly several inches above the glass.
In effect you are creating double paned glass.
On cold nights, the wind is typically light or absent, and so even 50% shade cloth traps a layer of air in between the two surfaces, albeit less effectively than would be the case without the holes in the shade cloth (like if you used the stuff we call ‘ground cover”, which is more or less 100% shade cloth).
I am no longer in the business, but back in the 1980s and 1990s, I built and operated a large commercial plant nursery in West Central Florida.
I was also studying at the time at a nearby university.
I spent thousands of nights outside…many of them all-nighters.
During this time, I had dozens of thermometers in all sorts of locations, and could also note the survival of various tropical plants under a huge variety of conditions…outside in the open on grassy ground, under large oak trees, sitting on a concrete pad but otherwise unprotected, inside shadehouses, glass houses, shadehouses with a layer of poly in place to make it a greenhouse of sorts, radiational cooling events, cold weather with high wind, all day freezes lasting 72 hours of more, once or twice with cold rain accompanying…
I mostly used geothermal heating, but some crops and some situations demanded gas heaters.

And I can recall very vividly many nights when it was very cold, with clear sky and no wind, and the temp was dropping fast to the dew point, or even slightly below, and even some times when the temp had bottomed out.
And on a bunch of occasions, a streak of jet stream cirrus moved in from the SW, many miles up, just a thin layer of ice crystal clouds that were for sure far colder than the surface of the Earth ever gets in Florida.
And when this happened, something very interesting always occurred: The temperature would go up, suddenly, in a matter of minutes, as much as 5-8 degrees F.
There were times when this wispy streak of clouds saved entire strawberry and citrus crops from frosts of freezes, over several entire counties.

Anyone can wait for this to happen and go observe and measure the effect for themselves.
I can tell you, all of this occurred long before these discussions about this subject in the context of global warming theory was a thing.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

“I forgot to mention it has internal heating. Without that the temp would be the same as outside, shade cloth or not.”
Not exactly.
On a cold night, the small amount of heat from the ground inside the shade house or greenhouse will keep the temp warmer than it is outside, if only by a small amount.
If the building is on a concrete pad, it will be substantially warmer inside than outside.
The enclosure blocks advection/convection, and so keeps the enclosed space from cooling as much as it does outside.
I know this because much of our growing areas were inside of shadehouses that we covered in polyethylene sheeting from October to April, and we grew some plants that did not need to be protected from all cold, just the worst of it…stuff like gardenias, ficus benjamina (we grew tens of thousands of braided ficus trees) and other stuff that is not particularly cold sensitive, and so it was usually unheated. Even just shadecloth with no poly is enough to prevent frost from being able to form. Under a live oak, the temp on any cold night with no wind is many degrees above the temp a few feet outside the canopy of the tree. Frost will not form under the canopy of a leafy tree.
The range of microclimates that occur in even a few acres is amazing. Any building, and small concrete pad, any tree…all alter the amount of cooling that occurs due to radiation, enough to keep certain plants alive, when those same plants a few feet away are dead by morning.

OT, but…
And then there is the effect of spraying water on plants during a freeze. As long as the water stays on until the morning when the ice is melted, plants that would be dead at 32° with dry air, have no damage. Strawberry farmers and (not as much any more, but historically) citrus farmers use this to great effect every winter in Florida…even more so during the decades when freezes are much more common…which last occurred in Florida from the mid 1970s to the early 1990s.
Florida has had a pattern of several decades of relatively benign growing conditions and little in the way of killing frosts or freezes, interspersed with decades in which farmers were wiped out across most and sometimes all of the peninsula…going all the way back to at least the civil war period.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Strawberry fields being protected from cold by water:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PL8jtwvl8ZM/maxresdefault.jpg

And also by simply laying a layer of spun polyethylene on top of them…which captures the heat from the ground for long enough to prevent freeze and frost damage:

Note this method only works when the conditions are marginal.
If it gets cold enough, it will not work.
Using water protects down to very low temps, but can fail if wind is present, or the water is interrupted for any reason, such as power failure, frozen valves or pipes, mechanical failure, etc.

• MarkW says:

It’s most likely that any loss in heat from your greenhouse is due to reduced air motion next to the greenhouse.

• Nicholas McGinley says:

Mark,
A much more succinct and concise way to say what I took far longer to state!

• Mike says:

I run a small nursery in Sothern Australia.

• Steven Mosher says:

it has nothing to do with GHE

• Nicholas McGinley says:

I was going to mention the R.W. Woods experiments, but decided to stick to my personal experience.
Everyone should apprise themselves of this and other such experimental data…it would save a lot of time in certain conversations.

69. SAMURAI says:

Leftists around the world are implementIng Post-Modernism theology where the precepts of Western Civilization (empiricism, scientific method, reason, logic, moral and ethical absolutes, inalienable natural individual rights, individualism, nuclear family, free enterprise, etc.) are being destroyed and replaced with their polar opposites (feelings, anti-science, illogic, irrationality, moral and ethical relativism, single-parent household, tribalism, “My Truth”, revisionist history, cancel culture, “Fake News”, Marxism/Socialism, Nihilism, etc.).

We’re quickly losing our humanity as tyrannical Leftist governments steal our individual rights of free speech, free thought, free enterprise, and brainwash their citizens to unquestionably believe whatever The State wants them to believe, regardless of how irrational, illogical, unscientific, immoral, unethical, unfounded and inhumane those beliefs may be.. Individuals are no longer allowed to question the government propaganda and must simply obey.. Oh, goody.. that’s worked so well in the past.

The only solution to this existential Leftist threat is for a second Renaissance to occur where Leftism is forever renounced and replaced with Western Civilization precepts and government power is severely restricted to perform just a few simple tasks and all education is run by the private sector.

70. Quintus says:

Leaving aside the use of the term “denier”, which Willis has comprehensively exposed as a version of an ad hominem attack, the terms “climate denier” and “climate change denier” are also internally incoherent. How does one deny the reality of climate! How does one deny the reality of climate change! Contrary to what the terms’ users believe themselves to be saying, climate or climate change denial is, in reality, achieved only by themselves.

They insist that the world’s climate, if it were left to its own devices, would have stabilized in the mid 19th century and remained in that Goldilocks state for all eternity. They deny the fact that our atmosphere and climate are in a constant state of change—as they have been for about 4.5 billion years—and explain such minor change as Willis refers to as the result of human meddling. To bring global temperature and climate back into line with the preferred, anthropogenic Goldilocks state, these people propose a further phase of meddling and suggest that atmospheric CO2 should be drained from the atmosphere. The consequences, including the extinction of all life that depends on atmospheric CO2, are, of course, denied; Goldilocks’s porridge must be just right, in her opinion.