June 1st, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2022 was +0.17 deg. C, down from the April, 2022 value of +0.26 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.19
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
No sign of an emergency. Shurely shome mistake!
Not necessarily, solar activity went up a bit in May too, but still on track with one of the century ago
Yes, we have an increase in activity in May, but we are already seeing another decrease.
The solar wind ripples a lot.
Jupiter is moving away from Saturn, which will not increase solar activity.
https://www.theplanetstoday.com/
neat, but why did Saturn start radiating a few hours ago?
Cooling since Feb2016 or Feb 2020 – take your pick – even as atmospheric CO2 increases. The Global Warming (CAGW) narrative is proved false – again!. Told you so 20 years ago.
See electroverse.net for extreme-cold events and crop failures all over our blue planet.
Food shortages, fuel and food inflation, imminent famine, caused primarily by cold and wet weather and green energy nonsense.
The world has suffered from woke, imbecilic politicians. We need a few leaders with real science skills and real integrity, not the current crop of gullible green traitors and fools.
So basically the global average temperature anomaly was so small no human could detect it.
And so meaningless no one could detect it.
Of course people can detect it, thats why your house thermostat is settable to 1/100 ths of a degree! Duh.
Any chance to update the two temperature graphs off to the right? I’m really trying to see the USCRN graph, which is tough to find online. Anyone have a link to it?
Click on it, or go to https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/
Weird! Clicking the link leads to the UAH graph for March, but then clicking on the graph leads to a graph only page for February’s plot – from 2021!
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/
Global cooling trend intact now for six years and three months, after peak of 2016 Super El Niño, which ended the Pause after 1998 SEN.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
**********
4.33 decades x .13 deg. Celsius/decade = 0.56 deg. C.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the upside (warming side) of the Younger Dryas saw warming per decade that was much faster than this. So the alarmists will please excuse me if I don’t exactly go into panic mode here.
Disinformation bot says that’s disinformation.
Bots are one of the things Elon Musk is concerned about in his attempt to buy Twitter. His effort to purchase Twitter is on hold now because of the belief that there are considerably more bots on Twitter than its management is willing to admit to.
Using the Monckton method…
The pause period (<= 0 C/decade) is now at 92 months (7 years, 8 months).
The 2x warming period (>= 0.26 C/decade) is now at 184 months (15 years, 4 months).
The peak warming period (0.34 C/decade) is now at 137 months (11 years, 5 months).
And here is the latest global average temperature analysis comparing UAH with several widely available datasets
The unjustifiedly adjusted, poorly-cited, interpolated (ie, made up) surface station “data” sets are cooked book packs of lies.
UAH is adjusted and interpolated too; arguably more so than the other datasets.
Totally justifiably, to fix specific, known issues, not systematically to cool the past and heat the present. HadCRU’s Jones admitted heasting the land to keep pace with phony ocean warming. GISS’ UHI adjustments make the “data” warmer, not cooler. UAH doesn’t need to infill swaths 1200 km across with pretend “data”.
UAH infills up to 15 cells away. That is 15 * 2.5 * 111.3 km = 4174 km at the equator. They also infill temporally up to 2 days away. That’s something not even surface station datasets do. They also perform many of the same types of adjustments as the surface station datasets. They have a diurnal heating cycle adjustment which is similar in concept to the time-of-observation adjustment. They have to merge timeseries from different satellites similar in concept to homogenization. And the details of how they do these are arguably more invasive than anything the surface station datasets are doing. [Spencer & Christy 1992]
Why is it justified when UAH does it, but not justified when the others do it?
Surface temperature adjustments are applied to long past temperatures, sometimes many adjustments to the same data, and the trend in the adjustments is a large part of the supposed global trend. Any system is going to have to use some adjustments sometimes, but the bias in the surface temperature adjustments defies sanity.
There are so many problems with the ground based sensor network that only someone with absolutely no intention of honesty or integrity would ever use it.
The surface station project showed that over 80% of the sensors used in the US network were so poorly maintained that the data from them was worthless. No amount of mathematical gymnastics could rescue a signal from them.
In addition to local problems, most of the sensors were located in areas that had developed and built up resulting in UHI contamination.
There is the issue of undocumented changes in stations, both changes in instrumentation and location. Even when changes were documented, there was no period where the sensors operated side by side for a period of time, they were just swapped out.
Up until the 70’s, the sensors were analog sensors that were read by the human eyeball. These measurements, even when done properly, were only good to 1 degree.
Finally, the biggest problem with the ground based sensor network, is that it just way, way, way to sparse. Even today,only The US, southern Canada and Europe come anywhere close to be adequately monitored, that’s less than 5% of the Earth’s surface. Oceans are close enough to unmonitored, that the difference is minor.
The very idea that this network can be used to calculate the Earth’s temperature to within 0.01C is laughable. The notion that the we could use this network to do the same over 150 years ago is so ludicrous that only someone with no connection to reality could make such a claim.
MarkW said: “There are so many problems with the ground based sensor network that only someone with absolutely no intention of honesty or integrity would ever use it.”
And yet Anthony Watts himself said of the Berkeley Earth dataset that he was prepared to accept whatever result they produce even if it proves his premise wrong. For those that don’t know Berkeley Earth maintains a ground based observation dataset.
Anthony said that before BEST actually showed their work. His opinion now is quite a bit different.
Why am I not surprised that you chose the old quote and not the new one?
Could it be because you have no intention of telling the truth?
MarkW said: “Anthony said that before BEST actually showed their work. His opinion now is quite a bit different.”
That is interesting isn’t it. He was okay with the BEST method until he saw the result. It is doubly ironic in this discussion since BEST uses the scalpel method as a direct response to criticisms of adjustments.
MarkW said: “Why am I not surprised that you chose the old quote and not the new one?”
Pick that quote because to show that Anthony Watts has no problem using a ground based sensor network. Do you think that means he has no honesty or integrity?
BTW…he is also rebooting his surface station project as we speak. Do you think that too means he has no honesty or integrity?
It is the same for UAH. They have to adjust the entire satellite timeseries to get them aligned. Anyway, what is the bias in the surface temperature adjustments?
bdgwx –
We’ve been down this road several times before.
The biases in the satellite record can be measured and corrections applied as needed, sometimes to the entire record.
The biases in thousands of temperature sensors is impossible to quantify and yet corrections are applied willy-nilly to data several decades old without regard to what the accuracy of the readings were then compared to today.
The UAH data certainly has uncertainty, both in the actual measurements of radiance as well as in the calculation algorithms used to convert from radiance to temperature. Those uncertainties *should* be acknowledged, listed, and propagated through to the final results.
The surface data has the same issue.
Yet the purveyors of each stubbornly cling to the dogma that all error is random, symmetrical, and cancels out of the final results.
Stop trying to conflate measurable bias with unmeasurable bias. UAH adjustments result from measurable bias such as orbital decay, etc. This is not possible with the surface record. UAH is, therefore, the better metric to use. That said, I don’t think any of the data sets that are based on averages of averages of averages which are then used to calculate anomalies are worth the paper used to publish them.
Really? UAH measured all of the biases in the raw data? How exactly did UAH measure all of the biases in the raw data?
He didn’t say that, you did. This is a miss leading statement.
He said-
The biases in thousands of temperature sensors is impossible to quantify and yet corrections are applied willy-nilly
It’s hopeless, Tim, this guy refuses to be educated, he might as well be Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss. But don’t stop putting reality out there, others read it.
Educate me. How does UAH measure all of the biases in the raw data?
His goal is indoctrination, not education. Like most of the other warmunists.
So pointing out that UAH takes liberty to make adjustments that are arguably go above and beyond what surface station datasets are doing is indoctrination?
Yes! What *is* the bias in the surface temperature adjustments?
How can you adjust surface data from the 40’s based on calibration measured in 2000?
If you know the orbital measurements from the time the satellite was launched then you *can* adjust for any bias caused by orbital fluctuation. Similar measurements are not available for surface measurement devices.
TG said: “Yes! What *is* the bias in the surface temperature adjustments?”
That’s what I said!
TG said: “How can you adjust surface data from the 40’s based on calibration measured in 2000?”
The same way UAH selected only the 1982 overlap period of NOAA-6 and NOAA-7 as the basis for the diurnal heating cycle adjustment required for the satellite merging step.
TG said: “If you know the orbital measurements from the time the satellite was launched then you *can* adjust for any bias caused by orbital fluctuation.”
How do you think UAH does that?
BTW…Perhaps if you have time you can comment on taking the average of the two PRT readings from the hot target as an input into the radiometer calibration procedure. Why not just use one PRT since, according to you, uncertainty increases when averaging?
“That’s what I said!”
I know! The point is that you typically ignore that fact!
“The same way UAH selected only the 1982 overlap period of NOAA-6 and NOAA-7 as the basis for the diurnal heating cycle adjustment required for the satellite merging step.”
The overlap period can be measured and allowed for! How do you measure the calibration of surface measurements from 80 years ago? You are, once again, ignoring this fact by trying to say the measured overlap period of the satellites is the same thing as adjusting surface measurements from 80 years ago based on guesses and not measurements! The operative word here is “measured”. UAH can *measure* orbital variations, no one can “measure” the calibration of devices in the past!
“How do you think UAH does that?”
They *MEASURE* the orbits.
“BTW…Perhaps if you have time you can comment on taking the average of the two PRT readings from the hot target as an input into the radiometer calibration procedure. Why not just use one PRT since, according to you, uncertainty increases when averaging?”
We’ve covered this MULTIPLE times and yet you *never* seem to learn. Calibration of the sensor is *NOT* the same thing as the calibration of the measuring device. The ARGO floats are a prime example. The sensor in the ARGO floats can be calibrated to .001C – but the float uncertainty is +/- 0.5C!
It’s the same for the satellites. Calibrate the sensor and the measuring device however you want. That does *not* change the fact that a level of uncertainty remains when the satellite is pointed at the earth! It’s no different than using a micrometer to measure two different things. One can be a gauge block used for calibration and the next the journal on a crankshaft. Uncertainty remains in the amount of force the faces of the device apply to the measured things. If a different amount of force is applied to the gauge block than the crankshaft journal then the readings will have uncertainty that must be allowed for. It’s the same for the satellites. If there are invisible particles in the atmosphere affecting the radiance of the atmosphere at some snapshot point on the earth while there are none in a later snapshot at a different point then there *will* be uncertainty in the measurements taken.
No measurement taken in the real world is ever perfect. No measurement device is ever perfectly calibrated. That’s the entire purpose of using significant figures and uncertainty propagation in the real world.
TG said: “The overlap period can be measured and allowed for!”
So it’s okay to take a single overlap period of only two instruments measuring different locations apply that knowledge to all of the other (and completely different) time periods and other (and completely different) instruments? Is that what you’re saying?
TG said: “They *MEASURE* the orbits.”
It’s not just the orbit. How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by the change in orbit. How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by the limb effect? How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by spatially incomplete data? How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by temporally incomplete data? How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by the residual annual cycle of the hot target? How do they “MEASURE” the bias caused by the differing locations of instrument observations? Etc. Etc. Etc.
TG said: “We’ve covered this MULTIPLE times and yet you *never* seem to learn. Calibration of the sensor is *NOT* the same thing as the calibration of the measuring device.”
What does that have to do with anything? The question was…why not just use one PRT since, according to you, uncertainty increases when averaging?
I’ll even extend the question. Why do they average anything at all including but not limited to the two PRTs? Given your abject refusal to accept establish statistical facts and adherence to the erroneous belief that averages have more uncertainty than the individual elements they are based you’d think you would be just as vehemently opposed to UAH as you with any other dataset. Yet here here you are defending their methodological approach averaging and adjustments abound.
“So it’s okay to take a single overlap period of only two instruments measuring different locations “
Again, this can be measured. Adjustments to surface stations in the distant past cannot be measured, only guessed at.
The two are not the same!
” How do they “MEASURE” the temperature bias caused by the limb effect?”
They don’t measure TEMPERATURE! They measure radiance. The temperature calculated from those radiance measurements *do* have uncertainty just as the radiance measurements themselves have uncertainty. But you can MEASURE systematic bias in the satellites because they *exist* today. You can’t do that with surface data from 30, 40, 80 years ago!
I simply don’t understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. Have you bothered to go look up the work of Hubbard and Lin? It doesn’t sound like it. It just sounds like you are throwing crap against the wall hoping some of it will stick so you can use it to cast doubt on UAH.
“What does that have to do with anything? The question was…why not just use one PRT since, according to you, uncertainty increases when averaging?”
Once again you show you have absolutely no grasp of physical reality. Those PRT sensors exist in a measurement device. That device will *add* to the uncertainty of the measurement based on its design, maintenance, location, etc. Even the electronics associated with those PRT sensors have uncertainty associated with each and every part on the circuit board. That adds to the uncertainty of the measurement as well.
Even if you put multiple PRT sensors, each with its own measuring equipment, in the same box there is no guarantee you will get the same reading from each. The electronic equipment that reads the sensor and and stores the data can have different tolerances for each sensor. The uncertainties associated with each measurement device *will* add. That is why averaging only truly works for multiple measurements of the SAME THING using the SAME DEVICE. And even then you need to show that the same measurement device doesn’t have different systematic error on each measurement such as the measuring faces on a device wearing as material is passed across them.
The minute you separate those measurement devices physically into separate boxes the uncertainty gets worse because you are now measuring different things with different measurement devices.
“It is the same for UAH. They have to adjust the entire satellite timeseries to get them aligned.”
The UAH team must do a pretty good job of it because the UAH satellite data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.
TA said: “The UAH team must do a pretty good job of it because the UAH satellite data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.”
Does it?
[Christy et al. 2020]
UAH and Weather Balloons correlate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644914_Examination_of_space-based_bulk_atmospheric_temperatures_used_in_climate_research
TA said: “UAH and Weather Balloons correlate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644914_Examination_of_space-based_bulk_atmospheric_temperatures_used_in_climate_research“
So says Christy in that one publication using a procedure dependent on adjustments. I’ll just let Christy’s words speak for themselves.
And
They literally “adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite” in this publication.
Are you okay with this especially since you’ve mentioned your dissatisfaction with adjustments before?
And notice how the other publication, in which Christy is listed as the lead author” comes to a different conclusion.
They have to make up false UAH temperature data to fit the false climate agenda.
Correction — they have to make up false USHCN temperature data to fit the false climate agenda. UAH data is good stuff.
That is quite the indictment upon Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy. Ya know…Dr. Christy has given testimony to congress on more than one occasion using his “false UAH temperature data”. I wonder what Anthony Watts and the rest of the WUWT editors and audience think about this?
UAH is good data, USHCN is falsified data. My “corrective” comment clarified that. Bottom line, there is no man-made climate change — just man-made climate alarmism — using junk science. CO2 is being demonized just like the Jews were.
So UAH and all of their adjustments is good, but USHCN using similar and arguably less invasive adjustments is falsified? What criteria are you using to make these classifications? I’d like to see if I can replicate your results if you don’t mind.
Here’s the data … https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
I know where the data is. I use it all of the time. I also know where the source code is (it is here). I didn’t ask where to find the data though. I asked what criteria you are using to classify UAH as good and USHCN as falsified even though UAH arguably uses more invasive adjustments than USHCN?
And it was only a few months ago that you told us “Altered data is no longer “data” — it is someone else’s “opinion” of reality.“ and “intellectual tyranny“ and “If you change reality (RAW data), you then create a false reality“ and “The “source” is the difference between the Raw and the Altered data. The “altered” data is in essence manufactured miss-information — not data.“
So I’d really like to know how UAH is so good even though by your criteria from a few months ago the data is tyrannical, opinion, false reality, misinformation, and/or not even data at all.
BTW…where is the UAH source code?
Why did Obama’s EPA hold a closed session to demonize CO2 through the Endangerment Finding?
JS said: “Why did Obama’s EPA hold a closed session to demonize CO2 through the Endangerment Finding?”
I have no idea. And its irrelevant because that has nothing to do with UAH’s methodology and adjustments.
I still want to know what criteria you are using to classify UAH is a good and USHCN as falsified. I’d also be interested in knowing why you were broadly and generally against adjustments only a few months ago and now consider them good at least in the context of what UAH did. What changed there?
Why is increasing CO2 increasing polar bears?
JS said: “Why is increasing CO2 increasing polar bears?”
I have no idea. And what does that have to do with the discussion? Is this a joke to you or something?
Why does increasing CO2 cause decreasing violent tornadoes?
JS said: “Why does increasing CO2 cause decreasing violent tornadoes?”
I’m trying to have a serious discussion here. If you’re not willing to provide explanations I have no choice but to think that you are deflecting and diverting attention away from the fact that espouse the goodness of UAH even though they use methods you earlier demonized. The best conclusion I can draw is that you prioritize the result over the method. Am I wrong?
The demonization of CO2 is the core problem — all else is a distraction. So … why is increasing CO2 reducing major hurricanes?
“So I’d really like to know how UAH is so good even though by your criteria from a few months ago the data is tyrannical, opinion, false reality, misinformation, and/or not even data at all.”
UAH adjustments are based on measured factors.
Surface data adjustments are based on biased guesses at the calibration error of measurement stations in the far distant past.
USHCN and UAH do *not* use similar adjustment processes.
How many times does this have to be pointed out to you before you internalize it?
UAH adjustments are *MEASURED* and applied consistently across the data set.
USHCN adjustment are pure guesses at the calibration bias of measurement stations in the distant past. Those guesses are purely subjective and typically cool the past – based on the biases of those making the guesses.
TG said: “USHCN and UAH do *not* use similar adjustment processes.”
Really? You don’t think UAH makes an adjustment for the time of observation of a location? You don’t UAH makes an adjustment to correct for the changepoints caused instrument changes?
Ya know what I think…I think you have no idea what UAH is doing and just giving your typical knee jerk “nuh-uh” responses. Prove me wrong.
TG said: “UAH adjustments are *MEASURED* and applied consistently across the data set.”
There it is again! Explain to everyone how UAH adjustments are “MEASURED”.
UAH *knows* when and where their satellite will be at any point in time by tracking the satellite orbit. We were doing that back in the 60’s with amateur radio satellites such as the OSCAR series of satellites.
Time of observation 80 years ago for a surface station simply can’t be measured, only guessed at. Unless you have a time machine *no* one can go back and measure calibration bias for a surface station or exactly when a temperature was measured.
Why are you so adamant about trying to say that adjustments to readings made 80 years ago by a surface station based on measurements made today are just as accurate as the adjustments made by UAH today? It sure sounds like you are just pushing a meme or an agenda rather than physical fact.
TG said: “UAH *knows* when and where their satellite will be at any point in time by tracking the satellite orbit.”
How does UAH “measure” the temperature bias (in units of C or K) caused by the changing orbital trajectory? That is the question. And the question extends to all of the other biases as well. How is the temperature bias measured exactly?
“I wonder what Anthony Watts and the rest of the WUWT editors and audience think about this?”
Well, if they are anything like me, they think this is a silly question.
TA said: “Well, if they are anything like me, they think this is a silly question.”
You think it is silly to ask how Anthony Watts feels about his site being used to promote and advocate for something many on here believe is fraudulent? Do you really think Anthony Watts would just say “meh” and move on?
Are you for real ? You wonder….really ?
Many have asked this same question.
The past is always cooler than we remember, and the future warmer than we expect. (Its a very scientifically objective process, as defined in the Klimate Koran.)
Because UAH gives the answer these guys want to see.
“Totally justifiably, to fix specific, known issues, not systematically to cool the past and heat the present”
Just a way of saying that UAH adjustments are good because we like the results. And the others are bad because we don’t.
Nick, your ability to read minds is as bad as your ability to explain the inexcusable.
Nick, you denigrate every person that read those devices and recorded those measurements when you modify them. You denigrate every person that built the station and maintained it. You are saying that the readings were done incorrectly because you have identified something wrong with them from a time more than a century after they were made.
You can’t say the readings were correct but “weren’t right”. That is entirely illogical. If they are correct, then they are correct. If a “break” occurs, then previous records still remain correct, but the new ones are different. The appropriate action is to discard one or the other. You can’t correct “correct” data. You are simply making up new information to replace existing data.
You have never provided a scientific field where previous measured data has been replaced with new information by using some scheme to identify both a “break” and what the new information should be. Why don’t you identify one?
If you don’t believe data is correct you destroy any trust in it by replacing it with new information. Isn’t it funny how all corrections go in one direction. As a mathematician you need to tell us how likely that would be for so many to come out that way!
“You are saying that the readings were done incorrectly”
Nobody is saying that. Adjustments are made for homogeneity – putting different readings on the same basis, as when a station moves, for example.
Never understood the rationale for changing temp data because a stationed moved. Temp stations measure the micro climate of a precise location. If you move the station then you have stopped measuring the micro climate of one location and now measuring the microclimate of a new location. Then size of a microclimate changes dramatically with distance, where I live it is 2 degrees cooler than a 5minute drive down the road.
Simonsays said: “Never understood the rationale for changing temp data because a stationed moved.”
When you move a station you change what it is measuring. For example, if a station is 200m elevation and you move it to a nearby location at 100m then you have introduced a nearly +1 C changepoint in the timeseries assuming the station is in a typical dry adiabatic environment. If that changepoint is not corrected then it creates a significant warm bias on the trend. UAH has a similar, but vastly more complicated issue regarding the drift and decay of the satellite orbits. The locations they are measuring are changing.
There is a similar issue for instrument package changes as well. UAH is not immune from this either. In fact, they a very complex adjustment procedure for dealing with this. In fact, the UAH adjustments in this regard are so complex that it requires correcting for biases in their bias corrections. But it has to be done otherwise the commissioning/decomissioning of satellites through the years introduce significant changepoints in the underlying data that UAH processes.
The question is we all know that we change the the temperature of the measurement yet you claim of + 1 C is only a guess. That may work most of the time yet I know I can find places that will not be true. Take the move of the Detroit Lakes Minnesota station you moved it from a swamp tree covered moist area to a high and dry prairie the differences are going to be more than altitude. In fact the variables will make any comparison or correction only a WAG without a running both for several years and than comparing the data. Of course that was not done. All the correction in the world will not give you a real number only a guess and a bad guess at that.
mal said: “The question is we all know that we change the the temperature of the measurement yet you claim of + 1 C is only a guess.”
It is an example. Nothing more. Do you understand the concept and the problem?
mal said: “Take the move of the Detroit Lakes Minnesota station you moved it from a swamp tree covered moist area to a high and dry prairie the differences are going to be more than altitude.”
Maybe and maybe not. It depends. Some datasets, like GISTEMP, use pairwise homogenization to identify and correct non-climatic changepoints. Some datasets, like BEST, treat the changepoints as the commissioning of a new station timeseries avoiding the adjustment altogther.
mal said: “All the correction in the world will not give you a real number only a guess and a bad guess at that.”
That’s not what the evidence says [Hausfather et al. 2016]. But if you are convinced of it then why not forward your grievance to Anthony Watts and the WUWT editors regarding their promotion of a dataset that takes great liberty in employing adjustments?
“Maybe and maybe not. It depends. Some datasets, like GISTEMP, use pairwise homogenization to identify and correct non-climatic changepoints.”
Pairwise homogenization is a joke from the start to the finish. A difference as small as 20 miles can make a 1C or more difference in readings because of microclimate changes. And not just because of elevation. Terrain and land use makes a *huge* difference as well in things like humidity, wind, etc. The east side of a moderate hill can have vastly different temps than the west side of a hill even if both are at the same elevation. Creation of an impoundment, even a large beaver pond, between two stations can cause a change in temperature readings in a specific measurement location. Why should this be considered a candidate for “homogenization” when it is actually measuring the change in the microclimate correctly?
TG said: “Pairwise homogenization is a joke from the start to the finish.”
Not according to the abundance of evidence available.
I’ll say this over and over if I have to. “Nuh-uh” arguments like what you often employ are not convincing in the same it is not convincing when someone simply “nuh-uhs” the 1LOT, general relatively, the standard model, or the SB law.
Don’t be a “nuh-uh”er. If you have new evidence to add then present it. Start by quantifying how different from reality a trend calculated from PHA corrected data is vs. an alternative method you feel is better. That’s how can you be convincing. That’s how you’ll get peoples attention.
If you can’t or won’t do this then pesky skeptics like me have choice but to dismiss your “nuh-uh” arguments.
Look at the attached. This is a small area of northeast Kansas. Look at the variation within small, small microclimates. There are several degrees if temperature difference.
How does ANY homogenization let alone with averaging retain the deviations shown here. The variance involved is huge. Averaging and homogenization remove (hide) the original variance making temperatures look more accurate with less variation than there actually is.
That is why people say GAT has several degrees of uncertainty. Nobody ever shows how variance is retained through mathematical manipulation.
When combining samples, means can be combined directly, in other words just making one set of numbers. Variances however are additive. Why is this never addressed?
“Not according to the abundance of evidence available.”
The proof was in Hubbard and Lin’s work around 2002. Their conclusion was that adjustments *had* to be done on a station-by-station basis in order to have any kind of validity at all. All those “homogenization” so-called scientists simply ignore their work and think that they can use other stations to infill or correct others.
Microclimate differences as small as the type of surface below the measuring stations, e.g. bermuda vs fescue or sand vs clay, can cause differences in the readings of calibrated measurement stations even in close proximity
Homogenization is nothing more than a guess with an unidentified uncertainty!
That is a perfect example of a station record that should be stopped and a new one started.
You need to ask why the existence of such a predilection of creating a “long” record is necessary.
There is a statistical reason and the folks insisting on doing it should tell you what it is!
Combining the old data with the new is fraudulent, don’t you get it?
CM said: “Combining the old data with the new is fraudulent, don’t you get it?”
I don’t get it. But it sounds like you are convinced of it. Perhaps you can direct your grievance to Anthony Watts and the WUWT editors who allow Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy’s dataset, which you believe is fraudulent since they combine old and new data as part of their adjustment procedures, to be published and advocated for on a monthly basis.
Request DENIED.
Those adjustments are based on MEASURED factors, not a subjective, biased guesses!
TG said: “Those adjustments are based on MEASURED factors, not a subjective, biased guesses!”
And there it is again! How exactly are all of the adjustments made by UAH “MEASURED” and are not subjective?
radar, directional antennas, visible crossing points in the sky, telescopes, optical distance measuring devices such as lasers.
Jeesh, amateur radio operators have been tracking their communication satellites since the early 60’s, and doing so pretty darn accurately. The orbits of those first satellites had to be known accurately in order for low power radio equipment and highly directional antennas to communicate through them. A little off on time overhead or on azimuth and you had a missed pass.
Tracking equipment is far, far advanced over what we had in the 60’s and 70’s.
Stick to your math, dubious as some of it is, because you don’t seem to know much about the physical world,
How do radar, directional antennas, telescopes, optical distance measuring devices, and amateur radio operators measure the temperature bias caused by orbital drift and decay? Where can I find these measurements in units of K or C?
“ If that changepoint is not corrected then it creates a significant warm bias on the trend.”
Which is why each data set should stand on its own. Stop one and start another. Since you do *not* know the calibration status of the old measurement station over time you simply cannot change the old data by 1C and expect any kind of accuracy at all!
TG said: “Which is why each data set should stand on its own. Stop one and start another.”
That’s not how UAH does it.
However, it is how BEST does it.
Maybe Anthony Watts, Monckton, and WUWT editors should start preferring BEST over UAH?
How do YOU know which the people you list prefer?
UAH *is* one long radiance measurement data base. The issues with the satellites are *measurable* and can, therefore, be adjusted for across the record. The calibration bias of thermometers 80 years ago simply can’t be measured today therefore adjustments to those readings are biased guesses.
Not only biased, but in the end, they are declaring them wrong even though Nick Stokes has already declared they weren’t incorrect. I don’t get the logic of “correcting” correct data. Ultimately, there is only one reason, and that is to make the data look like you want it to look.
There is no rational on that, the proper way to do that is to maintain both sites for a period of time and note the differences, that was not done. So now you only have guesses and there is now way to prove or disprove the guess.
Add in the human race change the the old Stevenson Screen to white wash to latex paint we have no data on how that change the measurements since that was not tested.
Yet again we have no knowledge on how the impact of changing from Stevenson Screen to the new electronic measuring system since no tests were done and when it was done the difference were dismissed because the result was not what the experts wanted to hear.
No we cannot take the surface measurements as fact because the variables were never controlled and all the adjustments(guess) will not fix that problem. No one can honest say the land temperature record is accurate within plus or minus 3C for any given time period. Let alone with a hundred of a degree.
So again I will make this statement and prove me wrong(you can’t) The climate is always changing, the present question remains how much and which way. No one can “prove: how much and which way, all are guessing. My guess it going up how much and why God only knows, mankind does not have a clue. Prove me wrong.
mal said: “No one can honest say the land temperature record is accurate within plus or minus 3C for any given time period. Let alone with a hundred of a degree.”
Rhode et al. 2013 and Lenssen et al. 2019 say it is about ±0.05 C for the modern era. Even Frank 2010 who uses questionable methodology thinks it could be as low as ±0.46 C.
But if you truly think ±3 C is the limit of our ability then how do you eliminate 6 C worth of warming since 1979 for a rate of 1.4 C/decade?
As usual you are confusing SENSOR uncertainty with measurement station uncertainty!
They are *NOT* the same thing. It’s why the ARGO float sensor can be calibrated to .001C but the float uncertainty is +/- 0.5C!
Your lack of understanding about the real world is showing!
TG said: “As usual you are confusing SENSOR uncertainty with measurement station uncertainty!”
No. I’m not. On the contrary it is you who continually confuses location and time specific uncertainty with the global average temperature uncertainty. I’ll repeat this as many times as needed. The combined uncertainty is not the same thing as the uncertainty of the individual elements being combined. It is a different value. You’re own preferred source says so.
dr. adjustor weighs in on uncertainty, again, and does a face plant, again.
They don’t even realize they are acting like stock day traders who only use apps to track stock prices. Day traders are hoping to tell what a stock is going to do using exactly the same methods, price vs time. The problem is, 99% of them never dig into the underlying company fundamentals information to know why a company’s worth goes up or down. By the time a stocks price goes up or down, they are already behind the eight ball and must try to catch up. Other traders who do the basic research have already beaten them to the punch.
The problem with climate science’s obsession with temperature trends is that they will never know what the fundamentals are. Any predictions are fraught with builtin error. Just look at the range of model predictions to see what I mean.
How many times do you want me to show you this graph? Time is not a factor in it, just CO2 and ENSO.
Will you ever ask Monckton why he doesn’t try to analyze his claim of a pause? Why he only considers time as a factor and ignores ENSO?
More dodging and weaving, you know the answer to this question but refuse to acknowledge it.
Somehow you have time on the x-axis and a temperature anomaly on the y-axis. I don’t see where CO2 has a temperature anomaly associated with it so I not sure what (CO2 + ENSO) actually means. It looks like a time series to me rather than a functional relationship between the two variables. You need to show the equation you used to derive the temperature anomaly from the time.
I’ve tried to explain this before. I’ve calculated a multivariant linear regression on the data. The dependent variable is the UAH anomaly, the independent variables are CO2 and ENSO (with some adjustments for lag and smoothing CO2). The red line is simply the prediction for each month based on those two variables.
By definition, the linear equations are a functional relationship. As I said, time is not a factor in the predictions, though it makes little difference as CO2 is close to a linear rise with respect to time.
Should also mention, that the linear regression is based on the data up to the start of the “pause” showing in green. This allows the pause to be the test data.
“There is no rational on that, the proper way to do that is to maintain both sites for a period of time and note the differences, that was not done.”
That really doesn’t help much in correcting past data because you simply can’t identify what the calibration status of the original location was in the past. Most stations have drift which means the calibration changes over time. Identifying the present error because of drift doesn’t identify the past error because of drift. Thus applying present error correction to past temperatures readings just isn’t very “scientific”.
In fact it is fraudulent.
One of the other components of drift in land surface stations is land use changes and flora growth. Wind breaks can grow and affect wind velocities at a station over time. Buildings and asphalt not even close can affect temperature. Grass changes both underneath the station and surrounding areas can affect measured temperatures. These are all things that can cause microclimate changes at the station and appear as drift but are not because of “thermometer” calibration.
You nailed it. No one can *prove* you wrong.
A station move should be treated by stopping the old record and starting a new one. Trying to create a “long record” from two different microclimates by creating new information is very unscientific. If the data is unfit for purpose, discard it.
Homogenization done by creating new information just creates additional bias. Why does homogenization end up cooling temps in almost all cases. Tell us what the chances of that occuring is and why. Why not both cooling and heating in equal portions?
I am still waiting on you to answer my question!
“You have never provided a scientific field where previous measured data has been replaced with new information by using some scheme to identify both a “break” and what the new information should be. Why don’t you identify one?”
JG said: “A station move should be treated by stopping the old record and starting a new one.”
That’s what BEST does.
JG said: “Trying to create a “long record” from two different microclimates by creating new information is very unscientific.”
UAH does this.
JG said: “Homogenization done by creating new information just creates additional bias.”
UAH does this.
JG said: “Why does homogenization end up cooling temps in almost all cases.”
It is true that for the US it increases the warming trend relative to the raw data. This is primarily because the time-of-observation change bias is negative and the instrument/shelter change bias is negative.
However, on a global scale the net effect of adjustments is to reduce the overall warming trend.
“UAH does this.”
No, it doesn’t.
TG said: “No, it doesn’t.”
I’m going to call your bluff here. I don’t think you have any idea what UAH is doing. Explain to everyone how UAH does the limb correction, diurnal heating cycle correction, deep convection removal, linear diurnal drift correction, non-linear diurnal drift correction, removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variations, orbital decay correction, removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature, deconvolution of the TLT layer, spatial infilling, temporal infilling, etc. See if you can do so without invoking the creation of new data or the combining of timeseries representing different microclimates and being correct in your explanations.
Are you really this dense? Or is this all part of an act?
As I keep telling you — THESE ARE ALL MEASURED! They are not guesses (meaning UNMEASURED) at the calibration of a measuring device 80 years ago based on current calibration.
Take orbital fluctuations. THEY CAN BE MEASURED AND THEY APPLY TO *ALL* OF THE DATA.
You keep trying to justify changes to past surface temperature measurements based on nothing but biased guesses. It’s indefensible. You only look like a fool in trying to defend the practice.
TG said: “As I keep telling you — THESE ARE ALL MEASURED!”
You keep saying it, but saying it over and over does not make it right. You also keep deflecting and diverting away from explain HOW all of their bias corrections are measured. Why is that?
TG said: “Take orbital fluctuations. THEY CAN BE MEASURED AND THEY APPLY TO *ALL* OF THE DATA.”
How do they “measure” the temperature bias caused by orbital drift and decay?
TG said: “You keep trying to justify changes to past surface temperature measurements based on nothing but biased guesses.”
I’m not talking about surface temperature measurements. I’m talking about UAH adjustments. Those adjustments change past measurements.
Because ALL of the necessary information is recorded along with the microwave data.
Is this really so hard for you?
CM said: “Because ALL of the necessary information is recorded along with the microwave data.”
Where in the raw MSU data is the temperature bias recorded? Can you post a link to it so that I can review it? How come Spencer and Christy do not mention it in any of their methods papers?
CM said: “Is this really so hard for you?”
Yes. I’ve searched extensively. I don’t see it anywhere. Spencer and Christy don’t seem to be aware of it either.
Do you understand what is being measured? Do you think the satellites have devices that read physically remote temperature sensors?
Here is a paper that reviews some of the issues with using spectral irradiance to calculate temperatures.
Atmospheric Soundings | Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: Part I. Science and Design |The National Academies Press
Wikipedia has a succinct definition of UAH measurements.
WTH is “temperature bias”?
CM said: “WTH is “temperature bias”?”
The error of the temperature measurement. Where is that included in the raw MSU data?
You still don’t understand that uncertainty =/= error, yet you go around lecturing on the subject.
CM said: “You still don’t understand that uncertainty =/= error, yet you go around lecturing on the subject.”
Nobody is talking about uncertainty here.
The claim is that UAH “measures” all of the temperature biases that exist. You said all of the necessary information in the context of the temperature biases is included along with the microwave data.
My question is where is it included? I don’t see it. Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy do not see it.
If you can’t or won’t form a response directly related to your claim that all information is included along with the microwave data and/or the temperature bias itself then I have no choice but to dismiss your claim.
I’m going to be blunt here. I don’t think you have the slightest idea how UAH is producing their published products. Prove me wrong.
Once again, you are in no position to place demands on other people.
“The claim is that UAH “measures” all of the temperature biases that exist.”
Stop making things up. *NO* one claims this.
They claim that orbital factors can be measured.
And the satellites do *not* measure temperature, they measure radiance. And the measure of that radiance *certainly* has uncertainty because of many external factors as well as internal factors.
And this doesn’t even include the uncertainties in the conversion algorithm changing radiance to temperature.
And you’ve been told *many* times that the uncertainties of the UAH are less than any of the surface temperature measurements. For one thing there are just a limited number of satellites compared to the thousands of temperature measuring devices. For independent, random variables the uncertainty grows with an increased number of measurement devices (just like the variance of independent, random variables add).
For some reason you just can’t seem to accept any of this. You are pushing an agenda – trying to denigrate the usefulness of UAH compared to the surface temp data and the climate models. If you think that isn’t becoming more and more obvious with each of your posts then you are only fooling yourself!
TG said: “Stop making things up. *NO* one claims this.”
UAH publishes temperature products. I’m told that all of the biases they correct for are “measured”. Examples of the statements are here, here, and here.
TG said: “And the satellites do *not* measure temperature, they measure radiance.”
We are not discussing how the temperatures are measured. We are discussing how the biases are measured.
The way in which the temperatures are measured is a big topic as well and worthy of discussion. It’s just not what is being discussed at the moment.
Direct measurement of errors is quite impossible because true values are unknowable.
Like you keep trying to tell them – error is not uncertainty. They never seem to be able to internalize that! It’s probably because they’ve never been in a situation where their personal liability is at issue if they don’t account for uncertainty properly.
Each and every statistics textbook publisher today should be sued for never including uncertainty of data elements in their teaching examples. Even if they ignore the uncertainty intervals in working out the examples they would have to explicitly state that and the students would at least get an inkling about the effects of uncertainty.
They still haven’t gotten past the terminology section of the GUM that explains this quite clearly.
If bdgwx is following his usual tack, he is hoping to get some kind of answer for his “measurement bias” demand that he can then turn around and use as a weapon in his Stump the Professor game.
Then those biases (systematic errors) cannot possibly be included with the microwave data.
Your clown show is quite threadbare.
Why not? Are you saying the MSU’s can’t be calibrated?
No. I didn’t say that.
“ I’m told that all of the biases they correct for are “measured”.”
All the biases you MENTIONED *are* measured. They mostly had to do with orbital fluctuations. Those can be measured down the the width of a laser beam!
“We are not discussing how the temperatures are measured. We are discussing how the biases are measured.”
*We are not discussing how the temperatures are measured. We are discussing how the biases are measured.
YOU* were talking about the satellites measuring temperature. They don’t.
And you’ve been told multiple times about the uncertainties associated with UAH by several people on here. You just conveniently forget them all the time and claim we think UAH is 100% accurate!
TG said: “All the biases you MENTIONED *are* measured. They mostly had to do with orbital fluctuations.”
I mentioned a lot of biases in this thread. Orbital fluctuations are one among many. But if you want to focus on just that for now that’s fine. How does UAH “measure” the temperature bias or systematic error caused by orbital fluctuations? Be specific.
TG said: “YOU* were talking about the satellites measuring temperature. They don’t.”
I’m talking about how UAH applies adjustments; not how the temperature is measured. That is a different topic.
TG said: “And you’ve been told multiple times about the uncertainties associated with UAH by several people on here. You just conveniently forget them all the time and claim we think UAH is 100% accurate!”
Uncertainty has nothing to do with this. That is a different topic.
Stay focused. How does UAH “measure” the temperature bias or systematic error?
Why do you expect and insist that Tim know this?
Go ask Spencer, its his calculation.
I don’t need to ask Spencer. He and Christy published a textual description of the procedure they used to identify and quantify the bias adjustments.
Then WTH are you demanding I tell you?
Fool.
“The error of the temperature measurement. Where is that included in the raw MSU data?”
The MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) doesn’t measure temperature. It measures radiance. That radiance is then converted to temperature using an algorithm that has many inputs.
A true uncertainty analysis of all elements would be quite instructive, and that includes the uncertainty of the measuring device as well as the uncertainty of the algorithm.
TG said: “The MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) doesn’t measure temperature. It measures radiance. That radiance is then converted to temperature using an algorithm that has many inputs.”
So the temperature bias or systematic error is not included in the raw MSU data stream?
TG said: “A true uncertainty analysis of all elements would be quite instructive, and that includes the uncertainty of the measuring device as well as the uncertainty of the algorithm.”
We are not talking about uncertainty. We are talking about the temperature bias or systematic error of the measuring device and algorithm that aggregates all of the measurements.
You and Carlo Monte keep telling me that this temperature bias or systematic error is measured. I want to know how you think it is measured. Where do I find these measurements?
NO!
All the information needed is already known, there is no need to make up fake data, as is your wont.
I’ll give you a dose of bellcurveman: “Go talk to Spencer and ask him”.
CM said: “All the information needed is already known, there is no need to make up fake data, as is your wont.”
Where does it exist? Where can I find it? How come Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy make no mention of it?
There are papers on the satellites used. I have read several but didn’t save them. If you search the internet you can find papers discussing the MSU’s and other sensors on the satellites.
I have a lot of them downloaded going all the way back to the NIMBUS prototype that preceding the operational TIROS-N and successors.
Well pin a bright shiny star on your lapel.
Adjustments are made for homogeneity. That is where the fiddles enter. If the data is not already homogeneous they should be discarded and not incorporated into the history.
Data are never homogeneous. Look at the attached. The differences in temperature are large over a very small area. Like it or not, microclimates are not the same at any distance. Adjusting temperature data to achieve homogeneous temperature averages is a farce. It is done in order to manufacture long temperature records at individual stations.
That is not a scientific treatment of recorded, measurement data.
If you discard all of the data then how do you eliminate the possibility that the planet warmed by say 5.5 C as opposed to the 0.55 ± 0.21 C since 1979 like what UAH says?
Don’t you get it yet? There is no single temperature of “the planet”?
If the uncertainty of the data is greater than the differential trying to be identified then it is impossible to determine the differential.
The planet could have warmed or cooled by 5.5C and you simply can’t tell if the uncertainty is 6C. If the uncertainty is 1C then how do you determine a differential of .55C?
Your uncertainty of 0.21C is LESS than the uncertainty of the global measuring devices! You are, as usual, either
Neither of these is true in the real world.
“You can’t correct “correct” data. You are simply making up new information to replace existing data.”
Exactly. Alarmist want us to think they know exactly how to adjust past temperatures.
Alarmists want us to accept their manipulation of the temperature record as legitimate.
We don’t need a new temperature record. The old one does much better. The old one says we have nothing to worry about from CO2. The old one was recorded when there was no bias about CO2 warming.
Alarmists don’t want us to know this so they bastardized the past temperature records in order to scare people into doing what the Alarmists want them to do: Destroy our nations and societies by demonizing CO2 to the point that oil and gas are banned.
All because of a bogus, bastardized temperature record. The only “evidence” the alarmists have to back up their claims of unprecedented warming, and their evidence is a Lie, they made up out of whole cloth.
Notice all the alarmists jumping in to defend these temperature record lies. They *have* to defend them because it’s the only thing they have to promote their scary CO2 scenarios. Without the bastardized temperature record, the alarmist would have nothing to show and nothing to talk about.
Keep telling us how you know better what the temperature was in 1936, than the guy that wrote the temperature down at that time. The bastardized temperature record is a bad joke. And these jokers want us to accept it. No way! Go lie to someone else.
Most UAH adjustments are based on MEASURED bias such as orbital fluctuations.
This is simply not possible with surface data collected by thousands of temperature sensors, be they land or ocean.
Thus the UAH record is consistent while the surface data is not. UAH adjustments don’t cool the past and heat the present by changing past data, decades old, based on current measurement of accuracy.
It isn’t a matter of like/dislike. It is a matter of consistency.
TG said: “Most UAH adjustments are based on MEASURED bias such as orbital fluctuations.”
There it is again. How exactly do you think UAH “MEASURED” the biases they analyzed?
TG said: “UAH adjustments don’t cool the past and heat the present by changing past data, decades old, based on current measurement of accuracy.”
Oh yes they do. They also make adjustments to future data using past measurements in more than one way.
TG said: “It is a matter of consistency.”
0.307 C/decade worth of adjustments from version to version over the years isn’t what I would describe as consistency. But what do I know. I still accept that averaging reduces uncertainty, the 1LOT is fundamental and unassailable, and that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is more than just a mere suggestion that only works if the body is equilibrium with its surroundings.
“There it is again. How exactly do you think UAH “MEASURED” the biases they analyzed?”
Highly directional antenna. Telescopes. Time differences between observation points. Radar.
LOTS OF WAYS TO MEASURE!
“Oh yes they do. They also make adjustments to future data using past measurements in more than one way.”
BUT THESE ARE *MEASURED* biases! Not guesses about calibration of devices 80 years ago!
“0.307 C/decade worth of adjustments from version to version over the years isn’t what I would describe as consistency.”
The biases are *MEASURED* and applied consistently to the data.
“ I still accept that averaging reduces uncertainty,”
Averaging does *NOT* reduce uncertainty unless you can show that all of the error is random and symmetrical. Which you simply cannot show for surface temperature measurements which consist of multiple measurements of different things using different devices. You cannot show that the all of the errors from all those measurements of different things using different devices form a random, symmetrical distribution where they all cancel out.
“ if the body is equilibrium with its surroundings”
You can’t even get this one correct. It has to also be in equilibrium internally – no conduction or convection internally. No equilibrium – wrong answer from S-B!
TG said: “Highly directional antenna. Telescopes. Time differences between observation points. Radar.”
UAH uses directional antenna, telescopes, and radar?
TG said: “BUT THESE ARE *MEASURED* biases!”
How?
TG said: “Averaging does *NOT* reduce uncertainty unless you can show that all of the error is random and symmetrical.”
Well now this is a welcome change of position. It was but a couple of months ago you were still telling Bellman and I that the uncertainty of an average is more than the uncertainty of the individual elements upon which is based.
TG said: “You can’t even get this one correct. It has to also be in equilibrium internally – no conduction or convection internally. No equilibrium – wrong answer from S-B!”
Wow. Just wow!
You might as well extend your rejection to Planck’s Law as well since the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is derived from it. Obviously you’re probably wanting to apply your rejection to the radiant heat transfer equation q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah since it is derived from the SB law which in turn is going to force you to reject the 1LOT and probably 2LOT as well. Actually, the more I think about it your rejection here so thorough I’m not sure I’m going to be able to convince you that any thermodynamic law is real. And if I can’t do that then how can anyone possibly convince you of anything related to physics?
“UAH uses directional antenna, telescopes, and radar?”
Once again your lack of understanding of the physical world is just simply dismaying! The TRACKING stations use those to measure orbital information!
“How?”
Do you *truly* need a dissertation on how radar works? Or a laser distance measuring device? At it’s base, satellite tracking just uses triangulation and basic trigonometry, Do you need a class on navigating and trig?
“Well now this is a welcome change of position. It was but a couple of months ago you were still telling Bellman and I that the uncertainty of an average is more than the uncertainty of the individual elements upon which is based.”
No, that is *NOT* what I told you. I told you that the uncertainty of the mean of a sample *has* to have the uncertainty of the elements in the sample propagated to the mean of the sample. You cannot just assume the mean of the sample is 100% accurate with no uncertainty.
If the individual elements can be shown to have only random error and that it is symmetrically distributed then it can be assumed that the errors cancel. You simply cannot show that the uncertainty in the measurement of different things using different devices result in an error distribution that is random and symmetrical just as an assumption!
You and bellman keep wanting to assume the standard deviation of the sample means is the uncertainty of the mean calculated from those sample means. That is wrong unless you can show that the uncertainties form a random and symmetrical distribution.
If
Then you simply can’t say the uncertainty of the average (M1 + M2 +…. +Mn)/N is the standard deviation of M1 through Mn. Doing so requires ignoring the uncertainties such as +/- 1.0, +/- 1.5, etc.
That *is* what you, Bellman, and all the climate scientists want to do – ignore uncertainty because it is inconvenient to have to propagate it and consider it in your analysis of the data.
So you just assume it all cancels no matter what!
Planck’s Law is the same. It assumes a object in equilibrium. I don’t know why that is so hard for you to understand. Any heat that is being conducted within an object is not available for radiation. It can’t do both conduction and radiation at the same time.
from http://www.tec-science.com:
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the intensity of the blackbody radiation in thermal equilibrium is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature! ” (bolding mine, tg)
Perhaps this will help you understand – if an object is not at thermal equilibrium then how do you know its actual temperature? It could be cooler on part of its surface and warmer on another. What temperature do you use in the S-B calculation?
TG said: “The TRACKING stations use those to measure orbital information!”
I’m not asking how UAH knows the orbital trajectories. That’s easy. I’m asking how you think UAH measures the temperature bias caused by orbital drift and decay.
TG said: “Any heat that is being conducted within an object is not available for radiation. It can’t do both conduction and radiation at the same time.”
Excuse me? Are you telling me that I can’t get radiation burns from fire because it is conducting heat to its surroundings? Are you telling me that I can’t feel the radiant heat from a space heater because it is conducting heat internally and externally to the air surrounding it?
TG said: “Perhaps this will help you understand”
No it doesn’t. I know what the SB law says. That does not help me understand your position that the SB law is invalid unless the body is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. That was your statement. And it evolved from your original statement that water below the surface does not radiate according to the SB law. It is also important to note that the SB law already has a provision for bodies that are not true blackbodies via the emissivity coefficient. Your source only examines the idealized case where emissivity is 1. Bodies do not have to be in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings or even within for them to radiate toward their surrounds according to the SB law. This is the whole principal behind the operation of thermopiles and radiometers. Anything and everything with a temperature emits radiation that delivers energy in accordance with the SB law to the thermopile or radiometer. You just have to set the emissivity correctly to get a realistic temperature reading. My Fluke 62 forces me to set the emissivity coefficient of what I’m measuring. And it is rarely in thermal equilibrium with the target regardless of whether that target is a parcel of water below the surface, looking up into a clear or cloudy sky, into a flame, etc and yet it still works.
BTW…here is the radiant heat transfer equation for grey bodies.
Q = σ(Th^4 – Tc^4) / [(1-εh)/Ah*εh + 1/Ah*Fhc + (1-εc)/Ac*εc] where h is the hot body, c is the cold body, T is temperature, A is area, ε is emissivity, and Fhc is the view factor from hot to cold which is derived from the 1LOT and the SB law. What would the point be if it only worked when h and c where in thermal equilibrium?
I’ll repeat. Anything and everything emits radiation. It doesn’t matter where it is. This includes parcels of water below the surface regardless of whether the parcel is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings or not. It will emit radiation all of the time. And we use this fact in combination with the 1LOT and SB law to determine the temperature of the parcel. That’s why my Fluke 62 records the correct temperature of water even when dunked below the surface.
“I’m asking how you think UAH measures the temperature bias caused by orbital drift and decay.”
What difference does it make as long as it is consistent? Again, as I’ve told you multiple times, the satellites don’t measure temperature, they measure radiance. They then convert that into a temperature. As long as they do the conversion in a consistent manner on all of the data then the metric they determine is as useful as any surface measurement data and probably more useful because their coverage of the earth is better!
” Are you telling me that I can’t get radiation burns from fire because it is conducting heat to its surroundings? “
NO! That is *NOT* what I said. What I said is that any heat the fire is conducting into the ground is not available for radiation! That heat can’t radiate while it is being conducted into the ground! S-B won’t give you the right answer because it requires thermal equilibrium of the object. If there is conduction going on within the object then it is not at thermal equilibrium! It’s the exact same thing for the space heater. Heat that is being conducted internally or externally is not also available for radiation. S-B will give you the wrong answer.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
“That does not help me understand your position that the SB law is invalid unless the body is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.”
Because conducted heat is not available for radiation. Again, why is this so hard to understand?
“emissivity coefficient.”
Which has nothing at all to do with the difference between conducted heat and radiated heat. Nice try at the argumentative fallacy of Equivocation.
“Your source only examines the idealized case where emissivity is 1”
Again, the difference between conducted heat and radiated heat has nothing to do with emissivity. Emissivity is a measure of the efficiency of radiation, it is not a measure of conductivity.
“Bodies do not have to be in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings or even within for them to radiate toward their surrounds according to the SB law.”
They do *NOT* have to be in thermal equilibrium in order to radiate. They *DO* have to be in thermal equilibrium in order to radiate according to the S-B equation. Conducted heat, be it internal or external, is not available for radiation. The S-B equation assumes that *all* the heat in a body is available for radiation — meaning it is in thermal equilibrium.
” You just have to set the emissivity correctly to get a realistic temperature reading. My Fluke 62 forces me to set the emissivity coefficient of what I’m measuring.”
Again, emissivity is a measure of radiative efficiency. It has nothing to do with the total heat in an object, part of which is radiated and part of which is being conducted.
“Q = σ(Th^4 – Tc^4) / [(1-εh)/Ah*εh + 1/Ah*Fhc + (1-εc)/Ac*εc]”
Where is the factor for the amount of heat being conducted away and is thus not available for radiation?
Your equation has an implicit assumption of thermal equilibrium and your blinders simply won’t let you see that!
As usual, it is an indication of your lack of knowledge of the real world! To use your space heater analogy, the amount of heat being conducted away from the space heater to the floor via conduction through its feet is *NOT* available for radiation via the heating coils. Thus S-B will *not* give a proper value for radiated heat based on the input of heat (via electricity from the wall) to the heater. If the coils are not in thermal equilibrium because one end of the coil is hotter than the other end because of conductivity then the total radiation from the coil can’t be properly calculated because S-B has no factor for conductivity.
“Anything and everything emits radiation. It doesn’t matter where it is. This includes parcels of water below the surface regardless of whether the parcel is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings or not. “
Your first two sentences are true. Your third one is not. Conductive heat is not available for radiation and therefore S-B can’t give you a proper value for the amount of radiation from an object.
You proved this with your own equation. It has no factor for conductive heat.
Take off your blinders, open your eyes and stop trying to tell everyone that blue is really green!
TG said: “What difference does it make as long as it is consistent?”
You said it was MEASURED. I want to know how you think it was MEASURED.
TG said: “They do *NOT* have to be in thermal equilibrium in order to radiate.”
Exactly. Yet that is what Jim Steele was vehemently rejecting for water below the surface. He doesn’t think it radiates at all which you then started defending perhaps because you jumped into the conservation late and were unaware of context. I don’t know.
TG said: “They *DO* have to be in thermal equilibrium in order to radiate according to the S-B equation.”
That is for the body itself. This discussion is not analyzing bodies that are not in thermal equilibrium themselves. This discussion is analyzing two bodies. A parcel of water at temperature Th and its surroundings at temperature Tc. Both bodies will radiate toward each other according to the SB law with an emissivity of ~0.95 or so. This happens even though there is no equilibrium between the parcel and surroundings.
BTW…bodies that are not in thermal equilibrium will have a rectification error whose magnitude is related to the spatial variability of its radiant exitance or temperature. It is an important consideration especially for the 3 layer energy budget models in which the layers are not themselves in thermal equilibrium. We just aren’t discussing non-homogenous emitters right now.
TG said: “Where is the factor for the amount of heat being conducted away and is thus not available for radiation?”
No where. That means conduction does not directly effect the radiant exitance of a body. It only does so indirectly via its modulation of T. This is why conduction and radiation happen simultaneously. For two bodies H and C at temperatures Th and Tc heat will transfer via conduction (if they are in contact) and radiation simultaneously. A radiant space heater (body H) is both conducting and radiating heat to the surroundings (body C). A parcel of water (body H) is both conducting and radiating heat to the surroundings (body C).
TG said: “Your equation has an implicit assumption of thermal equilibrium and your blinders simply won’t let you see that!”
On the contrary it has an implicit assumption that there is no thermal equilibrium. In other words Th != Tc. If there were a requirement that Th = Tc then what would the point of it be since it would just reduce to q = 0. The whole point of heat transfer is for bodies that are not in thermal equilibrium.
“You said it was MEASURED. I want to know how you think it was MEASURED.”
Nice job of equivocation! IT *IS* MEASURED. You questioned how it is applied to the data, not the value of the measurement. And apparently you know nothing of the use of lasers in determining distance and direction let alone radar!
“Exactly. Yet that is what Jim Steele was vehemently rejecting for water below the surface. He doesn’t think it radiates at all which you then started defending perhaps because you jumped into the conservation late and were unaware of context. I don’t know.”
What Steele was saying is that radiation plays almost NO part in the heating of the water below the surface! In fact it is probably not even measurable because the heat transport will be so totally dominated by the conduction factor! If it’s not measurable then does it exist?
You are trying to argue how many angels can stand on the head of a pin!
“That is for the body itself. This discussion is not analyzing bodies that are not in thermal equilibrium themselves.”
You are moving the goalposts! Thermal equilibrium *is* a requirement for giving the proper answer from S-B. *YOU* are the one that brought up S-B and said it will give the proper answer even for objects not in thermal equilibrium.
Are you now changing you assertion?
“This discussion is analyzing two bodies. A parcel of water at temperature Th and its surroundings at temperature Tc. Both bodies will radiate toward each other according to the SB law with an emissivity of ~0.95 or so. This happens even though there is no equilibrium between the parcel and surroundings.”
And now we change back! If those two bodies are in physical contact, e.g. two parcels of water next to each other in the ocean, then conduction will dominate over radiation for thermal heat propagation. S-B will *NOT* give the correct answer.
I assume that you will now move the goalposts again and say you are discussing two parcels of water that are not in physical contact, e.g. two separate globules of water in a vacuum, righ?
“That means conduction does not directly effect the radiant exitance of a body. It only does so indirectly via its modulation of T”
Huh? An object can be hotter on the surface than on the interior thus having internal conduction. Planck and S-B both assume that all the heat in a body is available for radiation, i.e. thermal equilibrium. Heat in conduction is *NOT* available for radiation!
“For two bodies H and C at temperatures Th and Tc heat will transfer via conduction (if they are in contact) and radiation simultaneously.”
But conduction will dominate! It’s why every thermo textbook I have ignores radiation of heat through a wall media and only considers conduction of heat.
“A radiant space heater (body H) is both conducting and radiating heat to the surroundings”
But not *all* of the heat being input into the heater will be radiated! The heat being conducted away from the heating element will *NOT* be available for radiation.
TG said: “Nice job of equivocation! IT *IS* MEASURED.”
How? Be specific.
TG said: “What Steele was saying is that radiation plays almost NO part in the heating of the water below the surface!”
It goes way beyond that. He does not think water below the surface even emits radiation at all. He also do not think a body of water can warm when energy is delivered to it via infrared radiation at all. In fact, it even appears that he thinks when you increase the energy input to the body of water via infrared radiation the body of water will cool!
TG said: “You are moving the goalposts! Thermal equilibrium *is* a requirement for giving the proper answer from S-B. *YOU* are the one that brought up S-B and said it will give the proper answer even for objects not in thermal equilibrium.”
Patently False. Thermal equilibrium between a object (body #1) and its surroundings (body #2) is NOT a requirement for the SB law.
TG said: “And now we change back! If those two bodies are in physical contact, e.g. two parcels of water next to each other in the ocean, then conduction will dominate over radiation for thermal heat propagation. S-B will *NOT* give the correct answer.”
Just because conduction dominates does not mean that a body does not also radiate in accordance with the SB law. Remember, Jim Steele thinks water below the surface does not radiate at all. I’m pointing out that no only does it radiate, but you calculate how much it radiates via the SB law.
TG said: “I assume that you will now move the goalposts again and say you are discussing two parcels of water that are not in physical contact, e.g. two separate globules of water in a vacuum, righ?”
Nope. My goalposts are in the exact same spot they’ve always been. 1) A body of water will warm if it is delivered energy via infrared radiation. 2) A parcel of water below the surface (body #1) will radiate toward its surroundings (body #2) and you can determine the radiant exitance or temperature of body #1 via the SB law just like you can use the SB law for any other situation.
TG said: “Huh? An object can be hotter on the surface than on the interior thus having internal conduction.”
Nobody is saying otherwise. We are not analyzing the inside of the object here. We are analyzing how that object’s surface (the body in consideration) transfers heat to another object through its surface (the other body). It does so via conduction if it is in physical contact with the other body and by radiation simultaneously. When energy is transferred the hot surface will cool and the cold surface will warm. This then causes the rate at which both conduction and radiation occur to reduce as well. As the two surfaces get closer and closer to equilibrium both conduction and radiation slow down eventually to the point where no heat is being transferred anymore via either mechanism. What happens beneath those bodies (the interiors) is of no concern right now.
TG said: “But conduction will dominate!”
That’s what I said. I even did the calculation. I even tried to explain that conduction is the primary mechanism in play modulating the heat flux across the interface between the bulk and TSL of the ocean surface.
TG said: “But not *all* of the heat being input into the heater will be radiated!”
Nobody is saying otherwise. What is being said is that it radiates. And you can calculate either the radiant exitance or temperature of the emitting surface via the SB law.
TG said: “The heat being conducted away from the heating element will *NOT* be available for radiation.”
Nobody is saying otherwise. What is being said is that it radiates. And you can calculate either the radiant exitance or temperature of the emitting surface via the SB law.
There is a very easy answer to your questions. The GHG theory postulates that CO2 creates additional water vapor. What does that mean? It means that H2O absorbs energy from CO2 radiation and vaporizes. When it vaporizes it takes heat from the liquid and cools the liquid.
So, the question is:
Does CO2 radiation create vaporization of the H2O in the oceans.
If yes, then CO2 cools the ocean and does not heat it.
If no, then CO2 heats the ocean and does not create additional water vapor.
The answer is up to you – GHG theory is right or it is incorrect. What is it?
Lastly, S-B is an equation that predicts irradiance for a moment in time. The next moment in time, the body will have cooled and the irradiance will be less. Moment to moment. This sounds like an integral is needed to describe the gradient for a cooling body.
Think about it, the sun is a constant supply of heat (ignoring its effect upon a rotating earth). Therefore the surface of the earth reaches a constant temperature while the sun is shining. That is equilibrium. It also radiates a given amount because it is at equilibrium. This is the only assumption you can make if you are not going to use integrals to describe the gradients that occur.
“Patently False. Thermal equilibrium between a object (body #1) and its surroundings (body #2) is NOT a requirement for the SB law.”
You are using an implicit assumption that the two bodies are not in physical contact but are not stating that assumption hoping to fool us! In other words you are assuming no conduction heat transport! Any heat being conducted away from the object is not available for radiation! It’s the same for internal conduction within the object.
“Just because conduction dominates does not mean that a body does not also radiate in accordance with the SB law.”
How can S-B give the right answer when part of the heat in the object is not available for radiation?
Stop trying to fool us! You are wrong and you know it. I can see your fingers crossed behind your back. You are assuming no conductive heat transport but don’t want to actually state the assumption!
“ We are not analyzing the inside of the object here.”
Of course we are! You are now trying to set up arbitrary conditions! If the object is not in thermal equilibrium then you *must* consider the heat being conducted inside the object!
“Nobody is saying otherwise. What is being said is that it radiates. And you can calculate either the radiant exitance or temperature of the emitting surface via the SB law.”
*You* are saying otherwise. If part of the heat at the surface is being conducted into the interior then S-B won’t give the right answer. Again, S-B has *NO* factor for conductance. It assumes the object is in thermal equilibrium, i.e. no internal conducting of heat, all heat is available for radiation!
TG said: “You are using an implicit assumption that the two bodies are not in physical contact but are not stating that assumption hoping to fool us!”
There is no assumption either way. It doesn’t matter if they are in physical contact or separated by a vacuum. A surface on that object will always radiate in accordance with the SB law. It’s why radiometers and thermopiles work even though they aren’t in thermal equilibrium with the body they are targeting (the surface of the object).
TG said: “How can S-B give the right answer when part of the heat in the object is not available for radiation?”
Because the SB law only relates radiant exitance to temperature. Temperature is the one and only variable that modulates radiant exitance and vice versa. Nothing else does. That is a fact taken straight from the SB law itself.
TG said: “You are assuming no conductive heat transport but don’t want to actually state the assumption!”
I’m not making any assumptions about conduction either way. It doesn’t matter. If the body has a temperature T it will radiate per εσT^4 regardless of the magnitude of conduction.
TG said: “If part of the heat at the surface is being conducted into the interior then S-B won’t give the right answer”
Yes. It will. It makes no difference how the body (the surface of the object) is evolving. As long as it has a temperature T it will radiate at εσT^4 W/m2 all the same.
From THE THEORY OF HEAT RADIATION by Max Planck . Page 69
Please note: This is a requirement for proving the Stephan Equation as shown on Page 74 with equation (78).
“We are not analyzing the inside of the object here. We are analyzing how that object’s surface (the body in consideration) transfers heat to another object through its surface (the other body).”
I need to clear up a misconception here and it has significance about the homogeneity of a body and from where radiation is emitted. You can see from this, it is required that a body be at a single temperature throughout.
Again, from THE THEORY OF HEAT RADIATION by Max Planck . Page 6
“It is true that for the sake of brevity we frequently
speak of the surface of a body as radiating heat to the surroundings, but this form of expression does not imply that the surface actually emits heat rays. Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits
rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through. The other part is reflected inward and according as the fraction transmitted is larger or smaller the surface seems to emit more or less intense radiations.”
bwx knows more about radiation theory than Max Planck!
Planck was far smarter than I’ll ever be. Did he ever say that water below the surface does not emit radiation? Did he ever say that the SB law can only be used for bodies in equilibrium with their surroundings?
Did you read the quote?
No you didn’t.
Yes. I did. Notice that Planck never said that a body must be in equilibrium with its surroundings to be able to use the SB law. Notice that Planck never said that water below the surface does not radiate.
I standby what I’ve been saying all along. Water below the surface emits radiation in accordance with the SB law regardless of whether an underwater parcel is in equilibrium with its surroundings or not. And I’ll say it over and over again as many times as is needed. A body does not need to be in equilibrium with its surroundings for the SB law to be applied in the analysis of the radiant exitance ‘j’ or temperature ‘T’ of that body. In fact, the SB is most useful when that body is not in equilibrium with its surroundings because you can use it (in combination with the 1LOT) to determine the heat transfer via εσ(Ta^4 – Tb^4) where Ta is the temperature of the body A (eg. a parcel of water) and Tb is the temperature of body B (eg. the surroundings).
Jim Steele in recent article does not think water below the surface emits radiation. Tim Gorman defends that school of thought and extends the rejection to the erroneous requirement that the SB law only works on bodies that are equilibrium with their surroundings.
You also believe averaging reduces uncertainty, which it cannot.
CM said: “You also believe averaging reduces uncertainty, which it cannot.”
Let me be perfectly clear. I accept that the uncertainty of the average is less than the uncertainty of the individual elements upon which the average is based. Your own preferred source (the GUM) says so.
BTW you can use the procedure in the GUM to calculate the uncertainty of the radiant exitance from the SB law given the uncertainty of the temperature. For example if the temperature is 288 ± 1 K then the radiant exitance is 390 ± 5.4 W/m2. The NIST uncertainty machine gives the same answer FWIW.
Oh yeah, you are clear, you believe nonsense. Perfect credentials for a climate $cientologist. At least you were not going to be Frank.
If you don’t assume equilibrium then you MUST deal with S-B on an integral basis so there is a gradient. CONSTANT RADIATION REQUIRES CONSTANT TEMPERATURE. In other words equilibrium. There is no other alternative. You’ve never taken thermodynamics have you? It is why you need calculus as a prerequisite. Gradients are a fact of life.
JG said: “If you don’t assume equilibrium then you MUST deal with S-B on an integral basis so there is a gradient.”
Say what?
Show me. There are two bodies. Body A is at temperature Ta = 300 K and body B is at temperature Tb = 280 K. Body B is the surroundings of body A such that body A is not in equilibrium with body B or Ta != Tb. Compute the radiant exitance Ja and Jb of bodies A and B. Use an integral if you want.
Bonus points if you calculate the net radiant heat flux between A and B.
I don’t need your extra points. If Body A is at Ta = 300 K, what is Ta right after radiating? After two radiation, orr three? How does a body cool? If it is not at equilibrium with an external heat source, as in Planck’s thesis, it WILL cool on a continuous basis. As “t” goes to zero you end up with δTa. In other words a gradient requiring an integral.
The only other option is for Body A to be equilibrium with a CONSTANT temperature and radiation.
JG said: “If Body A is at Ta = 300 K, what is Ta right after radiating?”
That depends on the specific heat capacity and whether it is in stead-state (Ein = Eout). But that is irrelevant since no one is asking how Ta is evolving. The only thing being considered is body A’s radiant exitance Ja at temperature Ta and the net heat flux between a second body with radiant exitance Jb and temperature Tb.. If Ta changes then the radiant exitance Ja also changes. But it always has a radiant exitance Ja equal to εσTa^4 regardless of what Ta is or how it is evolving.
JG said: “The only other option is for Body A to be equilibrium with a CONSTANT temperature and radiation.”
If you mean equilibrium with its surroundings then NO. There is no requirement that the body be in equilibrium with its surroundings. This is the case we are discussing.
If you mean equilibrium with itself then YES. The body must be represented by a single radiant exitance value J and temperature T. We are not discussing the case though; at least not yet.
The challenge by Jim Steele is that if that body is a parcel of water below the surface it won’t emit radiation at all. That then got expanded to a challenge that the SB law does not work for bodies that are not in equilibrium with their surroundings which is patently false. The SB law does not require bodies to be in equilibrium with their surroundings. The only thing required is that the body be at radiant exitance J and temperature T.
BTW #1…even if the body is not at temperature T, but instead is a non-homogenous emitter with variability in both temperature and radiant exitance you can still use the SB law as long as you analyze the body by subdividing it into sufficiently small sub-bodies such that the sub-bodies can be represented by a single temperature T. You can then integrate the SB law for the sub-bodies in the spatial domain just as you might in the temporal domain. Either way you can always use the SB law. You just have to use it correctly.
BTW #2…These integrations of the SB law are actually really fun exercises especially for spherical shapes because it really forces you to think about how geometries and varying radiant exitances impact how you apply the SB law. I did a calculation for Earth a few years back under the assumption that the radiant exitance matched the solar irradiance which varies spatially and temporally. I’ll see if I can dig that up if I have time.
bdgwx said: “I did a calculation for Earth a few years back under the assumption that the radiant exitance matched the solar irradiance which varies spatially and temporally. I’ll see if I can dig that up if I have time.”
I couldn’t find it, but I did take the liberty to do a similar calculation for the Moon. The assumption is that the radiant exitance always matches the solar irradiance with no lag or ability to store heat.
Function ‘s’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law outputting a temperature in K.
Function ‘f’ is the integration of the SB law down the latitudes outputting the average temperature in K. dθ represents latitudinal rings of constant radiant exitance J that we can use in the SB law. The fully derived version of this function actually contains 2πr^2 and 1/2πr^2 terms for the area of the rings that cancel so I’ve left them out for brevity. You can do the full area weighting or you can use the relative weighting dθ weightings like what I did. Either way works.
The x-axis is the TSI for the body.
The y-axis is the spatially averaged temperature of the body assuming the radiant exitance equals the solar irradiance at each every point on the surface.
The red plot is the black-body temperature for a flat surface with constant radiant exitance spatially.
The blue plot is the black-body temperature projected onto a sphere with varying radiant exitance spatially.
The black plot is the hypothetical no-lag and no-heating black-body temperature for TSI = 1360 W/m2 and albedo a = 0.11 which are the parameters for the Moon. Notice that for the Moon this comes out to 153 K. Compare this with the Diviner observed value of 200 K. The difference is partly due to the lunar regolith and the fact that the lunar radiant exitance does not match solar irradiance for many reasons.
Anyway, the point is to demonstrate that the SB law can still be used to analyze a body not in thermal equilibrium itself. You just have to sub-divide the body into sub-bodies that are in thermal equilibrium. And remember these plots are idealizations. The real Moon is a far more complex environment. Don’t infer anything from this that isn’t being suggested.
What did I say?
Let me point out that your integral is not the only one needed. As the sun passes over any giving point longitude, there is a sine function based on time describing the energy being absorbed.
You do realize since the sun “moves” due to the moon’s rotation, there is no equilibrium, ever. Everything is in motion. Things go up and things go down. There is a maximum and minimum. A simple algebraic equation just won’t describe anything but a very, very, very brief interval of time.
Yep. The real Moon is far more complex environment. My example is but a simple idealization of a hypothetical Moon-like body in which the radiant exitance matches the solar irradiance. In that idealization the double integral ∫ ∫ dθ dt evaluates to the same as the single integral ∫ dθ due to the constant spatial symmetry wrt to time. If the hypothetical Moon-like body had an asymmetric geometry you’d have to do the double integral even under this rigid hypothetical idealization. A true analysis of the radiative behavior of the real Moon needs to a full spatial and temporal integration like what Williams et al. 2017 do. Again, I’m only demonstrating how the SB law can be applied to bodies that aren’t themselves in thermal equilibrium. Don’t read anymore into this other than that.
“Again, I’m only demonstrating how the SB law can be applied to bodies that aren’t themselves in thermal equilibrium. Don’t read anymore into this other than that.”
If you don’t know which part of the object is in thermal equilibrium then how do you split it into parts? Even Planck admitted his theory doesn’t work at the quantum level so you can’t split it down that far!
“If you mean equilibrium with itself then YES. “
You keep on telling me this isn’t the case. You keep saying S-B will give the right answer even if the object is not in internal equilibrium!
Which is it?
“The SB law does not require bodies to be in equilibrium with their surroundings.”
That depends on whether the bodies are in physical contact. If they are then you will have conductive heat transfer and S-B *still* won’t give the correct answer because conductive heat isn’t available for radiation!
Your statements are only true for isolated bodies in a vacuum!
“The challenge by Jim Steele is that if that body is a parcel of water below the surface it won’t emit radiation at all.”
You keep saying this and it just isn’t true. When conductive heat transfer is the major factor of heat transfer then radiation becomes so small that it is negligible. Does anyone include the gravitational impact of the black hole at the center of the galaxy when calculating a satellite orbit around the earth? Or is it so small that it is negligible? It’s impact is certainly there but its like arguing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin to consider its impact.
And that is what you are doing now. Arguing about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.
TG said: “You keep on telling me this isn’t the case. You keep saying S-B will give the right answer even if the object is not in internal equilibrium!”
No. I keep telling you that the SB law will give the right answer even if the object is not in equilibrium with its surroundings.
TG said: “That depends on whether the bodies are in physical contact.”
No. It does not depend on whether they are in physical contact with their surroundings. The SB law works regardless of whether bodies are in physical contact or not.
TG said: “Your statements are only true for isolated bodies in a vacuum!”
No. The SB law is not limited to isolated bodies in a vacuum. It works for all bodies regardless of whether they are in a vacuum or not.
bdgwx said: “The challenge by Jim Steele is that if that body is a parcel of water below the surface it won’t emit radiation at all.”
TG said: “You keep saying this and it just isn’t true.”
That is absolutely true. It is the whole reason I explained how to do the experiment in your own home proving it. He still rejected this fact…vehemently.
TG said: “And that is what you are doing now. Arguing about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.”
It goes way beyond that. This discussion got started because Jim Steele does not think water below the surface radiates in accordance with the SB law or even at all. This goes to the core of a massive misunderstanding of how bodies radiate energy.
“No. I keep telling you that the SB law will give the right answer even if the object is not in equilibrium with its surroundings.”
You just admitted this isn’t true! You said hat you might have to split an object not in thermal equilibrium into parcels that are!
“No. It does not depend on whether they are in physical contact with their surroundings. The SB law works regardless of whether bodies are in physical contact or not.”
You are dissembling! Did you think I wouldn’t notice? If S-B gives the right answer then why the need to split an object into parcels that *are* in thermal equilibrium?
You’ve got your fingers crossed behind your back. I can see!
“No. The SB law is not limited to isolated bodies in a vacuum. It works for all bodies regardless of whether they are in a vacuum or not.”
Then, again, why the need to split the objects into parcels?
“This goes to the core of a massive misunderstanding of how bodies radiate energy.”
Which you have to keep fudging on! S-B assumes the entire body is in thermal equilibrium and all heat is available for radiation. That’s why you had to admit that you might have to break a body into parcels. Of course you’ve never demonstrated a process for doing that!
And yet you stubbornly cling to the assertion that S-B will give a correct value for radiation from an object not in thermal equilibrium.
TG said: “You just admitted this isn’t true! You said hat you might have to split an object not in thermal equilibrium into parcels that are!”
I made no such admission. I have been saying over and over again and consistently that the SB law works regardless of whether the body is in equilibrium with its surroundings… SURROUNDINGS. The surroundings is not the same thing as the body itself. For example, a doctor can scan my forehead with an IR thermopile (which uses the SB law) to take my temperature even though the surroundings (the air and everything around me) is at a different temperature.
TG said: “Then, again, why the need to split the objects into parcels?”
The only requirement of the SB is right there in the equation. The body itself must be described with a radiant exitance J and temperature T. In other words the body itself must be in thermal equilibrium otherwise it cannot be described by J and T. Do not conflate the state of thermal equilibrium of the body with the body being in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings; two completely different things.
If the body itself has spatial variance of J or T then there is no single J or T by which the body can be described. That will cause a bias or error in the result of the SB law. Trenberth et al. 2009 calls this a rectification error. If the spatial variance of J or T is small the rectification error is small and negligible. But when the spatial variance of J and T is large the rectification error is large and must be handled by sub-dividing the body until “without appreciable error, be regarded as a state of thermal equilibrium”. The reason why scientists must split a non-homogenously emitting (spatial variance in J or T) object is so that the SB law can be applied with minimal error and then the results integrated to provide a complete picture of the original object.
TG said: “Of course you’ve never demonstrated a process for doing that!”
I gave an example above.
TG said: “And yet you stubbornly cling to the assertion that S-B will give a correct value for radiation from an object not in thermal equilibrium.”
Strawman. I never asserted that the SB law will give a correct value for radiation from an object not in thermal equilibrium. What I asserted is that the SB law will give a correct value for radiation from an object not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Burn that into brain…with its surroundings. And I standby that assertion. It is the whole reason why my IR gun (and everybody else’s) can measure the temperature of a body based on its radiant exitance even though that body is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings or the instrument. It’s the reason why IR gun (and everybody else’s) can measure the temperature from water below the surface based on its radiant exitance even though the water is below the surface and even though it may be at a different temperature than its surroundings.
“I made no such admission. “
Then why did you say you would have to split the object into parcels?
You can run but you can’t hide!
“In other words the body itself must be in thermal equilibrium otherwise it cannot be described by J and T.”
Then why would you need to split the object into parcels?
You can lay on all the word salad you want, it won’t help!
“The reason why scientists must split a non-homogenously emitting (spatial variance in J or T) object is so that the SB law can be applied with minimal error and then the results integrated to provide a complete picture of the original object.”
In other words the object has to be in thermal equilibrium in order for S-B to give the correct answer!
Something you denied!
Again, you can run but you can’t hide!
TG said: “Then why did you say you would have to split the object into parcels?”
That is for the case when you are analyzing a body that cannot be regarded as being a state of thermal equilibrium with itself without appreciable error.
Do not conflate thermal equilibrium with itself with thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Those are two concepts.
TG said: “Then why would you need to split the object into parcels?”
You need to split the object into parcels if the object is not sufficiently in thermal equilibrium with itself such that there is appreciable error.
Again…do not conflate thermal equilibrium with itself with thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Those are two concepts.
TG said: “In other words the object has to be in thermal equilibrium in order for S-B to give the correct answer!”
Yep. But that doesn’t mean it has to be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
Again…do not conflate thermal equilibrium with itself with thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Those are two concepts.
TG said: “Something you denied!”
Nope. I have said over and over again consistently that the SB law works for a body even though that body may not be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
Again…do not conflate thermal equilibrium with itself with thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Those are two concepts.
Based on your comments here I still don’t think you fully understand what thermal equilibrium with itself and thermal equilibrium with its surroundings means. Would it be helpful if we discussed more regarding what those mean and why they are different concepts?
“That is for the case when you are analyzing a body that cannot be regarded as being a state of thermal equilibrium with itself without appreciable error.”
But you said there would be no error. That S-B would give the correct answer for an object that is not in internal equilibrium.
It’s good to see you finally admit that your assertion was wrong!
“Do not conflate thermal equilibrium with itself with thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Those are two concepts.”
I never did. I told you there was no conduction factor in S-B and that it, therefore, could not give a correct answer when conduction, either internal or external, was at play. You kept telling me that S-B *would* give a correct answer.
“Yep. But that doesn’t mean it has to be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.”
As I told you, that *only* applies if the object is not in physical contact with the surroundings and conduction of heat is in play. You, once again, told me that was wrong. But S-B *still* doesn’t have a conduction factor and if the object is either conducting heat internally or is conducting heat externally then that heat is not available for radiation and S-B will give an incorrect answer.
You keep trying to foist off assertions while hiding the implicit assumptions behind the assertion. Why don’t you show us how the conducted heat to another body can also be radiated? Show us how S-B will give the right answer.
Or is your answer going to be, once again, that you would have to split the object into parcels?
“Nope. I have said over and over again consistently that the SB law works for a body even though that body may not be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.”
But you ALSO said that SB works for an object that was not in internal equilibrium! You also said that SB would work for an object in physical contact with another body where conducted heat was being transferred!
You are still trying to dodge the factor that you forgot that SB doesn’t have a conduction factor!
Just so it is clear I’m challenging your statements “If the particle is not in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding material S-B will give a wrong answer.” [1] and “S-B only works for an object in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.” [2]
Let me try a different tack. If not the SB law then what law or equation do YOU think should be used to relate radiant exitance to temperature?
I’m not sure there is one! The issue is not the temperature at which an object is radiating since even an iron rod being heated by a torch will radiate at the end being heated. The problem is that some of the heat in the object is being conducted down the rod and is not available for radiation. So the color of the radiation is not a correct indicator of the total heat in the rod. S-B for an object in thermal equilibrium will give a correct value for the heat in an object if it is at equilibrium, but it won’t if the object is not in thermal equilibrium.
Think of an iron rod immersed in the heated coals in a forge. That rod will be equally heated along its length and its color of radiation will give a valid indication of the total heat in the rod. Stick just one inch of the rod in the coals and it won’t. In fact the color of the radiation will change as you look down the rod indicating a non-equilibrium condition.
I’m not even sure that taking an infinitely thin slice of the rod will help since part of the heat flow through that slice will be perpendicular to the slice (i.e. conduction) and won’t be available for radiation. Thus you wouldn’t get a correct answer from S-B for the total heat in that slice.
You can probably calculate the conductive flow and subtract that but it’s too early in the morning for me to dig out the thermo books!
TG said: “I’m not sure there is one!”
So your position is that there is no way to relate the radiant exitance and temperature of body unless that body is 1) is in equilibrium with its surroundings and 2) the body is in a vacuum?
There is no way to use a simple alegebriac equation to find the irradiance of a body NOT at equilibrium with itself or other bodies. To do so you must define a gradient describing the change in temperature over time.
You are trying to define something that is best studied in a thermodynamic curriculum. I have spent my time at university learning thermodynamics for power plants and heat sinks for electronic power applications. Have you?
You should think about heat transfer problems for a CPU conducting heat to a heat sink that loses heat via radiation and conduction/convection (fan).
Let me make sure I have you and Tim’s position correct. When I point my Fluke 62 at a small 10 cm^2 patch of my deck that is pretty darn close to a homogenous emitter at 330 K (a value close to the k-type thermocouple reading using my Greenlee DM-830a) I cannot plug that into the SB law to conclude that the radiant exitance is 620 W/m2 with ε = 0.92 because my deck is neither in equilibrium with the surroundings (air temperature was at 298 K) nor is in a vacuum? And how was my Fluke 62 able to measure the temperature to within a couple of degrees of the k-type thermocouple if the SB law does not work for bodies not in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor in a vacuum?
You can determine the frequency of the radiation from your deck. S-B will give you this. IT WON’T TELL YOU THE TOTAL HEAT CONTENT OF THE BOARD ON YOUR DECK!
Why is this so hard to understand? I gave you the easily understood example of an iron rod heated at one end by a torch vs one immersed in the coals of a forge.
You keep wanting to say that the S-B will tell you the total heat content of the iron rod in both situations. IT WON’T.
You can argue that blue is red till the cows come home. But blue will still be blue at the end of the day!
TG said: “IT WON’T TELL YOU THE TOTAL HEAT CONTENT OF THE BOARD ON YOUR DECK!”
I’m not measuring the total heat content of the board on my deck. IR thermometers don’t do that. I’m determining the radiant exitance and temperature of the surface of the board. Nothing more.
TG said: “You keep wanting to say that the S-B will tell you the total heat content of the iron rod in both situations.”
I never said that. Not even remotely. In fact, I’ve never even mentioned the total heat content in any of these discussions.
“I’m not measuring the total heat content of the board on my deck.”
In other words, don’t confuse me with reality.
Why measure the radiation if it doesn’t completely describe the object being studied?
Who do you think you are fooling?
I didn’t say there isn’t a way – I even laid out how to do it!
tg:”You can probably calculate the conductive flow and subtract that but it’s too early in the morning for me to dig out the thermo books!”
Why do you never bother to read all of *anything*, including my posts?
If there is any conductive heat flow associated with an object then that heat flow is not available for radiation and S-B will give the wrong answer.
Please note:
Why do you disbelieve Planck?
TG said: “If there is any conductive heat flow associated with an object then that heat flow is not available for radiation and S-B will give the wrong answer.”
That’s not right. Conductive heat flow does not in any way invalidate the SB law for radiation. Just like radiant heat flow does not in any way invalidate Fourier’s law for conduction.
Both conductive heat flow and radiant heat flow will effect how temperature and thus radiant exitance evolves with time, but it does not invalidate the SB law or Fourier’s law.
If you are wanting to know how temperature is evolving with time in a scenario in which conduction is in play then you integrate the total heat transfer including radiant transfer εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4) and conductive transfer U(Th – Tc)) for both the hot (h) and cold (c) body incorporating the temperature change via dT = dE/(m*c) of each body at each time step.
That procedure does not mean either the SB law nor Fourier’s law is invalid when conduction and radiation are happening. On the contrary, it relies on the fact that both the SB law and Fourier’s law are valid.
“That’s not right. Conductive heat flow does not in any way invalidate the SB law for radiation. Just like radiant heat flow does not in any way invalidate Fourier’s law for conduction.”
And here we are again: “Don’t confuse me with reality”.
If you aren’t interested in describing the object being studied then what *are* you interested in? Describing the object requires determining *both* radiation and conduction.
“Both conductive heat flow and radiant heat flow will effect how temperature and thus radiant exitance evolves with time, but it does not invalidate the SB law or Fourier’s law.”
Again, why aren’t you interested in fully describing the object being studied?
This is all word salad being used to cover up the fact that you were wrong with your initial assertion. You are now arguing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin without worrying about how big the head of the pin is!
You just aren’t very interested in reality are you? It shows in every thing you get involved in!
TG said: “Your statements are only true for isolated bodies in a vacuum!”
I want to dig deeper on this. Here are my statements.
1) Water warms when energy is delivered to it via infrared radiation.
2) Water below the surface emits radiation.
3) The SB law works for all bodies with a radiant exitance J and temperature T regardless of whether those bodies are in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings.
Are you suggesting…
1) Water warms by infrared radiation only when it is in a vacuum?
2) Water below the surface emits radiation only when it is in a vacuum?
3) The SB law works for bodies only when they are in a vacuum and only when they are in equilibrium with their surroundings?
“1) Water warms by infrared radiation only when it is in a vacuum?”
Stop putting words in my mouth.
“2) Water below the surface emits radiation only when it is in a vacuum?”
Stop putting words in my mouth.
“3) The SB law works for bodies only when they are in a vacuum and only when they are in equilibrium with their surroundings”
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I have made this very clear to anyone that reads it. All you are doing is putting words in my mouth to create strawmen arguments.
S-B doesn’t give the correct answer if there any conductive heat transfer associated with an object.
It’s a plain statement. You are looking for a way to refute it by creating strawmen. STOP!
I’m just asking questions. If you aren’t challenging those 3 statements then what’s the problem?
My problem is that you are implying those are *MY* words and beliefs. They aren’t. They are *YOUR* words!
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
Your the one that said:
“If the particle is not in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding material S-B will give a wrong answer.” [1]
and
“S-B only works for an object in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.” [2]
and
“Your statements are only true for isolated bodies in a vacuum!” [3]
Note that all of this is in the context my statements that 1) infrared radiation warms water and that 2) parcels of water below the surface radiate in accordance with the SB law which Jim Steele challenged…vehemently.
S-B gives the wrong answer for the heat in any object involved in conduction.
Period.
Learn it, love it, live it.
ROFL!
JG said: “it is required that a body be at a single temperature throughout.”
Yeah obviously. That’s literally in the SB law itself. It says F = εσT^4. Notice that there is a single temperature variable T. If the emitting surface cannot be represented by T then you can’t use the SB law as-is [1].
That’s not what is being discussed. What is being discussed are two surfaces A and B at temperatures Ta and Tb. Both surfaces are individually represented with their own one and only temperature value. The SB law can be used on either body A and/or body B regardless of whether Ta = Tb or Ta != Tb. Note that in real world applications like when A is the target body and B is the radiometer or thermopile Ta never equals Tb.
[1] You can actually still use the SB law to estimate the radiant exitance for non-homogenous emitter, but you’ll get a rectification error that has to be considered. The way this handled is integrating the SB law wrt to the area of the surface where each subsurface has its own T to be considered.
jg: “JG said: “it is required that a body be at a single temperature throughout.””
bdgwx: “Yeah obviously.”
An object with a single temperature throughout *is* in thermal equilibrium! Therefore S-B gives the correct answer for the radiation.
If the object is *not* a single temperature throughout then S-B will give an incorrect answer.
You’ve now tried to have it both ways! !. S-B does give the correct answer for an object not in internal thermal equilibrium and 2. S-B doesn’t give the correct answer for an object not in thermal equilibrium.
Typical!
bdgwx wants it both ways, as usual for him.
He says whatever he has to say and then backs it up with word salad that doesn’t actually address the issue at hand.
TG said: “S-B gives the correct answer for a body not in thermal equilibrium”
Strawman alert. I never said that. What I said is that the SB law gives the correct answer for a body even when it is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
Do you understand the difference between a body being in thermal equilibrium with another body and being in thermal equilibrium itself?
Do I *really* have to go back to through the thread to find where you said S-B would still give the correct answer for a body not in internal thermal equilibrium?
That *is* what triggered the discussion about conduction of heat internally not being available for radiation, that S-B has no conductive factor, and your statement that you could just divide the body up into parcels that were and weren’t in thermal equilibrium!
Do *YOU* understand the difference between a body being in thermal equilibrium with another body and being in thermal equilibrium itself? Apparently not! That or you are now trying to fool everyone into thinking you were correct from the start!
TG said: “Do I *really* have to go back to through the thread to find where you said S-B would still give the correct answer for a body not in internal thermal equilibrium?”
Yes.
TG said: “Do *YOU* understand the difference between a body being in thermal equilibrium with another body and being in thermal equilibrium itself?”
Yes.
For two bodies A and B they are in thermal equilibrium with themselves if they can be represented by single values of radiant exitance Ja and Jb and single values of temperature Ta and Tb.
For two bodies A and B with radiant exitance Ja and Jb and temperature Ta and Tb they are in thermal equilibrium with each other when Ja = Jb and Ta = Tb.
TG said: “That or you are now trying to fool everyone into thinking you were correct from the start!”
I stand by my statements, namely that…
1) Water warms when it is delivered energy via infrared radiation.
2) Water below the surface emits radiation.
3) The SB law works for bodies even though they may not be in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings.
I’ll even two more…
4) The SB law works for bodies even though they may not be in a vacuum.
5) The SB law can be used in the analysis of a body not in thermal equilibrium itself by sub-diving the body into sub-bodies that without appreciable error may be regarded as being in a state of thermal equilibrium.
Your comment about Planck and S-B requiring equilibrium is very pertinent to part of the issues I have been trying to elucidate about using averages of irradiance of the sun on the earth. An average assumes the same irradiance all over the sun side of the earth. This is a farse to begin with. However, part of the problem is that the earth and sun can only be at equilibrium at one point, the 90 degree point as the sun traverses the earth. This is when the maximum amount of radiation is absorbed by the earth. For a brief moment in time any given point receives that 90 degree radiation. Everywhere else is receiving some smaller amount of radiation and will never reach the temperature of that point. That is why it is important to move into trigonometric functions to begin understanding the intricate details of the earth’s temperature. Averages are for unsophisticated, back of the envelope guesses but that is all.
JG said: “Your comment about Planck and S-B requiring equilibrium is very pertinent to part of the issues I have been trying to elucidate about using averages of irradiance of the sun on the earth.”
That is a completely different issue. No one is challenging the fact that there is a rectification effect [Trenberth et al. 2009][1] that causes a discrepancy between average radiant exitance and temperature values vs the average temperature and radiant exitance of a non-homogenously emitting or thermally uneven body when using the SB law. This is due to the T^4 term. It’s something I have to remind people of often.
The original claim by TG and Jim Steele is that water below the surface does not emit radiation which then got expanded to the SB law does not work for bodies that are not in equilibrium with their surroundings. That all evolved from the claim that infrared radiation cannot warm water. That is what is being discussed.
BTW part 1…the rectification effect for Earth is about 6 W/m2 and 1 K. For the Moon it is about 210 W/m2 and 70 K. The reason for the Moon’s significantly larger rectification effect is due to its significantly larger spatial and temporal variance in spot temperatures and radiant exitances.
BTW part 2…the other mistake people make with the SB law is they erroneously think it relates the total energy input or output to temperature. It does not. It relates radiant exitance to temperature. Nothing more. It is an important distinction especially when discussing bodies that shed energy in a form other than radiation.
[1] I mention the Trenberth et al. 2009 publication because there is a myth out there that climate scientists are unaware of this effect which is obviously false.
“The original claim by TG and Jim Steele is that water below the surface does not emit radiation”
That is *NOT* what we are arguing. Why do you keep making this kind of stuff up!
What we are saying is that conductive heat is far, far larger, by multiple orders of magnitude, than any radiative heat and that is the conductive heat that warms the cooler water below and not radiative heat.
“got expanded to the SB law does not work for bodies that are not in equilibrium with their surroundings”
It does *NOT* give the correct value because there is no factor for conductive heat. It assumes thermal equilibrium so there is zero conductive heat at play. That is *NOT* the same thing as saying there is no radiation at all which is what you are trying to imply we have said!
TG said: “That is *NOT* what we are arguing.”
That is exactly what Jim Steele said. And even after I explained how you could easily prove it in your own home he wouldn’t budge.
TG said: “What we are saying is that conductive heat is far, far larger, by multiple orders of magnitude, than any radiative heat and that is the conductive heat that warms the cooler water below and not radiative heat.”
No. That’s what I said. I even did the calculations showing it. I also tried to explain how heat actually gets retained using the TSL model that Wong & Minnett used in their publication and which contained the figure JS used in his publication. The primary mechanism in play they say is…conduction… a fact which I explained right from the start.
TG said: “It does *NOT* give the correct value because there is no factor for conductive heat. It assumes thermal equilibrium so there is zero conductive heat at play.”
It does give the correct value. Conductive does not effect radiation directly. And the SB law does not assume thermal equilibrium between the body and its surroundings. It only assume thermal equilibrium of the body itself. If you want to know the total heat transfer you have to add both the radiant and conductive values together.
Take the example from my post linked to above for parcel of water (body H) at temperature Th = Tc + 1 and for the surroundings (body C) at temperature Tc. For a 1 millimeter interface (body I) between bodies H and C the conductive flux is 6000 W/m2 and the radiant flux is only 6 W/m2 for a total flux of 6006 W/m2. Both happen simultaneously. The conductive flux alone will equilibrate both sides of the interface in 667 milliseconds whereas with the radiant flux alone is 11.1 minutes. With both together it 666 milliseconds or 1 ms faster than just conduction alone.
BTW…notice that the conductive heat transfer equation has no terms regarding radiation just like the radiant heat transfer equation has no terms regarding conduction. Conduction occurs with or without radiation just as radiation occurs with or without conduction. Both will indirectly modulate the rate of the other via the change in temperature though.
Which is exactly why all the simplistic energy balance “models” that people promote are useless. bwx has his own version of one.
Nick, where’s that answer to the renewable electrification facts presented in that other thread?
The adjustments are fundamentally different.
Climategate 2.0 emails revealed that Phil Jones thought the 2°C limit was
pulled out of thin air.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/31/flashback-climategate-emails-phil-j
ones-says-critical-2-degree-c-limit-was-plucked-out-of-thin-air/
He also admitted this: “This recent warming trend was no different from others we have measured. The world warmed at the same rate in 1860-1880, 1919-1940, and 1975-1998.”
This was about 3 mos after Climategate broke- possibly a CYA move in case
their were real consequences for lying.
https://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/shock-phil-jones-says-the-obvious-bbc-asks-real-questions/
“He also admitted this”
That is JoNova’s made up version. That is not what he said.
Here’s what the actual BBC article said- NO SUBSTANTIVE
DIFFERENCE! STOP QUIBBLING LIKE A YOUNG TEENAGE BOY!
YOU’RE EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!!!
The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend Significance
(Degrees C per decade)
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Your “quote” was made up. It’s nothing like what he actually said.
Whew! I see you finally provided an accurate quote of what he actually said… oh wait… no, you didn’t…
You have just stuffed up royally, Nick Stokes. Well done!
So don’t leave us hanging Nick, what did he say? Why wouldn’t you tell us up front, do you have a communication problem?
Nick loves his hockey stick.
Thanks for providing his quote to set the record straight… oh wait.
No. it’s what he said.
That’s the chart I’ve been looking for!
Yes, all three periods warmed at the same magnitude and reached the same high temperatures. All three of them.
Of course, NASA Climate and NOAA have since bastadized the temperature record, and they show the 1930’s and the 1880’s, as cooler than today, but what is interesting about their bastardized temperature record is they show the 1880’s and the 1930’s highpoints as being equal.
And, of course, we know that the 1930’s was actually warmer than todayand so that would mean that the 1880’s were also just as warm as today.
So what do we see? We see a cyclical movement of the temperature record since the 1800’s. The temperatures warmed up to a highpoint in the 1880’s, then the temperatures cooled for a few decades into the 1910’s, then the temperatures again warmed into the 1930’s, reaching the same temperature highpoint as was reached in the 1880’s, then the temperatures cooled for a few decades into the 1970’s, and then the temperatures warmed again to 1998/2016 where the temperatures were about the same as the 1880’s and 1930’s, and now we are experiencing several years of cooling. Which would be consistent with the cycle which warms for a few decades, then cools for a few decades and the warming and the cooling stay within certain bounds.
There is nothing to worry about with Earth’s climate. Nothing unusual is happening. What is happening today has been happening since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The only thing that disputes this story is a bogus, bastardized global Hockey Stick “temperature” record. And disputing this story was, of course, the reason why the temperature record was bastardized. The historic, written temperature record wasn’t nearly scary enough for the alarmists, so they changed it in their computers to make it appear the Earth is currently experiencing unprecedented warmth caused by CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth.
TA said: “And, of course, we know that the 1930’s was actually warmer than todayand so that would mean that the 1880’s were also just as warm as today.”
Would you mind posting a global average temperature timeseries showing that the 1930’s was actually warmer than today?
They have all been mal-adjusted away !
I can post regional temperature charts from all over the world that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. Would that suffice for a global average temperature? it would for me.
Here’s the U.S. regional temperature chart which shows the cyclical nature of the climate:
And here are about 300 similar charts:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.neDvp33z.hWRS8nJ5.dpbs
All these charts show the historic temperatures don’t look anything like the profile of the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global “temperature” chart.
What I don’t understand is, having all this evidence available, why would anyone believe the bogus Hockey Stick represents reality?
Not everyone has this information avialable to them, but for those that do, and that would include all the alarmists visiting this website, imo, I still have that question. Why would you believe the Hockey Stick represents reality when there is so much evidence refuting the Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile? You don’t have any questions about it?
You won’t get an answer. It’s a matter of religious dogma.
What does the chart look like when corrections for the time-of-observation bias and instrument/shelter change bias are applied?
TA said: “What I don’t understand is, having all this evidence available, why would anyone believe the bogus Hockey Stick represents reality?”
You shouldn’t just believe it. You should see if there is convincing evidence suggesting it is egregiously wrong.
What does this have to do with UAH adjustments?
TA said: “Why would you believe the Hockey Stick represents reality when there is so much evidence refuting the Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile? You don’t have any questions about it?”
I don’t believe the Hockey Stick any more or less than I believe UAH or any other global average temperature timeseries. What I have to accept, however, is that the evidence available is not convincing enough to suggest it is egregiously wrong especially considering that it has been replicated many times. There is a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now. They’re everywhere.
Again…what does this have to do with UAH adjustments?
You really are a fraud.
The adjustments made to UAH are open for all to see. Everyone of them can easily be explained and justified.
None of these are true regarding the surface station network,
But beyond that, the problem with the contamination of the ground based network is unsolvable.
Only a total fool would use the ground based data for anything. Either a fool or lying bastard.
UAH is not open. They do not release their source code. No independent verification can made of their results. Contrast this with GISTEMP which does release their code here. Everything you need to replicate their result is provided. In fact, it is packaged so well that you can have the dataset reproduced on your own PC in less than an hour. You can even modify the source code to do your own experiments.