By Kelvin Kemm
Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” His real name was Samuel Clemens, and in 1863, he adopted ‘Mark Twain’ as a pen name. The most common explanation of where the name came from is that as the riverboat men on the Mississippi measured the depth of the water, they would call out ‘mark twain’ at the ‘two fathom’ mark on a rope. A fathom is about six feet, so that mark indicated that there was twelve feet of water, and so it was safe for the boat to move.
There is, however, an alternative explanation. Sam was a newspaper reporter in Virginia City, which was a mining town on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. He was well known in the saloons around town where he reportedly consumed many drinks, no doubt on his hunt for news stories. In the saloons, they would have a chalkboard, and the barman would mark up the customer’s drinks on the board. Apparently, Sam would order two drinks and call out to the barman, ‘mark twain, indicating that he should mark up two drinks at a time.
Whatever the truth of the origin of the name is, it has certainly become a famous name in history. There would be no doubt that the boatmen of the Mississippi would be very well-aware of daily weather conditions. Mark Twain clearly would have been. So, it is very important to make a distinction between climate and weather because these days they are so often confused.
Half a lifetime
‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next. For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.
Mark Twain traveled around the world a lot and so he would have examined the recorded climate for any region that he was visiting. But having grown up with the riverboats, he would have been very well aware that the weather at any time that he arrived somewhere might not at all be what the recorded general climate indicated.
So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?” If you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was at the time of the dinosaurs?” the answer is clearly no. Similarly, if you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was during the time of President Lincoln?” the answer is also no.
The temperature of the atmosphere of the planet has changed over much shorter periods than from the dinosaurs to now. It is well known and verified that there was a warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from around the year 950 to 1250. During this time, grapes were grown in England and the Domesday Book of 1086 records vineyards at Tiddington in Oxfordshire.
That warm period was followed by a cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), from about 1250 to 1850. This covered the time of Shakespeare. During this time there were paintings produced of the Thames freezing over, even showing horse-drawn carriages riding down the frozen Thames.
The potato famine in Ireland also happened during this period. There are historical records showing that food shortages in Ireland and Europe were part of the reason that the Pilgrim fathers went to the New World of America.
Top hat marker
Abraham Lincoln was president right at the end of the LIA, at a time when temperatures in the U.S. were about a degree colder than they are now.
It is also an historical fact that the Industrial Revolution came about from the middle of the 1800s, at about the same time as the term of office of Lincoln.
The planet is now going into a period of modern warming, so temperatures are around 1° to 2° warmer than at the time of Lincoln. So yes, there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.
There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.
The discussion point of merit is not whether it has happened, but rather what caused it?
‘Carbon’ is simplistic
To blame ‘climate change’ on industrially created CO2 is totally simplistic. It is far too convenient for the warming enthusiasts to blame observed warming on modern industry. By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground. The cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the stream of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun, which are controlled by the magnetic field of the Sun. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the Earth.
It has been known for centuries that the Sun goes through an 11-year solar cycle, during which time the activity of the Sun varies and consequently alters the magnetic shield around the Earth.
So, try to exhibit the wisdom of Mark Twain and don’t blame every unusual storm on ‘climate change,’ which is then darkly linked to ‘the fault of modern industry.’
“A fathom is about six feet”. Nope it is 6 feet.
But nautical feet, not feet feet.
Google AI has this to say……
There are dozens of historical, regional, and modern variations of the foot as a unit of measurement rather than a single fixed type. As noted in the Foot (unit) entry, “It varied in length from country to country, from city to city, and sometimes from trade to trade.” — [Foot (unit)].
Major Types of Feet
International Foot: The exact modern standard used today, defined as precisely 0.3048 meters or 12 inches.US Survey Foot: A slightly longer historical variation used in American land surveying and mapping.Roman Foot: An ancient historical measure (pes) used across Europe and the Mediterranean, measuring roughly 11.6 modern inches.Greek Foot: An ancient regional standard (pous) used in classical Greece that varied slightly by city-state.Parisian Foot (Pied de Roi): A famous old French royal measurement that was standard in France before the metric system took over. [1, 2, 3, 4]And:
A fathom is explicitly defined using the international foot. [1, 2]
“One fathom is exact under the international foot definition.” — [Fathom – Nautical Know How].
Because the international foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 metres, a standard fathom measures exactly 6 feet (or 1.8288 metres). [1, 2]
Historical & Alternative Foot Definitions
While the international foot is the modern benchmark, the exact length of a fathom has shifted depending on the region and the specific type of foot being used:
US Survey Foot: Historically, the US fathom was calculated using the US survey foot. Because a survey foot is minutely longer than an international foot, a survey-defined fathom equals 1.828804 metres. [1]Admiralty Foot: The British Admiralty historically had its own variant, defining a fathom as 1/1000th of an imperial nautical mile. This made the British Admiralty fathom equal to 6.08 feet (approx. 1.85 metres). In regular naval practice, however, they typically rounded this down to the “warship fathom” of exactly 6 standard imperial feet. [1]
Tell Google AI about Britain – it seems not to know. Imperial Weights & Measures – I fathom = 6 feet.
That would be the Britain and its explorers and navy which explored the World and set many standards.
Evidence please. I can find no confirmation that a nautical foot exists in real use now or ever.
Of course there is a nautical foot, if you are on land, a foot is 12 inches, if you are on water a nautical foot is 12 inches. When you are tying knots in a rope, maybe you could be off a little bit.
Never heard of a nautical foot.
Nautical mile, yes, nautical foot, no.
Unless of course you count the Bosun’s boot up the fundament when you do something wrong.
5280-fold. Let’s not over-complicate
Way back when I captained the national champion (my senior college year) Harvard sailing team (#1 in big boat 44 foot two masted yawls, #2 in 14 foot sloop rigged dinghies—lost dinghy to USC only on a contested final race protest by them). Both nationals were held at the Naval Academy by invitation only, as Annapolis was and still is the only US place with sufficient capacity and regatta technical skills to host national sailing tournament of any kind, let alone two. USCGA comes close, but only in dinghy.
The joke around the Varsity Club was ‘we were all wet’. Jealous because that year no other Harvard team won a national championship. Not even crew or baseball. Heck, most didn’t even win the Ivy League.
Best man at my wedding played Harvard second base, was highly recruited by the Boston Red Sox, and his Ivy League winning team took third nationally, next best after mine. Vince decided instead to go to the very select Harvard Law/Harvard Business joint program, same as me. Even married his college Wellesley sweetheart, same as me, just a few years later. Two kids, same as us. Both went to Harvard College, same as ours. Ties that bind over the decades.
So who was on the dinghy protest committee then, Rud? I was once offered a … shall we say inducement? to slew my decision in favour of someone’s child but that in fact worked the other way and I am sorry to say my questioning of that child was probably more harsh than it should have been.
But in the end we threw the protest out as being frivolous.
Well, we had the fundamental dinghy protest problem that we had already won the big boat nationals. So the ‘jury’ was not inclined to let us have a second national.
I was skippering that dinghy that last race. I knew (and still do) the Olympic governed dinghy racing sailing rules by heart, and to this day think it was just stolen for USC for collegiate PR purposes.
Technically was ridiculous. We overtook USC on the downwind next to last final race leg, using better boat trim (more weight more aft in this dinghy case plus more clever sail displacement to take advantage of the subtle small downwind wind direction shifts—our main was to port, theirs was to starboard—our constant minor main trim adjustments (mostly vanguard, a bit luff) were therefore more effective than theirs. But they could not swing their main around to port, because we had closed enough that would have been a clear foul. Port was very slightly favored). Gave us a final upwind leg upwind that we would never let them surmount in a precise tacking duel. With even just a slight upwind turn lead, we could block them out all the way to the finish.
They protested saying our overtake also illegally temporarily blanked their mainsail. Except we were more than two mast lengths apart, well within overtaking downwind rules, and our main was opposite theirs for aforementioned subtle reasons so no USC wind shadow was even possible. What, our overtaking small jib was against their big main? Over 50 years later, I am still pissed off at the optical politics of that regatta.
You was robbed.
Since when was blanking the boat in front not allowed when overtaking? Anyway if you were two mast lengths apart your jib shadow would be so small as to be virtually zero.
Could you not have protested the protest committee? I once did that and got the original decision reversed.
A painful introduction to the injustices endemic to the judicial and political realms.
It was meant as a Mark Twain joke. Jeez.
There is no nautical foot. From memory a nautical mile is 6080 feet cf 5280 feet in a land mile, a knot is one nautical mile per hour. A fathom is 6 feet. A league is three miles (varies depending on whether it’s sea or land, thus Jukes Verne 20,000 leagues under the sea covers 60000 nautical miles).
Finally what weighs more a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
Correct.
But Jules not Jukes. (They shouldn’t have put K beside L.)
I dunno, Jukes Verne gives him a modern edginess.
Would that make him the Jukes of Hazard?
An old merchant seaman told me that a fathom was derived from the arm-span of an average-sized sailor which, in the days when it was devised, was “about 6 feet”.
If this is true (and it might not be!), then there was always an element of “about” in the measurement. They didn’t all carry tape measure with them, but they could drop a rope into water and measure out the approximate depth using their arms.
Here is another old merchant seaman to tell you that you are correct about the arm span, that is still used if the measurement does not have to be very accurate.
This is how they used to measure sea temperatures. 😉
A bucket on a rope.
UV Solar – Reconstruction of solar UV irradiance since 1974 (2009)
Solar radiation at 130–175 nm (Schumann-Runge continuum) is completely absorbed in the thermosphere. Over activity cycles 21–23, solar radiative flux in this spectral range varied by about 10–15% (Figure 5a), i.e., by more than a factor of 100 more than solar cycle variations in the solar total energy flux (total solar irradiance).
In the oxygen Schumann-Runge bands (175–200 nm) and Herzberg continuum (200–242 nm), important for photochemical ozone production and destruction in the stratosphere and mesosphere, solar irradiance varied on average by about 5–8% (Figure 5b) and 3% (Figure 5c), respectively.
In the Hartley-Huggins ozone bands between 200 and 350 nm, solar radiation is the main heat source in the stratosphere. At these wavelengths, the amplitude of the solar cycle variation is of the order of 1%, which is still an order of magnitude stronger than variations of the total solar irradiance.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012375/pdf
All the energy crossing the top of atmosphere still has to get out. Lucky for us, most of the 130-175 nm range spends all it’s time making and loosing ozone.
The complete data set of the reconstructed solar irradiance at 115–400 nm over the period 1974–2007 is available as auxiliary material and at http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html
CO2 is in the 100 PPM change area.
That 5 to 8% variance in solar irradiation is a great whopping huge amount of energy, considering the total amount of solar energy across all wavelengths which Earth intercepts.
I looked up the numbers years ago and did the math to figure out how much power that is.
Would be nice if everyone writing about this stuff would do that. Anything that just uses percentages with no hard numbers looks like the author is trying to convince the reader of something that’s not exactly truthful, or that the massive amount of tax money some government program was given really isn’t a massive amount of tax money.
Ultraviolet Catastrophe (Runaway Ionizing Radiation):
+8% variation of ~ nothing is still nothing.
Applies to the flux of vacuum-ultraviolet (VUV) —
photon-energy ~ 10 eV — incoming solar radiation,
which is strongly dissociating but hardly ionizing.
Infrared Catastrophe (Runaway Greenhouse Warming):
+6.7% variation* on ~ 400 W/m^2 is +27-W/m^2, now that’s something —
+5 C, from 290.6 to 295.6 K, will get you that, true? [from +17.5 to +22.5 C]
G.A.T. is a deceptive measure (metric), but that’s what they wanna use, so …
Arctic-Region-wise, it’s more like (286/271)^4, that’s +24%.
Equatorial-Oceanic, more like +1.3% (+1.0 C <= 29 C – 28 C), …
the locals would hardly notice … so well bounded below critical temperature +30 C (303 K, 25 milli-eV photon energy).
Were it not for jump in water-vapor content (absolute humidity) and the associated awesome fluxes (up & down convective drafts ~ ±10-m/s linear speed).
Next, let’s see if we can get the associated tropical ion-fluxes, so to answer how many (pC per-m^3) X (~10-m/s) to get the reverse-electrolytic condensation rates correct and properly well-bounded.
That’s whence the work (electrical power output, of the steam-frost-ion engine / motor) must arise, no?
It seems that this is where Feynman (in his 1962 Lecture-Series, based on 1948 observations) took a break.
Pollack kept the question-electrical alive, but in his own strange way, so …
Enquiring minds request an answer:
Why hasn’t somebody picked up where they left off?
Short essay and a [Ctrl-F] search on “blame” comes up 1/3. Nothing is said about the notion that a warmer world is a better world. Poems have been written about a rare day in June. We don’t look to assign blame for pleasant weather. Warmer weather should be celebrated. The other side of the debate wants to make the case that warmer weather is a problem when it is not.
So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?”
It might be better to ask: “Is it a problem and why?”
“there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.”
NO.. you cannot say that it was “global”, just based on US data.
And there is not enough “global” data to make any such comment.
Unadjusted CIRES/NOAA data for the USA does not support that comment either.
.
Or, put another way, data that have not been adjusted for spurious influences like time of observation bias and spatial weighting, etc, and that stop 16 years ago….
I’m glad it’s generally warmer now than in the 1600s. Aren’t you?
TheFungalNail wants Earth’s climate to return to the halcyon days of The Little Ice Age! Then he can wear his hairshirt in relative comfort between bouts of self- flagellation! Like the Dark Ages, it’s a medieval thing!
And of course, he/she has sworn off any use of fossil fuels or the products derived from them…….
Oh.. except he/she hasn’t… and never will.!
Fungal wants to “adjust” the NOAA data so it fits his cult religion mantra !
There is data from all around the NH that mimics the pattern of the graph above.
USCRN shows basically no warming since 2005 except for slight El Nino bumps, so his comment about the graph ending 16 years ago is meaningless.
The solar explanation would sure be neat, but the problem is evidence of a significant 11 year cycle is lacking.
This doesn’t rule out solar, it could be solar influence is so modulated by other forcings the original signal is distorted way beyond recognition. But it isn’t exactly strong supporting evidence either.
Try Valentina Zhakova for the cosmic ray/solar magnetic field influence on cloud crystal nucleation and Henric Svensmark’s work on the periodicity observations.
It is not the 11/22 year cycle but a longer separated minima cycle contained within it.
I’ve talked to a few people in our camp about this, and I’m aware of Svensmark’s theory, at least the cloud nucleation bit. Obviously some people are for, but the solar skeptics are concerned about data quality, particularly pre-satellite.
What would really settle it is to find a nice un-inhabited patch of the Pacific like the Pole of Inaccessibility, wait for humid cool conditions, then detonate a big H-bomb in the upper stratosphere, to see how much cloud nucleation occurred, but sadly such experiments are frowned upon these days ;-).
Eric, I dug deeply into this. Svensmark has been proven correct in cloud chambers. BUT
The major cloud nucleation agents are sulfuric aerosols (coal burning and volcanoes), terpenes from coniferous forests, isoprenes from deciduous forests (think Great Smokey Mountain ‘smoke’ in summer), and ocean plankton produced dimethyl sulfides. All vastly outweigh by quantity any cosmic ray contribution to cloud nucleation.
Changes in Earth’s axial tilt are almost entirely ignored as an input on climate.
Unlike the precession of Earth’s axis, which alters when in the orbit the seasons occur, which has an effect on climate in the Northern and Southern hemispheres in combination with the widely different land VS ocean areas, the axial tilt does change noticeably on human lifetime scale. If you do the observations and calculations to locate the precise position of the arctic circle and plant a sign on it today, you could repeat the process tomorrow and the sign will be off position slightly. Could be a bit too far south or north.
The axis has reduced tilt enough in the past century and a quarter that the poles have moved about 30 feet. That’s shifted the arctic and antarctic circles towards the poles. What was the tilt during the MWP and LIA? What latitudes were the circles at?
The theorized maximum and minimum tilt angles are 24.5 and 22.1 degrees. Where does that put the minimum and maximum latitude of the circles? How much surface area lies between those bounds? What effect on the overall climate does that have?
Some asking Google’s AI on the math says for the antarctic it’s 4,225,211 square kilometers
1,631,362 square miles of area between 65.5° S latitude and 67.9° S latitude.
The antarctic circle is almost entirely filled by the continent of Antarctica. During winter it’s only heat input is from air convection / wind and a bit of water currents along the coast. In the arctic circle, with water all the way to the north pole, in winter that area gets heat input from air and water currents. ‘Tis plainly obvious it’s this difference in physical construction why it’s colder in the antarctic than the arctic.
I agree the solar signal has been distorted beyond recognition – not by nature, but by scientists.
The evidence is not lacking. The solar cycle does something no one else has grasped – it modulates clouds, but not via cosmic rays, that enhances solar irradiance at a specific time of each solar cycle that is very predictable with predictable climate effects on the Earth.
“But it isn’t exactly strong supporting evidence either.”
It is very strong evidence. You just have to know how to evaluate the data correctly.
Aren’t there more solar cycles beyond the 11/22 year cycle? Technically isn’t the 11 year a half cycle as the magnetic field has switched from N to S (or S to N), only returning to its original orientation after a further 11 years. (All timings are approximate)?
We just are not paying enough regressive taxes! That is the cause of climate change (and all evil)!!
If only the Vikings had kept temperature records during their presence in Greenland. If only…
But other biodata did keep a record…. so did the fact that they had encampments where now there is ice.
The sun went through solar cycles fifty million years ago, all the way forward to now, the Climate Change from much warmer to much colder with ever changing alternating cycles of colder and warmer, always followed by colder and warmer. Internal factors, causes most of the climate change, tropical currents diverted into polar regions, ice ages that grew longer to 40 thousand years and then longer to 100 thousand years and now, in the recent ten thousand years the ice age and warming cycles are one thousand years. The balance between water in the oceans and ice on land has changed, ocean currents have changed, climate change is mostly due to internal factors that have changed.
“The sun went through solar cycles fifty million years ago, all the way forward to now, … climate change is mostly due to internal factors that have changed.”
That is an understandably wrong view about the effect of solar cycles. Not all solar cycles are equal, with many long-term solar ups and downs over centuries to millennia. Don’t casually equate the solar effects from one era to another without appreciating differing trends and levels.
Climate internal dynamics are tied to longer term solar activity levels via the ocean.
“The discussion point of merit is not whether it (climate change) happened, but what caused it.” On that question I can add perspective from several previous lead posts here a few years ago.
Lindzen of MIT first observed about 2010 that the warming ~1920-1945 was both visually and statistically indistinguishable from the warming ~1975-2000. (Note that after both periods, there was also a pause or even slight cooling for a few decades.) Remember, all the GAST data Lindzen observed is suspect for coverage and siting reasons. But it’s all we got until UAH satellite inferences.
AR4 WG1 SPM figure 4 tried to use these observations to ‘prove’ that the latter was anthropogenic global warming caused by a rise in CO2, while the former wasn’t because of insufficient change in CO2. The former was ‘natural variation’. It is perhaps fortunate that these summaries are written by political hacks for their ‘policy makers’, because that SPM fig 4 logic was more than just faulty. If the former wasn’t caused by CO2, then there is no reason to think that the latter was, even if CO2 rose and caused a ‘climate model’ forcing.
There is a simple ‘model forcing’ non-CO2 explanation for the AR4 SPM latter period ‘observation’. Due to the 1928 CFL theorem computational constraint on numeric solutions to PDEs, global climate models at physically meaningful resolutions (2-4km to resolve thunderstorm convection cells using Navier-Stokes, for example) are 6-7 orders of magnitude computationally intractable. They therefore have to be parameterized. Both basic parameterization methods recognized by CMIP drag in ALL ‘natural variation’ by definition. No ‘rising CO2 forcing’ can therefore ever be logically inferred to cause any surface temperature rise—even partly. This is generically known as the attribution problem (natural v anthropogenic surface temperature change). (Another note. We do now understand generally why ice ages now occur with periodic interglacial eras like the present Holocene. But NOT natural variations within the Holocene on the time scales of a few centuries like the MWP (warm) and LIA (cold), both archeologically very well qualitatively proven — globally by proxies, not just the Northern Hemisphere by history.)
Is CO2 a GHG? Yes, Tyndall proved that experimentally in 1859 in a dry lab atmosphere. Is H2O—yes, both as a more ‘potent’ GHG molecule, and as physically much more abundant. Should a CO2 rise result in some warming? Probably. But because of CFL and attribution we will never know by how much relative to easily qualitatively provable natural variation.
We do know that the climate models of AR4 and later run way too hot. They produce (with just 1 CMIP6 exception) a spurious tropical troposphere hotspot. They produce an ECS averaging over twice (3.2+) what observational EBM calculations suggest (likely range ~1.5-1.8)—and the 1 CMIP6 exception, producing an ECS of just 1.8C (lowest in all of CMIP6) is the same one that doesn’t produce a spurious tropical troposphere hotspot!
Russians.
In Siberia & all around her Arctic operations …
the incentives are properly aligned …
to get to the truth of this matter.
Yes. Russian model INM-CM5. I have a copy of their fascinating long paper (in English) on how they got these INM-CM5 results. Was actually very simple. They just parameterized CM5 ocean rainfall in their tropical seas based on ARGO observational estimates!
(Remember, ‘ocean fresh water reservoir’ was one of the three main original ARGO design intents, via calibrated salinity as below 700 meters ocean salinity is essentially a constant. See my long ago post ‘ARGO—fit for purpose?’ for ARGO design and calibration details.
To a bit oversimplify, twice the model parameterized tropical ocean freshwater rainfall, half the tropical water vapor positive feedback, so no tropical troposphere hotspot and ~half the ECS.
“By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground.”
No, direct evidence contradicts this theory. It is falsified, like the CO2 climate theory is falsified.
Cosmic ray theory claims climate cooling clouds are supposed to increase from more cosmic rays.
Clearly this is false as there were fewer clouds while cosmic rays were higher since 2000.
Futhermore, the climate warmed since 2000, so obviously it did not cool from higher cosmic rays.
Kelvin Kemm’s Topic: War in the 1860s, Industrial Revolution, Sam Clemens & Abe Lincoln
Steam-Engines powered the riverboats that Clemens rode;
as well as the steel Battleships of the Civil War;
And the Railways — which were built on wooden trestles rather than stone embankments, since they would be blown up & replaced in every season …
On those railways ran Iron-Horse Locomotives, alongside the great Telegraph-Internet-1.0. Aerial observations were limited to-air balloons & carrier pigeons, in place of our Satellite Telemetry.
Lincoln was the first wartime Commander-(in-Chief) to be on all battlefronts at once, thanks to instant telecommunications.
By 1869, the first Transcontinental Railroad had copper-wired Sacramento-Valley farmers to Chicago & NYC.
All by the power of Steam Engines, by the ‘Motive Power of Heat‘ (Sadi Carnot).
But whence came the Idea of the Steam Engine?
Toy Models were displayed in the Museum (Library / University) of Alexandria, ~ 2-millennia prior.
Carnot credited all this to humanity’s observational meteorology that discovered …
A Great Steam-Frost-Ion-Engine / Electric-Motor, operating in perpetuum, high in the Eternal Tropical Sky — an Atmos(Steam-Vapor)Sphere, Ben Franklin’s ElectroSphere.
Surely the young Frenchman waxed poetic, sayeth ye all.
Or when R. B. Fuller spoke:
“The most interesting aspect of our Space-Ship Earth [machine] is that we have not been provided with its Operating Manual.”
“Condensation is Electrolytic.”
Merely clever turns-of-phrase?
Or maybe they knew better.
Now put all that in your supercritical-steam-turbine-pipe & smoke it!
— R. L. WHET(s)TON(e), absolutely & forever A.I.-free
Resources:
William Rosen, The Most Powerful Idea* in the World (2010).
R. Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path (1981); Operating Manual for Space-Ship Earth (1968).
S. Ambrose, Nothing Like It in the World (1999).
*Spoiler: It’s the Legal System (PTO), not the electric motor.
The Industrial Revolution started in England in the 1760s. I don’t know why everyone says it started in the mid 1800s.
ABSTRACT:
Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous RGHE heat balance graphics don’t plus violate GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface BB impossible.
RGHE is bogus & CAGW is a scam!
FACTS & EVIDENCE:
FACT 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
FACT 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a BB.
EVIDENCE:
According to TFK_bams09 atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a BB. These graphics & data tables contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors.
FACT 3: Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
Colorado Springs
719 651 7383
Nschroeder48@aol.com
ACRONYMS & DEFINITIONS
RGHE: Radiative GreenHouse Effect
GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
LoT: Laws of Thermodynamics
BB: Black Body: A thermodynamic system that absorbs ALL incoming energy and emits ALL that energy by radiation alone. Only possible in a vacuum.
CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming
GHGs: GreenHouse Gases, all of them including water vapor
K: Celsius degree units on the Kelvin scale used for serious science (No such thang as a Kelvin unit)
hot^3: hot cubed, i.e. hot*hot*hot
cold^3: cold cubed, i.e. cold*cold*cold
albedo: Ice, snow, clouds, etc. that reflect incoming solar radiation thereby cooling the Earth
C: Celsius degree units on the Celsius scale
UCLA: Univ of CA LA
JWST: James Webb Space Telescope
HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
F: degrees Fahrenheit on the F scale. Not useful for formal science.
ISS: International Space Station
Space Discovery Center: Colorado Springs
TFK Trenberth-Fasullo-Kiehl, UCAR climate scientists responsible for GHE budget concept
UCAR: Univ of CO Atmos Research
SURFRAD: NOAA network of stations that measure the surface radiation budget and aerosols over the Earth’s land surface.
LWIR: Long Wave Infra-Red radiation.
CO2: Carbon Dioxide
BSME: Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
CU: University of Colorado, Boulder
What Gemini says about your claims:
Core Physics & Logical Critiques
‘Matter above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation based on its temperature and emissivity regardless of whether it is touching air molecules.’
Please ask Gemini exactly what it means by ‘matter’ in the above sentence. It seems clear to me that if it’s matter touching ‘air molecules’, then it must refer to condensed matter.
Once Gemini straightens that out, perhaps you can ask it on what physics grounds it’s ok to conflate the thermal radiative properties of condensed matter with those of atmospheric gases.
You can ask it, I won’t mind.
Observed over a period of 30 years? 30 000 years more like.
“There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.”
Probably because there were millions of extremely accurate thermometers spaced uniformly all over the planet for centuries so we know that it’s a bit warmer now with 100% confidence. /s
Four score and seven solar cycles ago…