The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[ding]

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's only two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

 

[SSDD]

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?

Moron. I've linked to it and referred to it numerous times on this thread.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

"Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"

I asked for a proxy reconstruction that had the resolution to support claims based on 200 year time periods...not someone's opinion...I don't see anything there that states what the rate of temperature rise was in previous warm periods.. I went to the paper that the article you posted was derived from and they make no claims as to the rates of warming over spans of time as short as 200 years.....

so again, do you have a proxy study which would allow you to make claims regarding rates of temperature change in a short span of time such as 200 years.....we know that the temperature has increased a bit over a degree over the past couple of hundred years..neither your site, or the paper it was derived from makes any claim of resolution sufficient to claim that in the past, the temperature rise was always less than 0.75 degrees per century...and what do you suppose the margin of error would be?

 

[SSDD]

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

sorry guy...you are the one making the claim that it is...therefore the onus is upon you to provide the data showing that it is..what sort of study do you think exists that could even begin to detect a 0.75 degree per century increase in temperature which would be 1/10 of the rate we have seen over the past 200 years? Hell, even the thermometer record can't claim that sort of accuracy with any credibility.

 

[Cosmos]

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

 

[Cosmos]

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?

Moron. I've linked to it and referred to it numerous times on this thread.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

"Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"

I asked for a proxy reconstruction that had the resolution to support claims based on 200 year time periods...not someone's opinion...I don't see anything there that states what the rate of temperature rise was in previous warm periods.. I went to the paper that the article you posted was derived from and they make no claims as to the rates of warming over spans of time as short as 200 years.....

so again, do you have a proxy study which would allow you to make claims regarding rates of temperature change in a short span of time such as 200 years.....we know that the temperature has increased a bit over a degree over the past couple of hundred years..neither your site, or the paper it was derived from makes any claim of resolution sufficient to claim that in the past, the temperature rise was always less than 0.75 degrees per century...and what do you suppose the margin of error would be?

Everything I've said on this thread is based on a chart that Dingaling posted. If it was good enough for Dingaling it's good enough for you.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I imagine if there was actual science behind it, they wouldn't keep falsifying data.

 

[ding]

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

My explanation is not irrelevant. It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.

 

[ding]

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?

Moron. I've linked to it and referred to it numerous times on this thread.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

"Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"

I asked for a proxy reconstruction that had the resolution to support claims based on 200 year time periods...not someone's opinion...I don't see anything there that states what the rate of temperature rise was in previous warm periods.. I went to the paper that the article you posted was derived from and they make no claims as to the rates of warming over spans of time as short as 200 years.....

so again, do you have a proxy study which would allow you to make claims regarding rates of temperature change in a short span of time such as 200 years.....we know that the temperature has increased a bit over a degree over the past couple of hundred years..neither your site, or the paper it was derived from makes any claim of resolution sufficient to claim that in the past, the temperature rise was always less than 0.75 degrees per century...and what do you suppose the margin of error would be?

Everything I've said on this thread is based on a chart that Dingaling posted. If it was good enough for Dingaling it's good enough for you.

Wrong. That is just one tiny piece of the picture. Here are three posts which extensively paints the entire picture, Einstein.

Watching La Nina update thread

Watching La Nina update thread

Watching La Nina update thread

 

[polarbear]

Good answer and I never REALLY thought you would add them. That was meant just as a joke anyways.
Matter of fact you do get a number somewhere between the 2 individual numbers.
But here is the problem and why I posted and addressed it to you:
Look at Spencer`s experiment
Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
August 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I recorded temperatures every 5 secs with the plate alternately exposed to a view of the ice for 5 minutes, then with the ice covered for 5 minutes. This cycling was repeated five times. The results are shown in Fig. 3. What we see is just what I would expect, that the temperature of the hot plate increases with time when its view of the ice is blocked by the room-temperature sheet.

And he leads off by saying this:
The experiment shown below does not prove that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere perform such a function, only that it is not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for a cooler object emitting infrared radiation to keep a warm object warmer that it would otherwise be if the cooler object was not present.
His conclusion is:

Conclusion
There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the experiment; a cool object can make a warm object even warmer still through infrared radiative effects. The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object replaces something that is even colder, and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings. In this experiment, the room temperature plate takes the place of the ice which still emits at around 300 Watts per sq. meter; in the climate system, the atmosphere takes the place of deep space, which emits energy at close to 0 Watts per sq. meter.

So what do you think Spencer proved with his experiment?
Certainly not that a cold object can make a warm object even warmer. All it did prove is, that when the warm object was exposed to the uncovered ice box is that the colder object cooled off the warmer one and that a warm object next to a warmer one reduces the cooling of the warmer object...but not that this second object heated up the warmer one even more. That would imply that the second object is a heat source
And this is a meteorologist who is or was the Principal Research Scientist at the U of Alabama and a "former NASA Scientist"
No way would or should make a real physicist commit such a blunder. Amazing how low the bar is set at NASA for climate "scientists". That`s why some people call it pseudo science.
And you say?

Conclusion
There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the experiment; a cool object can make a warm object even warmer still through infrared radiative effects. The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object replaces something that is even colder, and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings. In this experiment, the room temperature plate takes the place of the ice which still emits at around 300 Watts per sq. meter; in the climate system, the atmosphere takes the place of deep space, which emits energy at close to 0 Watts per sq. meter.

Spencer proved exactly what he set out to prove. Your so-called criticism agrees with what he stated.


Personally I think Spencer should have emphasized that the warm object has a heat source, and that the temperature of the warm object is a combination of both energy input and energy output. Without an energy source everything just cools.

Look at the bottom graph. with the ice shielded the temperature jumps two degrees, when the ice is exposed it drops down two degrees. the local conditions changed and the temperature equation changed and the temperature moved to reflect that change. It is easier to visualize how the heated plate quickly cools and stabilizes when exposed to the ice than it is to understand what is happening when the ice is shielded and the plate starts to warm up. Where does the energy needed to warm up the plate come from?

It comes from the energy NOT lost to the environment. That energy is stored in the plate and is expressed as an increase in temperature. The energy stored is exactly the same as the extra energy released when the plate is exposed to the ice and cools down.

Now switch over to the Earth and its atmosphere. There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential energy. Energy that would be directly lost to deep space if no solar input was present to keep it aloft. Everything above zero degrees Kelvin radiates according to its temperature. Everything can be either warmer or cooler than its surroundings but it is always radiating. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface but warmer than space but it sends radiation to both the surface and to space.

Just like Spencer's experiment, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface (plate) but not as cool as space (ice). The presence of the atmosphere increases the surface temperature by lowering heat loss to space, the energy not lost to space is the source of temperature change at the surface.

Still dont believe me? Imagine what would happen if solar input just stopped. The Earth would continue to radiate and cool. Until all the stored energy was lost to space as the atmosphere collapsed into a frozen crust on the surface.

Matter at any temperature can be a net absorber or emitter of radiation. A glass of ice water melts above 0C or freezes solid below 0C but it is giving off the same amount of radiation until it does one or the other.

No he did not prove that a colder body warms up a warmer one. The colder body is not a heat source, the heat source was the heat-lamp. Nobody has any problems with the idea that heat radiation can be impeded by an object that is warmer than the background. Spencer was trying to show that the 2nd body is a heat source. That is an entirely different principle. The only way he could possibly prove his claim is to eliminate the heat lamp and conduct an experiment that clearly shows that there is a transfer of heat from the cooler object to the warmer one. Such as by placing 2 objects of different temperature in a Dewar flask and observing the temperature changes. If the cooler of the 2 can make the warmer one even warmer then the cooler one should cool off in the process...and we all know it won`t do that

Spencer's experiments show the disturbance in temperature gradients by placing intermediate objects between the source of heat and the exit of that heat into the environment. Heat loss is slowed by decreasing the temperature difference between the heat source and the intermediary compared to the environment which is assumed to be able to absorb energy without changing temperature. Energy is captured, the temperature of both the source and intermediary increase until the loss to the environment equals the amount without the intermediary. In the above experiment he did not measure the intermediary, he just changed one environment for a warmer one. The difference is moot. The effect on the heated warm source is measurable, the reasons obvious.

In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object. If you placed yet another object between the heat source and the environment, it too would warm up, using stored energy that would have escaped to the environment. If the heat source is terminated then all the stored heat would be released. The total amount of energy put into the environment is exactly equal with or without intermediaries.

You say:
"In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object."
To which I answer:
Yes of course the second cooler object would contain stored energy received from the warm object and would in turn become a heat source but not an additional heat source for the first, the warmer on. Only to yet another one a 3rd one which is cooler than the second object.

Good! It seems as if we are converging on what we agree upon.

You agree that a cool intermediary object that shadows the warm heated object from the cold environment will increase the temperature of the heated object by lowered heat loss due to a smaller temperature differential. You also seem to agree that the intermediary object absorbs and stores energy so that it becomes a heat source to objects cooler than itself. And that extra objects placed between the heated source and the cold environment would also react in the same way, absorbing and storing energy, decreasing heat loss uphill and becoming a heat source downhill.

The Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-Space flow of energy is complicated by many things but there is still a radiation component to it, and only radiation finally escapes. Solar insulation warms the surface, which warms the lower atmosphere, which warms the next layer, etc until the same amount of energy leaves as entered albeit at lower energy wavelengths. While the surface has an emissivity of over 0.9 in the wavelengths we are interested in, the atmosphere has an emissivity that is much lower and is concentrated in certain spikes that typically correlate to GHGs. Some wavelengths escape freely, some are blocked almost completely at near surface heights. It is also important to remember that the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar insolation that gives it the kinetic and potential energy to remain aloft. The atmosphere radiates energy in all directions but heat (net energy transfer) only goes from warmer to cooler.

Polar Bear - Do you agree with SSDD that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface? You seem to object to many posters here that make plausible statements on physics but you are strangely silent on SSDD's bizarre claims.

You know or should know that it is not my intention to attack you and for the most part I agree with much of what you have been posting over several years.
It`s not just now that we have converging views as you put it.
If I don`t agree with some of what you say does not mean that I dismiss the rest of what you have been posting...which for the most part is correct.
However there can be no progress in R&/or RD unless there are debates where the views are diverging. In this particular case it`s down to what Spencer considers as a heat source.
There is no need to get into GHG`s and all the rest of it to troubleshoot Spencer`s experiment.
Yes a cooler object can affect the cooling of a warmer object if it shades it from an even colder background into which the warmer object radiates heat. But as I keep saying that does not make the colder object a heat source for the warmer object...no more than plug that stops a tire leak is a source of compressed air to inflate it to a higher pressure. For that you do need a compressor, in Spencer`s experiment he needs the heat lamp and for the earth you need the sun + the GHGs to increase the temperature. The GHGs alone will not increase the temperature and in Spencer`s example you also need more than just another body. Without the heat lamp there is no temperature increase. The only effect that 2nd cooler object has is to impede cooling but that does not make it a heat source as Spencer keeps saying ( for many years ever since he is blogging)
The insulation in your house walls are not a heat source, nor is the lid on a pot of boiling water..well I`m sure you get the point.
As far as the rest of AGW is concerned I am a critic when it comes to the magnitude and the accuracy of it all. Since we are dealing with only a fraction of a degree EVERYTHING hinges on accuracy and methodology and both are woefully inadequate...as you also pointed out many times.
Okay now about SSDD..
You said that he said:"that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface"
The way I would put that is:
Surface radiation is a function of surface temperature. Surface radiation is partially absorbed by the atmosphere and absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions....that was all well established long before M.Mann & Al Gore or the IPCC came along.
We also knew for over a century that anything which shields a warm object from a cold background into which it would otherwise radiate heat impedes the cooling of the warm object.
But now it all comes down to the magnitudes of all the effects that must be considered.
By far the largest near the surface and lower altitudes is convection, evaporation, lapse rate, cloud cover and way way down CO2.
And you know where I stand concerning the latter. Not with estimates, models or what this so called "scientific consensus" claims it is...most of them have no clue how to properly measure the difference of absorption between a gas mixture of 300 ppm CO2 and 400ppm of real air that also exhibits various moisture content and exists in a wide variety of different barometric pressure regions.
So what do they do?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
where it is stated that:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

And from that they "compute" a global average...from which they again "compute" a global average temperature anomaly in the order of minute fractions of a degree K or C which are just fractional % when we express it in Kelvin as it should be...as all the equations that are used do.
I don`t even have to get into barometric pressure variations over huge regions . It suffices to point out that a 10% moisture variation alone will result in changes that dwarf the changes in deg K anomalies:
Air pollutant concentrations - Wikipedia

where:
C = Concentration of the air pollutant in the emitted gas
w = fraction of the emitted exhaust gas, by volume, which is water vapor
As an example, a wet basis concentration of 40 ppmv in a gas having 10 volume percent water vapor would have a: Cdry basis = 40 ÷ ( 1 - 0.10 ) = 44.4 ppmv.
And last not least there is what the bureaucrats at the IPCC are plugging in for CO2 doubling as absorption rates and for computing the net effect in watts/m^2.
It`s a complete joke !!!
Dr.Heinz Hug and everybody else who is not a part of that propaganda machine have it right
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get 0.17 %
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
......
And you say ?

 

[xyz]

Trump has the most scietifintic expoits:



The Earth is only 5,500 years old, how the heck could it have global warming??!!

 

[Cosmos]

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

My explanation is not irrelevant. It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.

Sure. You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.

 

[ding]

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

My explanation is not irrelevant. It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.

Sure. You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.

My goodness, ok. Here you go. Here is the natural process you so desperately seek.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.

The start of the transition from the greenhouse world to an icehouse world began 55 million years ago, but it wasn't until the last 3 million years that we actually transitioned to an icehouse world.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. This curve shows the temperature of the earth over its 4.5 billion year life.

This curve shows the cooling trend over the last 55 million years. Note the glaciation markers on the graph. About 5 million years ago the earth started to rapidly cool as evidenced by the saw tooth behavior of the oxygen isotope curve which is a proxy for temperature.

Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm. Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

It was plate tectonics which set the stage for bipolar glaciation and the icehouse world we live in today. The north pole was isolated by warm marine currents by landmasses. The south pole was isolated from warm marine currents because Antarctica is centered over the pole. When the poles become isolated from warm marine currents the threshold is lowered for glaciation at the poles. The south pole has a lower threshold for glaciation than the north pole because a continent is parked over the south pole while the north pole is somewhat less isolated because other land masses are interfering with the circulation of the warm marine currents of the ocean rather than a landmass being parked over the pole.

Five million years ago the earth began to rapidly cool. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. Before the glacial-interglacial cycles could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.

 

[ding]

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

My explanation is not irrelevant. It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.

Sure. You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.

But wait... there's more, dumbass.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

Some dumbasses like yourself make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles. For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr. For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr. For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr. For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr. For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

 

[SSDD]

Everything I've said on this thread is based on a chart that Dingaling posted. If it was good enough for Dingaling it's good enough for you.

the chart is fine...the claim that it has a resolution of 0.75 degrees per century is bullshit...d

 

[SSDD]

Sure. You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.

You have no evidence that the rate of increase we have seen over the past 200 years is anything but natural...the opinion of someone with no actual evidence to back it up is just an opinion...if you have evidence of a proxy reconstruction that can boast resolution of 0.75 degrees per century, by all means, lets see it...what you posted, however is not that...it is an opinion with no actual evidence to back it up.

 

[ding]

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?

I have already provided the data, moron. There's on two data points. That's the point. No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.

My explanation is not irrelevant. It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.

Sure. You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.

You have constructed a logical fallacy argument to justify your disregarding of data which shows that we perfectly within the norm of the previous four interglacials.

 

[IanC]

Spencer proved exactly what he set out to prove. Your so-called criticism agrees with what he stated.


Personally I think Spencer should have emphasized that the warm object has a heat source, and that the temperature of the warm object is a combination of both energy input and energy output. Without an energy source everything just cools.

Look at the bottom graph. with the ice shielded the temperature jumps two degrees, when the ice is exposed it drops down two degrees. the local conditions changed and the temperature equation changed and the temperature moved to reflect that change. It is easier to visualize how the heated plate quickly cools and stabilizes when exposed to the ice than it is to understand what is happening when the ice is shielded and the plate starts to warm up. Where does the energy needed to warm up the plate come from?

It comes from the energy NOT lost to the environment. That energy is stored in the plate and is expressed as an increase in temperature. The energy stored is exactly the same as the extra energy released when the plate is exposed to the ice and cools down.

Now switch over to the Earth and its atmosphere. There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential energy. Energy that would be directly lost to deep space if no solar input was present to keep it aloft. Everything above zero degrees Kelvin radiates according to its temperature. Everything can be either warmer or cooler than its surroundings but it is always radiating. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface but warmer than space but it sends radiation to both the surface and to space.

Just like Spencer's experiment, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface (plate) but not as cool as space (ice). The presence of the atmosphere increases the surface temperature by lowering heat loss to space, the energy not lost to space is the source of temperature change at the surface.

Still dont believe me? Imagine what would happen if solar input just stopped. The Earth would continue to radiate and cool. Until all the stored energy was lost to space as the atmosphere collapsed into a frozen crust on the surface.

Matter at any temperature can be a net absorber or emitter of radiation. A glass of ice water melts above 0C or freezes solid below 0C but it is giving off the same amount of radiation until it does one or the other.

No he did not prove that a colder body warms up a warmer one. The colder body is not a heat source, the heat source was the heat-lamp. Nobody has any problems with the idea that heat radiation can be impeded by an object that is warmer than the background. Spencer was trying to show that the 2nd body is a heat source. That is an entirely different principle. The only way he could possibly prove his claim is to eliminate the heat lamp and conduct an experiment that clearly shows that there is a transfer of heat from the cooler object to the warmer one. Such as by placing 2 objects of different temperature in a Dewar flask and observing the temperature changes. If the cooler of the 2 can make the warmer one even warmer then the cooler one should cool off in the process...and we all know it won`t do that

Spencer's experiments show the disturbance in temperature gradients by placing intermediate objects between the source of heat and the exit of that heat into the environment. Heat loss is slowed by decreasing the temperature difference between the heat source and the intermediary compared to the environment which is assumed to be able to absorb energy without changing temperature. Energy is captured, the temperature of both the source and intermediary increase until the loss to the environment equals the amount without the intermediary. In the above experiment he did not measure the intermediary, he just changed one environment for a warmer one. The difference is moot. The effect on the heated warm source is measurable, the reasons obvious.

In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object. If you placed yet another object between the heat source and the environment, it too would warm up, using stored energy that would have escaped to the environment. If the heat source is terminated then all the stored heat would be released. The total amount of energy put into the environment is exactly equal with or without intermediaries.

You say:
"In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object."
To which I answer:
Yes of course the second cooler object would contain stored energy received from the warm object and would in turn become a heat source but not an additional heat source for the first, the warmer on. Only to yet another one a 3rd one which is cooler than the second object.

Good! It seems as if we are converging on what we agree upon.

You agree that a cool intermediary object that shadows the warm heated object from the cold environment will increase the temperature of the heated object by lowered heat loss due to a smaller temperature differential. You also seem to agree that the intermediary object absorbs and stores energy so that it becomes a heat source to objects cooler than itself. And that extra objects placed between the heated source and the cold environment would also react in the same way, absorbing and storing energy, decreasing heat loss uphill and becoming a heat source downhill.

The Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-Space flow of energy is complicated by many things but there is still a radiation component to it, and only radiation finally escapes. Solar insulation warms the surface, which warms the lower atmosphere, which warms the next layer, etc until the same amount of energy leaves as entered albeit at lower energy wavelengths. While the surface has an emissivity of over 0.9 in the wavelengths we are interested in, the atmosphere has an emissivity that is much lower and is concentrated in certain spikes that typically correlate to GHGs. Some wavelengths escape freely, some are blocked almost completely at near surface heights. It is also important to remember that the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar insolation that gives it the kinetic and potential energy to remain aloft. The atmosphere radiates energy in all directions but heat (net energy transfer) only goes from warmer to cooler.

Polar Bear - Do you agree with SSDD that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface? You seem to object to many posters here that make plausible statements on physics but you are strangely silent on SSDD's bizarre claims.

You know or should know that it is not my intention to attack you and for the most part I agree with much of what you have been posting over several years.
It`s not just now that we have converging views as you put it.
If I don`t agree with some of what you say does not mean that I dismiss the rest of what you have been posting...which for the most part is correct.
However there can be no progress in R&/or RD unless there are debates where the views are diverging. In this particular case it`s down to what Spencer considers as a heat source.
There is no need to get into GHG`s and all the rest of it to troubleshoot Spencer`s experiment.
Yes a cooler object can affect the cooling of a warmer object if it shades it from an even colder background into which the warmer object radiates heat. But as I keep saying that does not make the colder object a heat source for the warmer object...no more than plug that stops a tire leak is a source of compressed air to inflate it to a higher pressure. For that you do need a compressor, in Spencer`s experiment he needs the heat lamp and for the earth you need the sun + the GHGs to increase the temperature. The GHGs alone will not increase the temperature and in Spencer`s example you also need more than just another body. Without the heat lamp there is no temperature increase. The only effect that 2nd cooler object has is to impede cooling but that does not make it a heat source as Spencer keeps saying ( for many years ever since he is blogging)
The insulation in your house walls are not a heat source, nor is the lid on a pot of boiling water..well I`m sure you get the point.
As far as the rest of AGW is concerned I am a critic when it comes to the magnitude and the accuracy of it all. Since we are dealing with only a fraction of a degree EVERYTHING hinges on accuracy and methodology and both are woefully inadequate...as you also pointed out many times.
Okay now about SSDD..
You said that he said:"that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface"
The way I would put that is:
Surface radiation is a function of surface temperature. Surface radiation is partially absorbed by the atmosphere and absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions....that was all well established long before M.Mann & Al Gore or the IPCC came along.
We also knew for over a century that anything which shields a warm object from a cold background into which it would otherwise radiate heat impedes the cooling of the warm object.
But now it all comes down to the magnitudes of all the effects that must be considered.
By far the largest near the surface and lower altitudes is convection, evaporation, lapse rate, cloud cover and way way down CO2.
And you know where I stand concerning the latter. Not with estimates, models or what this so called "scientific consensus" claims it is...most of them have no clue how to properly measure the difference of absorption between a gas mixture of 300 ppm CO2 and 400ppm of real air that also exhibits various moisture content and exists in a wide variety of different barometric pressure regions.
So what do they do?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
where it is stated that:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

And from that they "compute" a global average...from which they again "compute" a global average temperature anomaly in the order of minute fractions of a degree K or C which are just fractional % when we express it in Kelvin as it should be...as all the equations that are used do.
I don`t even have to get into barometric pressure variations over huge regions . It suffices to point out that a 10% moisture variation alone will result in changes that dwarf the changes in deg K anomalies:
Air pollutant concentrations - Wikipedia

where:
C = Concentration of the air pollutant in the emitted gas
w = fraction of the emitted exhaust gas, by volume, which is water vapor
As an example, a wet basis concentration of 40 ppmv in a gas having 10 volume percent water vapor would have a: Cdry basis = 40 ÷ ( 1 - 0.10 ) = 44.4 ppmv.
And last not least there is what the bureaucrats at the IPCC are plugging in for CO2 doubling as absorption rates and for computing the net effect in watts/m^2.
It`s a complete joke !!!
Dr.Heinz Hug and everybody else who is not a part of that propaganda machine have it right
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get 0.17 %
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
......
And you say ?

I agree that we hold similar views on many of the climate science topics.

I have an almost irrational hatred of Michael Mann. Beyond the level of distain I have for other scientists that have made even worse manipulations. I would be hard pressed to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he says, although I would defend his right to speak.

You seem to have a similar problem with Spencer. You purposely misunderstand his words and refuse to make an effort to readjust your thinking. It's too bad, really.

As far as SSDD goes, you have ignored the question. He says that surface conditions control the creation of radiation from the atmosphere. eg. No radiation is possible from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Period. Not one photon. Ever.

 

[polarbear]

No he did not prove that a colder body warms up a warmer one. The colder body is not a heat source, the heat source was the heat-lamp. Nobody has any problems with the idea that heat radiation can be impeded by an object that is warmer than the background. Spencer was trying to show that the 2nd body is a heat source. That is an entirely different principle. The only way he could possibly prove his claim is to eliminate the heat lamp and conduct an experiment that clearly shows that there is a transfer of heat from the cooler object to the warmer one. Such as by placing 2 objects of different temperature in a Dewar flask and observing the temperature changes. If the cooler of the 2 can make the warmer one even warmer then the cooler one should cool off in the process...and we all know it won`t do that

Spencer's experiments show the disturbance in temperature gradients by placing intermediate objects between the source of heat and the exit of that heat into the environment. Heat loss is slowed by decreasing the temperature difference between the heat source and the intermediary compared to the environment which is assumed to be able to absorb energy without changing temperature. Energy is captured, the temperature of both the source and intermediary increase until the loss to the environment equals the amount without the intermediary. In the above experiment he did not measure the intermediary, he just changed one environment for a warmer one. The difference is moot. The effect on the heated warm source is measurable, the reasons obvious.

In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object. If you placed yet another object between the heat source and the environment, it too would warm up, using stored energy that would have escaped to the environment. If the heat source is terminated then all the stored heat would be released. The total amount of energy put into the environment is exactly equal with or without intermediaries.

You say:
"In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object."
To which I answer:
Yes of course the second cooler object would contain stored energy received from the warm object and would in turn become a heat source but not an additional heat source for the first, the warmer on. Only to yet another one a 3rd one which is cooler than the second object.

Good! It seems as if we are converging on what we agree upon.

You agree that a cool intermediary object that shadows the warm heated object from the cold environment will increase the temperature of the heated object by lowered heat loss due to a smaller temperature differential. You also seem to agree that the intermediary object absorbs and stores energy so that it becomes a heat source to objects cooler than itself. And that extra objects placed between the heated source and the cold environment would also react in the same way, absorbing and storing energy, decreasing heat loss uphill and becoming a heat source downhill.

The Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-Space flow of energy is complicated by many things but there is still a radiation component to it, and only radiation finally escapes. Solar insulation warms the surface, which warms the lower atmosphere, which warms the next layer, etc until the same amount of energy leaves as entered albeit at lower energy wavelengths. While the surface has an emissivity of over 0.9 in the wavelengths we are interested in, the atmosphere has an emissivity that is much lower and is concentrated in certain spikes that typically correlate to GHGs. Some wavelengths escape freely, some are blocked almost completely at near surface heights. It is also important to remember that the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar insolation that gives it the kinetic and potential energy to remain aloft. The atmosphere radiates energy in all directions but heat (net energy transfer) only goes from warmer to cooler.

Polar Bear - Do you agree with SSDD that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface? You seem to object to many posters here that make plausible statements on physics but you are strangely silent on SSDD's bizarre claims.

You know or should know that it is not my intention to attack you and for the most part I agree with much of what you have been posting over several years.
It`s not just now that we have converging views as you put it.
If I don`t agree with some of what you say does not mean that I dismiss the rest of what you have been posting...which for the most part is correct.
However there can be no progress in R&/or RD unless there are debates where the views are diverging. In this particular case it`s down to what Spencer considers as a heat source.
There is no need to get into GHG`s and all the rest of it to troubleshoot Spencer`s experiment.
Yes a cooler object can affect the cooling of a warmer object if it shades it from an even colder background into which the warmer object radiates heat. But as I keep saying that does not make the colder object a heat source for the warmer object...no more than plug that stops a tire leak is a source of compressed air to inflate it to a higher pressure. For that you do need a compressor, in Spencer`s experiment he needs the heat lamp and for the earth you need the sun + the GHGs to increase the temperature. The GHGs alone will not increase the temperature and in Spencer`s example you also need more than just another body. Without the heat lamp there is no temperature increase. The only effect that 2nd cooler object has is to impede cooling but that does not make it a heat source as Spencer keeps saying ( for many years ever since he is blogging)
The insulation in your house walls are not a heat source, nor is the lid on a pot of boiling water..well I`m sure you get the point.
As far as the rest of AGW is concerned I am a critic when it comes to the magnitude and the accuracy of it all. Since we are dealing with only a fraction of a degree EVERYTHING hinges on accuracy and methodology and both are woefully inadequate...as you also pointed out many times.
Okay now about SSDD..
You said that he said:"that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface"
The way I would put that is:
Surface radiation is a function of surface temperature. Surface radiation is partially absorbed by the atmosphere and absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions....that was all well established long before M.Mann & Al Gore or the IPCC came along.
We also knew for over a century that anything which shields a warm object from a cold background into which it would otherwise radiate heat impedes the cooling of the warm object.
But now it all comes down to the magnitudes of all the effects that must be considered.
By far the largest near the surface and lower altitudes is convection, evaporation, lapse rate, cloud cover and way way down CO2.
And you know where I stand concerning the latter. Not with estimates, models or what this so called "scientific consensus" claims it is...most of them have no clue how to properly measure the difference of absorption between a gas mixture of 300 ppm CO2 and 400ppm of real air that also exhibits various moisture content and exists in a wide variety of different barometric pressure regions.
So what do they do?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
where it is stated that:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

And from that they "compute" a global average...from which they again "compute" a global average temperature anomaly in the order of minute fractions of a degree K or C which are just fractional % when we express it in Kelvin as it should be...as all the equations that are used do.
I don`t even have to get into barometric pressure variations over huge regions . It suffices to point out that a 10% moisture variation alone will result in changes that dwarf the changes in deg K anomalies:
Air pollutant concentrations - Wikipedia

where:
C = Concentration of the air pollutant in the emitted gas
w = fraction of the emitted exhaust gas, by volume, which is water vapor
As an example, a wet basis concentration of 40 ppmv in a gas having 10 volume percent water vapor would have a: Cdry basis = 40 ÷ ( 1 - 0.10 ) = 44.4 ppmv.
And last not least there is what the bureaucrats at the IPCC are plugging in for CO2 doubling as absorption rates and for computing the net effect in watts/m^2.
It`s a complete joke !!!
Dr.Heinz Hug and everybody else who is not a part of that propaganda machine have it right
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get 0.17 %
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
......
And you say ?

I agree that we hold similar views on many of the climate science topics.

I have an almost irrational hatred of Michael Mann. Beyond the level of distain I have for other scientists that have made even worse manipulations. I would be hard pressed to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he says, although I would defend his right to speak.

You seem to have a similar problem with Spencer. You purposely misunderstand his words and refuse to make an effort to readjust your thinking. It's too bad, really.

As far as SSDD goes, you have ignored the question. He says that surface conditions control the creation of radiation from the atmosphere. eg. No radiation is possible from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Period. Not one photon. Ever.

Naah I don`t have that kind of a problem with Spencer just with his experiment.
Also I like this forum to discuss physics but I don`t like a discussion to escalate into an argument.
Over the years I noticed that you make a lot of effort to do the same so that`s why I singled you out most of the time.
Of course a cooler object also emits radiation as long as it is above 0 K but again that does not qualify it as a heat source for a warmer object. If it were then it should be able to increase the temperature of the warmer object without the need of a 3.rd heat radiating object.
I am beginning to think that the definition of the term "heat source" in my native language which is German may be somewhat different as it might be understood by those whose native language is English. So let me try this on you..the people who discovered and published the physics involved with this bone of contention use the German term "Energie Quelle".
The exact meaning of quelle can only be translated into the Englsh word "source" for lack of a more nuanced and more exact meaning of "quelle" which in this case would mean ORIGIN.
In other words the object from which the additional energy in a given system originated from.
If all you got is "source" as a word for that system in English then you are stuck considering anything that radiates as an energy source.
In Spencer`s experiment the additional observed energy comes from the heat lamp and not from the cooler object. That does not mean that there is no feed-back but in any feed-back loop you still need an energy source to pump it. Else the loop`s internal energy decays or in this case cools off.
There are other areas in physics where they don`t even try to translate a term like for ex. "Schlieren Effekt" because there are no suitable English words and vice versa there is no suitable German word for "sonic boom"

 

[IanC]

Spencer's experiments show the disturbance in temperature gradients by placing intermediate objects between the source of heat and the exit of that heat into the environment. Heat loss is slowed by decreasing the temperature difference between the heat source and the intermediary compared to the environment which is assumed to be able to absorb energy without changing temperature. Energy is captured, the temperature of both the source and intermediary increase until the loss to the environment equals the amount without the intermediary. In the above experiment he did not measure the intermediary, he just changed one environment for a warmer one. The difference is moot. The effect on the heated warm source is measurable, the reasons obvious.

In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object. If you placed yet another object between the heat source and the environment, it too would warm up, using stored energy that would have escaped to the environment. If the heat source is terminated then all the stored heat would be released. The total amount of energy put into the environment is exactly equal with or without intermediaries.

You say:
"In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object."
To which I answer:
Yes of course the second cooler object would contain stored energy received from the warm object and would in turn become a heat source but not an additional heat source for the first, the warmer on. Only to yet another one a 3rd one which is cooler than the second object.

Good! It seems as if we are converging on what we agree upon.

You agree that a cool intermediary object that shadows the warm heated object from the cold environment will increase the temperature of the heated object by lowered heat loss due to a smaller temperature differential. You also seem to agree that the intermediary object absorbs and stores energy so that it becomes a heat source to objects cooler than itself. And that extra objects placed between the heated source and the cold environment would also react in the same way, absorbing and storing energy, decreasing heat loss uphill and becoming a heat source downhill.

The Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-Space flow of energy is complicated by many things but there is still a radiation component to it, and only radiation finally escapes. Solar insulation warms the surface, which warms the lower atmosphere, which warms the next layer, etc until the same amount of energy leaves as entered albeit at lower energy wavelengths. While the surface has an emissivity of over 0.9 in the wavelengths we are interested in, the atmosphere has an emissivity that is much lower and is concentrated in certain spikes that typically correlate to GHGs. Some wavelengths escape freely, some are blocked almost completely at near surface heights. It is also important to remember that the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar insolation that gives it the kinetic and potential energy to remain aloft. The atmosphere radiates energy in all directions but heat (net energy transfer) only goes from warmer to cooler.

Polar Bear - Do you agree with SSDD that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface? You seem to object to many posters here that make plausible statements on physics but you are strangely silent on SSDD's bizarre claims.

You know or should know that it is not my intention to attack you and for the most part I agree with much of what you have been posting over several years.
It`s not just now that we have converging views as you put it.
If I don`t agree with some of what you say does not mean that I dismiss the rest of what you have been posting...which for the most part is correct.
However there can be no progress in R&/or RD unless there are debates where the views are diverging. In this particular case it`s down to what Spencer considers as a heat source.
There is no need to get into GHG`s and all the rest of it to troubleshoot Spencer`s experiment.
Yes a cooler object can affect the cooling of a warmer object if it shades it from an even colder background into which the warmer object radiates heat. But as I keep saying that does not make the colder object a heat source for the warmer object...no more than plug that stops a tire leak is a source of compressed air to inflate it to a higher pressure. For that you do need a compressor, in Spencer`s experiment he needs the heat lamp and for the earth you need the sun + the GHGs to increase the temperature. The GHGs alone will not increase the temperature and in Spencer`s example you also need more than just another body. Without the heat lamp there is no temperature increase. The only effect that 2nd cooler object has is to impede cooling but that does not make it a heat source as Spencer keeps saying ( for many years ever since he is blogging)
The insulation in your house walls are not a heat source, nor is the lid on a pot of boiling water..well I`m sure you get the point.
As far as the rest of AGW is concerned I am a critic when it comes to the magnitude and the accuracy of it all. Since we are dealing with only a fraction of a degree EVERYTHING hinges on accuracy and methodology and both are woefully inadequate...as you also pointed out many times.
Okay now about SSDD..
You said that he said:"that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface"
The way I would put that is:
Surface radiation is a function of surface temperature. Surface radiation is partially absorbed by the atmosphere and absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions....that was all well established long before M.Mann & Al Gore or the IPCC came along.
We also knew for over a century that anything which shields a warm object from a cold background into which it would otherwise radiate heat impedes the cooling of the warm object.
But now it all comes down to the magnitudes of all the effects that must be considered.
By far the largest near the surface and lower altitudes is convection, evaporation, lapse rate, cloud cover and way way down CO2.
And you know where I stand concerning the latter. Not with estimates, models or what this so called "scientific consensus" claims it is...most of them have no clue how to properly measure the difference of absorption between a gas mixture of 300 ppm CO2 and 400ppm of real air that also exhibits various moisture content and exists in a wide variety of different barometric pressure regions.
So what do they do?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
where it is stated that:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

And from that they "compute" a global average...from which they again "compute" a global average temperature anomaly in the order of minute fractions of a degree K or C which are just fractional % when we express it in Kelvin as it should be...as all the equations that are used do.
I don`t even have to get into barometric pressure variations over huge regions . It suffices to point out that a 10% moisture variation alone will result in changes that dwarf the changes in deg K anomalies:
Air pollutant concentrations - Wikipedia

where:
C = Concentration of the air pollutant in the emitted gas
w = fraction of the emitted exhaust gas, by volume, which is water vapor
As an example, a wet basis concentration of 40 ppmv in a gas having 10 volume percent water vapor would have a: Cdry basis = 40 ÷ ( 1 - 0.10 ) = 44.4 ppmv.
And last not least there is what the bureaucrats at the IPCC are plugging in for CO2 doubling as absorption rates and for computing the net effect in watts/m^2.
It`s a complete joke !!!
Dr.Heinz Hug and everybody else who is not a part of that propaganda machine have it right
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get 0.17 %
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
......
And you say ?

I agree that we hold similar views on many of the climate science topics.

I have an almost irrational hatred of Michael Mann. Beyond the level of distain I have for other scientists that have made even worse manipulations. I would be hard pressed to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he says, although I would defend his right to speak.

You seem to have a similar problem with Spencer. You purposely misunderstand his words and refuse to make an effort to readjust your thinking. It's too bad, really.

As far as SSDD goes, you have ignored the question. He says that surface conditions control the creation of radiation from the atmosphere. eg. No radiation is possible from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Period. Not one photon. Ever.

Naah I don`t have that kind of a problem with Spencer just with his experiment.
Also I like this forum to discuss physics but I don`t like a discussion to escalate into an argument.
Over the years I noticed that you make a lot of effort to do the same so that`s why I singled you out most of the time.
Of course a cooler object also emits radiation as long as it is above 0 K but again that does not qualify it as a heat source for a warmer object. If it were then it should be able to increase the temperature of the warmer object without the need of a 3.rd heat radiating object.
I am beginning to think that the definition of the term "heat source" in my native language which is German may be somewhat different as it might be understood by those whose native language is English. So let me try this on you..the people who discovered and published the physics involved with this bone of contention use the German term "Energie Quelle".
The exact meaning of quelle can only be translated into the Englsh word "source" for lack of a more nuanced and more exact meaning of "quelle" which in this case would mean ORIGIN.
In other words the object from which the additional energy in a given system originated from.
If all you got is "source" as a word for that system in English then you are stuck considering anything that radiates as an energy source.
In Spencer`s experiment the additional observed energy comes from the heat lamp and not from the cooler object. That does not mean that there is no feed-back but in any feed-back loop you still need an energy source to pump it. Else the loop`s internal energy decays or in this case cools off.
There are other areas in physics where they don`t even try to translate a term like for ex. "Schlieren Effekt" because there are no suitable English words and vice versa there is no suitable German word for "sonic boom"

I agree that the imprecision of words causes a lot of misunderstandings.

Spencer has repeatedly stated that the temperature of an object is a function of 'energy in minus energy out'. His numerous experiments, both real and imaginary, deal with the second half of that simple equation. If you reduce the energy out it will cause the temperature to rise just as if you raised the energy in.

Although you agree that putting an object between the warm source and the cold environment decreases the heat loss, you complain that that object cannot be the origin of heat. Both Spencer and I agree. But the warm source DOES get warmer.

I can identify where the extra energy comes from that makes the original object warmer. It is the energy stored in the system that would have escaped to the environment if the intermediary object did not 'shadow' the environment.