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

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...fooling yourself with instrumentation again...but I am sure that you believe your own story.

You can blubber and cry all you want, but longwave IR cameras without cooling still exist, and work great. That simple facts proves your kook cult theory is laughable dogshit.

Now, we know you're lying. You know you're lying. Everyone knows it. However, your kook pseudscience cults commands you to lie, so you're going to keep lying. Yep, it really is that simple. You're proudly lying for the glory of your cult, and you don't care if everyone knows, because the only opinions you care about are the opinions of your fellow cultists, and they laud you for lying.

 

[SSDD]

I understand you would rather look at a larger time scale because it gives you a way to run away from the current issue. So no, we're not going to play like AGW is a myth because lookie, it was even warmer than this in the Jurassic. Ok? That would be just stupid.

There is no current issue...the temperatures we are seeing, and the rate of change is not even close to approaching the boundaries of natural variability...if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..

And you don't need to go back to the jurassic to find temperatures warmer than the present...in fact, most of earth's history has been far warmer than the present..and the cold climate we live in now is due to the fact that the earth is still in an ice age...on planet earth, ice at one, or both of the poles is the anomaly...not the norm.

 

[SSDD]

You can blubber and cry all you want, but longwave IR cameras without cooling still exist, and work great. That simple facts proves your kook cult theory is laughable dogshit.

learn something about the instruments you are describing..the cameras that aren't cooled are pieces of shit and operate based on mathematical models....not actual measurement of incoming IR...

 

[Cosmos]

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..

It looks like they constructed a couple of graphs based on numerous proxies. Did you read the article?

The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.

Fool's gold, maybe. Maybe representative of what happened in a 4 inch hole in the ice sheet someplace in Greenland, but not the entire Earth.

 

[mamooth]

learn something about the instruments you are describing..the cameras that aren't cooled are pieces of shit and operate based on mathematical models....not actual measurement of incoming IR...

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

So, let's get this straight.

I point such a camera at the sky. It clearly shows the very cold sky and very cold clouds being of different temperature, and that image matches up with the visible cloud patterns I can see with my eye.

How does a "mathematical model" accomplish such a feat? Be precise. We could all use the laugh.

 

[Cosmos]

if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..

Ok. We've exceeded 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in a very short amount of time in response to rapid burning of fossil fuels. Unequivocally unnatural.

And the average global temperature is warming at 10x the rate previously seen in corresponding inter-glacial periods. Very probably unnatural.

 

[Wuwei]

there are no particular refrigerator laws of physics...the 2nd law of thermodynamics preludes a perfect refrigerator...you really don't have a clue.

You got that law from a refrigerator site and misinterpreted it. The entropy definition has no constraints on thermal radiation, and you know that.

 

[Wuwei]

The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.

Interpretation of the ice cores involves mathematical models. You eschew mathematical models. Now do you believe them selectively or what?

 

[IanC]

The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
I take it you would say that the instrument would display the sum of both, a total of 732 w/m^2 ?

No, I wouldn't.

If each surface filled part of the aperture view, you should get a number somewhere between the two individual numbers.

Just like you did.

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.

 

[SSDD]

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..

It looks like they constructed a couple of graphs based on numerous proxies. Did you read the article?

The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.

Fool's gold, maybe.

Not surprised that you would reject anything that doesn't support your alarmist view...

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.

 

[polarbear]

The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
I take it you would say that the instrument would display the sum of both, a total of 732 w/m^2 ?

No, I wouldn't.

If each surface filled part of the aperture view, you should get a number somewhere between the two individual numbers.

Just like you did.

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.

 

[SSDD]

if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..

Ok. We've exceeded 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in a very short amount of time in response to rapid burning of fossil fuels. Unequivocally unnatural.

Again...there is no proxy reconstruction upon which you can make such a claim...we know for sure that CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher than present even at the time that ice ages began....

And the average global temperature is warming at 10x the rate previously seen in corresponding inter-glacial periods. Very probably unnatural.

Again...pure bullshit...there is no proxy record that has the sort of resolution that would support such claims....making shit up hardly amounts to evidence of anything other than the fact that warmers are perfectly willing to lie in an effort to make a point.

 

[ding]

The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.

C'mon Ding. We went through that all before. Did you forget that what you circled is actually 20,000 years, not 1,500. Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis.

So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit? No it is not!

So would you agree then that when AGT exceeds any of those previous interglacial peaks we have empirical evidence of AGW?

If it exceeded the error bar, sure. What do you have?

Reading the article where you found these graphs indicates that in the past 100 years we're warming at a rate 10 times faster than the average warmup rate following an ice-age. That indicates we'll be exceeding these peaks rather soon. And it begs the question, "What do we know about that's been happening in the last 100 years that wasn't happening 400000 or even 120000 years ago that might cause a 10x faster rate of warming."

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

Good Lord, how stupid are you? They had two data points for each of the last four interglacial periods. They have no idea what the slopes during those thousands of years. I guess you must have realized that our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials.

 

[ding]

I notice that you all rely on "simple" models. Get back to me when you have a model at least as complex as what they use to model aero pieces for an F1 race car. THEIR models actually model reality. Unlike yours.

The climate models are very close to reality, though they've underestimated the warming a bit. Current temperatures are a bit warmer than the models predicted.

This is how the comparison really looks, as compared to Christy's fudge job.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Looks like you finally found the present AGT, lol. Good for you. Stop worrying over nothing. We are in an interglacial cycle. You do know what that is, right?

 

[SSDD]

Looks like you finally found the present AGT, lol. Good for you. Stop worrying over nothing. We are in an interglacial cycle. You do know what that is, right?

They aren't worried about the climate...they are worried about a political agenda...which now appears to be going down in flames after their decades of hard work generating reams of propaganda and panic.

 

[Cosmos]

C'mon Ding. We went through that all before. Did you forget that what you circled is actually 20,000 years, not 1,500. Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis.

So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit? No it is not!

So would you agree then that when AGT exceeds any of those previous interglacial peaks we have empirical evidence of AGW?

If it exceeded the error bar, sure. What do you have?

Reading the article where you found these graphs indicates that in the past 100 years we're warming at a rate 10 times faster than the average warmup rate following an ice-age. That indicates we'll be exceeding these peaks rather soon. And it begs the question, "What do we know about that's been happening in the last 100 years that wasn't happening 400000 or even 120000 years ago that might cause a 10x faster rate of warming."

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

Good Lord, how stupid are you? They had two data points for each of the last four interglacial periods. They have no idea what the slopes during those thousands of years. I guess you must have realized that our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials.

View attachment 102254

So you post this paleo-climatology chart on here which is cited by the NASA Earth Observatory project. You believe the temperatures and the rate of change of temperature for the last 4 inter-glacial periods going back 400000 years but for some reason you don't believe the data from the latest one which their analysis indicates has a rate of temperature change 10 times greater than the others. So what makes you disbelieve the most recent data but believe the rest of it?

 

[IanC]

No, I wouldn't.

If each surface filled part of the aperture view, you should get a number somewhere between the two individual numbers.

Just like you did.

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.

 

[IanC]

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..

It looks like they constructed a couple of graphs based on numerous proxies. Did you read the article?

The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.

Fool's gold, maybe. Maybe representative of what happened in a 4 inch hole in the ice sheet someplace in Greenland, but not the entire Earth.

Cosmos - have you looked at those numerous proxies? I have. They are wildly divergent from each other, often contradicting each other in direction, magnitude and timing. Ice cores are one of the few types of proxies that are consistent with each other, and usually with the overall general conclusion of the multiproxy reconstructions. Ice cores are the best type of proxy, giving the best resolution. unfortunately they are only found in a useful form in very cold areas of the globe.

 

[ding]

So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit? No it is not!

So would you agree then that when AGT exceeds any of those previous interglacial peaks we have empirical evidence of AGW?

If it exceeded the error bar, sure. What do you have?

Reading the article where you found these graphs indicates that in the past 100 years we're warming at a rate 10 times faster than the average warmup rate following an ice-age. That indicates we'll be exceeding these peaks rather soon. And it begs the question, "What do we know about that's been happening in the last 100 years that wasn't happening 400000 or even 120000 years ago that might cause a 10x faster rate of warming."

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

Good Lord, how stupid are you? They had two data points for each of the last four interglacial periods. They have no idea what the slopes during those thousands of years. I guess you must have realized that our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials.

View attachment 102254

So you post this paleo-climatology chart on here which is cited by the NASA Earth Observatory project. You believe the temperatures and the rate of change of temperature for the last 4 inter-glacial periods going back 400000 years but for some reason you don't believe the data from the latest one which their analysis indicates has a rate of temperature change 10 times greater than the others. So what makes you disbelieve the most recent data but believe the rest of it?

You are an idiot. The temperature data for the glacial-interglacial cycles comes from the oxygen isotope curve which is well established for the Cenozoic. That doesn't mean they have the same number of datapoints available that we do for calculating the rate of change over the last 50 years that we have today. They literally used two points to calculate slopes for periods which ranged from 5,000 to 12,000 years. They have no idea what happened between those two points. Besides, your point is meaningless anyway. The only thing that matters from this data is that we are still well below the peak values of the previous interglacial cycles. A point that you and every other denier of science refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Cosmos]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.