Roy Spencer's blog for Aug 16

[IanC]

I hadn't checked it for a while so I was pleasantly surprised to see a few relevant articles up.

One on measured Greenhouse Effect, Observational Evidence of the “Greenhouse Effect” at Desert Rock, Nevada « Roy Spencer, PhD

And several others that first proposed an experiment to show that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. ie. the cooler atmosphere warms the surface because it is warmer than space but still cooler than the surface. Simple Experimental Demonstration that Cool Objects Can Make Warm Objects Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD , Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD

And he ends the month with a simple 1D model that shows the radiative effect of GHGs on surface and atmospheric temperatures. Simple Time-Dependent Model of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD



I really don't understand how so many people have talked themselves into a position where they deny easily measurable and easily explainable greenhouse effects. Debating the size of mankind's addition to the Greenhouse Effect is reasonable, denying that it exists is not.

 

[SSDD]

And he is promptly deleting any posts who seriously challenge him...he is becoming as bad as skeptical science.

And there are no measurable greenhouse effects...and none have ever been measured. Dr. Spencer, for all his education is easily fooled by his instrumentation...he has even been told by a manufacturer of one of the instruments he typically relies on that even if back radiation existed, it would not be measured by said instrument because the instrument was made deliberately blind to the particular wavelength he was discussing....He, like you, believes in mathematical constructs and as a result...is believing in fantasy...

No direct measurement of back radiation has ever been made at ambient temperature....nor will it ever be made because it doesn't happen.

The fact is that the hypothesis has failed more than one prediction....how many failures are you willing to give it before you wake up?

 

[IanC]

hahahaha. you're mad because he doesnt let Doug Cotton troll his blog anymore?

I went to Cotton's site and asked him to specifically address the energy need to change the equilibrium temperature in the planet with the shell discussion. at first he tried to change the subject but after I persisted several times my comments didnt get out of moderation any more. Cotton didnt even attempt to debate, Spencer repeatedly answered Cotton's questions until he couldn't stand the fruitless waste of time in responding anymore.

I feel the same way about you, but sometimes I'm bored with nothing better to do, so I waste my time pointing out major mistakes in your understanding. not because I think I will change your mind but to help others see where your screw-ups are.

 

[Crick]

No direct measurement of back radiation has ever been made at ambient temperature....nor will it ever be made because it doesn't happen.

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

MEASURED AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH LOOKING UP INTO THE NIGHT SKY

You've been shown this before. Thus you choose to lie.

 

[IanC]

for those of you who havent heard of the planet with a shell thought experiment....

a planet with a radioactive core emits 100w/m2. what happens if you put a shell around it? no atmosphere so no conduction, shell close enough to the surface so that the total area is the same, insulated pillars, same emissivity, etc.

at equilibrium the planet must still be emitting 100w/m2. but the shell is emitting 100w up AND 100w down, 200w in total. how warm is the surface?

 

[Crick]

I think you described that incorrectly.

People Living in Glass Planets

Did you not mean to describe the third case there? The shell is transparent to short wave but opaque to long wave. The shell remains at 240K, the original temperature, but the planet under it rises 30C. because it receive both direct SW solar energy and long wave energy from the shell.

The WUWT example is using 240 W/m2

 

[jc456]

I hadn't checked it for a while so I was pleasantly surprised to see a few relevant articles up.

One on measured Greenhouse Effect, Observational Evidence of the “Greenhouse Effect” at Desert Rock, Nevada « Roy Spencer, PhD

And several others that first proposed an experiment to show that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. ie. the cooler atmosphere warms the surface because it is warmer than space but still cooler than the surface. Simple Experimental Demonstration that Cool Objects Can Make Warm Objects Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD , Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD

And he ends the month with a simple 1D model that shows the radiative effect of GHGs on surface and atmospheric temperatures. Simple Time-Dependent Model of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD



I really don't understand how so many people have talked themselves into a position where they deny easily measurable and easily explainable greenhouse effects. Debating the size of mankind's addition to the Greenhouse Effect is reasonable, denying that it exists is not.

so I read many of the comments under each of the experiments in the links you provided. I guess you are in error that now everyone can agree. It doesn't sway me one bit. Again, it does not prove the affects of CO2 other than dry ice is cold.

 

[Crick]

Ian was working in the natural sciences. He was not attempting to "prove" the affects of CO2, hot or cold. He was attempting to explain to you and others how the greenhouse effect works and why you'd have to be an idiot to reject it.

Oh, I guess he did prove something.

 

[jc456]

Ian was working in the natural sciences. He was not attempting to "prove" the affects of CO2, hot or cold. He was attempting to explain to you and others how the greenhouse effect works and why you'd have to be an idiot to reject it.

Oh, I guess he did prove something.

how does that prove there is a GHG though? First you have to prove that CO2 can heat something up hotter than it is. Then all of the added CO2 on top of that will heat it up more. Dude, the mythbuster experiment, although somewhat in question, at least showed that at most a completely full box of CO2 would be at best 1 degree C higher temperature than normal air. And that percentage was close to 100% full of CO2. We're talking .04% in the atmosphere. hmmm.

Yeah, I agree he proved something. He proved he can't prove it.

 

[SSDD]

hahahaha. you're mad because he doesnt let Doug Cotton troll his blog anymore?

I went to Cotton's site and asked him to specifically address the energy need to change the equilibrium temperature in the planet with the shell discussion. at first he tried to change the subject but after I persisted several times my comments didnt get out of moderation any more. Cotton didnt even attempt to debate, Spencer repeatedly answered Cotton's questions until he couldn't stand the fruitless waste of time in responding anymore.

I feel the same way about you, but sometimes I'm bored with nothing better to do, so I waste my time pointing out major mistakes in your understanding. not because I think I will change your mind but to help others see where your screw-ups are.

Sorry guy...but imagination does not equal reality....spencers experiment is a failure...and CO2 has not changed anything with regard to the temperature on the planet...again...refer to the failures of the hypothesis...and again..how many failures in your opinion should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped?

 

[Crick]

None. But you've identified none so everything works out just fine.

My god are you stupid. Do you actually think you're getting somewhere with these "arguments"?

 

[jc456]

None. But you've identified none so everything works out just fine.

My god are you stupid. Do you actually think you're getting somewhere with these "arguments"?

yep he and I are. We are showing the world that the status ghg's are bullshit cause no one can produce an experiment to justify it. As always, you're welcome to post the one you feel does the trick for ya. Prove us wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

You, SSDD, Silly Billy, and the rest are simply showing that you are knownothing ignoramouses, and intend to stay that way. That is a pretty definitive test that Dr. Spencer has demonstrated. That you don't understand it, is a given.

But it does not matter, people like you don't matter anymore. Events are proving the scientists correct, and your drivel is now being ignored by anyone with a brain.

 

[LaDexter]

Meanwhile, the highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA continues to show PRECISELY NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2...

 

[jc456]

You, SSDD, Silly Billy, and the rest are simply showing that you are knownothing ignoramouses, and intend to stay that way. That is a pretty definitive test that Dr. Spencer has demonstrated. That you don't understand it, is a given.

But it does not matter, people like you don't matter anymore. Events are proving the scientists correct, and your drivel is now being ignored by anyone with a brain.

dude, did you read the comments under the blogs? don't say just us bubba bat. no, no, no. See, the thing is, there are others out there that knock this kind of stuff down. there you go.

What events are you referring to? Please enlighten the class and demonstrate to the class your fantasies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ian was working in the natural sciences. He was not attempting to "prove" the affects of CO2, hot or cold. He was attempting to explain to you and others how the greenhouse effect works and why you'd have to be an idiot to reject it.

Oh, I guess he did prove something.

how does that prove there is a GHG though? First you have to prove that CO2 can heat something up hotter than it is. Then all of the added CO2 on top of that will heat it up more. Dude, the mythbuster experiment, although somewhat in question, at least showed that at most a completely full box of CO2 would be at best 1 degree C higher temperature than normal air. And that percentage was close to 100% full of CO2. We're talking .04% in the atmosphere. hmmm.

Yeah, I agree he proved something. He proved he can't prove it.

You missed the entire point if you still think that CO2 in the atmos "heats something up hotter than it is".. There is NO NET FLOW of heat from the sky to the ground due to GHGases. It's all a NET LOSS of heat.

Until you grasp that concept -- there's no hope. What GHG do is to RETARD and minimize the radiative heat loss from the surface --- and the "heating" is only seen because of a new equilibrium in the amount of "insulation" present.

In the limit --- you could never RAISE the surface temp above what it be if the there was no natural heat loss path to the sky and all that IR was REABSORBED by the surface..


Doc Roy's experiment depends on the "lukewarm" piece not being IR reflective. Because you only want to see the "blackbody" radiation FROM IT influencing the temperature of the heated plate. I'll take his word for measuring that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr Spencer has made some compelling observations. He has also made a few assumptions that I do not fully agree with, but that is science.... When you place his observations in place with water vapor, other gases, and the convection cycle the net effect is essentially a zero sum game..

So while the properties of the atmosphere appear to be like a green house in some respects, it is not a closed system. Some of his feedback's appear to be to high due to this assumption of a closed system.

Going to have to go through his math and see just how he is modeling this... Good post overall on his blog, but that is what I expect from Dr Spencer..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ian was working in the natural sciences. He was not attempting to "prove" the affects of CO2, hot or cold. He was attempting to explain to you and others how the greenhouse effect works and why you'd have to be an idiot to reject it.

Oh, I guess he did prove something.

how does that prove there is a GHG though? First you have to prove that CO2 can heat something up hotter than it is. Then all of the added CO2 on top of that will heat it up more. Dude, the mythbuster experiment, although somewhat in question, at least showed that at most a completely full box of CO2 would be at best 1 degree C higher temperature than normal air. And that percentage was close to 100% full of CO2. We're talking .04% in the atmosphere. hmmm.

Yeah, I agree he proved something. He proved he can't prove it.

You missed the entire point if you still think that CO2 in the atmos "heats something up hotter than it is".. There is NO NET FLOW of heat from the sky to the ground due to GHGases. It's all a NET LOSS of heat.

Until you grasp that concept -- there's no hope. What GHG do is to RETARD and minimize the radiative heat loss from the surface --- and the "heating" is only seen because of a new equilibrium in the amount of "insulation" present.

In the limit --- you could never RAISE the surface temp above what it be if the there was no natural heat loss path to the sky and all that IR was REABSORBED by the surface..


Doc Roy's experiment depends on the "lukewarm" piece not being IR reflective. Because you only want to see the "blackbody" radiation FROM IT influencing the temperature of the heated plate. I'll take his word for measuring that.

Its the rate of loss vs the rate of reflection.... Roy has put an interesting spin on this one. Its going to take a day or two to fully explore his paper.

 

[IanC]

I think you described that incorrectly.

People Living in Glass Planets

Did you not mean to describe the third case there? The shell is transparent to short wave but opaque to long wave. The shell remains at 240K, the original temperature, but the planet under it rises 30C. because it receive both direct SW solar energy and long wave energy from the shell.

The WUWT example is using 240 W/m2

No.

Why would I want to put a red herring down to distract from the basic physics problem? The energy source is internal radioactivity, the complexities of energy transfer are kept to the bare minimum so that the basic principles of radiation are accentuated.

What is the new surface temperature after the shell is put in place and the system comes to equilibrium? Where did the energy come from to support the new temperature?

These are the important issues. After the basics are established you can start comparisons to more complex systems of energy input and transfer.

 

[Crick]

When you said the shell and the planet had the same diameter, I assumed you meant the shell was in contact with the planet and transfer was by conduction.

Heat from radioactive decay is a system input even if it's appearing inside. And to get out, it has to transfer.

So why do you say that the shell is emitting 100W/m2 up and 100W/m2 down when it is only receiving 100W/m2?