Roy Spencer's blog for Aug 16

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Where's the temperature axis?

 

[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.

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?

Which hypothesis? That temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output? That is closer to a Law of Physics than a hypothesis.

I disagree with the IPCC explanation of energy transfer for our terrestrial system, mostly because I think their feedbacks are crap.

 

[IanC]

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?

So you chose to ignore my explicit statement that there was no conduction?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"This is a considerably simpler task than my recently proposed experiment to measure the warming effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere (which I now believe was not possible, at least as I originally proposed it)."

Wow $2.5B spent annually on climate "research" and they can't do any warming experiments

 

[SSDD]

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.

Yeah...I have seen it...and I also know that the instrument that recorded it was cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...about -80 degrees or so...that being the case, the energy from the atmosphere was moving to the cooler instrument...which means that it wasn't measuring back radiation from a cooler source...it was just measuring normal energy transfer from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...either you are a liar...or easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

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?

And yet another "thought" experiment. the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity....why do you warmers not seem to be able to come up with actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data and experiments to support your claims?

Interesting thing about good old Roy's experiment...in his lead up to it, he went to wiki for the Clausius statement on the second law and deliberately left out something...wonder why?

Roy said:

“The Wikipedia entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics includes the following statement from Rudolph Clausius, who formulated one of the necessary consequences of the 2nd Law (emphasis added):

““Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”

He left out the final paragraph....

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.”

His temperature change could very easily be caused by a mere 2% flux from his heat source....take your infrared thermometer and a light bulb such as Roy used outside...plug it in and point your IR thermometer at at for a while...you will see such fluctuations regularly.

He may as well have just pointed the light at his absorbing surface and made the claim that the light bulb filament was going to get hotter.

 

[SSDD]

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.

If you own an IR thermometer rocks...grab it and a light bulb such as the one Roy used in his experiment...take them outside and plug in the light...point your thermometer at the light bulb and take note of the temperature fluctuations the light bulb experiences outside....the temperature difference in roy's experiment represented about a 2% fluctuation in the temperature of the bulb...you will note such fluctuations if you take the bulb outside and measure the temperature over time...

There is always something definitive about such experiments though...they inevitably prove Abraham Lincoln correct in his statement that you can fool some of the people all the time....You want to believe so you are willing to believe anything that comes your way that seems to support your belief...that is fine, and natural, but you shouldn't say that you have a scientific bone in your body because the very essence of science is skepticism...a person who actually thinks in a scientific manner would immediately look for the error in the experiment...and that includes the one who did the experiment....only an idiot would call such an experiment "definitive"....

 

[SSDD]

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.

there is no net energy transfer...and roy's experiment depended on fluctuations in the output of the bulb...

 

[SSDD]

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..

The temperature change he saw are easily explained by a 2% fluctuation in the output of his light bulb....northing more.

 

[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?

Which hypothesis? That temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output? That is closer to a Law of Physics than a hypothesis.

I disagree with the IPCC explanation of energy transfer for our terrestrial system, mostly because I think their feedbacks are crap.

Both the AGW and the greenhouse effect hypotheses.

 

[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?

So you chose to ignore my explicit statement that there was no conduction?

No, I did not so choose. I did not notice it or I forgot it was there. If there is no conduction, what's the point of having a planet inside?

 

[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?

So you chose to ignore my explicit statement that there was no conduction?

So heat cannot get through the shell. In either direction. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[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.

Where's the temperature axis?

Power per area is on the vertical axis. I assume you know what watts and centimeters are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Where's the temperature axis?

Power per area is on the vertical axis. I assume you know what watts and centimeters are.

So you didn't realize you posted a chart with no temperature axis while trying to make a point relating CO2 to temperature

 

[IanC]

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?

So you chose to ignore my explicit statement that there was no conduction?

No, I did not so choose. I did not notice it or I forgot it was there. If there is no conduction, what's the point of having a planet inside?

the point is....to eliminate conduction. to focus only on energy transfer via radiation. also a large sphere will have a negligible difference of surface area to the outside of a shell only a few metres away. ie. the shell will still have to be radiating 100w/m2 into space at equilibrium.

probably the hardest thing to grasp is that the shell has area both on the inside and outside. so it needs to receive 200w/m2 in order to shed the requisite 100w/m2 to space. the surface of the planet will get back half of the energy it sends to the shell, so both the shell and the surface will continue to warm up until the shell reaches 100w/m2 and equilibrium is restored. during the time until that happens any deficit from the necessary 100w/m2 is retained and used to warm up the planet and the shell

 

[Crick]

I was aware you has premised vacuum inside and out and was only looking at radiative transfer. When you just said no conduction, I assumed you meant through the shell as well.

There are such things as non-equilibrium states. Most of the universe is in such states this very instant. The shell's radiation is controlled entirely by its temperature. It does not "need" to radiate 200 W/m2. It only NEEDS to radiate the amount of energy mandated by its temperature.

You need to sort out whether or not you're seeking to describe an equilibrium state or one approaching it.

 

[IanC]

I was aware you has premised vacuum inside and out and was only looking at radiative transfer. When you just said no conduction, I assumed you meant through the shell as well.

There are such things as non-equilibrium states. Most of the universe is in such states this very instant. The shell's radiation is controlled entirely by its temperature. It does not "need" to radiate 200 W/m2. It only NEEDS to radiate the amount of energy mandated by its temperature.

You need to sort out whether or not you're seeking to describe an equilibrium state or one approaching it.

get up to speed and try to understand the concepts

the planet needs to lose 100w/m2 times the area of the planet's surface to maintain a steady temperature. the shell has two faces, inside and outside, therefore twice the area.. the shell never radiates 200w/m2 but the actual surface must if it is going to heat the shell up to 100w/m2.

the energy reservoir that heats the surface up to 200w/m2 comes from all the energy NOT lost to space during the period of time it takes warm the surface and the shell up to equilibrium temperature.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

there is no net energy transfer...and roy's experiment depended on fluctuations in the output of the bulb...

HaHaHaHaHa ---- yeah right. He only measured TEMPERATURES. Temperatures in this case were primarily due to "heat flow". And the experiment controlled for conduction convection and the "flow" was almost all radiative transfer of IR..

The Bulb didn't react to the extra "insulation" did it? Or you think cardboard is that smart?

 

[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.

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.

well dude, if Spencer states in his experiment that introducing the room air temperature cardboard between the heat surface and the cold surface, the heat surface got warmer. If I replace the cardboard with CO2 isn't that the claim for AGW? In my world, that implies that CO2 would cause something warm to become warmer.

Why didn't ole Roy add CO2 between the two surfaces? He could have released it in-between using a tube as the applicator to allow the CO2 to build in between the two surfaces. I'm sorry, but all he proved was conduction and not IR. The physical properties of the cardboard no matter what will cause heat from the heated surface to be redirected back at the heated surface through conduction. Proves nothing for me as I already indicated.

And as Frank pointed out, he openly admits, that there most probably hasn't been an experiment to prove the affects of temperature using CO2. So I maintain, that conduction and convection are the only reasons why there is a warm earth. You all's IR experiments don't exist. This one failed. Sorry. Until someone can show CO2 causing increases in temps, adding thousands of PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere will not increase temps, and it will do absolutely nothing to convection or conduction nor cause severe storms or weather events.

OMG, you've turned into a weak warmer.

 

[SSDD]

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.

there is no net energy transfer...and roy's experiment depended on fluctuations in the output of the bulb...

HaHaHaHaHa ---- yeah right. He only measured TEMPERATURES. Temperatures in this case were primarily due to "heat flow". And the experiment controlled for conduction convection and the "flow" was almost all radiative transfer of IR..

The Bulb didn't react to the extra "insulation" did it? Or you think cardboard is that smart?

Where did the energy come from?