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

[IanC]

If you don't believe in net transfer of radiation and you disagree that entropy allows net transfer. Do you disbelieve the properties of entropy too? Just what do you believe that stops photons from being emitted from colder objects to warmer objects.

Since entropy is a mathematical model. What substitute to a mathematical model do you have that makes you disbelieve net thermal energy flow?

The second law of thermodynamics....
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Let me know when they rewrite the law to support your view.

So what? No one is arguing against that. The Sun is the energy source doing work on the Earth.

Everything radiates according to its temperature (and emissivity). Heat is the net flow of energy. Radiation is only one form of energy transfer but it is different because it is passed in discrete individual packets that cannot be changed or cancelled out except in the presence of matter. Once created photons exist in their original form until they interact with a bit of matter. The creation of photons is controlled by individual atomic scale events, not by the general temperature conditions of a distant target.

 

[Wuwei]

The second law of thermodynamics....
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Let me know when they rewrite the law to support your view.

You are quoting the old refrigerator law. They didn't know what thermal radiation was back then. That law was rewritten long ago in terms of entropy. Entropy doesn't have constraints on flow of EM radiation and you know it. You are being a troll now.

 

[Cosmos]

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?

 

[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?

 

[SSDD]

Everything radiates according to its temperature (and emissivity).

We have been through that and you lost...everything in a vacuum radiates according to its temperature...take it out of the vacuum and it radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

\

 

[Cosmos]

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

 

[SSDD]

You are quoting the old refrigerator law. They didn't know what thermal radiation was back then. That law was rewritten long ago in terms of entropy. Entropy doesn't have constraints on flow of EM radiation and you know it. You are being a troll now.

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

 

[SSDD]

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?

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

 

[SSDD]

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.

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim.. if you look at the greenland ice cores, you see temperature increases that exceed anything we have seen several times in 150 years in the past 10,000 years.

 

[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

 

[Cosmos]

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?

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

You mean like 4.3 billion years or so? Would that be a better corollary to the present?

 

[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.

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim.. if you look at the greenland ice cores, you see temperature increases that exceed anything we have seen several times in 150 years in the past 10,000 years.

That Greenland Ice Core data is too noisy for my liking. I discount it. Come up with something better.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

You mean like 4.3 billion years or so? Would that be a better corollary to the present?

Of course not...clearly you haven't looked very deeply into this...and as a result, are operating entirely from an emotional/political position.

Here, have a look at the temperature history of planet earth...

 

[SSDD]

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.

There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim.. if you look at the greenland ice cores, you see temperature increases that exceed anything we have seen several times in 150 years in the past 10,000 years.

That Greenland Ice Core data is too noisy for my liking. I discount it. Come up with something better.

Like it or not, the greenland ice core is the gold standard for the northern hemisphere as the vostok ice core is the gold standard for the southern hemisphere...both show very similar temperature spikes over the past 10K years.

 

[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?

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

You mean like 4.3 billion years or so? Would that be a better corollary to the present?

Of course not...clearly you haven't looked very deeply into this...and as a result, are operating entirely from an emotional/political position.

Here, have a look at the temperature history of planet earth...

I think 800000 years is adequate. You're just trying to confuse the issue.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

You mean like 4.3 billion years or so? Would that be a better corollary to the present?

Of course not...clearly you haven't looked very deeply into this...and as a result, are operating entirely from an emotional/political position.

Here, have a look at the temperature history of planet earth...

I think 800000 years is adequate. You're just trying to confuse the issue.

800,000 years doesn't even get back far enough to exit the ice age that the earth is presently in...note that when the earth started its decent into the ice age that is still going on, atmospheric CO2 was far higher than it is at present....

I understand that you would rather not look at the very big picture because the larger the time span you look at, the less frightening the present temperature becomes...

 

[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?

 

[mamooth]

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

 

[Cosmos]

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

Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..

You mean like 4.3 billion years or so? Would that be a better corollary to the present?

Of course not...clearly you haven't looked very deeply into this...and as a result, are operating entirely from an emotional/political position.

Here, have a look at the temperature history of planet earth...

I think 800000 years is adequate. You're just trying to confuse the issue.

800,000 years doesn't even get back far enough to exit the ice age that the earth is presently in...note that when the earth started its decent into the ice age that is still going on, atmospheric CO2 was far higher than it is at present....

I understand that you would rather not look at the very big picture because the larger the time span you look at, the less frightening the present temperature becomes...

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.

 

[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.