Trenberth's Energy Budget

[polarbear]

More bullshit how surprising....

as usual, ad homs are your favourite response.

when are you going to admit that you guys made a mistake at the very beginning of the 'math' that supposedly debunked Spencer.

I responded to your eight points (of mostly ad homeninum) and yet you refuse to respond to my specific question asked eight times (or more).

Hi IanC, I`m trying not to take "sides" in what started out to be a rather amusing science/technical argument, but has rapidly become an emotionally charged argument.

Remember,...some months ago we had the same discussion about 'back radiation"...?

I`ll give You my take (again) , but please don`t take it the wrong way when I tell You right up front that a so called "energy budget" and well what should we call it ...?...is not a "temperature budget".

But in "climatology" they still get away claiming just that !
One of the examples cited here by You was Roy W. Spencer`s publication.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

And I`ld like to point out a few things in the assertions he,...and the entire "climatology" community for that matter continue to make
concerning "back-radiation" , energy & increased temperature :

Roy fails to distinguish in his "experiment" between reflectivity end emissitivity.
Fact of the matter is, that the higher the emissitivity the lower the reflectivity.

here is a Wiki quote concerning the difference between these rather simple principles:
Heat transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to "OldRocks" & his flock...:
Before I get laughed at for using words like "emissitivity" please direct the ridicule @ Wiki & not me...

The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity. Absorptivity, reflectivity, and emissivity of all bodies are dependent on the wavelength of the radiation. The temperature determines the wavelength distribution of the electromagnetic radiation

The better the ability of a material is to absorb heat, the better of an emitter it will be ( black body)
and since any body which has a higher emissitivity has a reflectivity of 1-emissitivity is is a poorer reflector, not even Spencer can have
it both ways as he is using it to make his his so called "experiment" plausible.


In his "experiment" which he never did carry out, in other words it is only an example
with no actual observations or measurements he (Spencer) states :
"Again, the reason the heated plate became even hotter is that the second plate has, in effect, “insulated” the first plate from its cold surroundings, keeping it warmer than if the second plate was not there. "


Since he put the word INSULATE inside quotes ...as in "insulated" ...his rhetoric side stepped how different the heat transfer heat mechanism in which "insulation" plays a role is from the radiative heat (budget) he wants to con You into.
Heat or thermal insulation has nothing to do with radiative heat transfer whatsoever, but has everything to do with heat flow.


But in his vacuum chamber example heat flow (which an insulator impedes) is ruled out.
Yet to make his case he is using the words "insulated ....from it`s cold surroundings...keeping it warmer as if the second plate was not there"
Then he goes on to use this assertion that the second plate if it were improved to surround the heat emitting plate as an "insulator"...would raise the temperature even more..
Then he continues with an entirely different concept, namely heat radiation to make the claim that the temperature of the first plate would therefore increase...
in his vacuum chamber example....in which an insulator and how that affects heat transfer is not even an issue.

But the only way the second so called colder plate could alter the energy budget of the heated plate in his example , is by
how good of a reflector the second , the so called colder plate is.

If it is not a good reflector, then it may as well not even exist.
If it is a good reflector, then it can not be a good absorber at the same time...
that would violate not just one, but an entire hierarchy of Physics laws.

And with the black body so called "back radiation" he is also shit out of luck...
since a black body absorbs radiation but can`t reflect it back at the same
frequency,...(only at a lower frequency = colder.!!!) since it certainly is not a reflector.

This secondary radiation, 1.rst of all does not just go inward as a reflector would do it,
but radiates Infrared at a much longer wavelength, in all directions and diminishing with the square of the distance.

So this "insulation" (effect) as he puts it one way first to borrow the effect he needs so badly,...he then goes on to use that as a "back-radiation" effect
With this trick he is trying to wiggle off the facts that the longer the wavelength, the lower the temperature.

Yes the overall ENERGY of what a black body radiates out is the same as how much energy
it absorbed, but it does so at a much lower TEMPERATURE...since that`s happening at
a lower frequency, ...there are of course many equations attesting to that, but any thermal imaging instrumentation clearly shows that too.

In essence this "expert" has been stating, that a cooler body can heat a hotter body to a higher temperature
by willfully or skillfully confusing the casual reader what the difference between
ENERGY and TEMPERATURE is.

He is using an "energy budget" as he calls it to make a case for a higher temperature...


I`ve been around the same bend with You almost a year ago and then I used the example...
to highlight the difference between (heat) ENERGY and TEMPERATURE
that there is no way that the temperature of 1 gram of water at 40 deg C
can be raised by even 100 kilos of water which is at 39 degrees.
even though the (heat) ENERGY of the 100 kilos @ 39 degrees is 100 000 times more
than the 1 degree hotter water.

But according to Spencer, his daughter Virginia the realtor & others,...they claim they can do so by surrounding the hotter water with colder water and thus trap more heat...imagine that


None of the GW literature in circulation ever made the claim, that CO2 can raise the energy ...
even they are aware how ridiculous it would be to claim that, ...mostly because what is generally associated with the word energy..
Once You claim that the total energy has been raised people get out a sharp pencil and check up on Your math
So in the end they all do say it raises the TEMPERATURE...and they all make their case
by exploiting the fact, that a lot of folks confuse energy & temperature
along with heat flow and heat radiation....and how wave mechanics work when
You mix a lower frequency with a higher one...also with electromagnetic waves
there is no way to achieve a higher frequency, or as it were with Infrared a consequently
higher temperature...

Yes You can raise the ENERGY with carefully controlled dimensions, symmetry and when all conditions are right to avoid wave cancellation are add overall ENERGY by mixing waves.
...but no way can you raise the frequency...which = proportional to temperature in the Infrared Spectrum.... and do so with a frequency which is lower
If You have any doubts about what I am saying here please do consult
"Wiki" what the difference between heat radiative transfer and heat conduction is..:
Heat transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And if You don`t have an oscilloscope and have never seen or are not familiar with wave mechanics or with super imposed waves,this might be helpful...:
Superposition of Waves

I hate to put it in these terms, but the examples like the one with the hand near the tire with a leak were in fact legitimate examples, although I would have used something different, like :

The Spencer "experiment" which he never actually did carry out concludes in effect, that a star can get hotter if it has... or more exactly phrased because it has some planets around it...and would be somewhat "cooler" if there were no other (cooler) "bodies" in the vicinity...

I`ld like to witness the roar of laughter that assertion would cause in the Astrophysics community...
I`m quite certain that Spencer`s so called experiment and conclusions would not be accepted no matter how many other non-denier- "scientists" agree,...including his daughter who as he said has no clue about physics agree with him..:

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

Even my oldest daughter, a realtor who has an aversion to things scientific, got the right answer when I used this example on her.

Can`t You see how absurd the "Spencer experiment" or for that matter this so called GW "energy budget" is...????????

I`ll give You another example...You might be too young tube familiar with the vacuum tubes we had before semi-conductor technology.
However what was called a "triode tube" was exactly what Spencer is trying to conjure up in your mind.
There was an (electron) emittor, just like in Spencer`s example..it was a glow-filament typically running on 5 Volts ac & about 500 milli-amps depending on it`s purpose. This was surrounded by the "grid" which modulated the electron flow from the heated emitter to the anode.

See if You can find somebody else who still knows about these vacuum tubes....I`m sure he would also tell You, that Spencer is full of it and tell You that a "triode" with the same heated cathode and the grid that surrounded it got hotter than what was used then as a rectifier tube with the same "heater" ratings...which has no "colder" grid surrounding the heated filament...


And if You really want to find out the truth, it`s not all that hard to find an amateur radio buff who collects vintage equipment...and then You can see for Yourself...!!!!!!!
P.S. back then there were even "pentodes" with 5 grids and they also did not get any hotter than a triode or a rectifier tube with the same ratings and currents....as Spencer and his agreeing idiot daughter "Virginia" would have it
Touching these tubes & feeling the temperature worked almost as well as the "tube testers" they had in any drug-store when TV`s still worked with vacuum tube technology...so anyone who is familiar with these would raise eyebrows when he reads that bullshit crap that Spencer is claiming...
but hey....I know...Spencers "example" sounds a lot more impressive than my drug-store vacuum tube examples:

Imagine a heated plate in a cooled vacuum chamber, as in the first illustration, below. These chambers are used to test instruments and satellites that will be flown in space.

And with the likes of "OldRocks" that really matters...

 

[wirebender]

Thanks polarbear, you are clearly more well versed in the subject than I and I doubt that I could ever have explained where Ian was missing the boat as well given 50 more pages. Of course, he isn't going to believe you either.

Tell me something, in your opinion, am I on the right track with the two versions of the SB law. Does the original indeed describe a one way energy flow from the blackbody to the background and the other with the distributive property applied describe a one way energy flow from the blackbody to the background minus a one way energy flow in which the background is called the blackbody and the actual blackbody is called the background?

 

[IanC]

hey polar bear, good to hear from you again.

there are lots of oversimplifications in Spencer's example and I have no problem with people pointing them out.

but it seems obvious to me that every time you raise the ambient temperature, or reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential. its as simple as that. the input and output remain the same, the individual temperatures of radiating faces change. a point or sphere is the most effective shape for a radiator. every deformation of shape or addition of mass between the radiator and the radiation acceptor decreases the efficiency of energy shedding, therefore neccessitating an increase in the temperature of the heat source to compensate. in the case of adding mass, the complexity of the calculations go up tremendously because of the formation of a heat reservoir and the addition of conduction into the mix. while the input and output of power remain the same, temperature differentials form, inefficiencies form, heater temp goes up.

 

[polarbear]

hey polar bear, good to hear from you again.

there are lots of oversimplifications in Spencer's example and I have no problem with people pointing them out.

1.) @wirebender...I have not had a chance yet to read the whole thread who said what ...but I`m going to...this is a very interesting discussion...and I`ll try answer that to the best of my ability...

I`ll start out by saying that in Physics text can be expressed as equations, and anyone who truly understands an equation has no trouble to substitute the equation with words..., that anybody can understand..
That is especially true with all the German Physics literature...it is a lot easier to understand than reading the same statements in English.
Many therefore prefer to study Physics and certain Math in German although that is not their mother tongue.

I could do this either way, in Text form or with equations...I do have all the necessary symbols in my alternate keyboard tables...which do You prefer..??

back to You Ian
Great, I was quite sure that You had no problem with that, but my problem regarding Spencer is not so much the simplification, as the conclusion he draws from it.
As a matter of fact in experimental physics, the simpler You keep the experiment the better, as long as the simple experiment is not used afterwards to walk over and railroad parameters that the simple experiment did not include.
I`m not quite sure what You mean by:

but it seems obvious to me that every time you raise the ambient temperature, or reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential.

So I have no choice to make assumptions what You meant, and if I assumed wrong, and there is more than one way I could do that,... don`t worry, come back and re-elaborate,...I promise I won`t link You to my cussing elephant URL in retaliation.

It`s not that obvious to me how I should understand exactly what You are saying with the multiple statements in this sentence ...the color coding is what I do to aid me when I am trying to sort out things like that..
So let`s look at the red first, I have a problem with the word "must" here, and we have to agree on some common terminology especially settle which is the effect and which was the cause.
Surely You intended the original heat source as the cause.
Well if is the cause then the word "must" has to be stricken. In physics the "cause" must not anything...the only thing that "must" follow is the effect that`s being caused, and that would be to raise the ambient temperature.

So are You trying to address how this effect may be impeded with the words "reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body" in the same sentence..?


I am trying as hard as I can not to put words in Your mouth, that You did not intend to say,
So now the "reduced radiating effectiveness" ...in the context with the red and the blue part of this sentence, is that a second variable You introduced as a cause with an effect on the original heat source?

You did say:
"or reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential"

We have to clear a few things up here and the first thing is the word choice & the "pump" word analogy. If You employ these analogies with a body that radiates heat You will fall in a trap of totally erroneous thinking how heat RADIATION really works....and that will be the exact same trap, that Spencer has lured not just You, but many others into as well...and that is to state that if another object is placed next to the body that RADIATES heat, that now somehow the "radiating effectiveness of the body" as You put it has been changed.
And now it ( the effect) should be " obvious to me that every time you raise the ambient temperature," .....

Is that what You are asking me?
If so, then as before my answer is no...again.
No matter what You place next to the radiating body, it has no bearing on the energy rate or the temperature at which that body radiates energy....
The only parameter that may be effected is not the radiating body, but the spread of the radiation if you place an obstruction into the field..
and in no way will that cause an overall temperature increase


If You place a reflector next to this body...and remember what a reflector is...!...The less electromagnetic radiation a material absorbs the better of a reflector it is...and yes a good reflector will reflect heat radiation back to the radiating body at the same frequency and consequently at the same temperature at which the radiating body has sent it out...

Will that raise the temperature of the radiating body...?
No it won`t, it can`t ...and how could it do a silly thing like that...

It`s no accident that Spencer resorted to the word "insulate" with his example because now we have left the realm of heat radiation and entered into heat conduction.
If You insulate a heat source then indeed the heat flow is impeded.
But then that would also have the opposite effect on what You called "the ambient temperature"
In that case "ambient" would be whatever is not an integral part of the heat source and the ambient would receive less heat .

The heat source may or may not increase in temperature...that all depends what Your choice of heat source was in the example.

I quote Spencer now:

Let’s heat the plate continuously with electricity.

Yes very convenient and also very crafty.
Because that is a heat source where the temperature of the heat source will go up if you INSULATE it...but even a housewife wearing oven mittens knows, that if you surround such a heat source with a heat INSULATOR that the ambient, (her fingers, which are not an integral part of the heat source ) don`t get as hot as they would without the heat INSULATOR.



Holding Spencers EXACT words up against him, I would be entitled to accuse him of having said that in so many words in his example that the heat source + fingers ... in the long run would get hotter as they would without this second "shielding" body,...In essence that is exactly the claim made how CO2 has supposedly raised our planet`s temperature..but I`m not as much into hair splitting as "climatologists" are with their critics..Would I, then I would get a lecture on the finer nuances between heat conduction and heat radiation..
But in the Spencer example these 2 totally different concepts are amalgamated by skilfully using ambiguities just as a politician rather than a scientist would do it..like placing quotation marks around the word "insulate".

I`ll ask You this question now;

If You put a cardboard in front of Your car radiator and the engine overheated...would you believe Spencer if he tells you, that since your motor + what was in the radiator got hotter, that the air around the radiator also got hotter than it would have without the cardboard..????


Or would You rather believe an engineer, any of which I`m certain would tell You, that the cardboard reduced the amount of heat the radiator transferred to the air was to little...Had I said "plugged" furnace air filter instead of radiator, You`ld have no trouble figuring out why the air did in fact did not get warmer


It gets really obvious once You walk away from Spencer`s electric hot plate and I am sure that it was no accident why he chose
that as a heat source in his example
You can electrically heat a tiny filament wire, like in a flash light bulb to white hot temperatures...with a thin Wolfram Metal wire that would be > 1000 deg Celsius...and only feed in energy at a rate of a few hundred milli-watts.

Or in a thicker wire filament, like inside a cloth dryer with as much as 500 or more watts get around 450 deg Celsius...depending at what rate the heater can dissipate the heat...
You could possibly surround it in a parking lot with as many "colder" cars as You want...the heater wires won`t get any hotter...
However if you wrap it with asbestos or ceramic insulation, yes the wire will get up to temperatures hot enough to melt.
But lets assume You limit the amount of current to a point just below where the wire would melt and keep it there...and observe the temperature at the surface of the insulator...
If You leave all other parameters the same...long enough...then the insulator will eventually be at the same maximum temperature the heater could achieve with these current settings in a vacuum,...and would radiate the exact same thermal signature it would havewithout the insulator with temperature calibrated imaging...

So now we got that out of the way, I hope..

That leaves us and led us to the hugest discrepancy in Spencer`s "logic"...
And that was projecting what he believes might happen when as he said "Let’s heat the plate continuously with electricity. "...
and then use what he thought would happen...because he never even bothered trying it and afterwards uses the parameters of this example to make silly statements like :

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

by asserting that his surrounded electric hot-plate heat loss rate theory can be applied to :

reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential

I have no idea why so many people who should know better get so mystified by Infrared Heat radiation,...
The laws governing this process is in no way different from any other electromagnetic radiation.
The higher the frequency the higher is the quantitative energy of a wave..
I don`t care what You place in and around any such radiation source, be that Ultraviolet, visible or infrared, there is no way You can change the wavelength of the source just by parking another object next to it.
Or in other words cause "then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature"...Then this effect should also be observed at other wavelength and higher frequencies...like Your car headlights are turning blue because a train went by as you stopped at the crossing.

I know EXACTLY what kind of bullshit Spencer has said...he leaves no other interpretation...

But I can`t say I`m exactly sure what to make out of:

but it seems obvious to me that every time you raise the ambient temperature, or reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential.

If I got it wrong...well nobody is perfect...and don`t forget my primary language is German, not English... and the German language is quite exact,leaves really no room for ambiguities and as a consequence it can only be interpreted one way...much like mathematical equations...
I`m not as good in guessing when I have to guess what people meant to say

My wife is ...!!!...and always expects the same near psychic abilities from me.
Guessing wrong always gets me into a lot of shit...

Like she would say "honey aren`t You thirsty ?"
"No" I replied and drove right by a truck stop...
See how I fucked up...?
What she really meant to tell me as politely as possible that she wanted me to pull in at the "Flying J" and buy her a diet coke...

P.s.:
There is one more thing You said, that I feel compelled to address before I hit the hay..:

a point or sphere is the most effective shape for a radiator. every deformation of shape or addition of mass between the radiator and the radiation acceptor decreases the efficiency of energy shedding, therefore neccessitating an increase in the temperature of the heat source to compensate.

No, a sphere is actually not so good...it has the least surface area per mass of any other 3-d geometry shape You care to choose and with a "radiator" You want the exact opposite...You want as much surface area as possible...the rougher the better...
And that applies not only just for heat exchangers and heat conduction, but also for heat radiation....
That has been well tested and tried...ask any engineer

And last not least but actually the most important part of what You wrote was:

in the case of adding mass, the complexity of the calculations go up tremendously because of the formation of a heat reservoir and the addition of conduction into the mix

And I whole heartedly agree with You on that one..
So now let`s go back a few months ...I`ll try and find the post later, where I showed that on any graph that "climatologists" have published so far , they
show a simple milk-maid math linear relation ship between the ppm CO2 (the absorber) and the ambient temperature..
a LINAER RELATIONSHIP, ....while at least one of the prime functions, the % absorption CO2 exhibits are already logarithmic functions !!!!
Even if there was a relationship between ppm CO2 as the cause and observed temperature increase as effect, that You would have to go down to at least the 3rd or 4th derivative function to get a linear correlation once mass & convective heat transfer is incorporated...
here again "climatologists" themselves don`t either seem to know the difference between absorbance and absorption or are secure in the knowledge that no decision maker at the political level knows the difference.

In parting company for today I would like to suggest You carry out an experiment which reveals a lot more than Spencer`s so called example which he never even bothered trying...because I know had he tried it he would have never published this crap.

It`s very easy to find 2 light bulb versions of the same outside dimensions and wattage,...
use one version with clear glass and as a comparison the same make bulb but with a milky glass.
Turn them both on and compare the glass temperature...
According to Spencer and "climate science" there better be a huge difference !

 

[gslack]

Don't know if this was already touched upon previously, but I have a problem with the term "black body/blackbody) in reference to earth. The earth is not a blackbody by either absorpivity or emissivity . Its a graybody, and to me this makes the entire contention of greenhouse theory as its claimed dubious..

I don't know but it would seem to me any use of complex mathematical principles or physical laws has to start with accurate descriptive terms...

 

[wirebender]

Don't know if this was already touched upon previously, but I have a problem with the term "black body/blackbody) in reference to earth. The earth is not a blackbody by either absorpivity or emissivity . Its a graybody, and to me this makes the entire contention of greenhouse theory as its claimed dubious..

I don't know but it would seem to me any use of complex mathematical principles or physical laws has to start with accurate descriptive terms...

True. If you ask me, right there is where the whole climate science model of the earth's energy budget goes off the rails. trenberth treats the earth as a blackbody when he divides the incoming energy by 4 and in effect, turns the earth into a flat plate receiving energy 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of what it actually receives. You can divide energy by 4 with a blackbody (star for example) and represent it pretty accurately as a flat disk because no matter where you look at a star from, it appears roughly the same. The earth can't be accurately represented as a flat disk because it isn't a 3D self illuminating body. It is a 3D body being illuminated across 180 degrees of its surface at any given time and the amount of radiation it is receiving across that 180 degrees varies because it is a sphere. Across that 180 degrees along any lattitude, there is only a short time where it receives the maximum energy from the sun. The rest of the day, the energy is either increasing or decreasing, and you must also account for increasing and decreasing amounts of energy at any given time along the lines of longitude.

trenberth's energy budget doesn't represent anything like the actual conditions found on earth and therefore doesn't describe anything like the energy budget of the earth and it is not an acceptable excuse to use it because climate science has produced nothing better.

 

[wirebender]

1.) @wirebender...I have not had a chance yet to read the whole thread who said what ...but I`m going to...this is a very interesting discussion...and I`ll try answer that to the best of my ability...

I`ll start out by saying that in Physics text can be expressed as equations, and anyone who truly understands an equation has no trouble to substitute the equation with words..., that anybody can understand..
That is especially true with all the German Physics literature...it is a lot easier to understand than reading the same statements in English.
Many therefore prefer to study Physics and certain Math in German although that is not their mother tongue.

I could do this either way, in Text form or with equations...I do have all the necessary symbols in my alternate keyboard tables...which do You prefer..??

Thanks. Given a choice, I would prefer an explanation in words. I took a good deal of math, chemistry and physics in college, but when I decided to go into medicine, most of that fell by the wayside. I can do the math, but it is an endeavor every time I do. I don't make my day to day living with the math; I bend wires (orthodontics).

I do remember though from physics class that we weren't allowed to just use algebraic properties with physics problems because we found the problem easier to work out as a result of applying the property. When you alter the equation, even when the answer is the same, you have altered the physical meaning of what is happening.

Specifically, the claim that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) represents the same physical processes as P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4). To my understanding, the first represents the SB law as published by SB, that being a blackbody at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background (no backradiation); whle the second represents the net difference between a blackbody at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background and a colder background which is represented to be a blackbody radiating into a warmer blackbody which is represented as a colder background. The answer is the same, but the physical processes they describe seem to me to be very different. One representing reality and the other representing a means of promoting AGW alarmism.

If you don't have backradiation, you don't have AGW alarmism.

 

[gslack]

Don't know if this was already touched upon previously, but I have a problem with the term "black body/blackbody) in reference to earth. The earth is not a blackbody by either absorpivity or emissivity . Its a graybody, and to me this makes the entire contention of greenhouse theory as its claimed dubious..

I don't know but it would seem to me any use of complex mathematical principles or physical laws has to start with accurate descriptive terms...

True. If you ask me, right there is where the whole climate science model of the earth's energy budget goes off the rails. trenberth treats the earth as a blackbody when he divides the incoming energy by 4 and in effect, turns the earth into a flat plate receiving energy 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of what it actually receives. You can divide energy by 4 with a blackbody (star for example) and represent it pretty accurately as a flat disk because no matter where you look at a star from, it appears roughly the same. The earth can't be accurately represented as a flat disk because it isn't a 3D self illuminating body. It is a 3D body being illuminated across 180 degrees of its surface at any given time and the amount of radiation it is receiving across that 180 degrees varies because it is a sphere. Across that 180 degrees along any lattitude, there is only a short time where it receives the maximum energy from the sun. The rest of the day, the energy is either increasing or decreasing, and you must also account for increasing and decreasing amounts of energy at any given time along the lines of longitude.

trenberth's energy budget doesn't represent anything like the actual conditions found on earth and therefore doesn't describe anything like the energy budget of the earth and it is not an acceptable excuse to use it because climate science has produced nothing better.

Agreed and as you stated, energy (light) the earth receives from the sun is almost always in a state of increasing (heading towards noon or day) or decreasing (heading towards night). Also the curvature of the planet allows for far more energy to "slip off" (for lack of a better term) the atmospheric surface the closer it gets to the poles. Also the electro-magnetic field of the Earth is often treated as little consequence in climate research, as well as our distance from the sun at any point in time..

You take those obvious problems, add them to others that are even less understood or in the least less regarded; the procession of the equinoxes and our solar system tracking the galaxy itself, the fact as our sun is less active its electro-magnetic field weakens which allows more cosmic radiation into our planet, variations in our proximity to other radiating or reflecting bodies, and many other things the "science" seems to be able to disregard when it sees fit.

If i were to go at my job with the same single-mindedness and already set culprit of climate science, I would not have been doing my 20 years now thats for sure. I would most likely have been standing tall in proceedings for it..

 

[wirebender]

I believe the day is coming where climate science (or at least its practitioners and financial supporters) are going to become responsible in a monetary way for their predictions of woe. Vast quantities of money are being spent based on thier very flawed science and eventually, someone is gonig to win a lawsuit against some part of the climate science establishment which will start an avalance of lawsuits based on the existing legal precedent.

It will be bad for science in the short term, but in the long term maybe it will serve as a warning to those who get the idea of promoting snake oil for fun and profit.

 

[gslack]

I believe the day is coming where climate science (or at least its practitioners and financial supporters) are going to become responsible in a monetary way for their predictions of woe. Vast quantities of money are being spent based on thier very flawed science and eventually, someone is gonig to win a lawsuit against some part of the climate science establishment which will start an avalance of lawsuits based on the existing legal precedent.

It will be bad for science in the short term, but in the long term maybe it will serve as a warning to those who get the idea of promoting snake oil for fun and profit.

Just to clarify the bigger problems..

Took my oldest daughter over to College of Wooster for her campus sleepover last weekend. They of course had all their majors and minors information and all kinds of info on their various popular courses all laid out in snazzy little papers and pamphlets. I was browsing them looking for classes she could sit in on the next day particularly psychology (her choice of field right now) and in the science department I found one called "climate change"..

Now you and I as well as any other person with sense realizes "climate change" is not a real course of study by any measure. Its not a real science. You aren't going to become a climatologist by taking climate change, you will not have the math to even be a meteorologist. in fact I would consider the course a waste of money in terms of its usefulness and real world application. But there it is and you can minor in it.. A minor in climate change is less useful than a minor in crocheting or basket weaving. At least in those you have a sell-able skill after.

That is what this has turned into already. They are married to this thing and no way they can gracefully bow out now without massive repercussions across the board. The UN pushed governments into this kind of half-cocked "science" through their BS "reports", sustainable development incentives and all kinds of other programs and sanctions through themselves directly or the world bank, or any of the other agencies they have at their disposal. Now the world has colleges teaching crap like "climate change" to the masses preparing them for nothing.

Personally I think a scientist who willfully deceives masses like this should be held accountable. Holding the UN or governments accountable will amount to nothing we know this. But you remove the safety net for these scientists and things will change..

 

[wirebender]

I believe the day is coming where climate science (or at least its practitioners and financial supporters) are going to become responsible in a monetary way for their predictions of woe. Vast quantities of money are being spent based on thier very flawed science and eventually, someone is gonig to win a lawsuit against some part of the climate science establishment which will start an avalance of lawsuits based on the existing legal precedent.

It will be bad for science in the short term, but in the long term maybe it will serve as a warning to those who get the idea of promoting snake oil for fun and profit.

Just to clarify the bigger problems..

Took my oldest daughter over to College of Wooster for her campus sleepover last weekend. They of course had all their majors and minors information and all kinds of info on their various popular courses all laid out in snazzy little papers and pamphlets. I was browsing them looking for classes she could sit in on the next day particularly psychology (her choice of field right now) and in the science department I found one called "climate change"..

Now you and I as well as any other person with sense realizes "climate change" is not a real course of study by any measure. Its not a real science. You aren't going to become a climatologist by taking climate change, you will not have the math to even be a meteorologist. in fact I would consider the course a waste of money in terms of its usefulness and real world application. But there it is and you can minor in it.. A minor in climate change is less useful than a minor in crocheting or basket weaving. At least in those you have a sell-able skill after.

That is what this has turned into already. They are married to this thing and no way they can gracefully bow out now without massive repercussions across the board. The UN pushed governments into this kind of half-cocked "science" through their BS "reports", sustainable development incentives and all kinds of other programs and sanctions through themselves directly or the world bank, or any of the other agencies they have at their disposal. Now the world has colleges teaching crap like "climate change" to the masses preparing them for nothing.

Personally I think a scientist who willfully deceives masses like this should be held accountable. Holding the UN or governments accountable will amount to nothing we know this. But you remove the safety net for these scientists and things will change..

Come on gslack, a degree in climate change, or even a minor would be at least as useful to earning a living as a degree in Medieval french poetry.

Personally, I belive basketweaving 1 and 2 would be more profitable in the long run. My wife just dropped $375 for a hand made basket to set on the flagstone at the fireplace to keep pine cones in.

 

[gslack]

I believe the day is coming where climate science (or at least its practitioners and financial supporters) are going to become responsible in a monetary way for their predictions of woe. Vast quantities of money are being spent based on thier very flawed science and eventually, someone is gonig to win a lawsuit against some part of the climate science establishment which will start an avalance of lawsuits based on the existing legal precedent.

It will be bad for science in the short term, but in the long term maybe it will serve as a warning to those who get the idea of promoting snake oil for fun and profit.

Just to clarify the bigger problems..

Took my oldest daughter over to College of Wooster for her campus sleepover last weekend. They of course had all their majors and minors information and all kinds of info on their various popular courses all laid out in snazzy little papers and pamphlets. I was browsing them looking for classes she could sit in on the next day particularly psychology (her choice of field right now) and in the science department I found one called "climate change"..

Now you and I as well as any other person with sense realizes "climate change" is not a real course of study by any measure. Its not a real science. You aren't going to become a climatologist by taking climate change, you will not have the math to even be a meteorologist. in fact I would consider the course a waste of money in terms of its usefulness and real world application. But there it is and you can minor in it.. A minor in climate change is less useful than a minor in crocheting or basket weaving. At least in those you have a sell-able skill after.

That is what this has turned into already. They are married to this thing and no way they can gracefully bow out now without massive repercussions across the board. The UN pushed governments into this kind of half-cocked "science" through their BS "reports", sustainable development incentives and all kinds of other programs and sanctions through themselves directly or the world bank, or any of the other agencies they have at their disposal. Now the world has colleges teaching crap like "climate change" to the masses preparing them for nothing.

Personally I think a scientist who willfully deceives masses like this should be held accountable. Holding the UN or governments accountable will amount to nothing we know this. But you remove the safety net for these scientists and things will change..

Come on gslack, a degree in climate change, or even a minor would be at least as useful to earning a living as a degree in Medieval french poetry.

Personally, I belive basketweaving 1 and 2 would be more profitable in the long run. My wife just dropped $375 for a hand made basket to set on the flagstone at the fireplace to keep pine cones in.

Damn, I knew I should have taken basket weaving over Tae Kwon Do. . I help teach kali/Escrima/ Arnis 2 nights a week down the road from the house, and that 90 bucks a month per student (about 20 of them IF they remember to pay) divided among 3 people and insurance, renting a place, utilities, licenses et al. is really lucrative...NOT!

I wonder if the pottery class is till taking apps at the community college...

 

[wirebender]

I wonder if the pottery class is till taking apps at the community college...

Don't even get me started on pottery. We passed through Albuquerque a few years ago and my wife went certifiably insane over some of the native american pottery in that area. Don't ask what that cost me. Apparently pottery is a much more lucrative business if you happen to be native american.

 

[gslack]

I wonder if the pottery class is till taking apps at the community college...

Don't even get me started on pottery. We passed through Albuquerque a few years ago and my wife went certifiably insane over some of the native american pottery in that area. Don't ask what that cost me. Apparently pottery is a much more lucrative business if you happen to be native american.

yeah i think it runs on the same mysterious principles that make my wife think that "Hecho en Mexico" is synonymous with quality. And if its at a flea market, swap meet, or an antique show its automatically a good deal even if its not...

 

[IanC]

but it seems obvious to me that every time you raise the ambient temperature, or reduce the radiating effectiveness of the body, then the original heat source must operate at a higher temperature to pump the power across the temperature differential.
So I have no choice to make assumptions what You meant, and if I assumed wrong, and there is more than one way I could do that,... don`t worry, come back and re-elaborate,...I promise I won`t link You to my cussing elephant URL in retaliation.

It`s not that obvious to me how I should understand exactly what You are saying with the multiple statements in this sentence ...the color coding is what I do to aid me when I am trying to sort out things like that..
So let`s look at the red first, I have a problem with the word "must" here, and we have to agree on some common terminology especially settle which is the effect and which was the cause.
Surely You intended the original heat source as the cause.
Well if is the cause then the word "must" has to be stricken. In physics the "cause" must not anything...the only thing that "must" follow is the effect that`s being caused, and that would be to raise the ambient temperature.

what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'. as the temperature of the container increases, so does the starting temperature of the heater which leads to a higher end point temperature once the 750w is applied. carried to an extreme, you could warm the container and the unplugged heater until the heater was radiating 750w. when you plug in the heater the extra 750wmust escape and the only way to do that is by increasing the temperature of the heater so that it can force energy past the (back)radiation of the container. as the ambient radiation of the container goes up there must be an increase in the operating temperature of the heater to shed the energy. is that more clear?

in a similar fashion, when you put matter between the radiating source and the side of the container where the energy escapes, you have slowed the escape of energy from the speed of light to something less. the radiation then warms that matter which in turn decreases the the temperature differential which in turn lowers the rate of energy shedding. the only way for the radiator to continue shedding the necessary amount of heat is to increase its temperature to make up for the difference.

your reference to reflectors is off topic because wirebender already defined the emmissivity as unity therefore there is no reflection.

your reference to cold water not being able to warm up warmer water is also a non sequitur. the electricity going into the heater is not limited to producing radiation of a specific wavelength and is capable of being used in a range of outcomes until disruption occurs at very high temperatures.

I must admit I lost interest in your long and rambling post so if you could stay on point and limit yourself to just a few topics when responding to me it would be appreciated.

 

[gslack]

WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..

3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..

 

[IanC]

WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..

3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..

polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.

 

[IanC]

by the way gslack, you still havent responded to the question of why you support wirebender's 'math' even though he used the wrong temperature in the S-B equation. why do you think others should respond to your questions when you wont reply to other people's questions?

 

[wirebender]

what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'.

Wirebender made no mistakes Ian. If you could do the math, you might be able to check but clearly you can't. There are a few things that you apparently don't know about the SB law. The first is that the SB law calculates the radiation emitting from any surface that is above absolute zero. It does so even when the background is not at absolute zero. As I said, if you could do the math, you could check the math and see for yourself that I made no mistake.

 

[wirebender]

WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..

3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..

He is one of the faithful and there isn't much you can say to someone after they have drunk the kookaid.