Following on from the pondering by Gordon Robertson on extra heat generated by the earth and how this might be accounted for in global warming theory, Mark Duffett has kindly sent in a note with some links:
For all of you out there who might actually be interested in learning something, this isn’t a bad introduction:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
There is a flaw in the assumptions behind the statement contained therein about the practicality of geothermal energy extraction, but ignore that for the moment.
The bottom line here is the figure of 0.075-0.087 W/m2 for globally averaged heat flow (i.e. the flux of internally generated heat at Earth’s surface). Note this is fundamentally based on upwards of 20,000 direct measurements. For comparison, the flux of solar energy incident on Earth at the top of the atmosphere is ~1360 W/m2.
You can draw your own conclusions about the likely direct influence of Earth’s internal heat on climate.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93RG01249.shtml is recommended for a more in-depth treatment.
Cheers
Mark Duffett
Tasmania
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
and as we are just correcting some major errors posting on this blog:
CO2 indeed IS warming this planet.
arctic sea ice is melting fast.
and HIV is causing AIDS.
Sod, don’t get too hasty… This could be Aocratic Irony again… Better waited for the Jen-vestigator to pass judgement…
Sod, don’t get too hasty… This could be Socratic Irony again… Better waited for the Jen-vestigator to pass judgement…
“The bottom line here is the figure of 0.075-0.087 W/m2 for globally averaged heat flow (i.e. the flux of internally generated heat at Earth’s surface). Note this is fundamentally based on upwards of 20,000 direct measurements. For comparison, the flux of solar energy incident on Earth at the top of the atmosphere is ~1360 W/m2.”
Come on. This is hotly contested. You cannot possibly know what the amount is. Or how stable it is. The assumption here is that this is invariant over time and that the heat generation method is known and uncontested.
Lets have some evidence champ. And your assumptions.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=58687
These guys are determined to take everything out of it but the colour of CO2. They average out the suns activities and imagine this averaged figure is meaningful. They make the world flat, twice as far from the sun, an averaged out black body, noon all the time, they take out overturning, any sort of convection at all, the oceans and globe are put to the side. Water is excluded as a greenhouse substance, the water vapour is averaged out, that warm air rises is ethnically cleansed from their model….
…. They average out anything they cannot ignore. And by the end of it they say “HO HO. EVERYTHING IS DRIVEN BY THE COLOUR OF CO2.”
Just stop lying sod you idiot. Its just unbelievable the constant lying from these morons.
The earth is cooling. No evidence exists that extra-CO2 has any effect. And the ice is melting on account of it being day-time in the arctic. By October the ice will be accumulating again.
“CO2 indeed IS warming this planet”
Does this include the plateaued temperatures from the last 10 years? Now play sophist’s pea&thimble with time spans … the longer the time span you pick, the more obvious the natural cycling is.
“arctic sea ice is melting fast”
As it did in the 1850’s when a British Royal Society expedition to the Arctic found almost no sea ice (that is a matter of factual record) … scarey, isn’t it ?
Straw men, puerile sarcasm, ad hominens … ho hum
some of you guys seem not to have fully understood that “socratic” thing that Jennifer is running.
the idea is that you do some BASIC THINKING before posting!
so think for one second:
if the erath was replacing a significant energy input from the sun, what effect would this have on day/night temperatures?
and on climate zones?
There is one serious problem with one of the links posted above.
The figure of (0.075 to 0.087)watts/m2 is actually computed from limiting the only heat sources as thorium, potassium and uranium. The author computed 38 trillion watts of energy, then divided it by the surface area of the earth to arrive at the small figure 0.075 watts/m2.
This low figure of heatflow is not derived from 20,000 or so meurements but from an assumption of what the probable source of heat might be.
That average figure is pretty low but let’s not forget that it is an AVERAGE and no mention is made of the distribution of geothermal energy.
The Pacific has plenty of hot spots (a.k.a. geothermal vents) and some of these eject water at over 200 degrees C. What’s more there’s plenty of subsea volcanoes.
This Pacific subsea heat might trigger or encourage the development of El Nino events. Even the IPCC admits that El Nino events cause higher temperatures and La Nina events cause lower temperatures.
Under La Nina events the Pacific surface water is cooler and what heat there is tends to cycle vertically along the equator.
An El Nino means warmer sea temperatures in the central Pacific and plenty of heat to disperse into the mid latitudes. This would provide a conduit by which any heat from subsea volcanoes or other hot spots was dispersed.
This possible geothermal contribution to warming should be taken as a hypothesis. The bigger issue is that we shouldn’t dismiss this possible contribution merely on the basis of AVERAGES.
Yeah its got to be crap Louis. These guys wouldn’t have a clue. Subatomic particles of unknown sorts could be passing into the planet like neutrinos and lodging themselves as heat energy for all these people know. There could be a number of energy-production mechanisms known and unknown. These people have no humility and can therefore never really be thought of as scientists.
“That average figure is pretty low but let’s not forget that it is an AVERAGE and no mention is made of the distribution of geothermal energy.”
Right but the average figure is not to be trusted, or yet even seriously considered in the first place. Only 1 energy generation mechanism. And not assisted either. They are just talking about spontaneous radioactive decay of known fissionable substances. This is truly a bizzare idea to be limiting heat production to this.
Its like the first thing that comes to their mind and they feel like its all bases covered.
John,
The low figure is an estimation from some assumptions – it is in no way a systematic measurement of the earth’s surface heat flow.
The theory of surge tectonics cannot be powered by radioactivity but as there is some linkage between El Nino and La Nina, and solar inputs, and thus climate, there is another possible source of energy – electric currents.
This source of energy which comes from the galaxy is totally ignored.
Probably no other country than Iceland has so many geothermal resources on its territory, so why is this country called Iceland?
Right. And if we are going further afield, if theories of push-gravity get up, that could be another potential source of energy.
But why is this fellow just picking on Uranium, Thorium, Potassium? Aren’t all elements subject to nuclear decay?
Just incredibly presumptuous of these fellows. They think its all sewn up. They don’t ever expect that something they didn’t take account of can come in from left field. Unscience.
We don’t have our 20,000 measurements at all do we? Mark Duffets bullshitartistry ought to be dismissed outright for presumptuousness and unscience.
Graeme,
no, only a few elements have unstable isotopes. Protons, for example, do not decay at all.
This is HILARIOUS! Oh Louis and Graeme, you two old jokers… Come on enlighten us with your boundless wisdom… What is “the flux of internally generated heat at Earth’s surface” according to your studies?
Graeme… This is great, your theory needs further study I think: “Subatomic particles of unknown sorts could be passing into the planet like neutrinos and lodging themselves as heat energy for all these people know.”
Actually I think that the spin energy of molecules as they rotate with the earth is the source of all this energy. This spin energy is sourced through intergalactic forces that we can’t see. They exist though, and their existence is proved by the difficulty in proving they exist… It’s a non-paradigm solution that so-called “scientists” wouldn’t understand with all their logic and research. True belief in non-reality can only be attained by shouting it loud enough. Just try and disprove me.
Louis… Fanatastic stuff! Yes entirely true this:”the theory of surge tectonics cannot be powered by radioactivity but as there is some linkage between El Nino and La Nina, and solar inputs, and thus climate, there is another possible source of energy – electric currents.”
Yes and those eclectic currents are actually enhanced by gravo-dipolar-magneto relationships. If you look at the actual distribution of radioactive elements on the crust you find no such relationship (hence disproving tectonics) BUT there distribution is VERY suggestive of the non-space theory of Flint, Bough, and Errtrin 1997.
Jennifer do you ever feel like Dr Frankenstein, with an uncontrollable monster?
“True belief in non-reality can only be attained by shouting it loud enough. Just try and disprove me.”
No – we all agree with you on this one.
Case in point: IPCC and AGW.
Louis and Graeme, you need to brush up on your factoids…
All elements have unstable, radioactive isotopes.
For example radioactive isotopes of Hydrogen are called Deuterium
http://www.nucleonica.net:81/wiki/images/3/39/1968_FChart.pdf
This chart shows the isotopes.
Protons aren’t elements, they’re a subatomic particle.
Protons might decay… eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
Now I know this is actual science Louis and I know how much you hate it, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you have to claim it isn’t true.
“No – we all agree with you on this one.”
Yes – we are in disagreement
case in point: Jennifer Marohasy and Socratic Irony
“For example radioactive isotopes of Hydrogen are called Deuterium”
You idiot.
It’s Tritium.
Get your factoids right.
“All elements have unstable, radioactive isotopes.
For example radioactive isotopes of Hydrogen are called Deuterium
http://www.nucleonica.net:81/wiki/images/3/39/1968_FChart.pdf
This chart shows the isotopes.
Protons aren’t elements, they’re a subatomic particle.”
I never said otherwise you lying idiot. In fact that was one of my major points. Here we have another liar trying to mislead third parties over what I said. Threadwrecker.
So in fact you agree with me than? Given as you’ve parroted one of my points but lied and pretended that I said something else.
Moron.
A thousand apoloogises…
Oh wait… Socratic Irony…
🙂
You are such an idiot NT!!! What was your point????
My point is that its presumptuous to think of one energy production source and imagine you have the whole thing wrapped up.
What was your point? Apart from gratuitous displays of idiocy and dishonesty? What was your point?
Graeme, yes I agree with you, didn’t you see my earlier analysis of your theory?
It was Louis who said protons were elements.
“no, only a few elements have unstable isotopes. Protons, for example, do not decay at all.”
See, it was that naughty Louis.
And my apology was to Ivan
Damn. What a complete jackass you are! Are you attempting to make donkey of the year a one jack-ass race?
You ought to come in under your own name fella. Hopefully that you incentivize you to lift your game.
Yeah I oughta…
So have you figured this out yet?
“But why is this fellow just picking on Uranium, Thorium, Potassium?”
I mean, what a weird collection of elements… Why would anyone choose three? Must be a random selection… Or maybe it’s the United Nations… Yeah I heard the UN was trying to bad name those three as they’re a potential source of Nuclear fuel. You know Fission reactors, the slow reactors for Thorium and… Must be another reactor for Potassium… Anyway yeah they are trying to stop nuclear power becoming free because theey want us to live in the dark ages. True story.
“Are you attempting to make donkey of the year a one jack-ass race?”
Oh, surely you’ve got that race sewn up all by yourself, Graeme.
NT
I never said a proton was an element, I said it did not decay and to date not one proton has been observed to decay.
What has decayed is the standard of interlocution here and you are obviously another AGW besotten political lefty, and a coward as well.
“Graeme,
no, only a few elements have unstable isotopes. Protons, for example, do not decay at all.”
That’s what you said Louis…
I am besotten, yes… And a coward…
NT,
You realise that a proton is the element hydrogen?
…and Hissink is, once again, proven wrong.
No he’s right.
Ummm Louis, I think you’ll find Hydrogen has an electron as well…
But Louis. Most elements have some sort of half-life don’t they? I suppose they are so long that it might not amount to much. But I’m just dumbfounded by the presumptuousness of some fellow thinking of one form of energy production and then automatically assuming its the only one. And then Duffet assuming the whole thing is cut and dried, all sorted and according to Hoyles.
NT. Electrons are easier to pick up than alarmist chicks for a wandering proton. Face it. Louis is right.
No Graeme, Hissink wrote what he wrote. And he’s wrong. A proton is not an element. Stupidity 101.
Semantics is boring let’s leave it.
Graeme, did you read about unstable isotopes? Did you read about Potassium, Thorium, and Uranium?
Interesting.
The discussion turns to real science, and suddenly the AGW alarmists become pedantic about facts and the precise interpretation of the same.
And what do we get when we ask the same of them wrt. Global Warming? Dissembling, mostly.
I agree with Louis and Graeme.
The energy from the Earth’s core is clearly much more mportant than the energy from the sun.
If that weren’t the case, it’d get colder at night and the poles would be covered in ice.
You AGW types are completely out of touch with reality.
Ivan
“Interesting.”
Or maybe Pointless would be a better word for it.
You know, the post from Mark Duffett was concise, to the point and contained references. These were ridiculed by Graeme and Louis, who proposed rather interesting theories (or stuff made up) of their own… How can you justify this statement “The discussion turns to real science, and suddenly the AGW alarmists become pedantic about facts and the precise interpretation of the same.
And what do we get when we ask the same of them wrt. Global Warming? Dissembling, mostly.”
What did Graeme and Louis say that was “science”?
Graeme doesn’t know why they focus on KTU, doesn’t want to find out – so it must be wrong… whatever they did.
Louis starts telling us that there are few radioactive elements and protons aren’t one of them…
This is not science it’s rambling nonsense. And it’s wrong.
Don’t misrepresent what we are saying here Gould. Bring not your science-fraud facetiousness to our presence. If people such as yourself followed NT’s three post holiday from stupidity, on a more permanent basis, people like me wouldn’t have to be nasty and you could confine yourself to honest and productive speculation.
Its really hard not to look down on bozos who have fallen for this unbelievable racket. Its hard not to kick them in the throat for just breathing and being so damn stupid.
“Graeme doesn’t know why they focus on KTU, doesn’t want to find out – so it must be wrong… ”
No you are lying. My point is simple, It is unscience to find one form of heat generation and to simply assume you have the whole gig wrapped up. Just as it is unscience to find an anomaly, in comparison to a theoretical black body (of all things) and assume that the whole difference is made up from the greenhouse effect.
In each case this is the same unscience, unscientific lack of humility, and hard-core stupidity in operation.
“What did Graeme and Louis say that was “science”?”
The bit about hydrogen. Whether it had one electron or none.
Graeme, why do they focus on those three elements?
Graeme – yes it is true. How could I not see.
Guys it just occurred to me – how could we be so blind ? Birdy IS the “one”. The messiah – in the end of days just before the climate apocalypse there might be one who would come among us and talk in incomprehensible tongues – one who would deliver this blog from unto temptation (and lets face it how many right wingers here seriously need a punch in the mouth – don’t tell me you wouldn’t like a shot?). An unlikely person. The last person we would think of who would know the true answer. Someone who might initially appear to be totally whacked – BUT NO – they would possess secret knowledge that none of us could dream to understand. And he would denounce us thrice (or even heaps more) – he would call for us to be cast out from our own society to save us.
Yes it must happen – we must be mass sacked. Let us join the cult of Bird and sack everyone – everyone but the shopkeeepers and the farmers with employee numbers less than 5. All larger bureaucracies must be mass sacked. Bird is the “One” – he speaketh the only true truth – and therefore we must worship the Bird. I have built a huge Bird in the backyard and will worship no other animal idols this week.
Does anyone here speak against the Bird – if so let him reveal himself – or worse is there a Jezebel who might utter his name?
“Yes it must happen – we must be mass sacked.”
All in due course, numb nuts.
A pig like that you don’t eat all at once.
Ivan,
So saying hydrogen is a proton is “science”?
Interesting…
Hey what does 828 days and counting mean? Does it become 829 tomorrow?
GET THEE OUT SATAN – how dare you mention another animal in the presence of the master. REPENT ! So called Ivan (666 and my brain will implode). We know that that is not your real name. How shall we come to know you?
I DO LUKE! I stand accused of Birdsphemy!
I am the AntiBird…
Look upon me and COWER!
Lo and all were scared and did shiver in their timbers…
This is a very unpleasant blog, but here goes above the trench. Kevin Rudd says that the science is settled by 4000 scientists (60 Minutes, Sunday 17 August). David Evans says there is no proof. Kevin Rudd says we are hotter than ever in history. 60 Minutes cites the MWP. Kevin Rudd says look the children in the eye and disregard the record. I would be starting to wonder about this Kevin..
Any more bizzare than saying that Global Warming is based on ‘science’?
No – it becomes 827 tomorrow.
It’s the number of days left until we get the chance to vote these Carbon Pollution Reduction morons out of office. And — just maybe — start the mass sackings of all the parasites.
Ohhhhhhhhhh that makes sense then…
And is Helium 2 protons?
What Rudderless should have said was:
‘Look the children in the eyes and tell them: “I was the one that f*cked everything up – me and the IPCC. I insisted on the failed Carbon Tax that drove all remaining investment to China and India. I was the one that threw all the blue collar jobs on the scrapheap. I was the one that flattened the economy. And all for nothing. It’s all my fault – and the IPCC.”
Ivan (666 and my brain will implode) – you are a false prophet – you have forgotten to adjust for leap years and daylight saving.
NT too has been testing us. NT has purposefully put himself 30 minutes in space time behind the Master in dobell. I can see it now. No matter who muc he denies the Master I know it to be true that the Bird is the only one.
Ivan come now quietly – drink with us this Koolaid – and you too will find peace. All hail the Bird.
“you have forgotten to adjust for leap years and daylight saving.”
You are a moron.
There is no leap year between now and the next election.
Trust me – I have checked that one.
Anyway – I have seen the future – Costello didn’t win and Rudd got a second term.
“drink with us this Koolaid..”
I just remembered my manners. You first.
For my part, I think that until we can adequately assess the ocean floor we will have to accept the current estimate of a meager geothermal contribution, too small to deserve entry in the energy budget. On the other hand, I believe that most scientists have yet to consider other sources of energy. As I mentioned elsewhere, all planets show a temperature climb from 0.1 bar of atmospheric pressure and above. This occurs whether the planet has a “surface” to speak of or not and is independent of the atmosphere’s composition. “Greenhouse gases” are not involved.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/AllPlanetsT.jpg
Apart from that, the energy budget itself has to be corrected. The real earth’s surface is not bathed in a continuous twilight of 168 W/m² — an amount sufficient to raise a body to minus 40 C — but twice that, 336 W/m² by the light of day, sufficient to raise the average temperature to around 4 C. How much of that temperature it is able to retain through a 12 hour night needs to be studied, for blackbody calculations provide no clue. Who knows? An accurate daytime temperature, the thermal retention of various substances (especially water), and a heat boost from atmospheric pressure could be all the elements this picture needs. But by all means, let us abandon the silly idea that a few IR-responsive gases are doing the job.
“Rudd got a second term.”
Yeah .. it was a jail term.
Found guilty of murdering the economy.
In cold blood.
G’day Graeme,
Thanks for the ref to Hollenbach and Herndon 2001, very interesting. I see their entirely theoretical but nevertheless plausible computer model (hmmm, remind you of anything?) indicates at most <15% of Earth’s internal heat production coming from their proposed nuclear fission reactor in Earth’s core. So that would be a contribution of 0.009 W/m2 to the flux at Earth’s surface. Again, cf. 1360 W/m2 incoming from the Sun. In any case, their modelled reactor output varies slowly (by less than 50% over the entire history of Earth) and smoothly, so together with the thermal inertia of the entire planet, there’s no way any such reactor could change Earth’s internal heat output over the time scales of interest to the AGW debate (decades to millennia).
But all this is irrelevant to the original point about the magnitude of geothermal heat flow relative to solar input. Louis’ critique of the first link I gave is reasonable if contestable, but the second (and slightly higher figure) is fundamentally based on direct measurements.
Hi Luke, welcome back. Some more funding came through then, did it?
I’ve missed you. This rabble trying to replace you just don’t hack it.
“Thanks for the ref to Hollenbach and Herndon 2001, very interesting. I see their entirely theoretical but nevertheless plausible computer model (hmmm, remind you of anything?)”
No.
You couldn’t find a plausible computer model based on alarmist science if your life depended on it you idiot.
Direct measurement of what?
You explain what they are measuring in your own words and the assumptions behind it and we will see if its such a cut and dried matter.
That these guys in my link have a computer model of a nuclear reactor does not exhaust potential heat sources. The idea even that the core has been proven solid ought to be looked askance at. We want the assumptions that hold up this idea.
Direct measurements of heat flow. 24-odd thousand of them.
Oh, and yes, I thought your ‘hotly contested’ pun so good it was worth recycling too 😉
How do they go about measuring heat flow? You cannot do it with a thermometer. You can’t do it in the deep oceans or under an antarctic ice sheet. So how do they do it exactly?
And why would they consider that the current measurements are a forever thing? If indeed they came to that conclusion.
You get a snapshot and you think you’ve got the whole picture. Its static-equilibrium all over again.
The Bird is the One. Blessed be the Bird.
I’m glad that you see it that way. Send money. After all the poor will always be with us. But I may not be.
Seriously I’m interested in the nuts and bolts of how they would make these direct measurements. How they can be so conclusive about it. I’ll tend to be skeptical until they can show how.
To use personification a little bit. From hat I’ve seen the magma seems to be closer to where it can let go of more of its heat. Its closer under Antarctica and the deep oceans. But you are going to have to dig deeper in most places on land. At least thats how I remember it.
So I would have though it posed a really difficult challenge to figure out how much energy its realeasing at any one time. Which is not to be confused with how much is being generated because we don’t expect a smooth release all the way through nor the whole thing to be invariant over time.
I would expect buildups. Perhaps not buildups of major consequence now when we live in such a typically frigid world. But I gave what I thought was sound reasons for a buildup prior to the heat maximum. And we might expect buildups in such energy during the glacial periods when much of the oceans is covered in ice.
The GISS model cannot explain a damn thing. But of the many things it cannot explain the snowball earth that melts and freezes up again is one of them.
Now if we have been cooling these last 55 million years one supposes that yes indeed there won’t be much of a buildup during an interglacial. And that perhaps the energy is coming out at pretty much the rate it is being generated. But when we go to talk about the paleo record it remains important to take such buildups into account and not be stooged by science frauds at Goddard trying to throw doubt on the empirical record in favour of their computer model which isn’t worth the price of a new apple laptop.
Glacial periods come on slowly in stages. But they end all at once. I think this implies heat buildup.
Sure the orbital cycles have to be right and the solar activity and all that. But I’m suggesting heat buildups are part of the picture to the suddenness of the glacial period breaking.
OK – guys – it’s over – the sceptics were right. Time to give it away. Look we should have thought of it before.
(1) what do many fire extinguishers use for fire retardants – answer CO2
(2) so CO2 kills heat
(3) so fire extinguishers disprove AGW
(4) ring the IPCC tomorrow and tell them.
(5) interview by 60 Minutes and Duffy
So guys – it’s all over. That’s it !
Just come good with the evidence fraudster.
“How do they go about measuring heat flow? You cannot do it with a thermometer. You can’t do it in the deep oceans or under an antarctic ice sheet. So how do they do it exactly?”
—————————-
antarctic ice sheet.
do you notice that this alone utterly KILLS any speculations about the earth being a major contribution to temperature on this planet!
why would there be ICE or PERMAFROST between the source of the heat and the air (that no greenhouse effect air, that is..)?!?
it would be best when you guys would ALWAYS (ALWAYS!!) take the time to sleep one night, before you write the nonsense that idea that suddenly appeared in your head.
if you did, you would have noticed how much it COOLED last night. but why would the “night part” of earth cool, when the heat was comming from within?!?
(i guess some cosmic rays can even explain this..)
What do you mean by MAJOR you dope. Who said it was a major contributer. No-one on this entire thread you utter utter utter moron.
What an idiot you are. What a total tool you are. You don’t have two neurons to rub together.
And what you’ve said is just irrelevant to what I was saying about glaciers ending all at once, about the heat maximum. About the potential for heat to build up over time in the paleo rcord.
My god you make me sick just how stupid you are.
But then you did buy into this global warming racket didn’t you. So we are to expect any amount of stupidity and dishonesty from you.
My GOD you are stupid.
And what is your problem with cosmic rays you idiot. To you imagine for one minute that you have blown away THAT very good science.
You are too stupid to comment on blogs sod.
You are an idiot.
You are a dim bulb.
Now you quoted me asking the question but you didn’t answer it. It strikes me that they would have their work cut out for them measuring such a thing. If they couldn’t get under the Antarctic or to the deep oceans.
Still knocks me out what a thickhead you are.
You cannot turn you back for 1 hour but that one of these UN-believing blockheads is going to misrepresent every damn thing anyone he disagrees with has ever said.
This is also highlights the problem with seeing everything in terms of steady-state watts per square metre. These people are unbelievably stupid but this static equilibrium model robs them of whatever tiny perspective they might be capable of having.
The UN as our new arbiter of scientific reality. Lord help us. What can we do the to this grip of the reign of mindless zombies?
calm down a little bird.
you all make it sound as if it was a major source.
i could claim that i made you to admit that it isn t, in a true “socratic” way.
how about a deal: instead of vague hints, you propose a number and we have a discussion.
(the term you want to scolar google is “borehole temperature”)
Jen, please moderate comments for clarity and content. Insults should be deleted. Thanks.
No-one said that it was a major source Sod you moron. If by that you mean in terms of many-watts per square metre. You are just a liar. Its important however to understand this matter beyond the insane and naive restrictions of watts-per-square metre.
Notice that each and every idiot who has fallen for the global warming fraud appears to be a pathological liar.
Ok you lying filth Sod. Name one post that shows that someone was claiming that averaged out its many watts per square metre?
Many watts per square metre Sod?
See you are just a liar.
You are trying to be serious and think things through and all the fraud-supporters can do is misrepresent what others are saying to third parties.
Redeem yourself Sod you lying idiot and discuss your views on the thermal heat maximum of 55 million years ago. And for the love of God can you break out of this watts per square metre idiocy.
Jen, please moderate comments for clarity and content. Insults should be deleted. Thanks.
Does anyone have the number of sites where Graeme has been banned? A score? Two score? How about the number of [killfiles] on Greasemonkey-enabled sites? A thousand score? Two thousand score?
Best,
D
Back to basic science for NT & the usual suspects …
A proton and hydrogen ion are synonyms in chemistry. In physics, it’s more rare; but your ignorant insistence that Mr. Hissink usage (whether intentional or not) is NOT science, indicates you must be an AGW alarmist (where physical science is often a casualty of your faith). You’ve wasted enough of this thread, defending your ignorance — move on.
The watts per square metre crowd ought to try and get their head around the snowball earth. Watch Goddard try, fail, and then assert their computer model over the evidence.
As good an example of unscience as you are ever likely to see:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sohl_01/
The whole episode of the globe freezing over melting and freezing again cannot really be explained without recourse to a buildup of joules generated internally.
They in effect admit that their model just cannot deal with the data.
Lest we get hung up on the definition of “synonym,” perhaps interchangeable in common usage will suffice.
“No-one said that it was a major source Sod you moron. ”
————–
well, in your very first post you said:
“This is hotly contested. You cannot possibly know what the amount is.”
well, according to your last posts, it looks like we actually DO know something about the amount.
it is NOT a MAJOR contribution.
“And for the love of God can you break out of this watts per square metre idiocy.”
———————
i don t know why you are so obsessed with this. it seems to be the unit that REAL SCIENTISTS use.
if you think about it for even a second, it makes lots of sense.
NT, quite correct – hydrogen is a proton and an electron, and no, I never wrote that it was an element, that was your interpretation from two separate sentences. If I wanted to infer that a proton was an element, I would have connected the two with a comma. Your problem, being a lefty, is inferring extra meanings from the while spaces between the words.
As for the decay of a proton, an experiment was done some time ago, and it never happened. The researchers did discover neutrinos though. And the Wiki source which suggests a proton might decay can be dismissed as dreaming.
Luke: “Does anyone here speak against the Bird”
It’s a pity but the blog has turned into a kindergarten riot with the likes if Bird bulling all the conversations.
Reading Gordon’s thread, I thought the temperature differential created by something a simple as a fire brick wall round a furnace should have been immediately obvious to anyone with an interest in controlling things extremely hot.
There have been thousands of people working underground who know its pretty stable down there despite the odd rupture in the crust.
Think thick, thick, thick………..
“It’s a pity but the blog has turned into a kindergarten riot with the likes if Bird bulling all the conversations.”
So – now you’re complaining?
Don’t recall any complaints from you when Alarmist Creep was doing the same or worse.
Suddenly the alarmists are getting all precious about it?
G’day Graeme,
re heat flow measurement: have a look at
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/heatflow/glossary.html
or, if you’re REALLY interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Terrestrial-Heat-Flow-Density-Determination/dp/9027725896
Alan Siddens wrote:
“Apart from that, the energy budget itself has to be corrected. The real earth’s surface is not bathed in a continuous twilight of 168 W/m² — an amount sufficient to raise a body to minus 40 C — but twice that, 336 W/m² by the light of day, sufficient to raise the average temperature to around 4 C. How much of that temperature it is able to retain through a 12 hour night needs to be studied, for blackbody calculations provide no clue.”
I’m pretty sure it’s always daytime on half the planet, Alan. The whole earth doesn’t go through a 12 hour night.
Then again, we’ve seen evolution, the big bang, the link between HIV and AIDS, nuclear decay and gravity disputed on this blog, so maybe the idea that the planet rotates is next.
James,
Oh yes. I’ve seen a GWSceptic show that he doesn’t actually know what day and night are (or forgets that he does in order to support his “sceptic” argument).
Like Creationists, aren’t they? 🙂
Me thinks Mark Duffett must be a miner and true geologists come from way downunder.
To those bird observers: It would be too easy to say when the blog becomes tedious ignore it completely but then we would miss the contrast between those who know good science and those who don’t.
Dano: here
http://www.acadvertiser.co.uk/lanarkshire-news/local-news/2008/07/23/one-year-jail-sentence-for-assault-on-police-officers-in-coatbridge-65864-21382777/
Shorter Graeme Bird: The earth is actually heated by vast quantities of Handwavium.
And he also pleaded guilty to assaulting PC Graeme Bird by kicking him on the head…
But Bird was crazy *before* he was kicked in the head, so this doesn’t explain much …
True enough, Haughton, a 12 hour night only occurs twice a year. But you show some ignorance about the energy budget, so let me explain.
Due to the earth’s curvature, the intensity of sunlight is at unity only where the sun is at zenith to the surface; that strength progressively diminishes and reaches zero at the terminator. As a consequence, of the 1368 W/m² of potentially available sunlight, only half is deliverable to the entire daytime hemisphere. Effectively, then, the hemisphere is facing a radiant intensity of 684 W/m². Projected on a flat surface this would correspond to a temperature of 331 Kelvin, pretty hot. But the earth reflects much of this light, so the atmosphere and surface together are able to absorb 470 (according to Kiehl-Trenberth figures). The surface itself absorbs 336 W/m², thus the average temperature I cited, which keep in mind is strictly applicable only to a flat surface.
Yet this pertains to one hemisphere alone. How does one solve for the temperature of the shadow side? In fact, the problem can’t be approached mathematically, so no solution is possible, only wild guesses. The energy budget avoids this insurmountable difficulty. It takes the average daytime strength of 470 W/m² and divides it by two, making 235 W/m² the value for both hemispheres at once — thereby yielding temperature/radiance relationships that cannot be taken seriously. This earth “model” is just about as far from the real earth as one can get.
As you see, then, the budget does not account for day and night at all.
How does one solve for the temperature of the shadow side?
With a little calculus
Gavin, Gavin, Gavin. That new-fangled calculus doesn’t work, because of the problems with infinitesimals. Or something. I’m sure there’ll be some reason why you can’t solve for the temperature of the shadow side, anyway.
“With a little calculus”
Not at all, dummy, but that kind of mentality does indeed mark the smug stupidity of your tribe.
As a postscript, with a concocted value of 235 W/m² at hand, Gavinites plug it into an equation and conclude that the earth’s temperature should be 254 Kelvin — although the average temperature of a sunlit hemisphere would be THREE HUNDRED TWO Kelvin and, without studying the materials involved, they have no idea of how much heat would be retained through the night rotation — er, assuming that the planet in question rotates. (You see, it’s a one-size-fits-all procedure. Dividing irradiance by 4 and correcting for albedo yields a “blackbody temperature,” the figure trusted whether it’s true or not. Even the moon does not conform to such an arbitrary method.)
But undeterred by empirical concerns, the Gavinites go on to surmise that since the average temperature is higher than the blackbody value, an extra radiance of 150 W/m² is required, provided by back-radiation from trace gases. Yes, trace gases.
In detail, however, given an average absorption of 168 W/m², another 222 are needed to raise the surface to 390 — even more if there are losses. So, with calculators blazing, they manufacture that figure too. 324 W/m² becomes the final estimate, exceeding sunlight in the entire system by 1.38 times and with a final surface value 2.32 times above the initial value. All with a little calculus.
Right, Gavin. What a scientist you are.
“Graeme,
no, only a few elements have unstable isotopes. Protons, for example, do not decay at all.”
That’s what you wrote Louis. To what, pray tell, does the phrase ‘for example’ refer, if not the preceding sentence?
Makes for a pretty interesting argument structure. I think I’ll have a go:
There are many reasons for believing Louis Hissink is a sloppy thinker. Graeme Bird, for example, is an unhinged loon.
It’s pretty cool – you get to make two conclusions without having to argue for either of them!
Thanks for the link Mark.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Great posts Alan. You are confirming exactly the sort of things I suspected. I had to interpolate the simplifications these guys were making myself, since when I’d try to shake the fraudsters down for their assumptions they would either not know ( the trust-and-parrot-routine) or they would refuse to give a straight answer. The would refuse to either confirm or deny my suspicions. So I’ve been accusing these people in the hopes that their denials would confirm at least some of my suspicions. But they are smart in their perverted way and have stayed mum on the whole deal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PEER REVIEW THIS!!! ALARMISTS!!!
Not that any alarmist is a peer of mine. But there will be plenty of mistakes in my critique of the Goddard link I posted not too many posts above. That will give alarmists great comfort like Sunday Church for a chronically depressed Christian. Since your religion is not sustained by any evidence of your own. But by the mistakes, tiny or otherwise, of your opponents.
The only thing within this post I am completely happy about is the implied epistemology. And I’m pretty happy with my paradigm as well. But those two aside I’m sure there are plenty of mistakes for you to pick up on. Actually if I had been reading some of the brilliant posters we have here I would likely have written it differently:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/the-goddard-institute-the-curse-of-the-lone-paradigm/
David: On the problems with infinitesimals I would normally start looking at the bottom line with things like thermal lag in the greater masses. From experience it takes a while to heat a stone, a brick or a bucket of water with a candle.
Alan Siddons: When furnaces, boilers and heat exchangers were my bread and butter I also did enough math at night to hold my own with the best of smart-arse academics treading round industry down under. The best of these in principle could do my job too and from experience you aint one of them.
Alan: When did I ever claim to be a “scientist” ?
FDB
Radioactive decay is the emission of a particle from an atomic nucleus – and a proton is the nucleus of the element hydrogen, the simplest of elements.
Want to continue picking nits?
Yes, it is the concept of average temperature and so-called uniformities, all linear that flow from this, CO2 increase, uniform CO2 mixing, that defines AGW; and IMO the fallacy of this, and therefore AGW, can be extracted from these 4 sources;
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Eli’s respones to the above Essex, McKitrick and Andressen paper critique of global average temperature;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html
Pielke’s paper on how radiative flux in cooler areas is of less consequence than flux in warmer areas;
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
And last but not least, Motls’s ingenious calculations confirming Pielke’s thesis;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html
Eli’s bloviations about local thermodynamic equilibriums (LTE) really works against his criticism of the Essex et al paper and, incidentally, give impetus to the Chilingar paper; this is well described in anonymous’s comments at 7.33pm and 11.05 pm; there exists well defined thermodynamically parcels of air (LTE); but the crucial thing is not the opaqueness of these parcels, but that they are subject to convective shift; on this basis I don’t see how Chilingar can be quibbled with; Chris has quibbled with my assertion that the isotropic property of emission will still operate regardless of the upward movement of the LTE; but I didn’t say it wouldn’t; there exist windows for outward emission consistent with the thermal gradient established by the ascending LTE’s; as the LTE cools as it rises the internal temperature of the LTE declines and it is here that Pielke’s and Motls’s ideas dovetail with ender bender’s TOA energy/radiative prescription; since the LTE will have a lower temperature the emissions will have less overall consequence than an emission from the hotter surface; this is equivalent to comparing, as Pielke does, the temperature change basis for emissions in the poles with those at the equator. The emissions from the warmer surface, via the many windows, have more sigificance in terms of the Earth’s energy budget (sic) than do emissions from the opaque LTE’s; so, there is not only horizontal/regional imhomogeneity, but vertical disparity in the SB average temperature comparison as well.
A quote “Since the radiation further away from the equator, and at different times, hits the ground at less-then 90 degrees than that radiation is spread out over a greater area and is therefore attenuated in that way….”
A simple spot check at any lattitude avoids the math and the confusion however it’s logical enough to intergrate small segments around an arc exposed to a beam of sun light…
er cohenite; I say it again, its time you stopped refering to other blogs and did some proper reviewing of the literature off line.
Alan, the only person who appears to be “concocting” values is you. Whether you treat the earth as a sphere, hemisphere or flat plate makes no difference to the amount of sunlight it intercepts and hence no difference to its temperature. Nor does the earth’s rotation make a difference to the average temperature of the planet. Temperature measurements are not only made during the daytime and the greenhouse effect is not an artefact of scientists only measuring temperatures on the sunny side of the planet, which is what you seem to be asserting.
IMBEDDED ENERGY IN THE MANTLE OR DEEPER.
I don’t really think that heat buildups in the earth itself are all that relevant RIGHT NOW. We are in an interglacial at a time where the existence of very cold water in the deep oceans, and the existence of Antarctica, ought to allow the earth to release its energy pretty much at the rate with which it is produced.
In and odd moment of good sense NT tippep me off to the Kelvin waves (the world turned upside down). But beyond this, right now, its likely that we seeing the earth release its energy without massive or yet even substantial buildups.
After all this is not a period in our history with a great deal of volcanic activity. And here we have our proxy in a lot of cases. If the level of volcanic activity can be detected in the fossil record than we ought to be able to use it as a proxy for planetary heat buildup.
Now that is not to say that the volcanic activity will be SIMULTANEOUS with the heat buildup. The level of activity ought to lag the heat buildup in the mantle (if not the deeper earth all the way to the core).
So to repeat. Its doubtful to me that heat buildup is playing any serious part now. The end of an interglacial, in a typically freezing and iced-up world is no time to look for heat-buildups playing a big part.
SO WHAT ARE THE TIMES?
What are those times in the distant past that we ought to be looking for an upward trend in volcanic activity as a proxy, or some other proxy, as an indication of heat buildup?
I would nominate the following examples:
1. The tens of millions of years leading up to the heat maximum of 55 million years ago.
2. Those times during glacial periods where we have had considerable sea ice cover for some thousands of years. If we get intermitant heating and (SEA-ICE) melting during that time, not explainable by orbital conditions or periods of powerful solar activity I’d see these presumably short melting events as a bit of a giveaway.
3. The Snowball earth. During those times in the Snowball earth leading up to the temporary melting of all the ice.
It never matters at those times where I happen to agree with the alarmists. Because its just by chance anyway. This is not a significant thing and its no concession. Because these people are total idiots for starters.
But yes I do agree, that given the last 55 million years cooling trend, given that we are at the end of an interglacial during an ice age…..
…. Given all that the current experience will be that the earth will be shedding its heat, pretty much at the rate it is producing that heat. And so that right now RIGHT NOW, the earths heat generation will not be a significant factor in climate. That does not mean its not a significant factor IN OUR UNDERSTANDING of climate. Or that it hasn’t been a powerfully significant factor at times in the past.
Geez gavin, 50% of my links are peer reviewed papers.
“Alan, the only person who appears to be “concocting” values is you. Whether you treat the earth as a sphere, hemisphere or flat plate makes no difference to the amount of sunlight it intercepts and hence no difference to its temperature. Nor does the earth’s rotation make a difference to the average temperature of the planet. Temperature measurements are not only made during the daytime and the greenhouse effect is not an artefact of scientists only measuring temperatures on the sunny side of the planet, which is what you seem to be asserting.”
I submit to all and sundry that THIS is an IDIOTIC post by and idiotic poster.
You stupid stupid stupid filthy dumb MORON.
Of course it makes a difference you twit!!!!
How could it NOT make a difference.
Forgive me my anger you idiotic drongo. My extended family contains no-one even half as stupid as you. My God how do you make it to work on time? How do you so much as tie your shoe-laces? Why haven’t you committed Hari Kari or joined the foreign legion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In that post above I forgot about one more time to look for a buildup in the heat budget of the planet itself or at the very least the deep oceans.
4. The last 1000 years of the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Now before the alarmists started messing with the information on the net we all thought the Holocene Optimum was from 8000 to 5000 years ago.
The problem is that there was (in what was thought prior to the currenct science fraud) no serious drop-off in atmospheric temperatures in that last 1000 years.
Now subsequent to that my understanding is that 8000 years ago there was solar activity even stronger than the outlandish 20th century activity. The strongest on record I believe. But this isn’t cut and dried since its estimate via proxies.
And 6000 years ago is when the Malinkovitch cycles optimised I’ve been lead to believe.
Yet even though the Malinkovitch cycles deteriorated from there albeit slowly, the temperatures seemed to hold up nicely for the next 1000 years. So one would look to see if there was evidence for the mantle to have built up a lot of heat during that time, or for the deep oceans to have been pretty warm and have cooled during that time yet with the troposphere maintaining its temperature pretty much.
Surely we ought to have people examining Haughton like some sort of dead specimen. Just to see what makes someone THAT stupid and THAT beholden to THE CURSE OF THE LONE PARADIGM.
Maybe we don’t have to tie him up and cut things. Perhaps an inspection of his DNA would reveal a gene or chromosone that lead to the retardation.
Perhaps there are spiral lettering in his chromosones that spell out “curse of the lone paradigm” in Sanskrit or something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You idiot Haughton. Retract your stupidity and explain to Alan how the DIVERGENCES between reality and the alarmist models …. could even possible NOT!!!!!! make a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I must say. I’m finding your level of stupidity just offensive!!!
Its oppressive to be having people as stupid as you foisting themselves on normal human beings all the time.
While Ivan checked for leap years he forgot to check the actual Electoral Act.
The maximum term of an Australian Federal Parliament is tree years – from the date of the formal return of the electoral roll. That’s when the final count for all electorates are officially presented to the Governor General and comes after any recounts and any disputes returns.
That’s usually a month or more after the election date.
After the expiration of the Parliamentary term, the Prime minister has a period of several eeks before they must approach the governor General to request that they set the date for the next election – which must be set to allow a campaigning period which is usually at least six weeks.
So Ivan’s political science is as laughable as his climate science.
You know gavin you are a real bigot. Everytime I see a cohenite post thats a learning opportunity for me. And you are far more stupid than I ever was except perhaps when I was in booties.
So this is just bigotry on your part.
Cohenite and Steve Short are the guys to read here where its all good stuff and nothing sets off the shit-detector. And Alan and Louis are insightful people whether you can bring yourself to agree with an given post of there’s or not. This is an amazing learning opportunity you are blowing.
But you are such a bigot that you aren’t going to realise that. And thats why I’m brilliant and your learning curves are so damned flat. Because you are a bigot and I’m not.
Simple as that. The scientific method is incompatible with your level of personal bigotry and poor hygiene.
cohenite – “Pielke’s paper on how radiative flux in cooler areas is of less consequence than flux in warmer areas;
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
And last but not least, Motls’s ingenious calculations confirming Pielke’s thesis;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html“
Now come on, how many times are you going to recycle this stuff. These things would only be significant if modellers used only the first order calculations which they don’t. Motl himself said that you can avoid the problems he details if you calculate it correctly.
I think that you are seriously waffling now and really have no place to go.
“Jen, please moderate comments for clarity and content. Insults should be deleted. Thanks.”
This is a grossly unfair proposal since approximately 99% of Graeme and Ivan’s comments would be removed.
Look Gould. Attempt not to be an idiot and you won’t get shouted at!!!
Now what is your excuse for being an alarmist?
If you don’t have an excuse you ought to be spanked every half hour by a 300 pound sheila whether you deserve it or not.
What is your excuse?
Where is your evidence?
You are plotting and pushing to hurt real people. Desperate husbands who will lock themselves in the bathroom and weep after work to get it together because of the financial pressure your crowd will put them under.
You are wanting to hurt people FOR NO REASON AT ALL AND WITH NO EVIDENCE.
And this vile crime you are pushing everyone to commit……. is not enough for you. You are such filth that you want to see me censored as well.
Get ye gone. Watch the television. If you cannot handle the truth, if my words are so unworthy in your site….. then go away.
But always remember that you are pushing a science fraud for malicious reasons. And that therefore you are filth. And ought to be sacked. And chastised. And horsewhipped in the streets.
Damn!!!!
I apologize Gould.
I misread your post.
You were just being a smug poopy-pants alarmist than outright calling for action.
“Now come on, how many times are you going to recycle this stuff. These things would only be significant if modellers used only the first order calculations which they don’t. Motl himself said that you can avoid the problems he details if you calculate it correctly.”
So what? Its obvious there are going to be differences. USE YOUR BRAINS for the love of God. It doesn’t matter what Motl says. He’s a nice guy but he’s just a kid.
I think you are maligning him but he’s a kid and if he said this than he is wrong.
Earth is not twice as far from the sun as earth. Earth is not flat. Its not noon all the time. Earth is not a black body.
These things make a difference and only a moron under the curse of the lone paradigm would think otherwise.
THIS IS SCIENCE FRAUD ON YOUR PART.
You are not competent to comment on scientific matters. Alan is right and you are wrong so apologize right now for your stupidity and pay him financial compensation immediately. For the love of all things honest and gracious pay him money right now for the damage you have done to his faith in the human species.
Ring me again Haughton and I’ll put a restraining order on you.
“You stupid stupid stupid filthy dumb MORON.”
Careful Graeme, you’ll blow a gasket.
Cohenite: Thinking of your last retort, I’m reminded of The Loaded Dog story by Henry Lawson.
http://jendi.bowmeow.com.au/loadeddog1.html
There was a time when I shared digs briefly with a foreigner, a former Professor of the Romantic Languages who dogged by addiction in his old society had become a pit driver in our semi wilderness. My yarn goes on about how his fellow miners loaded from behind the dump truck a large boulder riddled with unfired shots because he skipped a shift or two after an interlude with a former colleague from their university days.
Although I had picked her up as a lone hitchhiker in her overcoat and real fur collar one snowy morn then dutifully fetched her into singlemen’s camp unannounced, no one could have predicted the final outcome, a Euclid, driver and a fully charged boulder all stuffed right down the jaws of our primary crusher. Management inquiries homed in on a faulty two way radio and that too became my problem however I knew then I was way out of my depth despite all those studies after-hours.
This incident alone caused me to become familiar with the practical world of communications, HF, VHF, UHF and everything else associated with emergency management. It began with joining the state SES volunteers and finished with direct technical support to our federal agencies. I can say now the practical application of physics is more important than the theory however one can’t grow properly without the other. It’s the same for all engineering too. Science writers on the other hand can’t fall down the middle.
Yeah well thats wonderfully relevant gavin. But what we were really after was evidence.
I’m searching for analogies and metaphors gavin; is the dog or the dynamite symbolic of AGW?
ender bender; I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, if a radiative imbalance (sic) at TOA has no temperature consequence, then neither does CO2 trapping of IR. That’s the issue you raised (well that’s a tad unfair, you were just regurgitating it; but it is the guts of AGW after all), and waffling about waffling doesn’t send it away. My point is, these four sources, 50% of which are peer-reviewed, and the other 2 are evenly split between pro and anti-AGW, just about cover all the salient points with a bit of Chilinger, Spencer, Robitaille and Miscolczi thrown in; so let me recap; even if the AGW notion of opaqueness is correct, with Weart’s semi-infinite atmosphere coming in (ie the vertically expanding photosphere) it still won’t necessarily cause global warming because of the SB determined temperature inequality of sites of incoming and outgoing radiation.
Cohenite – the stumbling block with Ender and most here is the misinterpretation of atomic absorption – they sincerely believe that CO2 absorbs heat in the IR spectrum and then retains it. (That IR is instantly transformed into kinetic energy, raising CO2’s temperature, which is lowered by either radiation or lost by collision, providing there exists thermal equilibrium).
correction – NO thermal equilibrium.
cohenite: is the dog or the dynamite symbolic of AGW?
Mate; last one to handle the dynamite looses big time hey
google greenhouse for dummies and pick up the blogs or google greenhouse for students and pick up the science teachers see an example below
http://www.science.org.au/nova/016/016act.htm
Louis – “Cohenite – the stumbling block with Ender and most here is the misinterpretation of atomic absorption – they sincerely believe that CO2 absorbs heat in the IR spectrum and then retains it.”
Well of course in nu-physics this does not happen however in the real world where proper physics rules the greenhouse gases heat the other gases by conduction. Since this is basic physics without which many many other processes would not work such as the cooling of your car engine nu-physics is not much help.
Our whole civilisation is based on heat, heat transfers and accurately calculating heat transfers and conversions this is one area that has been extensively studied and we have it pretty right. Hence the consternation when the practitioners of nu-physics try to argue that for some reasons the basics of heat that apply perfectly well everywhere else suddenly are different when the atmosphere is involved.
Gavin
You might find it useful to read what Irving Langmuire had to say about pathological science – AGW fits most of his criteria.
In addition AGW is also a deduced theory from an unsubstantiated initial assumption – and deduced theories are, more or less, intolerant of contradictory facts – these theories are the products of group think or consensus – and therefore emphatically not science per se.
But pseudoscience definitely.
Mark Duffett…thanks for links. The figures are interesting although there is not a lot of information as to what is being measured.
I can defeat my own arguement by observation. I spent part of a winter in Edmonton, Canada working a night shift when the air temperature was -25 C. Walking on the cold ground sucks the heat right through your boot soles. I know from experience, that when the Sun goes down, or is even low in the sky during winter in the northern latitudes, it gets darned cold. I am aware of how much the Sun contributes to warmth.
However, the MIT study I cited in another post estimates the core-mantle temperature in excess of 3000 C, and that’s pretty darned hot too. I’m curious as to where it all goes. One of your links suggests the heat flowing outwardly is limited to phenomena like volcanoes, etc., but I’m wondering if that accounts for it all.
I’ll admit that I’ve become rather skeptical about science in general. I know there’s some darned good science done but there is a lot of nonsense going on as well. What does one accept and what does one discard?
In one of Pat Michael’s books, he spends a fair amount of time discussing the concept of paradigms introduced by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960’s. Look here for a summary of Kuhn’s book:
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
From the introduction to Kuhn’s book we get this:
A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice”. The nature of the “rigorous and rigid” preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student’s mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like…To this end, “normal science” will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather “a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education”.
I have arrived at that presumption on my own. I really don’t trust the motives of a lot of scientists, so I tend to take what I read from them with a grain of salt.
“The nature of the “rigorous and rigid” preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student’s mind”
Gordon: These days we teach students to determine early, if they are on the right railway track or not.
Kuhn was not a scientist and while his description of paradigms was correct, it was only in the sense of the deduced sciences.
Strictly empirical ones don’t have paradigm shifts – but it is in the inability to distinguish these that problems and disputations over theory arise.
No one argues whether cellphone design A or B is the preferred option – physical testing determines very quickly which works.
So how do you test abstractions such as AGW in a similarly rigorous manner? By dialectics as many here prefer, or by physical evidence as the geologists here insist; and then it is clear that measurement of observations has falsified Arrhenius’ hypothesis.
For engineers, whether mining, electrical or other areas., and practioners of the “hard physical” science, physicists, chemists, etc, the evidence compells us to reject AGW.
But for mathematicians and other social scientists, unfamiliar with the practicalities of dealing with physical reality, dialectics become paramount and consensus strived for. (Mathematics is but shorthand for dialectics). These scientists live in an abstract world, and, having convinced themselves, by common agreement, that they are right, then attempt to impose that consensus of physical reality.
Climate scepticism is the proxy for physical reality.
Gordon: “the MIT study I cited in another post estimates the core-mantle temperature in excess of 3000 C, and that’s pretty darned hot too. I’m curious as to where it all goes. One of your links suggests the heat flowing outwardly is limited to phenomena like volcanoes, etc., but I’m wondering if that accounts for it all”
Following your “Walking on the cold ground sucks the heat right through your boot soles” example I can say after walking on the roof of a “float glass” furnace with flame seeping through the arched brick gaps, that a thin layer of Earth likewise fully insulates us from the core temperature except in certain places.
Did I trust the academics re heat transfer? No I trusted those brickie blokes that built the thing in the first place.
See Pilkington’s patented process before we get into rhetoric and “a fair amount of time discussing the concept of paradigms introduced by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960’s” then ask what changed about furnace construction with the advent of float glass.
“For engineers, whether mining, electrical or other areas., and practioners of the “hard physical” science, physicists, chemists, etc, the evidence compells us to reject AGW”
Mate ; having worked in suport of all the above “practioners” at various times I say your conclusion to reject AGW comes from missing experience at the coal face.
Gavin,
Your condescendion,”Mate”, is a patronising ad hom’ – experience at the coal face ??? – as an exploration geologist I am physically at the scientific coal face. You have no experience of having to live with the practice of the scientific method. You are the one hiding behind an incomplete identity, and your only retort is to play the man?
Graeme – what the hell are you talking about? I didn’t ring you. Is this some new paranoid fantasy you’ve come up with?
Given the things you’ve said about me (“Maybe we ought to cut Haughton up”) I’d dearly love to confront you in front of a magistrate. Don’t push your luck.
And the reason the shape of the earth, to a first approximation which is what Alan is talking about, doesn’t make a difference is that a sphere and a disc of the same radius transect the same number of degrees of arc from a point source. This isn’t even first year physics – it’s high school geometry. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with Euclid.
How you managed to get a university degree (assuming you’re telling the truth about that of course) without apparently passing high school maths is beyond me.
Kuhn’s definition of science, as it is as recounted by Gordon a few posts up, is interesting.
I was fortunate to encounter the ideas of the Indian philsopher Jiddu Krishnamurti when I was young and the realisation of what indoctrination could achieve understood. These days I find that I don’t disagree with the opinions of U. G. Krishnamurti (no relation at all with Jiddu), who passed away last year, I recall.
Sometimes I think the former Cardinal Ratzinger and I would have had more polite discourses over points of dissent on an important matters than some of the AGW monkery here.
Louis: apologies mate but do you seriously want to bog the blog with this kind of stuff before bed time?
http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#The_Nonlinearity_Breakthrough
Yeah well Ratzinger was a bigtime philosopher before he became Pope. So I wouldn’t be surprised. These guys have no philosophy at all. Mindless automatans. Their idea of the scientific method is part Lenin part Gramsci Part Popper or faux-Popper and partly just a priesthood whore-grant make-work scam.
“that a thin layer of Earth likewise fully insulates us from the core temperature except in certain places.”
how does that follow gavin? Mark just posted some deal about 24000 measurements saying otherwise. You don’t want to be too absolutist about it.
“And the reason the shape of the earth, to a first approximation which is what Alan is talking about, doesn’t make a difference is that a sphere and a disc of the same radius transect the same number of degrees of arc from a point source. This isn’t even first year physics – it’s high school geometry. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with Euclid.”
It makes a difference to the climate you complete moron. For sure you are the dweeb who rung me up. No two different people could be that stupid. The phone number is recorded but Telstra won’t let me have it unless I’m taking some idiot to court.
I’m not too worried about people ringing me. But if my girls start being hassled you’ll be talking to a magistrate alright.
“google greenhouse for dummies and pick up the blogs or google greenhouse for students and pick up the science teachers see an example below”
You see you are just a liar and an idiot. There is no evidence in that book. You are such a moron you think that a wild goose chase is evidence. Or that the repetition of a failed paradigm is evidence.
We already know about the failed paradigm you congenitally deficient lying crap-merchant. Imagine having someone like you teaching the kids. When you are a liar and you have turned your back entirely on science.
Now lets have that evidence you total lying filth.
Now you are a science fraud. So get used to it. You have no evidence. You are an idiot. What the hell are you talking about Euclid for you jerk. We are talking about the non-viability of making inferences for our Earth FROM A MAKE-BELEIVE EARTH that bears no relation to it.
What an idiot you are. Like I said. Its JUST oppressive the level of your stupidity.
“Gordon: These days we teach students to determine early, if they are on the right railway track or not.”
No you don’t gavin. You are lying. Its not plausible that you are teaching this when you yourself are incompetent in this regard. You are a joke gavin. How could this even be the case? You have fallen for a blatant science fraud. So don’t come here lying to us that you are making a good fist at teaching the kiddies not to do the same.
Gavin,
Another ad hom’ I note.
Is this for your audience in Deltoid, or is it for your own personal amusement?
Graeme, you pretty clearly can’t even tell the difference between people on a blog since you consistently misattribute remarks made by one person to another, and you claim to identify me, who you’ve never met, on the phone? Dream on and take your paranoia to Telstra if you want. I can’t figure out if you’re suffering from tourettes, tertiary syphilis, paranoid schizophrenia or poor toilet training as a child, but you need help.
“So Ivan’s political science is as laughable as his climate science.”
If you’d bothered to check the record instead of just regurgitating the theory, you would know that since 1972 there have been only 2 elections which have taken place after a term greater than the full 3 years:
– the 2001 election (3 years + 5 weeks)
– the 2007 election (3 years + 6 weeks)
The chances of Rudderless stretching out to the maximum will be nil, since it will be an admission that he is going to lose.
Yeah I did it again on the other thread. Part of it is my computer is having problems. You seem to have anticipated a really jumbled post on the other thread where I tried to abuse about 3 of you guys on the same post and it ended up pretty scrambled.
So I’ll give you a summary.
In summary all of you are demented criminals and a cancer on what was one of the last secure anchors of western civilisation. That is to say methodology in the hard sciences. Science itself. You guys talk about the “republican war on science” or “The Australians war on science” When its really all about your Gramscian war on science and the setting up of the IPCC as your substitute for the Moscow in the former Soviet Union.
And what you have done is substitue a synthesis between communist party norms and grant-whore behaviour. Its despicable because the survival of humane society is by no means assured. And this is quite apart from the flippant way that you parasites treat the taxpayer. The guy who feeds you and raises your kids. Hopefully they don’t grow up to be smug parasites as well. But you know these welfare families. It can go on for generations.
NOW…WHERE… IS … YOUR…. EVIDENCE…
Stop the evidence filibuster. I think thats what we all must do. Never let an alarmist leave the room without bruises on his shins until we can stop the evidence filibuster.
NOW…WHERE… IS … YOUR…. EVIDENCE…
Graeme,
Stop asking the question!
THERE…..ISN’T……ANY!
WE…..ALL….KNOW….THERE….ISN’T….ANY!
THE…CLOWNS…ARE….JUST….TRYING….TO…PROLONG…THEIR….MISERABLE….JOBS
Yes I see that the way that post went down some things that gavin said look like they have been attributed to you Haughton.
But all you clowns are rigged up in some printing press somewhere aren’t you? Its usually impossible to tell you people apart. Since you take the party line like communist zombies.
Imagine considering yourselves scientist when in reality you are mindless insects. You guys are like an ant colony. And there’s a great fat Al Gore laying eggs.
LETS HAVE THAT EVIDENCE.
Gordon: no worries.
What is being measured is simply temperature, at different depths down boreholes.
As to “where it all goes”, the first-order answer is ‘nowhere very fast’. If it were otherwise, it wouldn’t still be at 3000C (actually more like 3700C, see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5820/1813?etoc) after 4600 million years.
Hell Ivan. I’m trying to reach some third party before they are given over to this particular curse of the living dead.
Also these christian folk seem to say that we ought to consider all people capable of redemption. Implausible in the case of most of the science frauds here I know. But the longer a lot of these people hang onto these lies the harder they will have to fall. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Which is not to say one ought to not put the boot in after these guys have fallen. One doesn’t want to be absolutist about these things either.
“Also these christian folk seem to say that we ought to consider all people capable of redemption.”
Even the low-life, bottom-dwelling pond-scum that push this AGW bull$hit?
You think they are capable of redemption?
Sorry – I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that one come to pass.
guys, instead of talking nonsense, why don t you simply study that paper posted by Marc above?
too much reality for you guys?
Louis: “Is this for your audience in Deltoid, or is it for your own personal amusement?”
Good fellow; I rarely visit Deltoid and it’s just your rhetoric on average that I reckon is fair game.
As sod says; Professor Mark is posting good stuff on heat reaching the crust from the inside and that is reason enough to hang around.
On the issue of Graeme Bird, I have said he should be monitored by management but harassing the poor lad at home is not on in my book. It took me only minutes this morning to find a probable phone number and map based on his recent mutterings however others seem to have abused this public info. Families are not game!
Graeme: You are on your own with this constantly abusive rhetoric in any public place.
There was a time when I supported those in authority tasked with protecting VIP’s on a daily basis and I say you have exposed yourself without regard to those who matter most.
Politics can be dangerous in the extreme. Stay on the fringe if you wish but joining the mainstream is much safer.
Gavin
My rhetoric is fair game? – by playing the man and not the rhetoric, hiding behind a pseudonym so you can libel me at will here?
I agree with Gavin that harassment of anyone’s family is not on; and if anyone has been hassling Mr Bird’s family, I suggest he takes it up with the police. I also agree that constantly engaging in abusive behaviour in public is likely to make anyone a target.
FYI Mr Bird, I am not a climate scientist and don’t claim to be one (although I do have a science degree); I too have a family; and I work full-time in the private sector. Try to remember that the people you talk to on message boards like this are real people with lives and families too. I will try to keep this in mind also.
Graeme, I’m going to make a sincere effort to address your concerns to the best of my ability. PLEASE respond without profanity if you think there are gaps.
First, to address what seems to be your principal concern, that we may be headed for a period of glaciation and therefore stopping warming is foolish and dangerous. I agree that the current interglacial has gone on for what seems to be an abnormally long time. Glaciation is mostly driven by Milankovitch cycles in the earth’s orbit around the sun(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) and most predictions are that there will not be another cool period for 25~50,000 years.
However, I also agree that glaciation can apparently strike “arbitrarily”. Luckily, there is something the human race could do about this; there are many chemicals (such as Chlorofluorocarbons, Nitrogen trifluoride (which recently appeared in the news as contributing to the greenhouse effect via the manufacture of flat screen tvs), Sulphur Hexaflouride, etc) which are tens to hundreds of thousands times more effective at trapping heat than CO2, and longer lasting in addition as they are not soaked up by natural processes. So if we were facing a glacial, it would be comparatively simple to release a bunch of these into the atmosphere, which would warm the planet quite quickly. It might screw up the ozone layer, but if we were facing a major glaciation that’s not a huge concern.
Second, your approach to scientific questions. On your webpage you call for scientists to use multiple paradigms. This is indeed part of exploratory science. However there invariably comes a point when 2 different paradigms predict different things, and experiment and/or observation then shows which is correct. For example, Newton/Einstein – Einstein predicts time dilations where Newton does not. These time dilations had to be corrected for when the GPS satellite network was put up (IIRC the satellites move faster than people on the ground, causing their clocks to slow down w.r.t. us (special relativity) but their position higher up Earth’s gravity well results in a slight speeding up of their clocks relative to us (general relativity)). If those corrections had not been made in accordance with Einstein’s rather than Newton’s theories, anyone using GPS would be many kilometres away from where the satellite said they were; it would be one of the most expensive technical failures in history.
It is worth remembering that AGW was not suddenly dreamed up in the 1980s; it has been the subject of scientific study for well over a century. As the Callendar (1938) paper I cited (have you read it?) notes, in the first half of the century only a minority of scientists believed that rising CO2 levels could have an effect on climate. The professions have been gradually won over by an accumulation of evidence.
W.r.t your requests for joules and heat budgets vs watts per square meter; a watt is just a flow of a joule per second – you can think of descriptions of watts as an “instantaneous” heat budget. So I’m not sure what problem you have with this. The impression I have is that you think the oceans and earth will have a long time lag soaking up the extra heat, so the climate won’t be affected. While there is certainly a time lag, the evidence to hand is that the oceans are indeed warming. The earth’s core temperature is not a significant contributor to heat at the surface and so is not likely to affect the climate one way or another.
With respect to your calls for “evidence” – it’s a bit difficult to tell what you consider valid evidence, as you seem to dismiss everything put forward. We have multiple confirmations both direct (temperature measurements) and indirect (snow line changes, habitat changes, ice extent changes, etc) that the planet is warming. We have multiple measurements of CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels (Mauna Loa, etc) indicating that they are rising steadily. We know that this CO2 increase is caused by humans from changing isotopic ratios (CO2 that has been buried in the ground as coal or oil has had longer to undergo nuclear decay). We know from laboratory research and well understood quantum physics that these gases absorb IR energy and re-emit it in random directions. There is no reason to suppose that they don’t do this in the atmosphere.
If you want references that refer back to the lab-work, observation, etc, there is really no substitute for reading the IPCC technical report and following up the references in its bibliography. If they have misrepresented any of the science in those references, it shouldn’t be hard to spot.
We don’t, as far as I am aware, have the technology to follow a particular individual molecule of CO2 into space and say “look, this is absorbing IR and re-emitting it downwards”, much as we can’t follow an individual particle of tobacco into a lung and say “this individual particle is the one that caused the cancer”. (caveat: Possibly satellites can in fact do this with spectroscopic analysis of some sort – I’m not up to speed on that facet). And of course there are going to be short term fluctuations; as an economist you would be aware that even a well-run economy can have slumps and a badly run one can have occasional booms – it’s all in the long-term averages.
I hope this answers the majority of your questions – If not, please write a polite response (that means, no use of words like “fraud”, “moron”, “stupid”, or threats like “let’s cut Haughton up” or “let’s kick him while he’s down”) and I will endeavour to fill in the gaps.
“However there invariably comes a point when 2 different paradigms predict different things, and experiment and/or observation then shows which is correct. For example, Newton/Einstein – Einstein predicts time dilations where Newton does not. These time dilations had to be corrected for when the GPS satellite network was put up (IIRC the satellites move faster than people on the ground, causing their clocks to slow down w.r.t. us (special relativity) but their position higher up Earth’s gravity well results in a slight speeding up of their clocks relative to us (general relativity)). If those corrections had not been made in accordance with Einstein’s rather than Newton’s theories, anyone using GPS would be many kilometres away from where the satellite said they were; it would be one of the most expensive technical failures in history.”
Newtons system could easily have been updated to account for any divergence. In fact it was ludicrously dumped on the basis of the behaviour of light. But Newton made no prediction on the behaviour of light bending as observed during an eclipse. And if he had it would not affect his system at all.
The evidence that Eddington was held to have gained was no verification at all. It was rather a failure to falsify. Which is not evidence. The experiment ought to have been set up on the basis of something stronger than failure to falsify.
There is no time dilation. No evidence for time dilation whatsoever. Your story about the GPS is a myth. Einsteins theory would mean that the GPs would need continual updating. It purports to be a theory of relativity. In reality its a theory of velocity absolutism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But all of that is not relevant. You are right in saying that one paradigm ought to wind up pulling ahead on account of the evidence. CONVERGENT evidence. Not on the basis of running the same experiment 1000 times. And thats what the global warming racket lacks. This is of course putting aside some potential for tiny warming aside.
You cannot seriously tell me you don’t know what evidence is? You have an hypothesis. And you test it. In the case of the global warming hypothesis the test has failed. The CO2 levels have gone up 5% since 1998 and no increase in global average temperatures. Thats total failure and no alarmist predicted that this would happen.
Thank you, Graeme, for replying in a courteous manner.
On that side point: You can read about the relativistic corrections to the GPS clocks on wikipedia. It is not a myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity There was an article about it in Physics Today a few years ago:
http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf
Furthermore, time dilation is experimentally observed every time a particle accelerator is run. But this is, as you say, not the most relevant point.
I hope you would agree that an economist, say, should not base long-term economic forecasts on fluctuations in a single month or even a single year of economic data – particularly if, for example, there was a sudden speculative boom in that year.
This is analogous to what happened in 1998, which was incredibly warm as a result of a strong El Nino effect and has been followed by the relative cooling of a La Nina effect. (I recall scientists saying at the time that the hot weather shouldn’t be attributed to the Greenhouse Effect but to El Nino). This is a cyclical process which is ongoing – as an Australian I’m sure you’re aware of the effect that el ninos have on our harvests. You’d also be aware that whether or not an El Nino effect appears in a particular year is difficult to forecast, it appears to be one of those butterfly-effect things – the news regularly covers the latest predictions so that farmers will know whether to plant or not, which is why we don’t see specific predictions about when it will happen from climate modellers.
It’s like economic growth from a freer market – we know it will happen in the long term, we can’t know *exactly* how long it will take between e.g. dropping tariffs and the resulting growth. There might even be short term contractions as businesses that were propped up by tariffs collapse. The underlying trend is the important thing.
If you superimpose a cyclic process (e.g., ENSO, or, say, expansions and contractions of the monetary supply) on an upward trend (e.g. warming caused by CO2, or underlying economic growth), you get peaks followed by plateaus, which is what we are seeing. If you take a moving 5 or 10 year average, long enough to smooth out the cycle, the anomalous 1998 peak disappears and is replaced by an upward trend. This is why I don’t regard the 1998 peak as disproving global warming.
Realclimate has an interesting article, with graphs, about various attempts to subtract the El Nino cycle from the data in order to get at the underlying trend here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/
Convergent evidence for the underlying warming trend is supplied by, for example, the long term decline in arctic sea ice which appears in Jennifer’s most recent post. Glaciers have been retreating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850), snow lines across the globe have been rising, permafrost melting in siberia (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500), and animals and plants have been changing their habitats to move higher and more northerly (in the northern hemisphere) or southerly (here). All these convergent points lead me to believe that the planet is currently warming.
I hope you find this information useful.
Louis Hissink said…”I was fortunate to encounter the ideas of the Indian philsopher Jiddu Krishnamurti when I was young and the realisation of what indoctrination could achieve understood”.
I came across Jiddu Krishnamurti in the 80’s after the loss of a close family member. I was suffering from a deep grief and loneliness but could not put my finger on what to do about it. I opened K.’s book, “The Awakening of Intelligence”, in a bookstore, just to thumb through it. There was a section on loneliness and it competely blew me away reading the guy’s words.
It had never occured to me that awareness is a completely separate entity to thought and that a person tends to react to situations in life based on conditioned thought rather than acting directly on the awareness and intelligence suppressed by the conditioning. I can’t say that it solved my loneliness immediately but it put it instantly in perspective, to realize that I could literally step out of the ongoing conditioned verbal diarrhea that had been the mainstay of my mind up to that point.
Having endured that verbal diarrhea, I can recognize it in certain scientists today. I wont mention names. I think it’s a serious issue, that the human mind is capable of intelligent thought yet it falls prey to conditioned thought, which manifests as bias, or outright delusion.
Reading K. was a bonus because it introduced me to the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who was a friend of Einstein and admired by him. Bohm was a very decent human being yet he was forced out of the United States to work in Britain because he refused to participate in the McCarthy witchhunts. He participated in dialogs with K. on awareness and I found those discussions illuminating.
There’s a mention of time dilation in this post but I have imposed on James Haughton enough with my controversial theories. 🙂 Nevertheless, one of the clarities I gained from reading K. and David Bohm, was that time has no existence other than as a thought process in human minds. In other words, if you took all humans off the Earth, time would cease to exist.
That notion offends some scientists and I had a long debate with an astrophysicist on the net who thought I was stark, raving mad. I challenged him continually to demonstrate time as an external entity and, of course, he could not. I came across one of my university physics profs in a shop, and put it to him. He very matter-of-factly stated that time was invented by humans to keep tract of rates of change.
When the human mind is conditioned to accept time as another dimension, or as a phenomena like force or mass, it’s incredibly difficult for some to shake loose of the illusion. In their discussions, K. and Bohm theorized that humans had somehow built time into their minds as a linear visualization and had come to accept it as real.
Newton apparently believed that time was an absolute phenomenon, although it’s not fair to lay that on him without having the opportunity to ask him. What Einstein did was prove that time is relative, hence non-existent. I’m sure Einstein knew that time was an illusion. Someone infered to him once that it should be possible to travel through time. Einstein was vehement that he never implied that.
This quote from Einstein convinces me of that:
“…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.”
Daily, we get caught up in the illusion of the Sun rising and setting, although we know it does not move appreciably relative to us. If one focuses, it is not difficult to see fossils as existing now. They are not relics from the past, they are matter that exists now, in the present. They are fossils only to the human mind. In fact, awareness reveals to us that nothing has really transpired over the millions of years since the fossil was a living entity. The moment we live in now is the same moment of a million years ago. All that’s changed is the surroundings.
Sure…mountains may have risen and eroded, rivers have come and gone, oceans have risen and fallen, but what else has happened other than physical and chemical change?
Ten years in university is not necessaily going to make a person more aware. A person entering university with a highly conditioned mind is apt to retain that conditioning. That poses a problem because people with conditioned minds are rigid in their thought processes. I think that is part of what Kuhn is talking about. A person raised on a paradigm often perpetuates it, even when it proves false.
“On that side point: You can read about the relativistic corrections to the GPS clocks on wikipedia. It is not a myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity There was an article about it in Physics Today a few years ago:
http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf“
Yeah its a myth. There is no evidence for time dilation at all. There never could be. For one thing its a logical contradiction. Since if you are serious about relativity as opposed to velocity-absolutism there is no right to regard any object as being at rest and any object as moving. Its a dead notion.
Now I’ve heard this story about particle accelerators as well. But thats dead in the water. Since if we were talking about the retardation of the half-life of elements we would be talking about billions of molecules.
And these accelerators don’t even specialize in accelerating molecules. They specialize in accelerating sub-atomic particles. There is simply no test there. Its just another myth.
Time dilation isn’t an offensive notion. It just doesn’t exist. Time itself is a derivative concept. I’m not saying we can do without it for convenience sakes. But its derivative. In that its based on simultaneity and regular movement.
Einsteins theory doesn’t even believe in simultaneity. They call it derisively the GODS EYE POINT OF VIEW. But thats all arrogance and hocus pocus.
“This quote from Einstein convinces me of that:
“…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.”
Yeah thats all nonsense. Thats Einstein getting mixed up between his physics and his mathematical geometry. This is creative theology rather than science. It is not so far from some of the gear Saint Augustine was into.
“This is analogous to what happened in 1998, which was incredibly warm as a result of a strong El Nino effect and has been followed by the relative cooling of a La Nina effect. (I recall scientists saying at the time that the hot weather shouldn’t be attributed to the Greenhouse Effect but to El Nino). ”
The WPSM model is overun by aggregation. But one thing that cannot be disaggregated for purposes of dismissal is El Nino. That El Nino warms things up without regard to a change to atmospheric composition is itself a falsification of the alarmist model. The alarmist cannot rightly take El Nino and put it in a box in the corner. El Nino in and of itself serves as evidence for the prosecution of the alarmists.
You are correct that special relativity requires that “there is no right to regard any object as being at rest and any object as moving.” and does away with the concept of simultanaeity. But this does not produce any logical contradictions. It just seems weird, but it works. Otherwise GPS wouldn’t. I would say it is not time but simultanaeity which is the derivative concept.
Sub-atomic particles also have half-lives which can be measured.
In any case this is something of a side issue.
Well name one? Name that subatomic particle that has a half-life.
Half-lives are things you witness in the TRILLIONS of examples and is an artifact of the deterioration of the few within those trillions.
If someone thinks they have proved time dilation on that basis they are having you on.
As I understand it, El Nino/La Nina warms/cools the temperature of the planetary atmosphere by transferring heat in/out of the oceans. In an El Nino the warmer surface water causes more water evaporation which also acts as a greenhouse gas, adding to the warming effect.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere also increases in El Ninos and decreases in La Ninas as plants like the wetter La Nina weather and suck up more CO2 – but this short term fluctuation in CO2 probably isn’t enough to significantly affect the climate on its own, but it does provide a bit more positive feedback.
“You are correct that special relativity requires that “there is no right to regard any object as being at rest and any object as moving.”
No thats not right. REALITY says that. Special Relativity says that as propaganda in the preamble. In actual fact special relativity is in total denial of this REALITY.’ Hence special relativity is in violation of logic.
Special relativity is a doctrine of velocity-absolutism.
Everybody loves Albert. But we did not need him to tell us that velocities are relative. Apart from some mucking about what he was trying to tell us was that everything revolved around velocity-absolutism. Which is not the case.
Everyon knew that velocities were relative before Albert came along. They are relative. He is the first person to say otherwise. And in this he is wrong.
Muons.
By velocity absolutism, I assume you mean that the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed? It pretty much has to be, otherwise electromagnetism wouldn’t function the way it does.
El Nino is caused by solar activity interacting with our oceanic system.
That it can warm things up to that extent is a evidence for the falsification of the global warming racket. Since only a change in greenhouse gasses ought to be able to create this extra energy.
Specifically it comes from Forbush events interacting with peculiarities of the ocean system.
“By velocity absolutism, I assume you mean that the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed? It pretty much has to be, otherwise electromagnetism wouldn’t function the way it does.”
No of course I don’t mean that.
Lets go over it again. Obviously velocities are relative. We did not need anyone to tell us this. Anyone who contradicts this is in error.
But special relativity, all propaganda aside, is in violation of this principle. So special relativity is in error.
I don’t think anyone would dispute that the sun could add extra heat to the system if it fluctuated a lot. The sun is the ultimate driver of all our climate, weather, etc. But if Forbush decreases in cosmic rays are responsible for El Ninos, then it is perfectly legitimate to disaggregate them from atmospheric effects like greenhouse gas heating, since they have different causes.
Do you have any references for the claim that El Nino and Forbush declines are related? This is not a claim I have ever come across before.
But you cannot simultaneously accept and ridicule cosmic rays at the same time. To accept the theory of cosmic rays is to admit that the sun is driving everything and having accepted that doctrine when you look at the data there is no reason to bring CO2 into it.
“Do you have any references for the claim that El Nino and Forbush declines are related? ” I find that links like this have short legs on the internet. Like with all Sami Solankis stuff. All this good stuff and you cannot find it anymore.
But I do recall that the aftermath of A Forbush event leads to heat release (and therefore higher temperatures) to the atmosphere in a sort of step-fashion. And it appears that El Nino is a subset of this phenomenon where the event interacts with the ocean in some way.
James Haughton; you link to the Real Climate attempt to remove ENSO from the temperature record so as to isolate the underlying, presumably, anthropogenic caused temperature trend; lucia deals with this ham-fisted subterfuge;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify
This idea that natural variations, you note El Nino and La Nina, only barely mask the underlying anthropogenic increase first got traction after the Keenlyside paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
There is a profound lack of logic in this explanation; which is that the natural variations offset the anthropogenic warming; as lucia’s statistical extraction shows, when the natural signal is removed the anthropogenic signal is the opposite of what AGW demands! How can there be an offset? This is a schmozzle; your potted history of the successes of AGW is disingenuous; outside of the thoroughly discredited GISS and the machinations of RC and its dilettante spruikers, there is no evidence of temperature increase during the 20thC; there were 3 major natural climate periods; to begin the century there was a +ve PDO dominated by hot, dry El Nino driven weather; a middle period with -ve PDO, La Nina dominated characteristsics; and from 1976 onwards another +ve PDO; temperature, even allowing for base period taint, correlated with the internal climate of those climate patterns.
Cohenite; your Keenlyside / nature link seems to reinstate our old conclusion that a simple measurement from one place over time can remain a valuable indicator on the whole situation. Note too there is no prediction that warming will end.
gavin; “our old conclusion that a simple measument from one place over time can remain a valuable indicator on the whole situation”; there is no old, or otherwise, such conclusion in the AGW lexicon; as I have been banging on about, AGW is predicated upon universalities; ave temp; linear increasing CO2, evenly mixed CO2; AGW has never been about regionalism which is why Koutsoyiannis could come in the back door and catch them with their fingers in the cookie jar.
And as for “no prediction that warming will end.” I suppose a negative prediction makes a change; as in, AGW predicts that no warming will not not be predicted due to a negative counterbalancing natural non-warming, such that the non-warming trend of the natural factors will not not cool the not warming part of the predicted anthropogenic warming. Got it?
“I don’t think anyone would dispute that the sun could add extra heat to the system if it fluctuated a lot.”heir
It does. And you mentioned cosmic rays then promptly forgot them already. Obviously they are a magnifier and the water vapour magnifies again. Not so much joules in and out of the planet. Moreso the effect manifested in air temperature.
So this CO2 business is a failed paradigm and science fraud.
Even the so-called solar constant is just a figment of aggregation. You average it over a year and you homogenise a lot of the variation out of it.
What is the wider question is how the stupid became upwardly-mobile. We may need a royal commission for that.
Take gavin here. He has just said that there was no prediction the warming would end. And yet it has ended and somehow he is marshaling that as evidence for his case. As if IPCC predictions are evidence for anything. Plus these guys are so dumb they are not predicting cooling. They have their error margins so wide and yet they’ll turn out wrong regardless. They couldn’t hit a barn door from the inside.
The error margins are based on nothing at all. Yet they are wide and are outside what the science says is likely. These people are Mr Magoo types.
Gavin,
“…thick, thick, thick…”
Uhhh, except where it isn’t. Try searching for “supercritical water” and “ocean”. Yeah, the temps of some of the water gets just a wee bit higher than 200C in at least a couple of places. You should also search for the recent research on the dramatically increased count of undersea volcanoes and vents.
No way to be definitive yet, but, El Nino is looking more and more like geothermal activity driving upwelling.
So tell me, would you walk across that furnace if there were cracks or missing bricks?? Superheated steam venting to the surrounding area???
HMMMMMM???
KuhnKat: “No way to be definitive yet, but, El Nino is looking more and more like geothermal activity driving upwelling” ….and the Earth has suddenly become unstable?
Let’s repeat a famous quote; “life wasn’t meant to be easy” then add nothing is perfect in the real world.
Volcanoes have been around forever so what’s new?
As furnaces wear out somebody has to predict the end of their useful life and that’s all about heat loss through the wall and in the case of superheated steam its about wall thickness too. Watching for bubbles in steel tubes at extreme temperatures and pressures is something a few of us did every hour.
Graeme, I have already asked you to please stop using words like “stupid”, “fraud”, etc. No one is going to want to talk to you if you use them. Insults do not add anything to the discussion.
The point I am making is that whether El Nino is caused by Forbush declines (for which I can’t find any references; the argument over whether cosmic rays cause clouds is a separate issue) as you would have it, or whether they are caused by heat shifting between levels of the ocean as I believe the mainstream of weather science has it, (or whether it’s caused by undersea volcanoes as KuhnKat wants) in no case is it caused by greenhouse gases – so it is legitimate to consider El Nino a separate causal event which can be disaggregated.
I don’t believe that climate science has ever said that greenhouse gases can’t be “trumped” by other factors, at least not in the short term. For example, greenhouse heating from the 40s to the 70s was masked by the huge amount of industrial pollution and resulting particulate matter in the atmosphere which reflected a lot of energy back into space (do a search on “global dimming”). This influence has partly declined due to the collapse of the Soviets and better technology coming on line in the west, and partly greenhouse gases have accumulated to the extent of overcoming it.
The problem with greenhouse gases is that, like interest on an unpaid debt, they accumulate, so over time their effect is larger, and their effect is all one way (heating) whereas El Nino, whatever causes it, is a random walk up and down with no net effect in the long term.
Say you had two bank accounts at 4% interest. In one you re-invest the interest every year. In the other you take the interest out every year and bet it on a double-or-nothing 50/50 roulette wheel before re-investing the proceeds. Some years the roulette-linked account is going to shoot ahead of the steady increase account. Some years it’s going to lag behind. Over a long time period, their performance is going to be pretty much the same. Same with greenhouse gases and El Nino.
Global dimming; I’ve always thought it a bit convenient that the greatest 20thC effect from global dimming should coincide with the -ve phase of the PDO from the 40’s onwards to ’75; and of course Philopona’s work during the 80-90’s shows the reverse that when the aerosol levels fall solar brightening takes up at just the same time as a +ve PDO; as I’ve pointed out lucia’s extraction of the ENSO and the absence of a residual anthropogenic signal consistent with AGW is powerful refutation of global dimming and the Keenlyside thesis that warming continues despite the temporary ascendancy of natural factors.
Cohenite, in my opinion Lucia’s trend regression (6-7 years) is too short. Particularly since we are currently in a cool La Nina.
There might well be a causal link between dimming/brightening and the PDO; I don’t know if we know what triggers these weather oscillations, it could be butterfly-effect-like sensitivity to dimming/brightening.
All these oscillations (ENSO, PDO) do not change the net energy flow into the earth from the sun (except through water vapour feedback and a bit of CO2 feedback) and hence tend to be neutral in the long term. What changes the net energy balance is greenhouse gases or reflective pollutants.
“What changes the net energy balance is the greenhouse gases or reflective pollutants.” That’s what the debate is about; I still think not enough attention has been given to the issues raised by the Pielke paper which shows that a radiative imbalance at the TOA, as demanded by AGW, does not mean temp increases because the temp effect or influence of outgoing radiation from a cool surface or area such as a LTE is less than radiation from a warm surface or area;
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
And Motl has restated the point in his usual ingenious way;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html
still can’t help refering to blogs hey?
everything you need to know about us versus nature comes from direct experience
we have the tools built in
“Graeme, I have already asked you to please stop using words like “stupid”, “fraud”, etc. No one is going to want to talk to you if you use them. Insults do not add anything to the discussion.”
I aint the least bit interested in faking it. Not even for a shaort time. Not even to take a holiday.
Gordon,
Just read your post following mine on K. Nothing more needs be said on that matter then.
“I don’t believe that climate science has ever said that greenhouse gases can’t be “trumped” by other factors….”
THATS AN OUTRAGEOUS AND DESPICABLE LIE AND YOU KNOW IT????
We have been attempting to get the science fraud perpetrators to acknowledge other factors for years. And only now that the weather has turned frigid have they decided to recognise other factors AND THEN ONLY AS A PATHETIC EXCUSE!!!
Twit
I tried.
No I’m right and you two are wrong. But I withdraw the accusation that it was Haughton who rang me. Since I was able to find that high-pitched hoity-toity voice with its hybrid accents elsewhere.
Lets go over it again. The science fraud side of the argument had averaged-and-homogenised all other influences (excepting only the colour component of atmospheric gasses) out of the debate.
Only now that we have cooling have they brought solar variation and other factors back into play. And only then as an excuse for their failed predictions.
“And Motl has restated the point in his usual ingenious way;”
This place gets funnier by the day. Motl, the great physicist, refers to Alan Siddons as an authority. He’ll never live that one down.
SJT: If you want a roundup of the blogs, just keep on reading cohenite