Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What good is "non-radiative heat transfer" in decoding AGW?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Uncle Ben
May 23, 2012, 10:21:20 AM5/23/12
to
When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
a smart guy who confdidently asserted that (1) if Spencer was
claiming to measure feedback directly and (2) if he was relying on
satellite data to pick out the feedback signal, that is impossible! He
must be wrong. The feedback is radiation from CO2 molecules --, infra-
red radiation, to be specific. That is the only kind of energy the
satellites can detect. And that weak signal is hopelessly masked by
the forcing radiation from the sun. Game, set, match!
He has a point. This is why measuring feedback is hard. But that also
is why Spencer deserves the Nobel Prize. He has done what was thought
to be impossible. The IR signal from CO2 in the air cannot easily be
identified against the strong IR signal generated by the sun when it
warms the ocean surface, which then sends IR up to the satellites
along with the weak IR signal from the excited CO2 molecules. How can
the two IR signals be picked apart?
Spencer's solution is to make use of the fact that there is more than
one way to transfer thermal energy. When the ocean surface is warmer
than the air, it can transfer energy by evaporation, and then
convection to carry the energy further into the sky. (There may be
conduction, as well, but it is probably insignificant.) Energy can be
returned to the ocean by precipitation. These transfers do not
involve radiation. If only one could identify periods of time in
which these transfer means alone are operating, then there will be no
IR radiation acting as a "forcing" and the "feedback" remains as the
only radiative signal.
We can't turn off the sun, but nature has provided an umbrella to
shield us -- low clouds. Warmists will insist that clouds are an
internal matter governed by temperature, and it is true, of course.
But that temperature effect is not caused solely by the immediate
effect of the sun. Ocean currents can make clouds too.
Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
clouds prevent the radiative process. He measures the only IR signal
remaining, which is from the CO2, and he has the true feedback
sensitivity. It is low! Game over!
Uncle Ben
Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
a smart guy who confdidently asserted that (1) if Spencer was
claiming to measure feedback directly and (2) if he was relying on
satellite data to pick out the feedback signal, that is impossible! He
must be wrong. The feedback is radiation from CO2 molecules --, infra-
red radiation, to be specific. That is the only kind of energy the
satellites can detect. And that weak signal is hopelessly masked by
the forcing radiation from the sun. Game, set, match!
He has a point. This is why measuring feedback is hard. But that also
is why Spencer deserves the Nobel Prize. He has done what was thought
to be impossible. The IR signal from CO2 in the air cannot easily be
identified against the strong IR signal generated by the sun when it
warms the ocean surface, which then sends IR up to the satellites
along with the weak IR signal from the excited CO2 molecules. How can
the two IR signals be picked apart?
Spencer's solution is to make use of the fact that there is more than
one way to transfer thermal energy. When the ocean surface is warmer
than the air, it can transfer energy by evaporation, and then
convection to carry the energy further into the sky. (There may be
conduction, as well, but it is probably insignificant.) Energy can be
returned to the ocean by precipitation. These transfers do not
involve radiation. If only one could identify periods of time in
which these transfer means alone are operating, then there will be no
IR radiation acting as a "forcing" and the "feedback" remains as the
only radiative signal.
We can't turn off the sun, but nature has provided an umbrella to
shield us -- low clouds. Warmists will insist that clouds are an
internal matter governed by temperature, and it is true, of course.
But that temperature effect is not caused solely by the immediate
effect of the sun. Ocean currents can make clouds too.
Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
clouds prevent the radiative process. He measures the only IR signal
remaining, which is from the CO2, and he has the true feedback
sensitivity. It is low! Game over!
Uncle Ben
erschro...@gmail.com
May 23, 2012, 11:26:03 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> Spencer to those guys,
See, that's your problem. You assume he's right and the other
> When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> Spencer to those guys,
scientists just can't see it. Why don't you go there and ask about
Spencer instead?
>not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
> a smart guy who confdidently asserted that (1) if Spencer was
> claiming to measure feedback directly and (2) if he was relying on
> satellite data to pick out the feedback signal, that is impossible! He
> must be wrong. The feedback is radiation from CO2 molecules --, infra-
> red radiation, to be specific. That is the only kind of energy the
> satellites can detect. And that weak signal is hopelessly masked by
> the forcing radiation from the sun. Game, set, match!
>
> He has a point. This is why measuring feedback is hard. But that also
> is why Spencer deserves the Nobel Prize. He has done what was thought
> to be impossible. The IR signal from CO2 in the air cannot easily be
> identified against the strong IR signal generated by the sun when it
> warms the ocean surface, which then sends IR up to the satellites
> along with the weak IR signal from the excited CO2 molecules. How can
> the two IR signals be picked apart?
>
> Spencer's solution is to make use of the fact that there is more than
> one way to transfer thermal energy. When the ocean surface is warmer
> than the air, it can transfer energy by evaporation, and then
> convection to carry the energy further into the sky. (There may be
> conduction, as well, but it is probably insignificant.) Energy can be
> returned to the ocean by precipitation. These transfers do not
> involve radiation.
>If only one could identify periods of time in
> which these transfer means alone are operating,
> then there will be no
> IR radiation acting as a "forcing" and the "feedback" remains as the
> only radiative signal.
>
> We can't turn off the sun, but nature has provided an umbrella to
> shield us -- low clouds. Warmists
>will insist that clouds are an
> internal matter governed by temperature, and it is true, of course.
> But that temperature effect is not caused solely by the immediate
> effect of the sun. Ocean currents can make clouds too.
>
> Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
> warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
> transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
> sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
> time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
> the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
> heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
>
> The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
> for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
> clouds prevent the radiative process.
> He measures the only IR signal
> remaining, which is from the CO2, and he has the true feedback
> sensitivity. It is low! Game over!
>
> Uncle Ben
could learn something from them.
Hint: Like Bill Ward, hitching your wagon to one scientist that no
other scientist agrees with is not smart.
Dawlish
May 23, 2012, 2:09:15 PM5/23/12
to
intelligent people.
Uncle Ben
May 23, 2012, 4:31:36 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 11:26 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
Tung who made the discovery. I evaluate the physics, not the man.
And the physics makes sense.
Uncle Ben
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > Spencer to those guys,
>
> See, that's your problem. You assume he's right and the other
> scientists just can't see it. Why don't you go there and ask about
> Spencer instead?
>
Because I don't care whether it is Spencer or the ghost of Mao Tse-
> On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > Spencer to those guys,
>
> See, that's your problem. You assume he's right and the other
> scientists just can't see it. Why don't you go there and ask about
> Spencer instead?
>
Tung who made the discovery. I evaluate the physics, not the man.
And the physics makes sense.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
May 23, 2012, 4:05:59 PM5/23/12
to
> On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
....
> > Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
> > warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
> > transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
> > sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
> > time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
> > the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
> > heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
>
> > The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
> > for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
> > clouds prevent the radiative process.
>
> And he knows this how?
>
By the time to equilibrium. His innovation is to connect the data
points in the order of their measurement. Nobody did this before,
that I know of. If it is mainly the ocean that is being heated, the
trajectory of data points is chaotic, as the ocean slowly aborbs hreat
and currents circulate. There is no sign of fast, regular quasi-
equilibrium.
But when warm currents cause evaporation (non-radiativly) what the
satellite sees is the rapid equilibration of air and water. The
premise of dH/dt proportional to dT becomes satisfied, and the data
make a straight line.
Enough? I know you are smarter than you pretend.
Uncle Ben
erschro...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 11:04:37 AM5/24/12
to
Christy are wrong, and you are on a crusade to "educate" them.
> And the physics makes sense.
>
> Uncle Ben
erschro...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 11:05:37 AM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 4:05 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 11:26 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > > Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
> > > warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
> > > transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
> > > sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
> > > time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
> > > the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
> > > heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
>
> > > The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
> > > for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
> > > clouds prevent the radiative process.
>
> > And he knows this how?
>
> An intelligent question!
>
> By the time to equilibrium.
The earth is rarely in equilibrium.
> On May 23, 11:26 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > > Spencer realized that one can detect the difference between warm water
> > > warmed immediately by the sun and warm water warmed previously and
> > > transported by currents. The big difference between heat now from the
> > > sun and heat earlier stored in ocean water is the timing. It takes
> > > time to heat water radiatively and have that water heat the air; if
> > > the water is already warm at the time of measurement, the air can be
> > > heated quickly -- non-radiatively.
>
> > > The rest is easy, as I have so often explained here. Spencer watches
> > > for periods in which the forcing transfer is non-radiative, because
> > > clouds prevent the radiative process.
>
> > And he knows this how?
>
> An intelligent question!
>
> By the time to equilibrium.
> His innovation is to connect the data
> points in the order of their measurement. Nobody did this before,
> that I know of. If it is mainly the ocean that is being heated, the
> trajectory of data points is chaotic, as the ocean slowly aborbs hreat
> and currents circulate. There is no sign of fast, regular quasi-
> equilibrium.
>
> But when warm currents cause evaporation (non-radiativly) what the
> satellite sees is the rapid equilibration of air and water. The
> premise of dH/dt proportional to dT becomes satisfied, and the data
> make a straight line.
skepticalscience have been trying to explain to you.
Uncle Ben
May 24, 2012, 11:23:10 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 11:04 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
You don't know me at all.
> > And the physics makes sense.
>
> > Uncle Ben
>
> Then why do almost all the world's scientists reject it?
The same reason that most people in the U.S. say they believe in God.
To avoid harassment. I am too old to care.
Have you no independent judgement?
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:31 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 11:26 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > > > Spencer to those guys,
>
> > > See, that's your problem. You assume he's right and the other
> > > scientists just can't see it. Why don't you go there and ask about
> > > Spencer instead?
>
> > Because I don't care whether it is Spencer or the ghost of Mao Tse-
> > Tung who made the discovery. I evaluate the physics, not the man.
>
> No, you've decided all the world's scientists except Spencer and
> Christy are wrong, and you are on a crusade to "educate" them.
You are wrong. I have no reason to be biassed in that way.
> On May 23, 4:31 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 11:26 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 10:21 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > > > Spencer to those guys,
>
> > > See, that's your problem. You assume he's right and the other
> > > scientists just can't see it. Why don't you go there and ask about
> > > Spencer instead?
>
> > Because I don't care whether it is Spencer or the ghost of Mao Tse-
> > Tung who made the discovery. I evaluate the physics, not the man.
>
> No, you've decided all the world's scientists except Spencer and
> Christy are wrong, and you are on a crusade to "educate" them.
You don't know me at all.
> > And the physics makes sense.
>
> > Uncle Ben
>
> Then why do almost all the world's scientists reject it?
To avoid harassment. I am too old to care.
Have you no independent judgement?
Uncle Ben
May 24, 2012, 11:25:00 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 11:05 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is your own judgement? Where is the error?
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is your own judgement? Where is the error?
AGWFacts
May 24, 2012, 3:21:21 PM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
<bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
How about you first produce evidence that shows Spencer is
<bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
correct? I suggest you submit it to a science journal for peer
review. As it is, Spencer's lies are stll refuted and debunked.
--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
Dawlish
May 24, 2012, 4:18:19 PM5/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
ditto. all these deniers do is dodge.
> - Show quoted text -
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 2:02:37 PM5/26/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:21:21 -0600, AGWFacts
<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
>
> How about you first produce evidence that shows Spencer is
> correct? I suggest you submit it to a science journal for peer
> review. As it is, Spencer's lies are stll refuted and debunked.
See what I mean?
<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
>
> How about you first produce evidence that shows Spencer is
> correct? I suggest you submit it to a science journal for peer
> review. As it is, Spencer's lies are stll refuted and debunked.
Dawlish
May 26, 2012, 2:09:08 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 7:02 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:21:21 -0600, AGWFacts
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:21:21 -0600, AGWFacts
>
him having to explain his stupidity and ignorance.
This one is just another stupid denier and after his comment about
bison managing to cross the Permian-Triassic extinction, he's now
labelled as *very* stupid. I think I'll change his name, should he not
address that piece of scientific crap and apologise. "benny bison"
sounds good. Lobster ended up the same after his piece of abject
stupidity, which he thought would just die away, without a lot of
comment. How wrong he was.
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 10:25:00 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:02 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:21:21 -0600, AGWFacts
> >
> > <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> > > <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > > > Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
> >
> > > How about you first produce evidence that shows Spencer is
> > > correct? I suggest you submit it to a science journal for peer
> > > review. As it is, Spencer's lies are stll refuted and debunked.
> >
> > See what I mean?
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:02 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:21:21 -0600, AGWFacts
> >
> > <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> > > <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > When I ventured into the Skeptical Science site ("sks") to explain
> > > > Spencer to those guys, not all of whom are stupid, I was confronted by
> >
> > > How about you first produce evidence that shows Spencer is
> > > correct? I suggest you submit it to a science journal for peer
> > > review. As it is, Spencer's lies are stll refuted and debunked.
> >
> > See what I mean?
> I know. It's just a dodge. An attempt at a diversion to try to prevent
> him having to explain his stupidity and ignorance.
At the moment I am not aware of even one scientist working in the
> him having to explain his stupidity and ignorance.
venue any where on the planet who has claimed to believe Spencer
is correct. Spencer was caught cherry-picking his data and
falsifying his conclusions.
If Spencer were right, the world's scientists would be praising
and awarding him. Instead they ignore him, except when they are
pointing out he lied.
> This one is just another stupid denier and after his comment about
> bison managing to cross the Permian-Triassic extinction, he's now
> labelled as *very* stupid. I think I'll change his name, should he not
> address that piece of scientific crap and apologise. "benny bison"
> sounds good. Lobster ended up the same after his piece of abject
> stupidity, which he thought would just die away, without a lot of
> comment. How wrong he was.
with dozens of others.
0 new messages