Some of the kinder things that have been directed at me, and the scientists interviewed in the most recent This is Not Cool video.
Several high–profile voices from David Attenborough and Stephen Hawking to scientists and world leaders have stated in recent years that Climate Change is the defining or most important issue of our time. Yale University shouldn’t be so surprised to also find human beings connected to the Internet who share this view.
–
Peter Sinclair’s video on YouTube was a cleverly crafted propaganda video, in which scientific authority and language was abused in order to give human beings connected to the Internet the impression that ice couldn’t melt because it requires heat.
–
Yale shouldn’t take it upon themselves to spread Darkness and Lies, so should praise any and all information campaigns about these very important issues instead of trying to quell them.
–
Peter Sinclair voluntarily made his monthly YouTube video that short, likely because he wanted to convey a simple, propagandistic message about Arctic methane: Nothing To See Here, Move Along! He wanted to “Keep It Simple, Stupid” for political propaganda effect, not out of respect for the scientific matter at hand. His narrative shows an almost crying female student who used to believe Arctic methane meltdown was kinda dangerous, but who now understands that the danger was “overblown”, because #endothermic. Because ice simply can’t melt on planet Earth because melting would require heat. It’s so stupid.–
You should study the peer–reviewed scientific literature. I dunno, go on the Internet or something, to find that info.
Overly positive thinking pompous asses.
THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA MIND GAMES.
Hansen is delusional it seems.
VERY VERY VERY BIG PROBLEM METHANE IS A BIG BOMB , every day coming 200.000 new polluters to this planet. Nobody will stop this and oil is used more and more. So take your health insurance cards, possessions, money, credit cards, language skills, diplomas and fancy titles. In 10 till 12 years you can burn it with the rest of this planet.
This video screams ammature college theater project.
We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.
Why misinform people? What do you plan to gain? Credibility? Time is the ultimate truthsayer. Time will prove YaleClimateConnections to be the liars they are.
Sorry but it is out of our hands, there is nothing that we can do now to stop catastrophic change to our climate.
The atmosphere is many times larger than the oceans.
People have no idea how close we are to the end, thousands of scientists know about this.
We have passed the balance point and are now on the downward spiral to destruction. There is no stopping it.
totally apocaloptimistic. Runaway global warming is in progress. The climate change we are experiencing is anthropogenic, extreme, lethal, accelerating and irreversible. Slowing down emmissions will not slow down rapid global over-heating. We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.
Twitter machine:
So, what IS the deal with Arctic methane? Is it a bomb or meh?
I am confused.— 🖐🏻Pete (failed solar entrepreneur) Bergs (@unclepete_100) February 7, 2019
Confession? Good. We need people to be more open and transparent about their corruption.
— 🇨🇦 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 🇬🇱 (@IceGoingSouth) February 6, 2019
https://twitter.com/Tommy10390906/status/1093258271065079811
Perhaps before you reply you will take time to read comments properly. You will discover that I gave you the definition of the greenhouse effect and then pointed out why it is “fundamentally wrong”. You are the one who is “busted”.
You said:
“Consensus has no relevance in science, it is about evidence and if you believe the second law applies then you have to provide the evidence.”
1) Consensus has no relevance in science? This is the statement of a non-scientist.
2) I DID provide you with links that address how the Greenhouse effect does NOT contradict the 2nd LOT. But you either chose not to read them, or can not understand them.
You are a climate denier.
You are one of the more rare species who doesn’t believe the Greenhouse effect is valid. Scientists have been trying to show people like you that your understanding of radiation thermodynamics and the Greenhouse effect is wrong for decades.
There are multiple examples on line where you might find out why you are wrong. But you will not.
I don’t remember any science blogger reporting that they had changed anyone’s mind. People like you have a mental block.
I actually feel sorry for you. I wonder on what other topics or life vicissitudes you are an outlier. If this mental block you have is just on this topic, or whether it a symptom of a psychological disorder of some kind.
I suspect the latter, unfortunately.
I read it all years ago. You have nothing new to show me. You really have no idea about science. I saw Prof Brian Cox spreading your word on Q&A an Australian TV programme about consensus in science. He is now just a left wing activist. He worked on the Higgs Boson. Lots of scientists thought that the particle existed – consensus – but it needed the very costly Large Hadron Collider and two independent teams to discover it. Why two, because there is no consensus in science. It needs evidence to prove a scientific theory and one is not enough. That is why two independent teams worked on it.
I notice you have not risen to the challenge of sounding off about the idiots like me at Ohio State University. The real scientists, not internet trolls like you.
+A Thorpe I’m interested because I like physical sciences but the start is missing in this thread. So what’s the definition of the “greenhouse effect” and why is it fundamentally wrong ?
It is fundamentally wrong because it is based on heat from the cold atmosphere warming the earth. Heat does not travel from cold to hot. The second law of thermodynamics confirms this. It is not about trapped IR either which is a claim often made about real greehouses. Prof RW Wood proved this. Look it up.
“It is fundamentally wrong because it is based on heat from the cold atmosphere warming the earth”. Wrong.
Ah, I see. You forgot to include the definition of the greenhouse effect as in your “I gave you the definition of the greenhouse effect”. You do not understand the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere that alters the average temperature of Earth’s ecosphere to something other than what it would be if there were no so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere. Fair enough then.
Talk about circular arguments. I gave you a definition. You provided an alternative and I agreed to accept that. My point is that the effect is not supported by physics and I have repeatedly told you why but you ignore it all. How is it possible to understand something that does not exist. I have absolutely no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean. The atmosphere is the atmosphere. It has had various amounts of CO2 in the past, sometimes more than now. The water vapour varies. What on earth is the point of talking about a situation when neither exist and how do you know what the climate would be. And once again there is no physical meaning to an average temperature.
Further you asked me for comments on your reference. I gave them and no response from you. Did you read the many comments? Yyou will certainly find many that say the same as I have told you. Have you insulted all of them?
To: A Thorpe. Ah, I see. You do not understand the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere that alters the average temperature of Earth’s ecosphere to something other than what it would be if there were no so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere. Also, you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I mean, aside from those details you’re fine. Fair enough then. Are we enjoying ourselves yet ?
The atmosphere does not heat the surface, but it does slow down the rate at which the planet surface cools as 70% of the sun’s radiation continues to heat it.
IR and conduction transfer energy from hot molecule to cold molecules. However, temperature is an average measure. Check the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Not all molecules in a cooler system are cooler than all molecules in a hotter system. The closer the temperatures, the greater the molecular energy overlap and the slower the heat transfer.
I agree. The atmosphere does not heat the surface. Compared to the temperature on the moon, it reduces the extreme temperatures by distributing heat around the earth and this is a critical issue. I don’t like the description of slowing down the rate of loss because it suggests that the atmosphere acts like insulation and it certainly does not do that. Insulation works by limiting convective heat loss and the atmosphere increases the convective loss. Many people also believe that insulation increases the temperature of the insulated body which is not correct
The so called greenhouse gases increases the rate of cooling. The main greenhouse gas by far is water vapour. When water on the surface evaporates it need latent heat and this is all taken away from the surface. Compare the temperatures in the tropics with desert regions. Just the opposite of what the warmest claim, but that is the real physics.
I have no idea what point you are making in with your second paragraph in relation to the greenhouse effect. Obviously, the closer to a thermal equilibrium then the smaller the thermal energy transfer.
To: A Thorpe Your “it suggests that the atmosphere acts like insulation and it certainly does not do that”. Actually, the troposphere of planet Earth acts exactly like insulation specifically because it has these 2 properties:
– An atmospheric lapse rate that is >0 degrees / kilometre, and
– some so-called “greenhouse gases” (gases with >2 atomic nucleii).
If it didn’t have both of those features then it couldn’t have a so-called “greenhouse effect” but it does so it does.
Your “Insulation works by limiting convective heat loss and the atmosphere increases the convective loss” is incorrect because planet Earth loses its energy to space and the exosphere and space beyond have such a sub sub sub sub sub sub molecular density that convective heat loss from planet Earth to space is sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub negligible. Rather, planet Earth loses its energy to space in the form of transverse electromagnetic radiation.
Your “Many people also believe that insulation increases the temperature of the insulated body which is not correct” is not correct because insulation increases the temperature of an insulated body which is being heated because it reduces the rate at which the body loses heat. I refer to my light blue blanky with the gold castle embroidered on the corner.
To: A Thorpe Your “Just the opposite of what the warmest claim”. Which claim is the warmest claim and is it really all that much warmer than the less-warm claims when it comes right down to it ?
The hastily written second paragraph is about how statistical mechanics applies to thermodynamics – and the greenhouse effect.
I know it is about statistical mechanics but you said nothing about how that relates to the greenhouse effect. It will be a first if you can do that. And the second law still applies, so no greenhouse effect.
To: charleszeller I gived you a thumbuppy although the transverse electromagnetic radiation form of energy is not directly transmutable to molecular translational energy (aka molecular kinetic energy aka “heat”). The TER (such as SWR or LWR) must first be absorbed by a molecule as an electron promotion (for SWR) or as molecular vibrational energy in a molecule with >2 nuclei (for LWR) then lost during collision with another molecule being converted to additional molecular translational energy (aka molecular kinetic energy aka “heat”) to one or both colliding molecules. Ends up the same though.
I come back from a weekend trip to visit family and find this thread STILL clogged with incomprehensible bullshit from The Thorpe. I wonder if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is imprinted on his brain because his mother sang it to him as a lullaby when he was an infant? Instead of a mobile with cute little critters, did he have one over his crib with molecules hanging? Was the Second Law inscribed on the walls of his room? On his diapers?
Talk about brainwashing! It’s too bad we can’t get in there and flush out all the ignorance that clogs his reasoning. If we could, maybe he could forget about the Second Law and instead just explain to us why the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans keeps rising?, a question I have asked of him many times (???????????????????????????????????????)
It is a pity the second law is not imprinted on your brain because you clearly do not have a clue what it means. I repeat and probably not for the last time with a dumbo like you. Heat can only transfer from a hot to a cold temperature and that applies to conduction, convection and radiation. There is no exception. The atmosphere is colder than the surface, therefore there is no additional heat from the atmosphere that makes the surface warmer than it would otherwise be without the claimed greenhouse effect. The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law.
Infrared radiation is not thermal energy is it electromagnetic energy and it must be thermalised to increase the temperature of the object which absorbs it. You also do not have a clue about the work of Max Planck. He proved that the temperature only increases when the EMR has enough energy to increase the vibrations to a higher energy level. If it is below the required level then the object emits EMR and the temperature is not increased. What on earth do you think happens when two objects at the same temperature are radiating towards each other? The temperature does not increase to infinity. You prove repeatedly that you do not have the slightest knowledge of thermodynamics.
PLEASE!!! STOP!!!! Just explain to us why the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans keeps rising?
Stop making bad jokes like “The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law”. JFC! That’s NOT funny!
And what is “thermalization” of infrared? I though two bodies “thermalized”—WTF are you talking about?
You show your complete ignorance of thermodynamics with every comment. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It is not the same as heat. When it is absorbed it becomes incoherent vibrations of the molecules. This is heat and the process is thermalisation. Look it up. But the IR only increases the temperature when it is from a hotter body and I have explained this several times. Look up the work of Planck.
You really are a blockhead. IR from the Earth hits GHG’s which RE – radiate IR incoherently – which means “in all directions”. Half of those directions are back toward Earth where those IR packets heat molecules of land or ocean. IR photons are energetic, whether they come from the sun, or from activated GHG’s, or from a block of ice. IR is IR regardless of the temperature of the body or or molecule from which it derives.
The 2nd Law does apply to individual packets of IR, it applies to the whole system, which IS in balance.
Again, this incoherent RE- radiated IR from GHG’s has been measured from EARTH for more than 50 years by instrumentation, proving your misinterpretation of those high-school basic science classes you offer as a “proof source” are false. YOU are breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics because you are saying that IR energy from RE-radiating GHG molecules simply disappears.
That whooshing noise is the truth whizzing past your deaf ears.
Should be:
“The 2nd Law does NOT apply to individual packets of IR, it applies to the whole system, which IS in balance.”
He just doesn’t get how downright STUPID he is. All he can do is repeat the same handful of sentences that he copied from somewhere and does NOT fully understand. Let’s begin with a definition for Teaporh—–“Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is”. YOU are classic D-K, Teaporh, and one of the most stunning examples of D-K ever to visit Crock.
Anyone who would say “The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law” is WAY in over their head. Tell us more about the Gas Law(s)—-put 2nd. L of T aside for a while and TEACH us!
Also, explain for us if you can why high pressure systems are generally cooler while low pressure systems are generally warmer. That’s the exact opposite of what you maintain—-shouldn’t the high pressure be “hotter” because gravity has compressed it more—it’s heavier?
Your explanation of “thermalization” makes a bit more sense here—-perhaps it’s just your deficits in using the English language that make your science so obtuse.
EMR is in the form of a coherent wave form. It becomes incoherent vibrations when it is absotbed. You do not have this correct. It is not related to the random direction of emitted radiation. If 50% comes to earth then you are assuming a flat earth!
IR is not packets of heat, nor is it thermal energy which perhaps better describes what you are trying to say. It is electromagnetic energy; this is why it can travel through a vacuum. When it is absorbed the energy might become incoherent vibration of the atoms which is what we observe as an increase in temperature. But you refuse to acknowledge that to move electrons to higher energy levels requires a specific amount of energy. If there is insufficient energy to do this then the energy is emitted as coherent IR.
You are not reading what I say and making assumption to make ridiculous comments about my knowledge. I have never said that IR has not been measured. I have not said that energy disappears. I have repeatedly said energy must obey the 1st law of thermodynamics and asked I you where all the extra energy comes from in the K&T energy balance diagrams. You don’t know. I am not saying IR disappears, as described above, it will either be absorbed and increase the temperature or emitted and perhaps go on to be emitted to space or be absorbed by something where it can increase the energy levels of electrons.
You really do not understand the process and that is because you have to belive what is not possible in order to create the greenhouse effect.
“EMR is in the form of a coherent wave form. ”
Wrong!
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-the-sun-coherent-while-in-space
You do not understand EMR coherence, and you do not understand heat.
” If 50% comes to earth then you are assuming a flat earth!”
Wrong!
Goof effing grief!
It’s 50% because an IR radiating GHG radiates in all directions. 50% of those directions are up into space and the energy is lost to the Earth. 50% is down toward Earth, where it has the opportunity to interact with a molecule of land or water.
For the 3rd or 4th time, this re-radiation is MEASURED BY INSTRUMENTS!!! An IR photon from sunlight is exactly the same as an IR photon from anywhere else. You accept that an IR photon from the sun can heat the Earth, yet for some goddamn reason you think an IR photon emitted by a GHG can not. Seriously, wtf?!?
What I am discussing is the difference between the energy in EMR and how the energy changes when the EMR is absorbed. The terms are used in this specific case to distinguish what happens. You are talking about coherence in reference to beams light from the same source. Coherence as I have described it means electromagnetic energy travelling as photons in a wave. If it travelled as thermal energy the particle would have a mass and be vibrating. Do you now see how these terms are used to make this distinction?
When the photon is absorbed by an atom it becomes incoherent random vibrational energy. Here is a reference about energy levels of electrons http://cas.sdss.org/DR6/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp
It does not explain what happens to the energy from a photon when it does not contain sufficient energy to move an electon to a higher level, but it is emitted as a photon, just as a photon is emitted by an electron moving to a lower energy level. Always complying with the 1st law – conservation of energy.
You refuse to acknowledge that EMR can be absorbed and emitted without any temperature change in the absorbing body. I asked you to explain what would happen with radiation bewteen two bodies with the same temperature. Obviously the photons travelling between the two bodies do not increase the
temperature of either. No answer when you are in a corner.
In the last paragraph you contradict your criticism of my view. Initially you say only photons in space are coherent. Now you say all photons are the same. How many times do I have to tell you that photons contain electromagnetic energy which is not thermal ennergy? You do understand the different forms of energy. How is electromagnetic energy converted into thermal energy? Only when it has the exact amount of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? Because it means the IR from the atmodphere does not have enough energy to increase the temperature of the surface. There is no greenhouse effect. Photons frim the sun have more energy because the temperature of if sun is a little bit hotter than the earth’s atmosphere. Another difficult concept for you.
If IR is emitted by a gas in all directions, then it is not up and down as you assume. The earth is a globe, what if it goes sideways into space? You also assume that it is not absorbed by any atmosperic gases and is only absorbed when it reaches the earths surface. What a ridiculous assumption.
Your last paragraph
To: A Thorpe Your “Heat can only transfer from a hot to a cold temperature and that applies to conduction, convection and radiation”. It can’t apply to radiation because radiation isn’t heat. Does it also apply to fish & chips because that isn’t heat either.
Your belief is that the average temperature is rising because of the greenhouse effect. This does not exist and all I am telling you is that we do not understand. This should concern you because billions of dollars worldwide is being spent on pointless measures to reduce CO2 and research is in the wrong area. The energy comes only from the sun, so this could be a big clue!
Here is a big clue: You are a stubborn idiot on this topic.
Go talk to a real climate scientist or physicist. There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of them who would be happy to educate you on your misinterpretations of on-line undergraduate physics worksheets.
No, they are wrong and so far you have failed to explain why they might be correct. The 10,000 are just on an easy money path so they are not going to say they are wrong.
They, like you believe, that heat can travel from cold to hot, and that all radiation transfers heat.
Unfortunately insults, are not an alternative to science and that is all you have to give. I’m willing to read a scientific explanations and believe me I have read them all and all fail to comply with know laws.
Thank you A Thorpe. 109 comments! might be a new Crocks record.
I’m pleased to provide you with something to occupy your empty mind.
I was having the same thought about a new record—-as Yoda would say, “The stupidity and stubbornness is strong in this one”—-I think most of us have been stringing him along just to see how far he would go. Someone who says that 10,000 climate scientists are wrong and that he has read ALL “scientific explanations” and they are wrong also is likely to go on spouting his ignorant BS FOREVER.
One good thing—-if we keep him occupied on this thread, maybe he won’t venture onto any others and crud them up? OTOH, since he doesn’t seem to know much physics beyond the 2nd L of T, maybe we need not worry.
Our empty brains don’t understand that greedy climate scientists refuse to challenge almost 2 centuries of science because they prefer being “on an easy money path”.
“I asked you to explain what would happen with radiation bewteen two bodies with the same temperature. Obviously the photons travelling between the two bodies do not increase the
temperature of either. No answer when you are in a corner.”
Yes, they both absorb thermal energy from each other – that’s what happens! Because IR photons are a quantum emission. Their energy (and the number of them emitted) is independent of temperature of what they eventually hit, while dependent on the temperature (energy)of the body that radiates them . Pretty effing simple concept.
The two equitemp bodies also are both radiating IR in all directions as well, thereby losing energy and temperature in a dynamic system at the exact same time they are absorbing IR from each other, so there is NO contradiction with the the 2nd Law. So, yes, there can be many examples of no overall change in temperature between these two bodies, but that does NOT mean they are not absorbing IR from each other, and emitting IR on their own.
And there could also be many examples where one of these bodies at equal temperature to the other body, could be gaining/losing temperature more than the other if it has a higher/lower heat content like water vs air, or has differential insulation surrounding it.
Do you get it yet, thou thickest of the thick?
You fell for it. If two bodies at the same temperature radiating towards each other “obviously” do not increase the temperature, then why if one body is colder (the atmosphere) than the other (the warmer esrth’s surface) does it increase the temperature of the warmer body. This is your greenhouse effect.
As usual you have it completely wrong. IR is not thermal energy it is electromagnetic energy so it is ridiculous to say that thermal energy is absorbed. Electromagnetic energy is absorbed and only if the energy is suffient will it increase the energy level of an electron and then and only then will the temperature increase. You clearly did not read the link I gave you explaning this process.
Your second paragraph it utter drivel. In the circumstances you descibe how could they maintain the same temperature?
The same applies to your third paragraph. So much wrong it is difficult to know where to start. If they are of equal temperatures how can one be gaining/losing in temperature compared to the other? The thermal energy content does not determine the heat loss/gain. The energy loss/gain is determined by the temperature change and the specific heat. In the case of water changing phase then latent heat also comes into it, which is why the evaporation of water cools the surface. When I pointed out that for the same temperature water and air could have different thermal energy content and explained that it was the energy not the temperature that could burn, you all thought it was nonsense. Now it seems you agree. It is if course why the atmosphere does not heat the oceans – it does not have enough energy.
I would give up if I were you. The more you explain the more it is obvious that you have no understanding of the subject. On the other hand it does happen when people have a belief (human caused global warming) they will believe anything that appears to support it without question.
He who thinks “The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law” is the one who has “fallen for it”. WE here at Crock are still waiting for you to talk to us about Gas Laws and how they work in that case. Do you EVER really answer a question? (Answer is NO)
Also, still waiting for you to explain for us if you can why high pressure systems are generally cooler while low pressure systems are generally warmer. That’s the exact opposite of what you maintain—-shouldn’t the high pressure be “hotter” because gravity has compressed it more—it’s heavier?
By the way, your unswerving devotion to stupidity and and your smug references to “drivel” etc have earned you a FREE “Demented Rooster Suit” so that you can properly strut around the barnyard crowing about your imagined superiority. You will be sent the Dunning-Kruger variant—-give us an address.
The gas law PV= nRT. If you have to ask me how it works then you admitting you don’t know, but by some means you know that this law does not mean that temperature increases when pressure increases.
High pressure systems bring higher temperatures. The winds are light and skies clear so guess what the sun does? It makes it warmer. Are you from another planet? As far as I am aware you have not asked me to explain that, and more importantly you seem to be forgetting that this is weather and I am talking about long term climate. You have confirmed that you do not know the difference as well as knowing nothing about physics. Insults are the tools of fools.
You are the ones posting drivel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“. If two bodies at the same temperature radiating towards each other “obviously” do not increase the temperature, ”
Of course they don’t if by definition they stay at the same temperature. But that does NOT mean they do not transfer energy into each other! It means that they are emitting exactly as much energy as they are absorbing.
In the real world no object that is emitting energy is going to stay at the same temperature – Since it is emitting, it needs energy input to stay at the same temperature.You cannot stop an IR photon from interacting with matter – that would break one of the L’s of T.
IR radiation carries energy, which is translatable into heat. But it has no heat itself. It carries no memory of heat, nor anyway to measure heat. But this happens in the REAL world, not idealized black bodies. Objects absorb IR, they radiate IR and their temperature delta is the difference between the two.
Meanwhile, the system they are in is also interacting.
” It is if course why the atmosphere does not heat the oceans – it does not have enough energy.”
So warm air can not heat cold water? IR radiation that has traveled 8 million miles through -400 degree space can not heat water? You say the craziest things.
You are simply wrong. When they are at the same temperature there cannot be any thermal energy transfer. That is the point I have been trying to get over to you. But the point of asking you this was to establish what happens to the radiation from a cold body to a hot body, how does that increase the temperature of the hotter body? This has to happen otherwise there is no greenhouse effect. How does thermal energy transfer by IR from cold to hot?
Your problem is that you talk of energy but you do not understand that IR is electromagnetic energy not thermal energy so everything you say is confused. Read the link I gave you about electron energy and it means photons will be absorbed but if they do not have enough energy to move an electron to a higher energy state the temperature will not increase and an electron will be emitted and there will be no temperature change. The IR does not translate into heat as you claim if the IR is from cold to hot.
You deliberately change what I say. The air above the oceans is colder than the ocean surface because the surface is heated by the sun. The surface heats the air, not the other way round. Even if there was a local situation where the air is warmer than the surface, then obviously it would warm the ocean. Heat always transfers from hot to cold, but air will not have enough energy to make much difference because of the difference in both mass and specific heat of air and water and the air will quickly cool.
Where have I said radiation from the sun cannot heat the oceans. That is all I have been telling you. The sun heats the surface and there is no greenhouse effect adding additional enengy because the sun is the only energy source. Where does the energy in the K&L energy balance diagrams come from? Count how many times I have asked you and still no answer. It is an invention to create the greenhouse effect which is not real. Answer the question!
I am adding to my last comment about the K&L energy balance. The law of conservation of energy applies to a closed system. To appy it to the earth the energy flows across the boundary have to be taken into account. It is assumed that the energy in is equal to the energy out. This cannot be correct because it means the total thermal energy of the earth remains constant. It follows that the climate therefore does not change in the long term. I have told you this before. The energy from the sun has to be taken as an input and it is not constant and the enrgy out has to be calculated by the models. The difference then will tell us how the climate is changing.
You will probably tell me that the energy in and out has been measured. It cannot be measured accurately and it is the difference that is critical. The change in the climate is so slow that any error in the difference will mean the model results will not be accurate. We see a huge difference in model results anyway. They cannot all be right and taking an average does not give a correct answer. Instead of multiple organisations workung on models they need to get together and agree a single model. They won’t do that because they all want their overpaid jobs.
“The sun heats the surface and there is no greenhouse effect adding additional enengy because the sun is the only energy source. ”
No one is arguing that point with you! The point is that GHG molecules block some of the IR radiation reflected or re-radiated from the Earth from escaping directly back into outer space. Some of it gets redirected back to Earth, where some of it interacts and adds a small amount of additional heating.
So, this is NOT additional energy! It is simply a “reharvesting” if you will of =>some<= of the energy that would ALL be lost (reflected or re-radiated) back into space if there was no atmosphere.
Which is why the moon is colder than Earth, even tho both are essentially the same distance from the sun; ie, the Moon has no atmosphere. And why Mars is warmer than the Moon, despite being much further away from the sun. Mars has an atmosphere.
“I asked you to explain what would happen with radiation bewteen two bodies with the same temperature. Obviously the photons travelling between the two bodies do not increase the
temperature of either. No answer when you are in a corner.”
Yes, they both absorb thermal energy from each other – that’s what happens! Because IR photons are a quantum emission. Their energy (and the number of them emitted) is independent of temperature of what they eventually hit, while dependent on the temperature (energy)of the body that radiates them . Pretty effing simple concept.
The two equitemp bodies also are both radiating IR in all directions as well, thereby losing energy and temperature in a dynamic system at the exact same time they are absorbing IR from each other, so there is NO contradiction with the the 2nd Law. So, yes, there can be many examples of no overall change in temperature between these two bodies, but that does NOT mean they are not absorbing IR from each other, and emitting IR on their own.
And there could also be many examples where one of these bodies at equal temperature to the other body, could be gaining/losing temperature more than the other if it has a higher/lower heat content like water vs air, or has differential insulation surrounding it.
Do you get it yet, thou thickest of the thick?
To: A Thorpe “I am adding to my last comment about the K&L energy balance. The law of conservation of energy applies to a closed system”. LOL, better late than never. That closed system for Earth’s energy budget includes the Sun and the Universe.
Exactly.
To: A Thorpe Your “You will probably tell me that the energy in and out has been measured. It cannot be measured accurately and it is the difference that is critical”. Oh boy you are wrong yet again. Though the TOA measurements might not be accurate to 1 w/m**2 (I’m not sure) the “difference that is critical” that you mention is measured to better than 0.1 w/m**2 accuracy by 3,800 Argo floats that have been roaming Earth’s oceans for a couple of decades plus many other CTDs, totally millions of measurements. It is most definitely 0.85 +/- 0.1 w/m**2 and that is accurate enough (2 digits) to assess the warming of the ecosphere that’s happening. You are a stunningly ignorant and thick clown.