Global warming/climate change

I may as well talk extemporaneously about this issue of surface temperature.

A steel ball, heated to 100 degrees, will have an instantaneous surface temperature of 100 degrees.

Assuming it’s environment is of a lower temperature, the surface temperature will drop as the temperature gradient is based on the mass of the object.

I swear that is off the top of my head.

So, if I insulate the ball of steel, I will keep the surface temperature higher but not higher than the starting temperature. If the insulation is thick enough, the surface will very gradually creep below the starting temperature, because I moved the gradient outside the steel ball.

Indeed. Presumably you think I’m implying you are a “rube”[1] or somehow deficient. I’ve observed that’s normally how these discussions go, with tumultuous psychic currents of one person presenting themselves as being ‘superior’ to the other and trying to put down the other, with the other ‘defending’ themselves (or submitting). Needless to say it is all silly!

I was sincere where I attributed it to the “nature of the discussion”:

I’m not attempting to put you down or anything, just genuinely curious how these things start to make sense for people.

So indeed no offense need be taken :grin: .


Right and that’s what I am curious about, because the tooltip on Richard’s article indicates the sources themselves (Wikipedia, NASA). Plus a few references throughout the threads here, e.g.:

So what was it about when I posted the following that caused it to click for you at last?

viz.:

Note in particular that the first source I posted here is the same as the one Richard used - Wikipedia. The second source was posted earlier in the thread. The 3rd one indeed was a new one. Maybe it was this?


  1. “That doesn’t make me the rube.” Cause of Bias? - #111 by JonnyPitt ↩︎

The first part of the argument is essentially that it’s a bad assumption to model the Earth as a "1) flat, 2) black, 3) static, 4) bathed in 1/4-strength sunbeams that 5) constantly (24/7) and 6) evenly irradiate the flat/black Earth".

Your reply to this is that this isn’t a convincing argument… i.e. you say it’s a good assumption to model the Earth this way.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate why you think this is a good assumption!

And “because that’s the way it’s done” is not a good argument.

Well, “because it’s the best explanation we got” also isn’t a good argument. It doesn’t make the model in and of itself true. You don’t need to propose an alternative to demonstrate it is baseless.

Especially as…

Exactly. The argument you are defending claims that we have a “ball of steel” (i.e. the Earth) that has a “starting temperature” of -18°C (i.e. the blackbody calculation), and after adding insulating it (i.e. adding ‘greenhouse gases’), the temperature goes “higher than the starting temperature”, to 15°C.

So you’ve effectively demonstrated it to be an invalid argument! All without proposing an alternative explanation :slight_smile:

Or, at the very least, to continue to defend the argument you have to demonstrate why exactly the Earth with its atmosphere behaves differently than everything else… and “because the model says so” is not a good argument :wink: .

I will actually caveat this statement, with a few facts;

I have studied chemistry, after work, at a training institute.

I have studied mechanical engineering, full time, for approximately 1 year.

I have been intently interested in thermodynamics for around 20 years. To the point of , after doing the math, spoke with the head engineer of the Powerstation that feeds the Perth grid, when I couldn’t make the economics work. He confirmed that my calculations were indeed correct, and that they had been subsidising electrical power for a very long time.

I have also been very interested in the solar design of buildings, rhe integration of the “lived environment” with nature my entire career. To the point of being in very tense discussions with management about how to preserve the magnificent trees which are quickly disappearing throughout the metro area. So much so that I was “toe to toe” about a development which “required” the destruction of yet another incredible gum tree (a towering white gum).

So while I call myself an amateur, as far as being a rank amateur, I am not.

So, as of now, and to answer Richard’s public challenge, it’s a case of taking each aspect of this on it’s interest value.

It’s not really unlike the patience I have to engage when a Sales Consultant questions my costings and I must, again, (quite willingly mind you) open up the takeoffs, show him the extensively detail costings.

Except in this case, I don’t have any of those “takeoffs and costings”, all I have is the challenge “the world is not black” and a 12 point challenge.

So far, point 1. No, the world is not black. However a black body is valued as “1.0” , whilst the earth is “0.95” .

I, like I do at work everyday for many of the 20 years I have been building "abstract ’ models to cost houses (within half a percent of what they are worth, mind you) , now have to build the model.

I have been asking for a “pre built” model supporting the tl;dr " there is no greenhouse effect, or greenhouse gases " but there isn’t one.

As of now, I have 6 studies to read;

One study by Donlon et al. (2002) estimated the emissivity of the ocean surface using satellite observations of sea surface temperature and radiation. They found that the emissivity of the ocean varied between 0.96 and 0.98 for different wavelengths and wind conditions. Another study by Minnett et al. (2016) used ship-based measurements to estimate the emissivity of the ocean surface and found values ranging from 0.95 to 0.98 depending on the sea surface temperature and the viewing angle.

One study by Gillies and Carlson (1995) measured the emissivity of the Sahara desert using aircraft-based radiometric measurements. They found that the emissivity of the Sahara varied depending on the surface type, with values ranging from 0.91 for sand to 0.96 for rock outcrops.

Another study by Cosh et al. (2004) measured the emissivity of the Mojave desert in the United States using ground-based measurements. They found that the emissivity of the Mojave varied between 0.90 and 0.94 depending on the surface type and moisture content.

One study by Tian et al. (2004) estimated the emissivity of the Amazon rainforest using satellite observations of surface temperature and radiation. They found that the emissivity of the Amazon rainforest varied between 0.95 and 0.98 for different wavelengths and forest types. Another study by Martin et al. (2008) used aircraft-based measurements to estimate the emissivity of forests in the southeastern United States and found values ranging from 0.94 to 0.98 depending on the forest type and moisture content.

So, so far, the point it’s “not black” equates to it is not “1.0” in the modified Stefan-Blotzmann equation.

It seems, and I am basically going to skim what I can find of those papers, it seems a reasonable number.

It’s not black (1.0) it’s less, (0.95).

Now, I have to find out what the “constant” really means.

But I am tired tonight.

When it clicked?

Umm, well, this is indeed where I have to say I waver between what is a credible source, and as far as reading carefully, I don’t count you or Richard as credible sources. Even though, they are indeed links to respected organisations.

This is where my own particular “bent” comes in. It’s very much what I learnt a very long time ago about the Bible. One can justify anything, with the right quotes. Indeed, personally, and I shared this recently a few times, I haven’t read carefully the AFT because of what I might term “argument fatigue” . Making that up now. Something in the whole “I found this on the internet” is no different to me than “I found this in Deuteronomy”.

Which is of course not the same thing at all. But as we know, feelings rarely make any sense.

I would say that the benefit I am getting right now is that this is an opportunity to practise a greater degree of attention to detail. I am tempted to say “I get it! I could be doing this with the actualism method!”

But, it is in the practice that the skill arises. Not in the realisation.

I realise I don’t read carefully. However, practicing it is when the skill is actually built.

So, I am appreciating the practice.

My response regarding the “emissivity” of various surfaces on the planet should answer this.

As for being “flat” , I will have to get to that. I am probably going to model it in 3D like I often do with more complex houses.

My first impression is that, just like the “Mercator” projection used in the most famous world map, the area of a circle, in the case of the sun’s energy hitting a sphere, is indeed already taking into account the progressively larger areas towards the edge of a sphere.

If I wasn’t on my phone, I would draw it for you.

I don’t have anything on the next points about 1/4 the sunlight etc.

So far I am not familiar enough with the science of the atmosphere to really understand the nature of the “insulation”.

It would seem that it is working very differently to my hands on experience of insulation.

Because in this case, assuming the sources I have so far looked at, the geothermal heat makes a vanishingly small difference to the surface temperature. I.e. the ball of molten rock is so well insulated by the mantle, it’s negligible.

So now, it’s all about this mysterious 10km thick layer of air.

It lets the heat through, yet it also keeps the heat in.

As per Richard’s points 9 & 10, “insulation” , it can’t be in the intuitive way we normally think of insulation. Because the heat is getting through the insulation in one direction, and enough is being trapped in the other direction, that we are not like Mars or the moon with night temperature s descending towards absolute zero, and day temperatures enough to roast a pig.

Tried to post the Stefan-Blotzmann law, but formatting was crap.

As to point 4. “Bathed in 1/4 strength sunbeams”.

(I am otherwise just going where my interest leads :face_with_peeking_eye:).

Is this because of the T^4, in the equation?

I have read a few explanations, but I am not math savvy enough to see where the sunlight is being divided by 4.

"yeah variations in climate is widely misunderstood among the public. Everyone keeps thinking that the only reason the climate is changing is due to anthropogenic activities, which is completely false. Plate tectonics, carbon emissions in erosion, convective currents in the mantle and volcanic activity are a few examples that produce drastic localised climate change. "

My son’s first response to my queries.

I wonder if climatologists actually talk with geologists?

Tried to link to an explanation of the Stefan-Blotzmann constant…

Completely lost trying to understand it.

This is what I meant earlier when I said there is a reversal of the burden of proof in this challenge “there is no greenhouse effect”.

I have to understand the science, to otherwise even get to the assertion.

Is there a source, which breaks down point 4. “Bathed in 1/4 strength sunbeams”?

Ok but the article was “Richard provides references.” and the posts here were “Claudiu provides references.” And the post that clicked for you was … “Claudiu provides references.”

So what was different about the last time?

If the time when it clicked is the first time you read it carefully then that would make sense.

If you haven’t been reading things carefully then that explains a lot about how the thread here has been going!

It appears you’re complaining about having to understand what Richard is saying before being able to evaluate if what he’s saying is right.

All I can say is, that is indeed the way it goes.

I’m disinclined to post it again as I already have a few times in the thread. I suggest going through things again and reading them carefully this time :).

As a one time only offer I’ll provide you with a link to start at: Global warming/climate change - #107 by claudiu .

Cheers,
Claudiu

————————
P.S. As to:

Maybe I haven’t been reading carefully cause this is new info for me. All I can say is the news that you haven’t carefully read the AFT site is quite a bit shocking to me!!!

Well, I could be missing something but if your body flucuatates between 35 and 40 degrees normally during the night then the blankets will cause it to stay near 40. And if you are walking around and expect your body temperature to raise with your energy exertion and the excess heat to be released from the top of your head then a hat will prevent that release and the body temperature should stay high. If the Earth fluxes 40 degrees every year then a thicker greenhouse blanket, not accounting for convection and evaporation, should gradually lift the average temperature closer to the high mark. What am I missing?

A better analogy is more like, there’s a mathematical model that calculates a human body’s temperature should be 4C, where you would freeze and die. But you’re living your life under a two-meter-thick blanket, and the blanket makes it magically grow to 37C, where you’re cozy. But only a 0.8mm magic portion of the blanket is actually responsible for bringing your body temperature up from 4C to 37C, the remaining 1.9992 meters doesn’t have anything to do with it. And if another 1mm of that magic portion of the blanket is added then your body temp will go up even more to 42C and then horrible things will happen.

You guys are definitely focused on that wacky mathematical model. It adds context. It shows how far the climatologist are reaching. But it’s not the main issue.

Did you ever resolve this?

Ahh but it is the main issue. consider:

RICHARD: What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention … so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down.

It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for – the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition – and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110, 14 April 2006).
Facts and Groupthink – Index

The mathematical model is the apex of the inverted pyramid. It is literally the only reason to be considering that CO2 might cause any sort of climate change. If the model does not make sense, then nothing that relies on the model needs to be taken seriously. And as far as I have seen, all the climate change predictions take the model as a given.


Yea the point is that as far as the model is concerned, the flat black atmosphereless Earth is as hot as it can possibly be (-18C) without the atmosphere. And further, in the model, the atmosphere is not heated by the Sun, but by the Earth. So the Earth really is the heat source for the atmosphere in the model. It is like the hot plate with a bowl over it.

Also I found that if you tweak the model a bit by adding further ‘layers’ of atmosphere above it, you can end up with any temperature you want on the Earth, all with the math still checking out. So I came to see that models are just not a sensible starting point for all this. You can make the model say anything you want basically.

1 Like

But is that accurate? I think you’re going to say ‘no’ and remind me that the whole model is a dud.

You’re probably right given how they have known for years now that glaciers do retreat and expand over a period of decades even outside of ice age cycles.

Hmm what do you mean? I think that it is accurate that in the model, the atmosphere is heated by the Earth.

But in reality it’s the Sun who heats the atmosphere. Yet another reason to discard the model.

For the purpose of disproving the model it doesn’t matter. You take it as a given that the earth does heat the atmosphere. Then you observe the model results in the atmosphere heating the earth. Then you point out that this can’t happen in the physical world …