Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Telehiv, mai 21, 2014, 22:32:23 PM
SitatKort sagt: En fagvenn i ånden, her legges ikke mye i mellom....
Sitatdavidmhoffer says: May 21, 2014 at 10:19 pm AlecM says:May 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.AnthonyThe first time I ran into Doug Cotton on the web, I had no idea who he was and got into a full fledged argument with him. I soon discovered I was arguing with someone who just made up their own brand of physics and proclaimed it to be standard while failing to provide a single reference to any text book that supported his idiocy. I haven't the time or patience to rebut this complete bullsh*t at the moment, I'll leave it to Joel Shore and RGB who have both put him in his place already though he appears to not understand that's what has happened.That said, his latest tirade is, to the best of my recollection, verbatim Doug Cotton. I suspect AlecM is either Doug Cotton, or simply a misguided acolyte cutting and pasting from Doug Cotton's drivel.As always, your blog, your rules, but you know my opinion on this stupidity.REPLY: Yes, I've considered that this is just another one of the dozen or so identities that Doug Cotton inhabits on his mission from clods, er slayers. But this comment is coming from the UK, not Australia. Might by John O'Sullivan under one of his sock puppet identities. Who knows? They are mostly interchangeable, language wise. But problem solved by application of some off-topic troll slayer spray – Anthony
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på mai 22, 2014, 16:33:46 PMDette er motbydelig, og jeg legger ut et innlegg i en ny tråd om dette og litt mer omfattende betraktninger.
Sitat fra: Okular på mai 22, 2014, 19:42:32 PMSitat fra: Jostemikk på mai 22, 2014, 16:33:46 PMDette er motbydelig, og jeg legger ut et innlegg i en ny tråd om dette og litt mer omfattende betraktninger.Motydelig? Ja. Overraskende? Nei.
Sitat fra: Okular på mai 22, 2014, 20:46:22 PMDessverre (må man kanskje vel si) fortsetter jeg like fullt. På min høyst personlige jakt, altså, etter en vitenskapelig sannhet
Sitat fra: Okular på mai 22, 2014, 20:46:22 PMDessverre (må man kanskje vel si) fortsetter jeg like fullt. På min høyst personlige jakt, altså, etter en vitenskapelig sannhet. Den politisk promoterte 'sannheten' er ikke min, for å si det sånn ...
SitatThere are no instruments that directly measure radiation flux. Those that supposedly show a result from some mathematical equation need to be understood, calibrated and zeroed. There can be no radiation heat flux from a cool gas 1000′s m in the atmosphere flowing to a surface which is at a higher temperature. The basic premise of AGW with regard to CO2 is nonsense.
Sitat fra: Bebben på mai 23, 2014, 00:14:26 AMDet finnes en litt stillferdig røst som dukker opp her og der i den internasjonale klimadebatten under nicket "Cementafriend". Han bærer til torgs argumenter fra sin erfaring som ingeniør og design av industriovner, og utdanning som innebærer klassisk kunnskap om termondynamikk og varmeoverføring. Jeg tolker ham slik at han kritiserer klimaforskere og meteorologer for ikke å ha forstått en del grunnleggende kunnskaper innen termodynamikk. Han har også en blogg med svært sparsomt innhold, men her er fra ett av dem i anledning et innlegg av Roy Spencer nylig: SitatThere are no instruments that directly measure radiation flux. Those that supposedly show a result from some mathematical equation need to be understood, calibrated and zeroed. There can be no radiation heat flux from a cool gas 1000′s m in the atmosphere flowing to a surface which is at a higher temperature. The basic premise of AGW with regard to CO2 is nonsense.Så... hvor stort et poeng har han om at klimaforskere ikke har assimilert en del grunnleggende kunnskaper innen mer klassisk fysikk/termodynamikk? Vet ikke... men det er jo fryktelig lite "grunnleggende fysikk" å få øye på hos nettopp klimaforskere som snakker hyppig om .... "grunnleggende fysikk", eller hva?
Sitat fra: Okular på mai 23, 2014, 09:52:25 AMFor å si det med ett av de klassiske 'Twin Peaks'-sitatene: "It's happening again!"
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på mai 22, 2014, 20:06:56 PMDe samme tåkeleggerne dukker opp hver eneste gang. De er som troll i esker. Spretter fram som på stikkord. Det ender med det samme hver gang. De nekter å svare på direkte spørsmål, du og andre blir karakterisert som troll og slayers, og mange av trådene blir stengt av Watts, ofte etter at han har kommet med direkte hån av de som er blant fåtallet og har opptrådt både saklig og høflig.
SitatAlecM says:May 21, 2014 at 11:43 amThe reason why arid deserts heat up rapidly during the day is because there is little water to evaporate. This means the rate of heat loss from evapo-transpiration, the major heat transfer process from the surface over most of the World, is low.The surface temperature rises until the next most important heat transfer process, IR energy via the 'Atmospheric Window', a T^4 process, acts to limit surface temperature, up to c.50 deg C.The GHE is from clouds; there are no clouds in deserts. The proof that heat transfer from deserts is mainly radiative in the AW is the fast cooling at night. The Bedouin make ice by digging pits in the desert, minimising convective heat transport to the surface. The moral of this story is that there is no GHE from 'back radiation'.
Sitatjoeldshore says:May 21, 2014 at 2:08 pmAlecM says:This scam deceived all but real heat transfer experts, of whom there are few.I have yet to see a real heat transfer expert (including a lot of skeptics like Robert Brown) who believes there is any merit whatsoever to your arguments.
Sitatdavidmhoffer says:May 21, 2014 at 3:47 pmAlecM says:May 21, 2014 at 2:55 pm@joeldshore:' I have yet to see a real heat transfer expert (including a lot of skeptics like Robert Brown) who believes there is any merit whatsoever to your arguments'My arguments are standard physics.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are no such thing, they are pure bullsh*t, and when two PhD physicists from rather divergent points of view on the larger issues both say the opposite to the drivel you spout, the audience ought pay attention. Your yammering is distracting from the real physics being discussed, it is confusing to new comers to the discussion, and the pathetic whining about pyrgeometers is a regurgitation of the misinformation on the topic spouted by Doug Cotton and the Slayers. They've been banned from this forum, and you should be too.
SitatAlecM says:May 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm@davidmhoffer: you wrote this about my arguments:'They are no such thing, they are pure bullsh*t, and when two PhD physicists from rather divergent points of view on the larger issues both say the opposite to the drivel you spout, the audience ought pay attention. Your yammering is distracting from the real physics being discussed, it is confusing to new comers to the discussion, and the pathetic whining about pyrgeometers is a regurgitation of the misinformation on the topic spouted by Doug Cotton and the Slayers. They've been banned from this forum, and you should be too.'It's clear you haven't the faintest idea how to the counter standard physics so you wrote 'whining about pyrgeometers', then muddy the waters by introducing 'the Slayers'. I never joined them because they too get some physics wrong. It's easy to prove pyrgeometers measure Irradiance.Put two, back to back, in zero temperature gradient: net IR signal is zero; it's the vector sum of opposing Poynting Vectors for CO2 and H2O IR bands. The manufacturers state you need 'back to back' devices to measure net IR: http://www.kippzonen.com/Product/16/CGR-3-PyrgeometerTake one device away: net output jumps to say 400 W/m^2. Is this a real IR flux when you have just proved the flux at the centre point of the opposing pyrgeometers was zero? No professional makes that mistake The error arose thus: an optical pyrometer is a metal shield with a detector. The shield blocks off the radiation field from the back of the detector so it measures Irradiance in its view angle and, by calibration against a black body, temperature.C. 50 years ago, a Meteorologist had the bright idea of using the output temperature of an optical pyrometer with an IR filter to give the S-B IR Irradiance. Pyrgeometers are calibrated against a cavity black body's Irradiance, not a real energy flux. Their output signal is Irradiance.Do you intend to persist in blustering with no real science? I got my PhD in Applied physics from imperial College a long time ago but I was the year prize winner and have lectured at a top university, so I am prepared to argue my case against all comers. Climate Alchemy must accept standard physics and that they got this bit wrong by copying Meteorology's mistake.
SitatAlecM says:May 21, 2014 at 10:11 pm@rgbatduke: 'Sigh. I've written so very much about this. So has Roy Spencer. So have all of the physicists who write on the list. Your assertion that back radiation does not exist is sheer nonsense, refuted by experiments as simple as buying an IR thermometer and pointing it up, refuted in spectroscopic detail by pointing an actual spectrograph up. If you want to see spectrographs provided by Ira Glickstein from various sources on WUWT, look here:....'Sorry, an IR spectrometer measures the IR Irradiance in its view angle. This will vary with wavenumber but for the self-absorbed GHG bands, the amplitude is the black body level for the emission temperature. This is standard physics.Turn the pyrometer upside down so it measures the signal from the Earth's surface. It will measure the black body 'bell curve'. This is standard physics.Now do a line by line subtraction of the atmospheric signal from the surface signal. the difference spectrum is the real, net IR flux vs wavenumber. This is standard physics.To claim as in the Trenberth Energy Budget that the atmospheric Irradiance adds to the real surfce net IR flux to make the black body surface Irradiance a real, net energy flux is not standard physics. it is to make a false assumption dating back to Arrhenius via Sagan.It's interesting to work out why Sagan made his mistake: he got the cloud physics for Venus wrong; ~80% of the SW energy backscatters in the top of the atmosphere so he overestimated SW penetration to the base by about 7x in his two-stream calculation.Sorry, but you do no faze me on this. iI got my PhD at Imperial College and was first in my year. i've made pyrometers and spectrometers for on-line use. I do know my stuff! So do the people who make pyrgeometers: http://www.kippzonen.com/Product/16/CGR-3-PyrgeometerScroll to the bottom and look at the back to back pyrgeometer which measures net IR flux!
SitatKristian says:May 22, 2014 at 11:29 amrgbatduke says, May 22, 2014 at 5:14 am:"(...) a cosmically naive misconception of the way the GHE works."Yes, that's your misconception, Robert. The idea that the surface is forced to heat beyond solar thermal equilibrium because the atmosphere contains radiatively active gases and not simply because the atmosphere has a mass (a heat capacity) and hence is ABLE TO WARM. It is the TEMPERATURE (and specifically the temperature PROFILE, the gradient away from the solar-heated surface) of the atmosphere that makes it an insulating layer for the surface. THAT'S why the surface heat can not move out as fast as it comes in before it's warmed beyond the non-atmo steady state.Energy (heat) is moved from surface to tropopause by convection, not by radiation. Try the 'hand next to vs. above the candle flame' trick and you'll see what I'm referring to. That's why the temp profile matters. The global environmental lapse rate maintained fluctuating around the adiabatic lapse rate by the tight interaction between surface solar heating and the buoyant/evaporative response.And then the weight of the atmosphere exerts a pressure above 0 on the surface (which space doesn't), setting a limit to buoyant acceleration and evaporation rate (that is, a 'sub-max' escape rate of energy) from the surface up at a certain temperature.It's sooo simple. The atmospheric warming effect on the surface has got NOTHING to do with its content of radiatively active gases. This is about a massive gas in a gravity field being warmed by the surface underneath as opposed to a situation where the same surface sits in a vacuum. OF COURSE this gas will act as insulation to the surface!The atmosphere would've warmed with OR WITHOUT the presence of these radiatively active gases, simply from being convectively coupled to the solar-heated surface. The atmosphere could, however, NOT have been adequately cooled to space without their presence. Because then radiation is crucial. So THAT'S what they do. THAT'S what they're there for. The atmosphere warms the surface DESPITE the presence of its radiatively active gases, not BECAUSE of it.Petty talks about atmospheric RADIATION. That's the problem. It doesn't govern anything (except the ultimate cooling of the atmosphere (and hence, the earth system) to space). It is governed.
SitatKristian says:May 23, 2014 at 12:07 amgeorge e. smith says, May 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm:The point is this, George: Pyrgeometers do not detect 'impinging radiation' from the atmosphere unless the atmosphere happens to be WARMER than their sensor. Pyrgeometers detect the heat flux TO or FROM their sensor. Pyrgeometer warmer than the atmosphere, the heat flux is negative. The 'downward component' of any radiative exchange is then CALCULATED using a specified black body formula based on 1) the detected outgoing heat flux, and 2) the absolute temperature of the sensor. This is no secret.In spectrometers/interferometers the sensors are COOLED to extremely low temperatures. OF COURSE they would detect impinging radiation from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmer than the sensor. Heat (also 'radiative heat') moves from warmer to cooler. This is not 'back radiation'. The sensor does not heat the atmosphere. This is 'forward radiation'. Heat.It is physically impossible to separately detect either the upward or the downward component of a radiative exchange. It's in their nature. They are both part of an integrated (indivisible) radiation field between the two objects in question. You can't pick out one wavefront moving through it and leave the other. Only the (net) FLOW/transfer of energy from the warmer to the cooler object is a physically real working flux. Like an electric current. Like wind. From high to low potential. Always. Individual electrons or air molecules of course fly in all directions all the time. But that doesn't change the fact that the (bulk) FLOW moves only one way.I really don't get why people have such a hard time understanding this.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på januar 24, 2014, 14:14:09 PMDenne utviklingen er trist. En blir ikke lykkeligere av å kunne fastslå at jeg advarte mot denne utviklingen etter at Watts forandret bloggens kurs for mer enn to år siden....Anthony Watts er en AGWer som nekter åpen debatt om alt som ikke er godkjent av mainstreams paradigmeryttere. Han er også en meget autoritetstro mann. Enkelte ganger opptrer han tilsynelatende litt rampete, men det ender opp med det samme hver eneste gang. Et krav om at moderate paradigmeryttere er autoritetene vi alle skal underordne oss. Derfor er bloggen hans et perfekt oppholdssted for folk som tror at vi lever i et demokrati, og at plutokratiet er noe konspirasjonsteoretikere har funnet opp. De tar selvfølgelig feil når det gjelder begge deler, og nettopp derfor bør de fortsette å se på WUWT som en vitenskapelig autoritet. Det er nemlig trygt, for på den bloggen vil de aldri få sitt verdensbilde utfordret....Ta også en ekstra titt på hvem Watts selv karakteriserer som sitt team:Anthony Watts presenterer Team WUWTLeft to rightCharles Rotter, Alec Rawls, Dr. Ryan Maue, Tom Fuller, Dave Stealey, myself, Steven Mosher, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, and Willis Eschenbach.Å presentere et slikt lag som støttespillere til en skeptisk blogg blir jo som å drive en blogg som skal handle om å fremme lov og orden i samfunnet, for deretter å presentere følgende støttespillere: Capone, Dellinger, Cassidy, Costello, James, Biggs, Gambino og Lansky.