Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Harry Dale Huffman, this is the thread that Phil Clarke quoted from, and perhaps one of those you refer to.

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

Oct 6, 2016 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

My Venus/Earth analysis indicates, in fact, that NONE of the radiation reflected by either Venus or Earth, from either clouds or the planetary surface, would otherwise go into warming, or (more correctly) maintaining the fixed warmth of, the atmosphere.

Thermodynamics denier.

Oct 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

One problem I have with “greenhouse gases” is: what you they do with the energy they have absorbed? Do they keep it all to themselves, getting hotter and hotter, or do they sidle up to non-greenhouse gases and whisper, “Psst! Wanna have some heat?” Even if they do do that, it will be like trying to heat a bath by dropping red-hot needles into it. – yes, the temperature will rise, but by such a negligible amount that it will not really be measurable.

A more likely explanation would be that they re-radiate it, quickly reaching a dynamic balance, where what they radiate equals what they absorb; obviously, when the source on energy is not around, then the radiation will exceed any absorption, and they will cool – and will probably cool faster than non-greenhouse gases, hence negating any gains that may have been made. The fact that we have thermals and winds does demonstrate that heating of the atmosphere is primarily by conduction from surfaces to the air and thence convection.

Oct 6, 2016 at 11:04 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

My guess regarding the high surface temperature of Venus is that it's de clouds wot done it. It has to do with something about its atmosphere because the temperature is higher than that of Mercury. The temperature enhancement cannot be due primarily to CO2, because of the log effect. Ever increasing CO2 has a vanishly smaller and smaller effect. Nor can it be a product of feedbacks since there is no water, only nitrogen and a trace of sulphuric acid.

On the other hand we all know the effect of clouds on nighttime temperatures. Earth radiates much of its energy away to space on cloudless nights. These do not occur on Venus, all radiative heat loss must pass through very thick planet-encircling cloud layers. At the very least these will slow radiation flux, so that in order to retain an energy balance, energy flux through the atmosphere must be driven by a greater thermal gradient.

Vertical convection might be important, but clearly does not reach the uppermost parts of the clouds, otherwise this surface would exhibit a cellular structure (as does the Sun's surface).

Oct 6, 2016 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

I have seen it mooted that it is something to do with the gas laws, as the atmospheric pressure of the surface of Venus is some 90 times that or Earth (and even more than that of Mercury, which is probably more or less a vacuum). Basically, it is that, as pressure increases, so does temperature. I doubt that idea would work in a static column of air, but in a more active column, that atmospheres generally have, there might be some merit to it.

Oct 6, 2016 at 12:00 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent & ACK, to bring this thread back into context of the temperature timeline, was it man made CO2 that caused the arms of the Venus di Milo to fall off, and is it's armless nature part of it's value to modern mankind?

Sometime you get the impression that Global Warmists will do anything to divert attention away from Denying their mistakes, but diversions as far as Venus make partial closures of the M25 seem trivial, in a roundabout sort of Milky Way.

Oct 6, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

We have gone off Topic, a Marathon to Mars by way of Milky Way, for Snickers at the Bounty of the discussion Summit. Which Lion Twix’t us remembers the Aztec? Take a break…

Oct 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Oh Henry! Wispa it gently, only a flake would snicker at the galaxy of topics available here. A veritable bounty of nuts! post here, especially after eight. There are smarties with curly wurly ideas who are no picknic.

Oct 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Radical Rodent, it is all down to the Fudge factor of Climate Sensitivity, and Climate Scientists have shoved 2 fingers on the scales of measurement, and 7 Up at science.

Oct 6, 2016 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The earth wobbles a bit, the sun doesn't operate at a constant temperature, climate sensitivity is wrong about a trace gas.

No wonder James Lovelock has given up on Climate Science. It is not surprising that 97% of climate scientists who have been wrong, don't want to lose their jobs, but that does not worry James Lovelock either

Oct 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke

Thermodynamics denier

I realised that on Tuesday. It marked the point at which further debate became pointless.

Oct 7, 2016 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Thermodynamics denier

What part of the light reflected by a mirror, heats it?

Oct 7, 2016 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Huffman's theory depends on the energy absorbed by the mirror not heating it.

Or to stretch the analogy further, all mirrors have the same thermodynamic characteristics irrespective of albedo.

Richard Dawkins uses the analogy of a Latin teacher trying to educate a class of 'sceptics' who do not believe the Roman Empire ever existed. After he reviews for them the archaological and documentary evidence and convinces them of the Imperial reality he gets to teach some Latin.

Then, the next day they're 'sceptical' all over again.

Productive discourse with someone who disagrees even with Judith Curry that Greenhouse effect scepticism is implausible seems unlikely.

Oct 7, 2016 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clark. Your entire post read. "My Venus/Earth analysis indicates, in fact, that NONE of the radiation REFLECTED by either Venus or Earth, from either clouds or the planetary surface, would otherwise go into warming, or (more correctly) maintaining the fixed warmth of, the atmosphere.
Thermodynamics denier."

No mention of ABSORPTION in your post. I was commenting on your post, not any deficiencies in the theory.

Oct 7, 2016 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

The word otherwise is key. He dismisses the difference in planetary albedos by saying that radiation not relected (ie absorbed) has no heating effect.

When you have to suspend the Laws of Physics, its time for a rethink.

Oct 7, 2016 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Curious. I read Mr Huffman’s article to state that the reflected radiation has nothing to do with the heating of the atmosphere. A statement that does make sense; Laws of Physics maintained – phew! I understand his argument to be that the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with its temperature; the principal effect is the planet’s proximity to the primary energy source – in this case, the Sun. A theory well-supported by the evidence – the altitudes where the atmospheric pressure of Venus is Earth-equivalent, the temperatures are what would be on Earth, should Earth be the same distance from the Sun. Why that ably-supported observation cause such high dudgeon is anyone’s guess… oh… just realised – it blows the whole AGW myth out of the water! Silly me!

(p.s. Mr Clarke: have you worked out why Mr Huffman only used higher altitudes and lower pressures, yet?)

Oct 7, 2016 at 10:42 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PhilClarke I cannot disagree with fairly basic physics. I concentrated on the word reflected. The obvious question that might be asked of Huffman is where the Venusian atmosphere gets its energy - not only its temperature but also the megahurricane strength winds. I've done a little reading over the past few days but have failed to read of any theory that attempts to explain those winds.

Oct 7, 2016 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK
Oct 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke you are playing ad homs again. You do this when you run out of your normal bollocks.

Oct 7, 2016 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Au contraire, I am just demonstrating that I am not constrained by boring old conventional scientific concepts and I approach new ideas with a completely open mind as all good 'sceptics' should.

There is greenhouse effect, or evolution and Huffman's clockwork moon proposal is revolutionary. I think we should start discussion threads on all of his theorems immediately.

Remember, they laughed at Galileo.

Oct 7, 2016 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, "they laughed at Galileo" because he challenged the consensus.

You have to seek help from consensus climate projectionists before sneering.

I look to alternative explanations, when consensus views are wrong.

So back to the thread, Gergis and the consensus were wrong about the temperature timeline, and EM's link is wrong too. How do you account for so much wrongness from professional experts, and why should I and a billion+ others pay for it?

Oct 7, 2016 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I am sorry that you do not seem to have trouble understanding simple English, Mr Clarke. My statement was entirely correct, as is Mr Huffman’s proposition – the reflected radiation is not relevant to the heating of the atmosphere, thus their respective albedos are irrelevant. It is the non-reflected radiation that has the energy, and it is this that heats the atmosphere. Makes sense to me.

As you are responding to my posts, perhaps you could explain why Mr Huffman only used higher altitudes and lower pressures.

By the way, Newton believed in alchemy, and Einstein in eugenics; by your logic that makes all their other theories irrelevant. Hmmm…. I doubt the consensus would be carried along with that one!

Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, Climate Scientists believe a trace gas can cause devastation to the world, and actually get paid with taxpayers money for their unprovable and unsubstantiated scare stories. How dumb is that?

I don't have to pay Tooth Fairy Tax, so why do I have to pay for Green Fairy Stories?

Oct 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I am sorry that you do not seem to have trouble understanding simple English, Mr Clarke. My statement was entirely correct, as is Mr Huffman’s proposition – the reflected radiation is not relevant to the heating of the atmosphere, thus their respective albedos are irrelevant.

Albedo is basically the ratio of reflected to absorbed radiation, you cannot just blithely wave it away.

Oct 7, 2016 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, history, geology and archaeology can't be blithely waved away either, but you do so, to maintain your faith in climate science. Galileo's (correct) understanding did not fit with the prevailing religious faith's consensus. No doubt they called Galileo a "denier" of faith.

EM maintains that Climate Science doe not need to prove itself, which is what Religious faiths maintain aswell.

Therefore Climate Science is a religious faith and deserves no taxpayer funding. There are so many more deserving causes.

Oct 7, 2016 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie