Still waiting for greenhouse: No response to my last email to Roy Spencer

Posted: June 12, 2020 by tallbloke in atmosphere, Brexit, climate, EU Referendum, fuel poverty, government, greenblob, ideology, Measurement, modelling, Ocean dynamics, physics, Politics, pressure, radiative theory, solar system dynamics, Taxpayer, Treason

Before the last time I had to dive deeply into politics to defend the EU referendum result, I had an email conversation with Roy Spencer in an attempt to resolve the conflict between physicists like himself, who believe the radiative greenhouse theory is correct, but it’s effect small, and physicists like Ned Nikolov, who contend that the theory is fundamentally incorrect.

After a couple of to and fro emails I sent this response in Feb 2019, to which I never received a reply. It’s time we got this discussion back out in the open, because Boris’ green reset #netzero plan for the UK post Brexit and post pandemic is set to ruin our economy and cause untold suffering, deprivation, and death.

the lukewarmers have utterly failed to convince the fanatics that although they think their theory is correct (it isn’t, but that’s their misguided opinion), they’ve overestimated the magnitude of the effect.

It’s time they stopped supporting the fanatics by deploying false arguments against better theory which will exonerate CO2 and move the debate away from ridiculous and expensive ‘mitigation’, and forward to adaption to the effects of natural climatic change.

Right-click and open the image in a new window to read it at a legible scale.

The experiment demonstrating that water evaporates much more rapidly at very low atmospheric pressures is described here. The next task is to calculate how much faster the ocean would lose energy without the current atmospheric surface pressure of ~14psi. That will make clear the importance of atmospheric pressure to the warmth of Earth’s surface, and expose the lie of the carbon dioxide scare-mongering.

Comments
  1. Chaswarnertoo says:

    If the effect does exist it is negligible. Now can we get on with improving the world, instead of whinging about invisible bogey gases.

  2. hunterson7 says:

    Challenging the basic tenets of a religious system seldom goes well.
    That said, I see the greenhouse effect as a highly abused metaphor for the fact that vacuum is an excellent insulator.

  3. hunterson7 says:

    And with all due respect, Dr. Spencer is qualified to his opinion and has suffered professionally for his skeptical position. I dare say more than most of us.
    Berating him into responding to a non-scientist making a non-scientific argument is not going to defend Britain or the rest of us from the madness of PM Boris or the rest of the climate fanatics effectively driving the bad policies that are hurting people all over the world.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Ned Nikolov on Twitter (@NikolovScience) yesterday:

    The mean annual surface air temperature at Earth’s Equator is ~300 K. The mean annual surface air temperature at Moon’s airless Equator is 213 K. Hence, the “Greenhouse Effect” at Earth’s Equator is 87 K.
    – – –
    Not the 33K fiction of the IPCC. Even if they could find that from radiative gas effects they’re still > 50K short of the known data.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Slightly O/T, but warmist website Carbonbrief has a fairly informative article today even if it does carry the label ‘extreme weather’.

    Jet stream: Is climate change causing more ‘blocking’ weather events?
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events

  6. tallbloke says:

    Hunterson7: Berating him into responding to a non-scientist making a non-scientific argument

    I have a professional qualification in assessing scientific theory.
    What, specifically, is unscientific about any of the responses I made to Roy’s claims in that email?

    Dr. Spencer is qualified to his opinion

    Of course he is. And I’m qualified to make a response. That Roy chose not to attempt to defend the indefensible is his choice. I gave him over a year to think it over.

    is not going to defend Britain or the rest of us from the madness of PM Boris or the rest of the climate fanatics effectively driving the bad policies that are hurting people all over the world.

    On the contrary, the lukewarmers have utterly failed to convince the fanatics that although they think their theory is correct (it isn’t, but that’s their misguided opinion), they’ve overestimated the magnitude of the effect.

    It’s time they stopped supporting the fanatics by deploying false arguments against better theory which will exonerate CO2 and move the debate away from ridiculous and expensive ‘mitigation’, and forward to adaption to the effects of natural climatic change.

  7. tallbloke says:

    OB: Not the 33K fiction of the IPCC. Even if they could find that from radiative gas effects they’re still > 50K short of the known data.

    It’s worse than that, because the ‘greenhouse effect’ at the poles is even bigger. About 140K from memory.

  8. cognog2 says:

    The evaporation rate depends on the difference between the Partial Pressure of water in the atmosphere and the Vapour pressure of water at the prevailing temperature. At reduced pressure the Partial pressure is reduced but the vapour pressure remains the same unless the temperature is reduced. Hence the evaporation rate increases.
    The relationship between pressure and temperature is another matter and would depend on the energy available during the process. Generally the Latent Heat involved equates to the energy available or input to the system.
    The boiling of water at atmospheric pressure is a specific case where the Partial Pressure equates to the actual pressure and the Vapour pressure rises due to a temperature level of 100C. to maintain evaporation at a rate equal to the energy input involved.

  9. tallbloke says:

    cognog2: thanks for the clear technical description. What we can all agree on in applying it to Earth is that the energy input to the surface from the Sun is going to be broadly similar whether we have a 1 bar atmosphere or a 0.5 bar atmosphere. Probably less cloud albedo in the lower pressure regime.

    So the question becomes; what temperature is the ocean forced up to in order to lose energy as fast as it gains it under these two different pressure regimes?

    My contention is that because evaporation will occur more freely under the low pressure regime, the ocean will stay cooler.

  10. Pablo says:

    “Water available for evaporation increases latent heating by adding water vapour to the atmosphere. As a result, relatively little energy remains to heat the air, and thus the sensible heating of the air near the ground is minimized. In addition, daily maximum temperatures are not as high in locations with strong latent heating.”

    from: https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-meteorology/Biosphere-controls-on-the-structure-of-the-atmosphere

  11. Stephen Richards says:

    Listening to the Virus report today you would think this UK government had been on another planet while everyone on planet earth were out of work.

    They want to make this disastrous lockdown permenent so they can virtue signal. It takes a special kind of stupidity to think this way. I’m coming to live in the UK in the next year or two and now I’m fearful.

  12. Stephen Richards says:

    The recent data from Hawaii should have dispelled the CO² myth but it won’t. No change in the rate of rise of co² even when the world economy has crashed shoudl make even the most blind of people open their eyes.

  13. Stephen Richards says:

    hunterson7 says:
    June 12, 2020 at 2:09 pm

    Are you suggesting that IR does not propagate through a vacuum ?

  14. Stephen Richards says:

    Hi Oldbrew

    Slightly O/T, but warmist website Carbonbrief has a fairly informative article today even if it does carry the label ‘extreme weather’.
    Jet stream: Is climate change causing more ‘blocking’ weather events?

    Hubert H Lamb postulated some 50 years ago that blocking should become more significant during planetary cooling.

    We might have to wait a decade to gather enough data to prove or disprove his hypothesis.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Stephen R – yes, Piers Corbyn believes the Lamb idea too IIRC. Or at least that the jets would behave differently.

    This goes back to at least the 2003 European heatwave.
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/omega-shaped-jet-stream-responsible-europe-s-heatwave/
    – – –
    For general interest:

    Water vapor feedback: evaporation
    Posted on September 24, 2011
    by Judith Curry
    https://judithcurry.com/2011/09/24/water-vapor-feedback-evaporation/

  16. pochas94 says:

    Remember that without an atmosphere conditions on earth would be similar to those on the moon. Water would first boil, then freeze, then sublime into the vapor phase which would be swept away by the solar wind. I think there may still be some water ice left on the moon in places so ultimately the rate of water ice sublimation is very low.

  17. pochas94 says:

    I think Dr Spencer is not an ideologue. His views change with time, and I think he does understand the adiabatic temperature profile, although one must also understand that energy leaves the earth by radiation, mostly emitted by water vapor. Radiation from water vapor and CO2 is transmitted downward at the surface, that can’t be disputed. But the adiabatic temperature profile, and emission height at different locations and under different weather conditions must also be considered. To do otherwise places you with the four blind men and the elephant.

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    Wow! I had no idea they thought evaporation was not faster at lower pressure.

    Have they never learned how a refrigerator works? Pull a low pressure zone to evaporate liquid and cool it (absorbing heat), pump that gas to higher pressure to condensed it (and liberate heat). Evaporating at near freezing temperatures due to low pressure and condensing at quite hot temperatures due to higher pressure.

    Then that adiabatic bit: that is not the Earth. Water evaporates absorbing heat, lowering surface temperature AND reducing density of the air. This rises until the water condenses as clouds, rain, snow, hail, etc. This gas is dropping in temperature as it rises and expands, so the heat is released at a lower temperature, but it is transporting the heat upward. Then the cool or even frozen water falls to the surface to absorbe more heat. Tropical afternoon rain cools things right when heating has been greatest.

    (Some folks get stuck on that point, thinking “heating” means higher temperature. You can add heat without more temperature. A boiling pot of water is being heavily heated, turning to vapor, all at a constant 100 C.)

    This very cold, now dry, air sinks; though pushed away from where it rose. As it sinks, the temperature does rise, and we get hot deserts. Phoenix Arizona is hotter than Orlando Florida NOT from more CO2 or sun, but due to less water.

    The net effect is that heat was moved to the radiative stratosphere and sent to space, but cooling one place more while raising the temperature of another less.

    To treat the troposphere as radiative is to ignore reality. The troposphere exists precisely because radiative cooling has failed to move enough heat. Heat the surface more, you will just get more water vapor mass flow dumping heat at the top of the clouds.

    The Earth is a giant spherical heat pipe, not a dry gas isolation chamber.

  19. dennisambler says:

    NASA Knows:
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV

    “Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow. This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet.

    Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’s surface.
    Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.”

    But where does it get that warmth from? No mention of CO2.

  20. […] Still waiting for greenhouse: No response to my last email to Roy Spencer — Tallbloke’s Talk… Werbeanzeigen […]

  21. tallbloke says:

    E.M. : Wow! I had no idea they thought evaporation was not faster at lower pressure.

    It caught me by surprise too. I think they’re just playing dumb and quoting heuristic meteo weather equations because they can’t bear to lose face by admitting Ned and the talkshop “pressure heads” were right all along.

    None of them studied thermodynamics with any real application of intelligence or thought.

  22. gbaikie says:

    –an attempt to resolve the conflict between physicists like himself, who believe the radiative greenhouse theory is correct, but it’s effect small, and physicists like Ned Nikolov, who contend that the theory is fundamentally incorrect.–

    The theory is fundamentally incorrect. The theory was not authored, and mangled by an idiotic committee. But idea of greenhouse has been around for much longer time than the Greenhouse Effect theory was written.
    It seems to me that CO2 gas could cause a small warming effect. But recently I am wonder whatever CO2 has any effect upon global climate and it seems it only warm surface air temperature.
    Or I think global climate is controlled by the temperature of entire Ocean. And not clear to me that surface air temperature changes the ocean’s temperature.
    Or quite simply global air temperature has been mostly +10 or higher for millions of years and ocean average temperature has been 1 to 5 C while we have been our Ice Age- and presently,it’s now about 3.5 C

    As to specific questions of Roy, I am and agreeing or disagreeing with questions or answers. But will say water commonly evaporates almost regardless of temperature or humidity. Or ocean water in humid tropics is always evaporating {mainly because ocean surface temperature has high and higher average temperature].
    But I have simple question if ocean average temperature was 10 C, rather than 3.5 C. Would there be a small warming effect or large warming effect {little effect on global surface air temperature if 10 C or large increase in global surface temperature}?

  23. gbaikie says:

    –oldbrew says:
    June 12, 2020 at 2:29 pm
    Ned Nikolov on Twitter (@NikolovScience) yesterday:

    The mean annual surface air temperature at Earth’s Equator is ~300 K. The mean annual surface air temperature at Moon’s airless Equator is 213 K. Hence, the “Greenhouse Effect” at Earth’s Equator is 87 K.–

    A large difference between Earth’s equator and Luna Equator is 80% of tropics is ocean.
    Say put huge pit on lunar equator. Let’s say 100 km in radius and 4000 meter deep.
    And fill it with water so it’s 500 meters below the rest of lunar surface.

    That water probably be warmer than Earth’s tropical water- it would certainly would get far more sunlight than Earth’s tropics. And Earth’s tropical ocean receives far more sunlight then the rest of Earth.

  24. gbaikie says:

    –is not going to defend Britain or the rest of us from the madness of PM Boris or the rest of the climate fanatics effectively driving the bad policies that are hurting people all over the world.

    On the contrary, the lukewarmers have utterly failed to convince the fanatics that although they think their theory is correct (it isn’t, but that’s their misguided opinion), they’ve overestimated the magnitude of the effect.

    It’s time they stopped supporting the fanatics by deploying false arguments against better theory which will exonerate CO2 and move the debate away from ridiculous and expensive ‘mitigation’, and forward to adaption to the effects of natural climatic change.–

    Well I am a lukewarmer, and not my job to defeat with argument religious fanatics.

    But it’s simple, we living in Ice Age.
    What more is needed?

    You all are kind of US Republicans, except Reps doing better then you asshats, and Republicans are generally stupid and worse, cowards. And they are politicans, who are utterly hapless without some public support. Only thing would wish Roy to do, is get better website- it’s software runs worse than wind mills. But I don’t run any Blog, it’s too trouble.

    The problem is you guys aren’t modeling. Modeling is public communication.
    You put all bias into a picture show, and project our opinion.
    Or no one can predict the future. Models certainly can’t predict the future, but they are
    project in easily understood manner, what your opinion of the future is.
    Works better than word salads. People don’t enough time- graphics makes it easier.
    I don’t do models. But tell what should go into model of global climate- it’s the temperature of
    the entire ocean.
    And it takes centuries to change much- makes a fairly boring graph, but that’s the future.

    How to fight the religious nuts, is ask them for the details of their mass hysteria.

  25. gbaikie says:

    –pochas94 says:
    June 12, 2020 at 9:55 pm
    Remember that without an atmosphere conditions on earth would be similar to those on the moon. Water would first boil, then freeze, then sublime into the vapor phase which would be swept away by the solar wind. I think there may still be some water ice left on the moon in places so ultimately the rate of water ice sublimation is very low.–
    Yes, once get below -150 C {123 K} in vacuum, it takes a long to evaporate. And in lunar polar region craters, it can be colder than 50 K.

    But there is water all over the Moon at very low concentrations in the regolith. As there is hydrogen and helium {and other volatiles] within top 1 meter of lunar regolith. An ice cube on 50 K surface shouldn’t evaporate much in a million years. There small chance there is solid ice on the surface of moon, but in terms mining lunar water it’s a hope of having much higher concentration of water in regolith, like 5 to 10% water. And any dirt on Earth has this much water in the dirt- fairly dry dirt has this much. Plant die at around 5% water in soil {which can be draw up plants [with high concentration of clay, plant can’t do it until closer to 15% to 20%]}.

  26. hunterson7 says:

    Tallbloke,
    I apologise for a less than a lucid response and less than clear comment.
    I am traveling on a grand,”fin de cicle” American style road trip and am sleep deprived and cell signal deprived. Please allow me time to get back on both before I try to restate my comment.
    Respectfully,
    hunterson7

  27. tom0mason says:

    Apparently the current level of atmospheric CO2 level (May 2020 figure) by volume is at 417.41ppm (0.041741%).
    But according to the (self declared) consensus of ‘climate scientists’, the planet is OK (or as they say the CO2 level is ‘manageable’) with atmospheric CO2 levels at, or below, 350ppm or 0.03500% (by volume) (see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/26/pachauri-350ppm-breakthrough-climate ).

    Using the current figures …
    0.041741% – 0.03500% = 0.006741% or 67.41ppm change between being climatically OK (manageable) and going into a climate catastrophe — does that sound credible? I think not!

    Even if we get to 450ppm that is still only a change of 0.01%. Hopefully the planet gets over this low amount and moves to 600ppm (or more) and the planet greens up more, before the oncoming global cooling starts to deposit more CO2 into the oceans.

    Historically the global CO2 levels have been well above 417ppm (or even 600ppm) many times throughout history, however the global temperatures do not track it well. Indeed it looks like most times CO2 levels change after the global temperature rises.
    see — https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve always found it a mystery (no sarcasm — this is complete genuine honesty) that so much passion has been poured into radiative debate given that it’s based on false assumptions. To me that’s like volunteering to debate on the enemy’s terms. It has always looked like a set-up to drain precious time and energy inside a false framework that conveniently can result in nothing meaningful.

    I suspect some of the behind-the-scenes very-top-level people (people for whom the truth is something peripheral and unimportant) love this kind of stuff as it guarantees no real impact on anything. They can just laugh that people are self-containing themselves in the rules-box their people came up with.

    I cannot recall a single time when I ever read anything useful or even remotely helpful for understanding anything about climate patterns on a radiative discussion. There was one rare occasion I vaguely remember when Ned said something that made sense — the one and only time I ever remember being influenced by any comment on a radiative thread in more than a decade.

  29. Pablo says:

    “During the late 1860s, British experimental physicist John Tyndall, based on his studies of the infrared radiation absorption by atmospheric gases, concluded that nighttime minimum temperatures were dependent on the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere. Of these gases, water vapour had the greatest impact. To emphasize the significance of water vapour on decreases in air temperature during the night, he wrote that if all the water vapour in the air over England was removed even for a single night, it would be “attended by the destruction of every plant which a freezing temperature could kill.” As a result, it follows that the greater the water content of the atmosphere, the lower the radiative loss of energy to the sky and the less the surface atmosphere is cooled. Thus, locations with substantial amounts of water vapour experience reduced nocturnal cooling.”

    https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-meteorology/Biosphere-controls-on-maximum-temperatures-by-evaporation-and-transpiration

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    As for people associated with the American climate blogs: you can’t trust them. It’s a case of the enemy controlling the opposition. Walk away. Those aren’t conservative blogs. It’s liberal puppet-masters sucking in conservatives for “behavior modification” (I’m sure many of you have run into the scheme). Effectively (although some caught in those traps may not realize it) those people are silencers working for the antifa-deep-state alliance to overpower the west. Increasingly they like young energetic people who are easily intimidated and bought. The word is out that they want people over 50 out.

  31. tallbloke says:

    PaulV: I cannot recall a single time when I ever read anything useful or even remotely helpful for understanding anything about climate patterns on a radiative discussion.

    I’m not looking for a radiative debate, that’s why I centred the post around a pressure-evaporation experiment.

    Gbaikie: The problem is you guys aren’t modeling. Modeling is public communication.
    You put all bias into a picture show, and project our opinion.
    Or no one can predict the future. Models certainly can’t predict the future, but they are
    project in easily understood manner, what your opinion of the future is.
    Works better than word salads. People don’t enough time- graphics makes it easier.

    Quite right, and that’s why I ended the post by saying:

    “The next task is to calculate how much faster the ocean would lose energy without the current atmospheric surface pressure of ~14psi. That will make clear the importance of atmospheric pressure to the warmth of Earth’s surface”

    So. Who’s going to help me get the maths right? Hmm?

  32. oldbrew says:

    Pablo: wouldn’t Tyndall’s water vapour effect at night be matched by an equal and opposite effect during the day, making it irrelevant?

  33. Pablo says:

    oldbrew: Irrelevant as an overall amplifier of surface temperature for sure, but it does illustrate how effective water vapour is in moderating day to night extreme surface temperatures by different means.
    The article for the quote also mentions how leaf-burst in spring slows down the seasonal warming by 0.2ºC per day!

  34. oldbrew says:

    Warmist energy budget diagrams prefer to show daytime only 😉
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

  35. tallbloke says:

    Here’s my updated and improved energy budget diagram.

  36. oldbrew says:

    British Antarctic Survey:
    Summertime cloud phase strongly influences surface melting on the Larsen C ice shelf, Antarctica
    5 June, 2020

    We show that summertime cloud phase on the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula strongly influences the amount of radiation received at the surface and can determine whether or not melting occurs.

    https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/summertime-cloud-phase-strongly-influences-surface-melting-on-the-larsen/

    More daytime cloud = less radiation reaching the surface — who knew? 😏

  37. Pablo says:

    .
    “Evaporation at high altitudes is promoted due to low atmospheric pressure as
    expressed in the psychrometric constant. The effect is, however, small and in the calculation procedures, the average value for a location is sufficient. A simplification of the ideal gas law, assuming 20°C for a standard atmosphere, can be employed to calculate atmospheric pressure P:
    where:
    P atmospheric pressure [kPa], z elevation above sea level [m],
    The psychrometric constant,  , is given by:
    where
     = Psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1], P = Atmospheric pressure [kPa],
     = Latent heat of vaporization, 2.45 [MJ kg-1],
    cp = Specific heat at constant pressure, 1.013 10-3 [MJ kg-1 °C-1], and
     = ratio molecular weight of water vapour / dry air = 0.622.
    (3.2)
    (3.1)
    The specific heat at constant pressure is the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of a unit mass of air by one degree at constant pressure. Its value depends on the composition of the air, i.e., on its humidity. For average atmospheric conditions a value cp = 11.013 10-3 [MJ kg-1 °C-1] can be used as an average atmospheric pressure is used for each location.
    Air density: air density of moist air (kg/m3)is estimated by a = 3.486 (p/(275 + T)) where p is the atmospheric pressure in kPa and T is air temperature in degrees Celsius.”

    Click to access EvaporationAndTranspiration.pdf

  38. gbaikie says:

    –Quite right, and that’s why I ended the post by saying:

    “The next task is to calculate how much faster the ocean would lose energy without the current atmospheric surface pressure of ~14psi. That will make clear the importance of atmospheric pressure to the warmth of Earth’s surface”

    So. Who’s going to help me get the maths right? Hmm?–

    I don’t think air pressure determines ocean temperature.

    And I think ocean surface temperature outside of tropics is varying average global surface air temperature within our Ice Age.
    Tropical ocean is a heat engine in our Ice Age. I don’t know if this heat engine is strongly effected amount atmosphere Earth has. But if want to focus of tropical temperature {which doesn’t change much from glacial to interglacial periods}.
    1/2 atm should have higher tropical ocean surface temperature. And 1/4 atm, even warmer.
    Because more sunlight reaches the ocean surface.
    And land surface also get hotter in day times.***
    If you want boil water, lower pressure reduces boiling temperatures- causes rapid evaporation.
    Earth current highest ocean surface temperatures reaches about 35 C, one can lower atmospheric pressure to point that 35 C ocean surface is impossible. So 0.614 psi {31.75 torr} atmosphere causes water to boil at 30 C:
    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-evacuation-pressure-temperature-d_1686.html
    2.86 torr is 0.05530318 psi which boils around -6 C
    Mars pressure is about 0.095 psi or 6.518 millibars or 4.50 torr
    Partial pressure of water vapor, wiki:
    30 C is 31.8439 torr or 0.6157583199 psi or 0.0419 Atm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water#:~:text=The%20water%20vapour%20pressure%20is,with%20the%20Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron%20relation.

    So, looks like if atmosphere pressure is same partial pressure of water at given temperature it boils
    At 100 C partial pressure of water is 1 Atm. But it seems to me evaporation is diffusion and water vapor has high average velocity compared to N2 and O2.
    Of course another factor is very little sunlight warms the top surface of water, as water is transparent to sunlight . Or very little sunlight is absorb in 1 mm, more is absorbed in 10 cm and even more or most is absorbed in top meter, a lot absorbed in first couple meters. And takes a lot energy to warm water.If you had murky water, a lot of sunlight would absorbed in top 10 cm. But open oceans are very transparent and sterile- or sometimes called vast “deserts”.

    You got {what’s word-I forgot] bands which confining the high percentage of water vapor of tropics- or sheer distance and relative short height of atmosphere as compared to thousands of miles going north or south. So if had less atmosphere you have even shorter height of atmosphere, so could slow down tropical ocean warming the rest of world. Or say, thinner atmosphere might make tropics more cloudy, rest of world roughly less cloudy.
    It’s weather, very complicated.

    *** Thinner air is less air temperature. Or average molecular velocity of air doesn’t change when goes to higher elevation into thinner air. So 1/2 atm will have colder air, but have hotter surface [ground or water}.
    So Mars at Venus distance, melts your shoes but air not hot {though need a spacesuit- so it’s not an issue}. Radiant heat would be more factor, unlike on Earth where it’s temperature is convection heat transfer.
    But thinner atmosphere does change water vapor, and water vapor transfers heat/energy.
    Or average temperature of global ocean surface is 17 C and average land air surface is 10 C, and
    land surface would colder without warmed by average global air temperature which ocean surface temperature “controls”. 1/2 atmosphere comparatively “doubles” the power of water vapor- which warms or control global air temperature. Or make easier if just looking at tropics in regards to halving the atmosphere. But if half the atmosphere, you do a lot in terms making solar energy more viable.
    {and Earth reflects less sunlight and another minor factor is CO2 has less warming effect in thinner atmosphere}.

  39. tallbloke says:

    Pablo: Evaporation at high altitudes is promoted due to low atmospheric pressure as
    expressed in the psychrometric constant. The effect is, however, small…

    The effect is small because the temperature is lower and the pressure, although lower, is still high compared to the experiment I linked.

    There is useful info there though, so thanks for posting.

  40. tallbloke says:

    OK. I’ve set up a control experiment to assess the difference between the JPL result in the low pressure experiment and the same volume of 25ml water at the same 20C, at Earth’s surface pressure of around 1 Bar, (.i.e. NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure), rather than the ~3 Torr of the experiment (~266 times less pressure). It’s a bit hard to see the thermometer readout but it’s at 17.9C at the moment.

    In the JPL low pressure experiment, all the water evaporated in 2.5 hours. We’ll see how long it takes our control experiment water to finish evaporating.

    Rate of Evaporation of Water Under Low-Pressure Conditions
    E. M. Carey1,
    J. Castillo-Rogez1,
    J. E. C. Scully2,
    C. T. Russell2

    1
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
    Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA (elizabeth.m.carey@jpl.nasa.gov),
    2
    Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences,
    University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA (jscully@ucla.edu)

    Publication:
    45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, held 17-21 March, 2014 at The Woodlands, Texas. LPI Contribution No. 1777, p.2060
    Pub Date: March 2014 Bibcode: 2014LPI….45.2060C

  41. tallbloke says:

    Air temp in my living room is currently 19.3C. Water temp is 18.4C
    There’s definitely some evaporating going on. 🙂

  42. tallbloke says:

    The experiment has now been running for the same amount of time as it took for all the 25ml of 20C water to evaporate at the near vacuum pressure of ~2.86 Torr.

    I’ve reweighed my 18.5C water and there is still over 24ml left in the beaker.

    I’ll check the weight again tomorrow after the experiment has been running for 25 hours (10 times as long as the JPL experiment).

    So far, it’s looking like a large variation in pressure has a very (very) large effect on evaporation rate.

  43. Zoe Phin says:

    I don’t think pressure makes it hotter. I think hotter creates more atmospheric pressure.

    Atmo pressure is an outward force!

    Take a planet at 3K, no sun, and 100% nitrogen at the top.

    The nitrogen is solid. There is no atmosphere, but the nitrogen still has mass and exerts pressure inward to core. Now raise the temperature to 200K. The nitrogen becomes gas and an atmosphere forms. The mass is still the same, the inward pressure is still the same.

    So what changed? The outward pressure due to temperature.

    It’s hard to see how “pressure” makes things hotter. It’s hotter that makes outward pressure.

    The greenhouse effect is not due to GHGs, nor “pressure”, but geothermal flipped upside down.

    I hope people will not reject good science out of jealousy.

  44. Zoe Phin says:

    The atmosphere is a coolant. Remove it, and the increased T will cause another one to evaporate. Ergo, atmo mass can not cause warming.

    Atmo mass is a reflection of solar + geothermal.

    Please do not deny geothermal based on an irrelevant metric.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

  45. Zoe Phin says:

    Lunathermal =~ 105K
    Geothermal =~ 277K

    Earth’s presence of an atmosphere is not the only variable at play. No, without an atmosphere, the Earth would not be like the moon.

    Neglecting internal energy gives rise to “greenhouse effect” confusion.

  46. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: I think hotter creates more atmospheric pressure.

    Hi Zoe. No. More heat means higher volume. The atmosphere expands when it gets hotter, according to a well known and tested gas law that’s been around a long time.

    Charles’ Law: For a fixed mass of gas at constant pressure, the volume is directly proportional to the kelvin temperature.

    Atmo pressure is an outward force!

    Gravity acts on atmo mass and the highest atmo pressure is therefore at the surface, where the maximum amount of overlying atmo presses down on it. At the outside of the atmosphere, there is no pressure, and nothing to push against.

    Take a planet at 3K, no sun, and 100% nitrogen at the top.

    The nitrogen is solid. There is no atmosphere, but the nitrogen still has mass and exerts pressure inward to core. Now raise the temperature to 200K. The nitrogen becomes gas and an atmosphere forms. The mass is still the same, the inward pressure is still the same.

    So what changed? The outward pressure due to temperature.

    Ah, ok, now I see what you’re getting at. Yes, the throughput of solar energy inflates the atmosphere by raising the amount of KE it contains. However, this is just Charles’law in action again: For a fixed mass of gas at constant pressure, the volume is directly proportional to the kelvin temperature.

    It’s hard to see how “pressure” makes things hotter. It’s hotter that makes outward pressure.

    Stick around, and read through stuff on this site.

  47. Zoe Phin says:

    I don’t see how Charles’ Law is relevant. I think Gay-Lussac’s Law is. Why assume constant pressure?

    Sure, T raises V, but this creates a “vacuum” at the atmo bottom for subocean and subland gases to fill. These gases come out to play. This raises atmo pressure.

    But the 3K cold nitrogen was exerting gravitational pressure. This didn’t warm anything.

    I think there is lack of acknowledgement at the difference between gravitational pressure and atmospheric pressure. They run opposite to each other.

    http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/text/hydrostat.htm

    G pressure can’t cause T increase. T increase will cause A pressure.

    I can not accept the idea that removing the atmosphere will make things colder.

    Please consider my ideas. I think they are better.

    Peace, -Zoe

  48. gbaikie says:

    –Zoe Phin says:
    June 13, 2020 at 8:42 pm
    Lunathermal =~ 105K
    Geothermal =~ 277K

    Earth’s presence of an atmosphere is not the only variable at play. No, without an atmosphere, the Earth would not be like the moon.

    Neglecting internal energy gives rise to “greenhouse effect” confusion.–

    Yes I agree.
    I would say that the internal energy released [Geothermal energy} is major factor in Earth’s warmer climates.
    We are in icehouse climate {Ice Age}.
    Earth’s had time periods of Hothouse climates.
    An Ice Age has cold ocean.
    A Hothouse climate has warm ocean.
    A factor {perhaps major factor} of warm ocean is oceanic warming from Geothermal energy {volcanic activity at ocean floor}
    We of course, currently have a lot volcanic activity at ocean floor.
    But not most Earth has had, nor the least Earth has had.

    But I would say in terms volcanic activity, obviously most occurring on the ocean floor- and always been the case in terms billions of years of Earth’s history.
    Ocean floor is young and active, it’s age is at most 200 million years old.Or some else says:
    “very little ocean floor is older than 125 million years and almost none of it is older than 200 million years.”
    Or 70% of Earth surface is very young.
    Some claim Venus surface is also very young, but Mercury, Mars, and Moon have ancient surfaces.

    I always thought the question is why we so cold. What caused Little Ice Age to be cooler. The cooling effect currently {and during millions of years of our present Ice Age] is little understood.

    So, if your calculate of Geothermal energy happen seem too high, I say there is large factor of cooling to consider. Or we have no idea of why Earth is so cold.

    Europeans wondered why they so warm, An American answered what question years before they asked- The Gulf Stream.

  49. Zoe Phin says:

    At the microscopic scale …

    I don’t see how a DIRECTED compressional force causes an increase in RANDOM motion. I just don’t. It baffles me.

    On the other hand, RANDOM motion will cause an uplifting force that will be tempered by compression force.

    Gravity wants to crush everything to the ground. What prevents it? Temperature creating opposing force.

    T overcomes G – this causes an atmosphere.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Why assume constant pressure?

    We don’t assume it. We measure it all over the world, all the time, and it averages out to a constant 101,325kPa at sea level. The pressure is ~constant, at least on centennial timescales.

    Sure, T raises V, but this creates a “vacuum” at the atmo bottom for subocean and subland gases to fill. These gases come out to play. This raises atmo pressure.

    Outgassing occurs, and molecules are lost from the top of the atmosphere. The annual volumes of these gains and losses are a drop in/out of the bucket of the total atmospheric mass of 5.1480×10^18 kg. T raising V does not create any kind of ‘vacuum’ or low pressure region because Charles Law.

    But the 3K cold nitrogen was exerting gravitational pressure. This didn’t warm anything.

    The mechanisms through which atmospheric pressure raises surface temperature involve the pressure gradient and lapse rate set up by the action of gravitational force on compressible gas. Nitrogen in its solid phase is not compressible.

    I think there is lack of acknowledgement at the difference between gravitational pressure and atmospheric pressure. They run opposite to each other.

    There’s always resistance to novel hypotheses. Welcome to the talkshop. Bring data. 😉

  51. Zoe Phin says:

    gbaikie,
    My theory does not require exotic things like volcanoes, hot springs, hydrothermal vents, etc.

    The gist of my theory is that geothermal delivers a dull and boring average of ~277K. Period. Those other fancy things definitely effect local areas, but their existence is irrelevant to my meta theory.

    I show diagrams from geophysicsts here:
    http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

    You can also deduce geothermal by logic:
    http://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/

  52. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,

    “We don’t assume it. We measure it all over the world, all the time, and it averages out to a constant 101,325kPa at sea level. The pressure is ~constant, at least on centennial timescales.”

    Wait what? We were just discussing the effect of a dynamic thought experiment, and now you switched to an end result.

    “Outgassing occurs, and molecules are lost from the top of the atmosphere. The annual volumes of these gains and losses are a drop in/out of the bucket of the total atmospheric mass of 5.1480×10^18 kg. T raising V does not create any kind of ‘vacuum’ or low pressure region because Charles Law.”

    Wait what? We were just discussing the effect of a dynamic thought experiment, and now you switched to an end result.

    “The mechanisms through which atmospheric pressure raises surface temperature involve the pressure gradient and lapse rate set up by the action of gravitational force on compressible gas.”

    No such thing occurs. The lapse rate goes from HOT to COLD. Solar plus Geothermal set the surface T, and gravity plus heat capacity sets the gradient of heat diffusion. Hot to Cold! Lapse rate doesn’t prove N&Z pressure theory.

    “There’s always resistance to novel hypotheses.”

    I know. My hypothesis is more novel and better.

    “Bring data.”

    Data can be flipped upside down and misinterpreted. Data can be fit into an incorrect meta story.

    I feel that’s what’s happening with this pressure theory. I don’t see how directed gravitational force causes an increase in RANDOM motion (temperature).

  53. gbaikie says:

    I commonly say, Land cools and Ocean warms.
    But kind of new thought occurred is vast volcanic activity on land is large cooling effect. Vast volcanic activity in Ocean is very large warming effect.
    Or I wasn’t previously thinking of Land cools and Ocean warms in regards volcanic activity.

  54. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    P. S.: The global avg pressure is not 101325 Pa.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/02/05/pressure-change-and-real-standard-pressure/

    Maybe my data is wrong, but 101325 is still some sort of outdated 1940s convention. The chances of it being true are slim.

  55. gbaikie says:

    –gbaikie,
    My theory does not require exotic things like volcanoes, hot springs, hydrothermal vents, etc.

    The gist of my theory is that geothermal delivers a dull and boring average of ~277K. Period. Those other fancy things definitely effect local areas, but their existence is irrelevant to my meta theory.–

    277 K is 3.85 C. Which as said above might seems like a lot.
    Very impressive when consider average temperature of our cold ocean is 3.5 C.
    But it is cold ocean.
    And btw, one good reason I don’t believe in fairy tale of SnowBall Earth.
    We in one coldest period of Earth long history.
    I might believe in SnowBall Earth despite the lack of evidence of it, if one can explain how Earth could cool more than it’s cooling.
    Snowball Earth has two things against, geothermal heat of Earth, and massive warming effect of Sunlight upon the tropical ocean.

    What missing is massive amount cooling, not the insignificant warming of trace gases.

  56. Zoe Phin says:

    Snowball earth is just a product of geothermal denial.

    There’s massive cooling vertically away from the surface, as shown by lapse rate.

    3.85C does seem small. But add the sun, and account for non-temperature-raising latent + sensible heat and you get ~15C.

    19th century physicists never saw a borehole temperature profile. They can be forgiven. But we’re in the 21st century now …

    So there is no need to uphold Fourier or Loschmidt.

    Geothermal denial is the biggest scandal in climate “science”.

  57. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Wait what? We were just discussing the effect of a dynamic thought experiment, and now you switched to an end result.

    Hypotheses have to be measured up against empirical observation. It’s our touchstone to reality. Your hypothesis says atmospheric pressure changes. Empirical measurement and observation says not.

    No such thing occurs. The lapse rate goes from HOT to COLD.

    The lapse rate goes both ways. Ascending air parcels (solar driven convection) expand and cool. The air they displace downwards compresses and increases in temperature. Back down at the surface this adiabatically heated air impedes the conduction of heat from the surface to the air. It lowers the rate of conduction. Potential builds behind the impedance, and the temperature must rise until the surface is able to overcome the impedance, and lose as much energy as it gains (whether from Geothermal or Sun).

    Data can be flipped upside down and misinterpreted. Data can be fit into an incorrect meta story.

    True. Bring reasoned argument and logic too.

    I don’t see how directed gravitational force causes an increase in RANDOM motion (temperature).

    Well stick around and keep thinking. No-one said it was simple.

  58. gbaikie says:

    Let put it this way, the model of Ideal thermally conductive blackbody in a vacuum at Earth distance
    gives a UNIFORM temperature of 5 C. This “Ideal thermally conductive blackbody in a vacuum” is a passive refrigerator. It turns surface in sunlight from about 120 C to 5 C. But it’s model any model is missing a lot. But if want something cold {and invisible to visible light that is model of the super high tech device which does that}.
    What it mean to add 3.85 C to that. You almost doubling the amount amount cooling that this magical machine can do.
    My view is the best proxy for Earth’s average surface temperature is average temperature of it’s ocean, which is 3.5 {not the average surface air temperature- which is the warmer air of the atmospheric density gradient- and warmest part of ocean {the surface, which has average ocean average temperature of 17 C {{tropical ocean surface average 26 C and 60% of rest of ocean is about 11 C. And Land average surface air temperature is about 10 C, giving global average surface air of 15 C}}.
    Also consider the average ocean temperature rather being 3.5 C has been about 20 C during warmer hothouse global climates.

    One might be tempted, to imagine CO2 is the magical cooling agent. I don’t think so- despite religious believers of Greenhouse Effect Theory claiming there VAST amount cooling in upper atmospheric air which they claim is a warming effect. {Which might turn us into a planet like Venus}

  59. Zoe Phin says:

    “Back down at the surface this adiabatically heated air impedes the conduction of heat from the surface to the air. It lowers the rate of conduction. Potential builds behind the impedance, and the temperature must rise until the surface is able to overcome the impedance”

    Uhuh, backconduction! Nice.

    So placing an egg on a frying pan must warm the frying pan then? Backconduction!

    “whether from Geothermal or Sun”

    Well if Geo + Solar is what actually sets surface T, there is nothing for atmo mass to increase.

    No, sorry, Lapse Rate doesn’t work both ways.

    ” Hypotheses have to be measured up against empirical observation. It’s our touchstone to reality. Your hypothesis says atmospheric pressure changes. Empirical measurement and observation says not.”

    No, my hypothesis starts off with a 3K planet with no sun. Then we raise geothermal such surface T is 200K. The nitrogen becomes gas and an atmosphete at ~constant surface pressure is formed. It wasn’t the atmosphere that made it 200K, but geothermal. Your theory is that the result was the cause, and my theory says that the cause was the cause.

    Without the geothermal 200K, even lifting the nitrogen by the hand of god will just cause it all to fall down – creating a one time quickly dissipated heat up.

    If you don’t like the solid nitrogen experiment, start off at geothermal 200K and raise geothermal to 300K. The increased atmospheric mass did not cause the warm up.

    I think N&Z pressure theory and GHE are both forms of upside down science and geothermal DENIAL.

    The word “Lapse” literally only works one way, and secondly, real thermodynamics only works one way.

  60. tallbloke says:

    Well, OK, whenever you’re ready to show us where this big geothermal flux exists, apart from as a fitted parameter in your code.

  61. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,

    “Their values are emission from surface, not input to it.”

    Indeed.

    EMERGENT Geothermal Flux + Net Solar Flux = Ourgoing IR + Latent Heat + Sensible Heat

    I got the sign right.

    The famous “geothermal heat flux”, is the conductive heat flux, an irrelevant measure.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

    What is relevant is the emergent flux.

  62. Zoe Phin says:

    “fitted parameter”

    GHE is a fitted parameter.
    N&Z pressure theory is a fitted parameter.

    All of these try to fill a gap, but only my gap filler makes thermodynamic sense.

    The Earth is an infrared star 🙂

  63. tallbloke says:

    This must have confused me, my bad.

    ADD is just the radiative component of geothermal. Let’s add Sensible and Latent Heat from NASA’s “official” energy budget [2008]:

    227.66 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 332.46 W/m²

    So what is the “emergent flux” ? Do you have any proposal for how it might be physically measured?

  64. tallbloke says:

    Zoe, sorry to bombard you with questions, but if all that energy is getting through the crust from below, why is the ocean coldest at the seabed?

  65. gbaikie says:

    What practical regarding this.
    I would what can to change Mars {or Venus] or live anywhere in this Universe.
    So some might look at Mars and say it’s too cold.
    And I would it lacks atmosphere is make it cold.
    If think geothermal heat warms our presently cold planet {which colder than Mars and gets less usable sunlight then Earth- of course there nice warm tropical areas on Earth but 60% of it {or most of it] is colder than Mars}. Mars average air temperature is about -60 C which seems much colder.
    Mars doesn’t have a cold problem like we have cold problem on Earth. Mars has pressure problem for humans. So to solve Mars pressure problem I would add water.
    But I think adding water also increases in global average temperature. Or increases it’s tropical average temperature, if added enough water in Mars tropics.
    What about Venus. Nothing wrong about Venus if want live in the sky. But Venus has similar problem
    as Earth, high gravity. If want Earth gravity, other than making L-5 colonies with artificial gravity, it’s only Earth like option. Currently Venus has a lot useful acid in atmosphere. If don’t want it, and wanted Venus to be more Earth like, you just add a lot water to Venus. Acid falls out sky and Venus cools. How about Mercury? Mercury has somewhat large regions in polar region- surface is cold and one has vast amount solar energy, you use. It’s perfect. But it’s in bad orbit to get to from Earth- orbital inclination is different than Earth and most other planets, though to get to. But easy to leave from, best place to go to Jupiter or Mars. Orbitally, it’s shorter distance from Mercury to Mars, than from Earth to Mars and far faster to Jupiter. Other than 1/3 gravity might bad effect upon human biology, Mars and Mercury are habitable for the technological human.
    So Mars not cold because need pressure suit or vacuum kills you, and in pressure suit you need cooling rather warming {as in case anywhere where vacuum like condition exist].
    Now I don’t you have cover water on mars in something like pressure suit- or greenhouse.
    But to make simpler, going to cover the water with a low pressure transparent “greenhouse” [which structurally speaking is not much difference than Moon or Mars, as Mars has very pressure- or because Mars has wind, one might to make stronger than need in vacuum.
    So at Mars equator, got lake covered by low pressure greenhouse.
    What temperature is the water?
    Clue it has nothing to to with radiant effect of “greenhouse gases”. It’s sunlight heating the water.
    Can’t figure out, means can’t have chance with Earth’s climate.
    {there no geothermal heating, there no pressure to speak of, sunlight averages 600 watts at noon- also the ground on mars can [naturally} warm to about 20 C around noon. Another thing, one can imagine one trying make warmer. And warm body on Earth is solar pond, which reach temperature of 80 C- though take weeks to get to this temperature, but than stays at that temperature days and nights. Garden hoses in sunlight make hot water. a gallon milk container in sunlight get pretty warm, Black garbage bags with water get hot water in sunlight. Main thing stopping water from evaporating- which greenhouse does. If put some thin coating which emits less radiation, go for it. But you don’t double panes because atmosphere is near vacuum- a thin sheet of plastic will insulate better than double pane on Earth does.

  66. gbaikie says:

    “The Earth is an infrared star”
    I am not arguing that geothermal heat warming the ocean is not significant factor in global air temperature. The geothermal heat warms the ocean. And warmer ocean is important.
    The crazy cargo cult of greenhouse effect theory also think the warmth of ocean is important.
    They make the wild claim that 90% all “greenhouse effect warming” warms the ocean depths.

    But I will mention that water conducts heat very poorly- or transfer heat by convection and/or conduction to substances other than the itself water. Or solar pond prevents convection rising of warmer water, by having warmer denser water remain below a salt gradient which stops convection heat transfer and only allows heat to conduct thru water {which it does very poorly}.
    And actually this part of why I think geothermal heat warms the ocean. Of when have volcanic eruption under water, the hot water rises quickly, but also cooling rapidly- it does rise far and mixes to near uniform surrounding water. Or both volcanic black smokers or average ocean non volcanic sea floor heat is “trapped” under the depths ocean.

    Another thing I will mention because say not counting underwater volcanic eruption, I think people measuring this heat are including underwater volcanic eruption heat as part of the average heat flux.
    So it excluding volcanic heat, what portion of flux from volcanic as what heat flux from non volcanic heat flux. I also as recall I think there chemical processes heating the muck on ocean floor- or not a geothermal heat source, or it’s both or muck might even be robbing heat from Geothermal heat source.
    But main way I look at is time, it takes a long time from heat from floor to reach the surface, how quickly do think heat gets to surface. Or if had intense heat source, warm water rising quickly, it cooled, and runs into water warm nearer to surface, and stops rising.

    Or terms infrared star, I will pick Io, wiki: “This heat is released in the form of volcanic activity, generating its observed high heat flow (global total: 0.6 to 1.6×10^14 W)”
    I think Earth does more, but Io is smaller {and colder}.

  67. Zoe Phin says:

    ‘So what is the “emergent flux” ?’

    It’s whatever is needed to fill the gap. We already measured it. Unfortunately, it’s called “backradiation from GHGs”. You see, they just flipped geothermal upside down. Kind of.

    You can read more here:
    http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

    “why is the ocean coldest at the seabed”

    Because the sun doesn’t go down that far. Warm water stays on top due to gravity density sorting.

    Any hotter water emerging from hydrothermal vents convects up.

  68. Zoe Phin says:

    gbaikie,
    Water doesn’t conduct heat poorly. The idea that it does comes from the small conductive heat flux. But the conductive heat flux is a completely different type of measure that can’t be compared to radiative flux.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/

  69. gbaikie says:

    –tallbloke says:
    June 14, 2020 at 12:43 am
    Zoe, sorry to bombard you with questions, but if all that energy is getting through the crust from below, why is the ocean coldest at the seabed?–

    Because of one of Earth cooling mechanism, cold surface water falls.
    With freshwater lakes the densest water is around 4 C, if water below is
    4 C, surface water can’t fall and then surface water can freeze.
    Saltwater is different, ie, wiki:
    “Surface water is enriched in salt from sea ice formation. Due to its increased density, it flows down the Antarctic continental margin and continues north along the bottom. It is the densest water in the free ocean” And:
    “The Antarctic bottom water (AABW) is a type of water mass in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica with temperatures ranging from −0.8 to 2 °C (35 °F), salinities from 34.6 to 34.7 psu. Being the densest water mass of the oceans, AABW is found to occupy the depth range below 4000 m of all ocean basins that have a connection to the Southern Ocean at that level.”

    It might coldest [and some of this Antarctic water can as cold -2 C] but also lots cold water comes from Arctic.
    Oh, google: how ocean is below 4000 meter, changed it, but:
    “185 million square km” and 5000 meters: “72 million square km” and below 6000 meter: 5.4 million square km.
    How big is europe? Australia is 4.4 million square km. Doesn’t seem to be one near 5.4 million km
    So more ocean 4000 meter lower than total land area of Earth {which is 148 million square km}

  70. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Water doesn’t conduct heat poorly. The idea that it does comes from the small conductive heat flux. But the conductive heat flux is a completely different type of measure that can’t be compared to radiative flux.

    Material Thermal conductivity [W·m−1·K−1] Notes
    Boron arsenide 1,300[8]
    Diamond 1,000[4]-2200
    Copper (pure) 401[4][9][10] For main article, see Copper in heat exchangers.
    Aluminium 237[6]
    Alumina 30[7] For main article, see Aluminum oxide.
    Manganese 7.810[4] Lowest thermal conductivity of any pure metal.
    Marble 2.070–2.940[4][13]
    Water 0.5918[12]
    Teflon 0.250[4]
    Acrylic glass (Plexiglas V045i) 0.170[2]–0.200[3]
    Snow (dry) 0.050[4]–0.250[4]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities

    It would be lovely if Zoe were right and a third of a kilowatt of heat was oozing out of the ground everywhere. I wouldn’t need to lug an insulated mattress about in my rucksack. When I got home in winter, I wouldn’t need to switch the heating on either.

  71. tallbloke says:

    Experimental update:
    It’s a lovely day here at tallbloke towers and the ambient air temperature inside my living room is nice steady 19.9C. Water temp in the beaker is 19.3C and the remaining quantity of water after 25 hours is 22ml of the 25ml we began with.

    Early days, but it looks like Dr Roy Spencer’s claim that “the higher the atmospheric pressure, the greater (not lesser) the potential evaporation at the surface. This follows from the bulk aerodynamic formula of evaporation from a water surface.” is being falsified.

    I’m now putting the beaker containing the remaining water outside in the sun and breeze and higher ambient air temp to see what difference in rate of evaporation we get. Air temp currently 27.5C and water temp has risen to 25.3C. There is a mixture of full sun and passing clouds.

  72. Zoe Phin says:

    Surely Roger agrees that water’s “poor” conduction ability means it will retain heat longer. Isn’t that the important thing in this discussion?

  73. Zoe Phin says:

    “It would be lovely if Zoe were right and a third of a kilowatt of heat was oozing out of the ground everywhere. I wouldn’t need to lug an insulated mattress about in my rucksack. When I got home in winter, I wouldn’t need to switch the heating on either.”

    Does Roger not understand that a third of a kilowatt of heating oozing out from atmospheric backradiation or backconduction is even more absurd?

    Has Roger not seen my geotherm diagrams from geophysicists? Does Roger not understand that when they claim that geothermal makes the surface 0C, that this energy is not “nothing”?

    I can’t believe how many smart people are dismissing my ideas for backradiation or backconduction nonsense.

    Roger, you’re feet are standing on a hot plate. 0C is not 0K! Don’t deny the hot plate!

  74. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    You can look at how much geothermal you’re getting at your LATITUDE here:

    http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

    Assuming you’re British? and around London, you will receive an equivalent of ~268 W/m^2.

  75. tallbloke says:

    Surely Roger agrees that water’s “poor” conduction ability means it will retain heat longer. Isn’t that the important thing in this discussion?

    Well you need to wrap some context around the observation. The ocean’s thermal inertia isn’t so simple. Not only is water a poor conductor (and opaque to IR), but it also has a high heat capacity. The top two metres of the ocean contains as much energy as the entire 8 miles of atmosphere above it.

    But rather than consider how long it retains heat, the more important consideration is how it becomes equilibriated with the other components in the climate system; the seabed, the air, the incoming solar energy. This is because, in a dynamic system with flows of energy in and out, the key question is the cause of the impedances of the energy flows at the interfaces between the disparate layers.

    The ocean bottom has to equilibriate with the energy coming from the seabed, and it’s surface has to equilibriate with the air. To dod that, it has to acquire or dissipate energy until it’s surface is at the temperature required to enable it to lose energy into the air at the rate it gains it from the Sun and seabed.

  76. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Has Roger not seen my geotherm diagrams from geophysicists?

    No. Have you linked them for me?

  77. skeptikal says:

    Zoe Phin says…. “I can’t believe how many smart people are dismissing my ideas for backradiation or backconduction nonsense.”

    Well Zoe, I can’t believe that you still think you’re smarter than all those smart people.

  78. Zoe Phin says:

    “The top two metres of the ocean contains as much energy as the entire 8 miles of atmosphere above it.”

    Indeed! It’s really easy for geothermal and solar to warm the atmosphere!

    “This is because, in a dynamic system with flows of energy in and out, the key question is the cause of the impedances of the energy flows at the interfaces between the disparate layers.”

    Please don’t tell me you buy into conservation of “energy flow” rather than energy. There is no warm up due to impedence. Such a thing is a violation of entropy law.

    “it has to acquire or dissipate energy until it’s surface is at the temperature required to enable it to lose energy into the air at the rate it gains it from the Sun and seabed.”

    No! Temperature is measure of average translational energy in a SPOT. It is not a product of some type of energy flow in and energy flow out. Temperatue is just measure of average translational energy in a SPOT.

    Conservation of energy flow, a derivative of energy, is NOT physics.

    Please explain this:
    https://photos-eu.bazaarvoice.com/photo/2/cGhvdG86ZmxpcnN5c3RlbXM/2ec38f12-af93-5f46-9f55-bca22f504f3e

    As you can see the top and bottom temperature of water is the same, ergo conductive heat flux is ZERO W/m^2. Is 0 W/m^2 what emerges from the top?

    “No. Have you linked them for me?”
    I’ve linked half a dozen links to my blog, where you can see diagrams the proper physics.

    Sigh. I’ve studied the N&Z position carefully before I disagreed with it. Is it asking too much that others investigate my ideas carefully before they dismiss them?

    I mean no disrespect, Roger. I appreciate your comments.

  79. tallbloke says:

    Zoe, investigators are welcome here. We try to help each other understand each others ideas, and in doing that, we find better ways to express our concepts with more precision, less confusion and greater clarity.

    My original training was in engineering, where heat flows and impedances are measured and necessary input parameters are calculated as a matter of course in the design process. It may not be physics, but it helps you get the right answer.

    In the case of geothermal heat flux, we need to pay attention to Fourier:

    Heat flux is governed by Fourier’s law, which states that the flow of heat (Q) depends directly on the thermal conductivity (k, in units of watts per meter kelvin, or W/m·K) of the material and the geothermal gradient (∆T/∆x or ∇T). This gives us the equation Q = k ×∇T.

    This is why I linked the wikipedia page on thermal conductivity earlier.

    Please don’t tell me you buy into conservation of “energy flow” rather than energy. There is no warm up due to impedence. Such a thing is a violation of entropy law.

    It’s not conservation of anything, it’s dynamic equilibriation in a multi-layer system with energy circulating through it. If I make a glass and plexiglass sandwich with a mirror on one side and a light source on the other, both these materials are going to reach different temperatures depending on their thermal conductivities, emissivities, surface roughnesses and so on. If I swap them over so the other is now facing the light source, both the temperatures will change again.

  80. Here’s a paper in GRL 2016 confirming even from climate models (where CO2 warming is hardwired in) that gravitational pressure does warm the atmosphere:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071279

  81. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    You didn’t explain the photo I linked. You’re talking down to me by going on an irrelevant tangent. Not cool.

    Hatter,
    No that is not evidence of atmo mass raising temperature. That is evidence of raised temperature creating additional atmo mass.

    They got causality reversed.

  82. tallbloke says:

    Experimental update: After a further 5 hours in mostly sunshine, with light breezes as clouds passed over, the water temperature varied between around 24 and a hard maximum of 29.8C (more about this another time) and another 2ml of water was evaporated, equalling the evaporative loss of the previous 25 hours.

  83. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Did you read and digest the paper Hatter linked in 8 minutes, or have you studied it before?

  84. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: You didn’t explain the photo I linked. You’re talking down to me by going on an irrelevant tangent. Not cool.

    I know nothing about the photo you linked. The first question I’d ask is how badly overexposed are the hot parts of the image?

    What you and I think is relevant is likely to differ. Lovely getting to know you though.

  85. gbaikie says:

    So we being talking about idea of Pressure and Geothermal energy having major effect Earth’s temperature. Both are not even considered a factor in regards to Greenhouse effect. As Wiki indicate
    a model indicates a spherical body at 1 AU from the sun if it wasn’t reflective and could distribute the incoming Sun’s energy uniformly, the body would have uniform temperature of about 5 C, though one say both pressure and geothermal energy are aspect which cause uniformity of temperature. Wiki specifically says:
    “However, because Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C (0 °F”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
    A blackbody reflecting 30% of it’s sunlight is foolish.
    But if imagine a black body getting less sunlight, so instead of absorbing 340 watts it absorbs
    240 and then emits 240 watts rather than 340 watts, then with this model you still get a uniform global temperature.
    What I want to focus on, is that Earth doesn’t have uniform temperature.
    And could say all idea greenhouse, pressure, Geothermal are suggesting uniformity of global temperature that does not exist.
    Well doesn’t exist in terms surface air temperature which is average to be about 15 C.
    The obvious thing about 15 C air temperature is that, it’s a cold air temperature. If Earth had uniform temperature of 15 C, Earth would be cold place to live.
    Speaking as tropical creature a 15 C uniform world be a cold hell. But it’s worst than 15 C world, in sense most world much colder than 15 C, but one can thankful that an air temperature at 15 C is rather uncommon. Where I live has average of about 15 C, but air temperature doesn’t remain around 15 C. One could say the varying temperatures and that we are technological creatures makes it “non hellish”. a dare I say, nice. But said we don’t this uniform temperature of 15 C.
    There is the tropical zone and it has fairly uniform average surface air temperature of around +20 C.
    India largely near tropics has yearly average surface air temperature of about 24 C. And US is about 12 C, and in terms average air of entire nation, it’s much warmer than northern neighbor, Canada which average is around -4 C and Russia likewise is frozen in terms of average temperature. Or thinking of Canada or Russia as frozen wasteland only applies if thinking in terms of whole land area’s average yearly temperature. It can much colder and much warmer. One has wide swings in temperature outside the tropics, and tropics commonly has more uniform temperature , or generally stays near “room temperature”. Or where people set their thermostat’s temperature is tropical temperatures. Few people set their temperature at 9 C which about average temperature of Europe and China.
    One think of climate temperature as class grades, 40% of class is called tropics- they are very “good” students, 60% class “the rest of 60% of world” as “bad students” and 15 C is the passing grade of class {the class public school and are poorly taught}. One say tropic might cheating and getting A and 60% of class is on drugs.
    Another important aspect is the ocean is far more uniform than the land.
    The average surface temperature of all oceans is about 17 C and average land temperature are about 10 C AND land temperature have much warmer daytime temperature. Land extremes of HOT and FROZEN, and Ocean surface doesn’t change much. Or closer to the beach seems nicer, and humans tend to try to do this.
    Anyhow the biggest chunk of real estate on Earth is the tropical ocean. If you want to talk about north or south and be separating ocean and land. As in Tropical, Temperate, and Polar zones or whatever.
    And average tropical ocean surface temperature is about 26 C and rest of Ocean is about 11 C.
    And if talking uniformity 26 and 11 is our world. And 26 drags the up the class average score making some people the might be warm as 15 C.
    If Earth is warmer it does have a more uniform temperature, but we are living in Ice Age.
    And one could say, Greenhouse Effect theory and Pressure, and Geothermal are not allowing for this simple fact.

  86. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,

    “how badly overexposed are the hot parts of the image?”

    Naturally that would be the first place you go to. It “must” be saturated, it couldn’t be Zoe being right about achieving thermal equilbrium at high temperature and therefore the max temp in the photo would all be the same color, right?

    FYI, A cheap FLIR camera has a range of 1200C, an expensive one even more. There is no saturation here. The hi-lo range does not exceed 1200C. It doesn’t even exceed 400C. Probably even less.

    The color scheme automatically adjusts to the range, with a ~10% frame around it.

    Try again.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Gbaikie: And could say all idea greenhouse, pressure, Geothermal are suggesting uniformity of global temperature that does not exist.

    Ned’s pressure-insolation theory predicts the meridional temperature gradient very accurately, both under glacial and interglacial conditions.

  88. Zoe Phin says:

    “Did you read and digest the paper Hatter linked in 8 minutes”

    Yes. 8 minutes is all it took to realize that they reversed causality.

    Everybody knows the Earth was hotter long ago. Being hotter it would naturally have more atmospheric mass. Hotness can support more atmo mass.

    But some people for some reason thinks it is atmospheric mass that made it hot.

    Uhuh, Analogy: the steam caused by boiled water is what actually raised the temperature to boil the water.

    Do you know how silly that sounds?

    Roger, you’re standing on a hot plate of 0C:

    Do you believe this 0C is an illusion?

  89. tallbloke says:

    Zoe, fabulous bit of kit. What are the next colours after white? Say, for 500C, 700C 900C and 1100C?

  90. oldbrew says:

    If water vapour from evaporation is caused by warming, isn’t that the end of the idea that water vapour causes warming?

  91. Zoe Phin says:

    gbaikie,
    Geothermal is not uniform throughout, nor should it be. The Earth rotates!

    What happens when you have a hot liquid rotating in a solid spheroid? Where are the walls more eaten up? The equator or the poles? Yes, the equator.

    The geotherm is more oblate than our solid surfacen. This means that there is a greater distance to, for example, a 100C geotherm at the poles than the equator. Naturally, this distance (filled with mass) ensures that the poles will get less geothermal than the equator.

    You can find geophysics papers saying that indeed the geotherm is MORE OBLATE. I’m too busy now to find them.

    The geothermal delivery of ~0C is a global average! Not a uniform thing all over, but just an average.

  92. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Do you believe this 0C is an illusion?

    I believe 0C to be the approximate temperature of the seabed surface (and ocean bottom waters). I also noticed a couple of other diagrams with the geotherm on which terminated at around 15C, which is the approximate global average 2m temperature of the air at sea level.

  93. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    “Zoe, fabulous bit of kit. What are the next colours after white? Say, for 500C, 700C 900C and 1100C?”

    I don’t understand British slang. But as I’ve said and you didn’t listen …

    “The color scheme automatically adjusts to the [hi-lo] range, with a ~10% frame around it.”

    P.S. I see you’re not even attempting to model this experiment using your type of “physics”, because you know it predicts a weird parabolic steep gradient that just isn’t there.

    I already mentally modeled what type of photo result your type of physics predicts. It’s quite laughable.

    P.S.S. I don’t mean “your physics” in a derogatory way.

  94. tallbloke says:

    Slow down Zoe. You haven’t even told me what’s in the pot yet, or what kind of heat source is under it. Or what kind of lid is on it.

  95. gbaikie says:

    Now said “I want to focus on, is that Earth doesn’t have uniform temperature”
    But it does have uniform temperature in regards to underground areas and the entire ocean.
    And would say, these are the uniform temperature one should look at.

    Since Roy is mentioned. Roy said something like started model cold and couldn’t get it warmer without greenhouse gases “greenhouse effect”. Really, roughly paraphrasing, here.

    And I thought, of course not. I think wanted to ask, did start with ocean with higher temperature,
    5 C. So have entire ocean have a uniform temperature of 5 C.
    Or if not even considering the ocean, you can’t make it work.
    A 5 C uniform ocean temperature will control global temperature.
    And kind of interesting point to start because our Ice Age doesn’t seem to get ocean with higher
    temperature of about 5 C- currently it’s 3.5 C.
    But if start at uniform 5 C ocean and uniform land of 0 C, the land will warm up.
    If start with ocean of 0 C uniformity- first it’s colder than Earth has ever been. And second it’s going to take tens of thousands of years to warm up. And going to start with topical ocean mostly warming up and while that’s happening the rest of world gets even colder- ALOT colder.
    And if think world is all land, it also gets ALOT colder. Though tropical land will warm up very quickly from 0 C- but with global surface air at 0 C, even tropical land going to battle to keep warm.***
    Oh should change 0 C to .05 C, so you know that not talking ice.
    Though super chilled water can be as cold as -40 C- and also saltwater can liquid below 0 C

    *** We currently get 1050 watts per square meter of direct sunlight and 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight when Sun at zenith and clear skies. If have global surface air at 0 C, do you think effects and if so how much does it the sunlight?
    I would think at least direct sunlight becomes +1100 watts per square meter.
    With ocean doesn’t matter in terms of direct and indirect sunlight, but land ground surface should warm more with a higher amount of direct sunlight.

  96. Zoe Phin says:

    “I believe 0C to be the approximate temperature …”

    Do you believe this temperature comes from the bottom (geothermal)? or from the top?

    Well, if there’s 0C worth of kinetic energy from geothermal, do we need your backconduction theory or GHE theory? No. Add the sun to this 0C (4C really) and you explain surface T and latent plus sensible heat. It’s really simple. So simple, one has to be educated against seeing the obvious.

    “terminated at around 15C”
    There’s a latitude dependancy. I already explained why to gbaikie.

    The convention is that 0C is a global average. My work shows it to be about 4C. It’s not easy figuring it out. But that doesn’t mean it’s not geothermal.

  97. Zoe Phin says:

    “Slow down Zoe. You haven’t even told me what’s in the pot yet, or what kind of heat source is under it. Or what kind of lid is on it.”

    Sure, get lost in the details, when your type of physics doesn’t come close in any type of case. Your physics predicts a STEEP gradient.

    I’m sure you agree this demand for details is a purposeful distraction, no? I get it all the time.

  98. tallbloke says:

    You haven’t even told me whether the contents of the pot are at a gentle simmer, or boiling furiously. That you don’t think these details matter tells me how much you know about emissivity, specific heat capacity, latent heat and other matters thermodynamic.

    Either specify your experimental conditions, or stop wasting my time.

  99. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    Your physics predicts a steep gradient regardless of your demands. You could model it with any parameters you want, and see that that would be the case. You will not get same temperature at the top and bottom, because you believe in the theory of conservation of heat flow.

    Now of course you could model this experiment with the right physics and get the right results. But that will only bolster my point.

    Do you agree that the photo shows a conductive heat flux (CHF) of ~0 W/m^2 through the soup?

    Do you agree that the emergent flux (EF) is not ~0 W/m^2?

    Would you expect EF = CHF? such a thing would yield a steep gradient, you agree?

  100. gbaikie says:

    *-Zoe Phin says:
    June 14, 2020 at 10:32 pm
    gbaikie,
    Geothermal is not uniform throughout, nor should it be. The Earth rotates!–

    But with ideal thermally conductive blackbody model it doesn’t matter how fast body
    rotates. Earth’s rotation speed, and it’s axis tilt are factors which in real world increase
    the uniformity of temperatures- or said differently, increases global average temperature.

    Or as I said, the idiot committee that, let’s say… assemble their ideas to write the Greenhouse
    Effect “theory” left out why we have glacial and interglacial periods.
    Or left out, Milankovitch cycles, wiki:
    “”Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements on its climate over thousands of years. The term is named for Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.”

    Though to be fair in this regard to these idiots, I don’t think anyone got the Milankovitch cycles figured out,yet
    Everyone knows glacial periods are commonly much longer than interglacial periods and it’s somehow related to the Milankovitch cycles.
    But everyone seems on board with idea, but it just leave issue how exactly does it work.

    And when committee trying to write propaganda, you leave the confusing parts- you want a clear message- even it’s completely bonker crazy. Or propaganda generally tends to works best if gibberish- which all committees are always top-notch at doing.

    I think Milankovitch cycles are all about the ocean. But I think climate, is also, all about the ocean.

  101. tallbloke says:

    Zoe, am I by any chance looking at an IR image of a metal pot with a glass lid sat on a glass plate covering an induction hob? I assure you I won’t be playing guessing games much longer before I lose patience.

  102. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    No, you’re looking at tall pot set on top of a commerical hibachi grill, similar to this hibachi grill:

    The hibachi grill cooked what looks like soup.

    What’s your next distraction?

  103. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    I also have two youtube videos at the end of this article:

    http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

  104. tallbloke says:

    Oh I see. It’s not your pot, so you don’t know if it’s copper-bottomed, you didn’t set up the camera or take the photo. You have no idea whether or how the image has been post processed, and have no idea what flavour the soup is.

    Good night Zoe.

  105. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    You got me. I asked some obscure marketing company to post process the image in my favor. I didn’t just type search terms into google images.

    I have to say that is not as a creative an answer as another highly famous skeptic put it:

    “Zoe, later on, a steep gradient is formed exactly as thermodynamics would suggest”.

    My response: ”
    Right! No empirical evidence can disprove you because ‘later on’ it all works out in your favor. Yup, when no one is looking … it goes your way.”

    Do you at least agree that m^2 in conductive heat flux is not in the same plain as emergent flux?

  106. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    Did you even look at the last image?

    I would guess the top here is getting to the same temperature as the bottom (see that fire below?)

    Your type of physics predicts a steep gradient. Top should be bluish-red, or maybe red, definitely not similar colors as the bottom.

    There must be a conspiracy of post-image processing! Sorry couldn’t help myself.

    Please do read my blog because there’s a new competitor in town, and she’s not going away quitely. Not until geothermal hot plate stops being denied by AGW climate cranks and skeptics.

    Best regards,
    -Zoe

  107. tallbloke says:

    Zoe, please, pretty please, go and read some thermodynamics texts. You’re a great programmer, but there’s more to learn;

    Surface Material Emissivity Coefficient – ε –
    Copper Polished 0.023 – 0.052
    Copper Nickel Alloy, polished 0.059
    Glass smooth 0.92 – 0.94
    Glass, pyrex 0.85 – 0.95

    skeptikal says:
    June 14, 2020 at 8:12 pm

    Easy, tiger.

  108. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    You have so much to learn, for example:
    2 + 2 = 4

    Do you enjoy that kind of treatment? Please don’t do it to me. Listing emissivities does not prove conservation of heat flow or backconduction heating.

    No, I’m not a great “programmer”. I’m an award-winning financial analyst that can program. I also got a 7 out of 7 on Physics IB exam, and aced 3 physics and 2 astronomy courses. Pretending I don’t understand emissivity is a great insult to me.

  109. tallbloke says:

    Well in that case Zoe, along with this additional piece of information, you’ll have no problem explaining why the coppered bottom inch of the pot appears in the IR photograph to be hotter than the cast iron heat source beneath it.

    Surface Material Emissivity Coefficient

    Cast Iron, turned and heated 0.60 – 0.70

    And since we’re trying to do science with some random photo you found on the net, you’ll appreciate that since we don’t know what the lid of the pot is made from, neither of us can deduce anything about the energy flows within.

    Good night. Again.

  110. Zoe Phin says:

    oldbrew,
    Exactly!
    It’s so simple. One has to be trained NOT to see it.

  111. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    If the emissivity is lower, the color makes it seem colder. But in reality it’s just the same temperature. Do you remember what you must prove or disprove?

    You’re distracting from the reality of conservation of energy versus “your” theory of conservation of energy flow.

    You’re still on the particulars of the first photo, while I provided another. Would you like a third? A fourth?

  112. Zoe Phin says:

    skeptikal,

    “Well Zoe, I can’t believe that you still think you’re smarter than all those smart people”

    I can’t believe you don’t realize that smart people contradict each other. Roger thinks backradiation is stupid, and his critics think backconduction/pressure theorynis stupid.

    They both can’t be right. In fact none of them are right. Both deny the kinetic energy brought by geothermal (~277K). Both seek to displace the real cause (geothermal) with wacky thermodynamics denying propositions. Their physics is so screwed up, their screw up became their physics.

    I see it, and so will others.

  113. gbaikie says:

    –Zoe Phin says:
    June 15, 2020 at 1:47 am
    skeptikal,

    “Well Zoe, I can’t believe that you still think you’re smarter than all those smart people”

    I can’t believe you don’t realize that smart people contradict each other. Roger thinks backradiation is stupid, and his critics think backconduction/pressure theorynis stupid.

    They both can’t be right…–

    Yes, everyone is most certainly wrong.
    And, there is very slight chance, we are in simulation.
    Or all this sciency effort thing is wrong.
    The entire premise is wrong.

    But I much prefer the idea of this not being sim- even an
    unknown/very weird type of sim.
    Sim or God has unknowable aspect to it.
    And think atheist who hates God {can’t hate what isn’t] can have a point.
    Particularly if one really hate any kind totalitarian regime.
    {{the honorable deceased, Hitchens}}

    One thing about the backradiation thing is it is extremely overly hopeful.
    As it would be constant source of energy {unlike solar and wind} IF “the energy”
    could be used.
    Or the assumption is the energy does does do work- and it’s massive amount energy needed
    heat the world which suppose to be emit somewhere around 240 watts per square meter

    {{I am big fan solar, but solar energy in space where it designed to work- would be
    the place for it.}}

    Zoe seems to think we getting close to 240 watts per square meter from geothermal
    heat.
    But that would be mind reading, which is always wrong thing to do.

    Does Earth emit around 240 watts of IR radiation?

    I think Earth is emitting a lot energy in IR wavelength and probably somewhere within the
    200 to 300 watts range. But going assume is some in ballpark of 240 watt
    Our closer plant Venus doesn’t come close this much IR emitted- it reflects a lot of
    sunlight.
    Earth seems to absorbs the most amount of the Sun energy, and absorbs wild huge amount
    energy in terms over long periods of long. So Moon stores the sun’s energy for
    for at most a month. And Earth stores sunlight energy hundred million years if you count “fossil fuels”. If not including the devil’s energy, it stores energy of sunlight in it’s oceans for thousands of years.
    It appears to me we have been losing some of that energy for thousand of years.
    But also of note the Earth stores refrigerant on massive scale.
    Mars does that little bit with it’s tiny polar caps- quite minor compared to Earth.
    When consider that energy cost to cool things, wow, we have vast riches in stored refrigerant.
    As they say, God gave us the Moon, so humans could be spacefaring species.
    If you believe in it’s sim, do you believe “the sim plans” includes using to the Moon?
    Or what point of it?
    Howl at it?
    Yes, you can say Life would not exist without the moon.
    And every day gives us the tides- the joy exploring the low tide. All kinds
    of fun.

  114. hunterson7 says:

    Roger,
    While this is late, I promised a clarification and I keep my word.
    It seems to me that luke warmers, along with anyone else pointing out rational data driven critiques of the climate consensus are not working. Skepticism, a fundamental part of science, has been driven from the public square. That is why this is not a debate about science. Skepticism, data, integrity are largely absent from the consensus and the consensus controls the public square.
    That is what I poorly tried to convey.

  115. Zoe Phin says:

    “Zoe seems to think we getting close to 240 watts per square meter from geothermal
    heat.”

    That is not my position. My position is that the surface gets a global avg of ~277K from internal processes.

    In my blog, I’m careful to point out that all the W/m^2 are radiative equivalents for modeling purposes. I use them so as not to stray completely from modern mainstream science.

  116. gbaikie says:

    –Geothermal ocean warming discussion thread
    Posted on July 21, 2019 by curryja | 210 Comments
    by Judith Curry
    “The atmosphere bias of climate science makes it impossible for them to see geological forces and therefore, impossible for them to understand the earth’s climate.” – Thongchai

    “Wunsch (2018) identified lower bounds on uncertainties in ocean temperature trends for the period 1994-2013. The trend in integrated ocean temperature was estimated by Wunsch to be 0.011 ± 0.001 oC/decade (note: this rate of warming is much less than the surface warming, owing to the large volume of ocean water). This corresponds to a 20- year average ocean heating rate of 0.48 ±0.1 W/m2 of which 0.1 W/m2 arises from the geothermal forcing. I have rarely seen geothermal forcing (e.g. underwater volcanoes) mentioned as a source of ocean warming – the numbers cited by Wunsch reflect nearly a 20% contribution by geothermal forcing to overall global ocean warming over the past two decades.” —
    https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/

    I was looking for what percentage of ocean floor geothermal heating is volcanic and I found this
    instead.
    I think read before, as seem to recall this:

    –JC reflections

    Our understanding of the link between sea floor geothermal heat flux and climate seems to be in its infancy–

    But then again, JC says that sort of thing all the time.

  117. tallbloke says:

    Zoe: Roger thinks backradiation is stupid,

    Please stop telling me what I think. Backradiation is real, and has real local effects (which are cancelled elsewhere). Go and camp in the arctic end of Scandinavia. You’ll quickly learn that outgoing IR is absorbed and some of it re-radiated downwards from clouds at night, keeping the air at a higher temperature than under a clear sky. You might even notice that the snow isn’t melting due to a nonexistent large heat flux from underground.

    For average global surface T, back-radiation is an inconsequential byproduct of the fundamental reasons why things in the climate system are at the temperature they are at (Insolation and pressure).

    and his critics think backconduction/pressure theorynis stupid.

    If you re-read what I said, you’ll discover I didn’t make a claim for back-conduction, but for an impedance to the rate of conduction from surface to air. In any case, it’s only one minor aspect of the mechanisms by which the presence of the atmospheric pressure gradient raises surface temperature. I mentioned it because it’s an easy one (for most people) to understand.

    If the emissivity is lower, the color makes it seem colder. But in reality it’s just the same temperature.

    And so, because we don’t know what material the soup pot is stood on, or what material the lid is made from, we can deduce diddly squat from an IR photo of it. No more photos thanks, unless it’s your photo, taken using a camera you know the calibration of, taken of equipment you know the specification of.

    Gbaikie: Zoe seems to think we getting close to 240 watts per square meter from geothermal
    heat.

    Zoe: That is not my position. My position is that the surface gets a global avg of ~277K from internal processes.

    Indigestion perhaps?

    In my blog, I’m careful to point out that all the W/m^2 are radiative equivalents for modeling purposes. I use them so as not to stray completely from modern mainstream science.

    Energy as metaphor. Or semaphore. Or something.

  118. Zoe Phin says:

    Roger,
    Have you considered that it’s because it’s warm that the sky is not clear?

    [Snip]

    Oh well, those who read my blog will become wiser, and others will fade into obscurity.

    Toodles

  119. pochas94 says:

    This whole discussion is unnecessarily complex. The fact is that in an enclosed space with water, water vapor and inert gas evaporation stops when the liquid and gas are in thermal equilibrium. But if you have any in-leakage and a vacuum pump is sucking it out, vapor liquid equilibrium no longer obtains. Evaporation (or condensation) will take place depending on the leak rate and humidity of the leaking gas.

  120. tallbloke says:

    Well that’s easy Pochas. We set up an experiment at NTP in a similar sized enclosed space and remove the humidity with a deliquescent substance like silica gel. Then it’s apples with apples and we can compare the evaporation rates again. Happy now?

  121. gbaikie says:

    H20 is complicated. Typically it freezes at 0 C but can liquid at -40 C.
    and there are…”17 recognized forms of ice”. H20 evaporates at very low temperatures- colder than any low temperatures which occurs on Earth.
    Roughly if in sealed container water will stop evaporating in the sense it will condense at same rate it evaporates, but like hydrogen, at slow rate it will pass thru steel containers {or any container}.
    As is known a cold glacier will evaporate in relatively dry air {ie, mount kilimanjaro deforestation}. A moist lapse rate is about very small water droplets in the air evaporating and condensing constantly.
    Humans are an evaporating machine- human control their temperature by evaporation- and human exhale water vapor- generate some water vapor and are mostly water. On net, humans need a lot water. They came from the ocean and are carrying the ocean with them.

    Canada’s average temperature is about -4 C why isn’t Canada a glacier.
    Mainly because it close to being a desert.
    Or any grasslands are close to being a desert.
    If Canada had warmer air it would be desert.
    But how could Canada warmer air?
    It could be warmed like Europe is warmed, which is is made 10 C warmer by Gulf Stream. But if warmed by water vapor, Canada will not become drier by becoming warmer.
    At moment land cools and ocean warms, if ocean gets warmer, ocean warms land more.
    In terms possibility of climate global climate becoming warmer, it’s not impossible that within a few centuries your ocean could become close to being 4 C and in terms of a thousand years it could become close to being 4.5 C.
    Whenever Earth ocean becomes close to 4.5 C which has occurred in past interglacial periods and might have occurred earlier in our interglacial period {Holocene – Holocene Optimum} at such time the Northern Pacific ocean could be warm enough to significantly warm Canada] But seems to be it depends weather pattern or seasonal weather patterns if just causes warmer condition or causes glacial formation {and enough glacial formation can increasingly cause a regional cooling effect- or a runaway cooling effect}.
    If ocean warms from about 3.5 C to 4 C, one should also get sea level rise due to thermal expansion
    of about 1 foot. In last 100 years it’s thought the thermal expansion has about 2 inches.
    Another somewhat significant factor sea level rise has been withdrawal water from land area, and seem possible that humans could add more water to land rather removing it. And in some case don’t even need use energy to allow ocean water into land areas. Of course way is preventing freshwater for going into ocean.
    Though I think we will live on the ocean and worrying about any kind of sea level rise, is similar the danger of going at speeds faster than 20 mph.

  122. pochas94 says:

    Tallblike: “Happy now?”

    Yes, but you will soon find that the silica has become saturated, and is part of the equilibrium state, and evaporation will cease. 😟

  123. tallbloke says:

    The experiment has now been running for 6 days. Half the water still remains.

    Pochas, I’ve emailed the Authors at JPL to ask about the vacuum pump.

  124. tallbloke says:

    The experiment has now been running for 12 days. 3ml still remains.

  125. oldbrew says:

    BOM: Climate Driver Update
    Issued 23 June 2020

    La Niña WATCH—likelihood of tropical Pacific reaching La Niña in spring increases

    Both the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) remain neutral. However, cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean has continued, and the majority of models anticipate this cooling will be close to the threshold for La Niña by early spring. Consequently, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook has shifted to La Niña WATCH.

    La Niña WATCH means the chance of La Niña forming in 2020 is around 50%—roughly double the average likelihood. [bold added]

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

  126. Pablo says:

    Abstract
    [1] The change in evaporation over the oceans in climate models is analyzed from the perspective of air‐sea turbulent fluxes of water and energy.

    The results challenge the view that the change in evaporation is predominantly constrained by the change in the net radiation at the surface.
    For fixed net radiation change, it is found that (1) robust INCREASES in near‐surface relative humidity and (2) robust DECREASES in turbulent exchange coefficient lead to a substantial reduction in evaporation below the rate of increase implied by the net radiation alone.
    This reduction of evaporation is associated with corresponding changes in the sensible heat flux.
    In addition, a net imbalance in the surface energy budget under transient greenhouse gas forcing provides a further reduction in the evaporation change in climate models.
    Further results also suggest that it might be more physical to view the evaporation change as a function of relative humidity change rather than net radiation.
    In this view, the relative humidity controls the net surface shortwave radiation through changes in low‐level cloudiness and the temperature controls the net surface radiation through the changes in longwave radiation. In addition, the results demonstrate the dominant role of both the air‐sea temperature difference and relative humidity over, for example, wind speed in reducing the evaporation change in climate models below the Clausius‐Clapeyron rate.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD013949

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s