Christos Vournas | November 29, 2021 at 6:56 am |
“Hi angech.
What I would like to discuss is the planet theoretical blackbody temperature being a highest temperature a planet without-atmosphere average surface temperature may reach…
I very much disagree with that concept. That concept is expressed as:
Tmean ? Te which I disagree with.
What actually happens is:
Tmean ? Te for planets and moons with a lower planet surface and
Tmean ? Te for planets and moons with a higher planet surface ”

The best way is to conceive of a true BB [black body] temperature that would approach the SB concept in real life.
This can only be achieved by having a uniform globe of radiation around a planet.
Further the source of the radiation would have to be totally transparent to the radiation coming back out.
To prevent back radiation problems.
A bit like Willis’ steel globe model at WUWT but not really.[ that has back radiation.

In such a setting the energy in would truly equal the energy out. [apart from the Curious George random U235 and the internal heat of some planets type arguments].
This in itself creates other problems such as why the energy does not go into and be “stored” in the planet. as well as radiating out.
The answer that energy cannot be stored is easier here.
As it is in balance it is easy to see that what goes in on one side is coming out on the other side everywhere, even though standard physics says it is “heating up”.
What is actually happening is that the bucket is being filled rapidly and empties rapidly. The bucket in a higher energy transition state [energy in and out, not stored, appears to us as hot.
The true internal energy of mass does not change.
What we measure, as the temperature, is never the temperature of the mass but that of the energy being transferred through it.
What we see say a red sword going white hot or even melting is merely the difference in radiation coming out[which is what went in.
The state of the mass appears to alter, does alter in our world, but does not have any more natural internal energy. Mass is is unchanged still a one size bucket. , our perception of the mass is altered.

GHG help form a multi level layered surface capable of interacting with electromagnetic energy.
In an airless water less planet both the SW and IR hit the solid [if far enough away from the heat source] surface penetrating fewer but much more condensed layers of molecules for a few mm.
Albedo alone dictates how much SW is taken up.
The amount of energy absorbed is possibly over counted as albedo is generally considered to be visible light but it is possible that longer [and shorter] wavelengths might have some reflection as well but this is not mentioned by anyone.
One reason may be an assumption that IR is too widespread in its wavelengths to be capable of being reflected but this is possibly not true.

Ina planet with an atmosphere the level of absorption changes from a few mm to 100 kilometers or more. with most occurring in the final 10 kilometers.
This energy is not stored . Once it interacts with matter it moves back out.

On the way in and on the way out the energy,now a lot more at IR wavelengths can either reflect back out to space, move sideways or go further down.
The energy is not being stored, just continually being redirected.
The mass and the internal energy of the mass does not change [except in a nuclear reaction which is outside the scope of explaining existing energy transfer.
Consequently all the energy goes back out again at the rate it is coming in.
and extremely quickly.

If it did not do this it would buildup in an unstoppable storage feedback loop and become hotter than the original distant source.

We all know it does not and cannot do this or we would have a way of making infinite energy from a finite energy source.

I guess an easier way for people to try to understand this is to consider an impermeable, non conducting perfectly flat surface barrier.
It would have to send all the energy straight back where it came from.

A lot of imponderables here.
If EM had mass then it would have to make the mass it hit move further away due to the force it exerted.
If it reflects it would have to push the mass away twice as hard.
If it had mass the force it possesses would have to have a force vector which would demand one of the two results above.
If not then we would have to say that force meeting a mass reacts in two different ways.

One, a reversal of direction mediated without a change in the mass field settings.
This is possible if one considers a completely reflective [white body].
It does not change in temperature .

Two, a reversal of direction mediated by a change in the mass field setting.
This leads to the mass altering to change of position of where the mass appears to be [movement of a molecule].
At the same time the original energy is sent back in the same direction.

Where the EM energy goes deeper into a layer before being sent back a problem arises with potential reabsorption on the way out which could send it back in again.
Since there are more molecules on the way in than out all of the light will shortly be remitted to space.

GHG are molecules that absorb and re-emit energy rather than reflecting it.
The GHG effect is real and necessary as part of this system.

An argument against this is that there is a finite time between absorption and emission of energy in this setting. The problem with accepting this is that storage of energy would be admissable.
Another is the actual motion of the molecules.
A third the lag in temperatures changing direction after the longest and shortest days occur.

Which in turn would overturn the SB law, as far as I can understand.

I am still trying to work out a way to combine these two apparent opposites.

Tamino redux.

ecoquant | November 15, 2021 a
“In general extrapolation is a terrible way of “predicting the future.”
kinimod | November 16, 2021 at 12:34 pm |
“Extrapolation may be the best we have”

Hopefully Ecoquant can explain what he actually meant or in lieu of that explain a good method for prediction.

On a different note I still fail to see what Judith has said that is so upsetting.
“Judith Curry, showed a single tide gauge record, did no analysis at all, and said (quote) “Since 1910, sea level has been rising at a steady rate of 1.36 feet, or 16 inches, per century.”

If she states a range, 110 years?
and says there is a rate of 16 inches per century then the rate is 16 inches a century over that time gap.
Whether she characterizes it as an average rate or a steady rate for that time span the comment is perfectly acceptable for that time period.
Steady in that sense means average.

I have taken you to task in the past about your choice of mathematical models. Rough stuff from someone who lacks your expertise level in mathematics.
The problem in part is that mentioned by Ecoquant.
” Suppose there’s no knowledge of where breaks in a series are supposed to go?”
Worse suppose that 30 years is not the right metric at all?
Why not 60 or 120?
Redo your data at a 15 years different starting point.
At a different time interval.
Finally it is not right to select one set of data that you can see a pattern in and extrapolate it to a generalization on tides in general.
No matter how long the record.
Tides are complex. Erosion is complex, Land rise and fall is complex.
You have made a point but the very act of stating that it means something important to you destroys its validity.

One of the best to ask about my theorem but so driven by motivation.
[And I am not??]

C who are you?
F Your just a man….
G Your just a man…. G MIN Your just a man….
C who are you?
F Your just a man….
F In my G travelogue of C dreams C CMIN C

C MIN doo F doo rEPEAAT

In my travelogue of dreams.
Curtains fall Your coming home

Fancy cars a cadillac a catalogue of stars.
Drivin the machine
in my dream,
My machine
A catalogue, Cadillac
a kiss and cuddle in the back
and goodbye Mac

Who were you, Anyway.
Just another, just another memory
another man a mystery why you came why you stayed so LONG

your just another MAN in my catalogue of dreams

Climates changing
Hold on tight
Rainy days and rainy nights,
Never happened before.
Close, close that door
Hurricanes on every side, Mississippi flooding.
Droughts on the border
Happened all of sudden.
No law and no order.

liz entry

new coach
new team
new Silvagni
new dream
All of those dark days gone,
nothing but blue skies,
from now on
Go Blues and AFL

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming that would convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

Climate crisis is the term adopted by the IPCC to describe projected changes in the climate that they attribute to human activity.
The IPCC mandate was to examine Climate Change with particular emphasis on human causation.
The second part was to evaluate if this was harmful.
The third to advise on what to do about it if it was.

I must say it is difficult to initiate a study into something you believe is happening and then have results that show the 3 premises for your inquiry were not justified in the first place.

The IPCC faced an inordinate number of challenges in regard to this study to do it successfully, safely and satisfactorily.
The difficulty in their tasks was in establishing a satisfactory scientific understanding of climate and climate change.
Then how to estimate human influence, if any, on this. Then what the outcomes were likely to be from any influence.

To see where and why they got it so badly wrong needs a textbook , not an essay but a summary of such a textbook would go as follows.
Climate definition.
Factors affecting climate.
Human influence on such factors.
Projected outcomes of such human influence.
The need , if any, to take action to change human behaviour.

Everyone knows what climate is, even if they cannot describe it scientifically.
Climate is the environment we live in as humans around the globe.
There are 4 seasons due to the variation in orbit of the earth around the sun and its inclination and wobble.
We have day and night which vary over the year and seasons in their ratio to each other.
We have an oblate spheroid of a world two thirds covered by water and one third by land which varies in height above sea level.
The large bodies of water put a lot of moisture into the air which precipitates in some areas as rain.
The rotation of the earth leads to a rolling wave of heat below the sun which causes air to heat and rise giving formation of clouds winds and hurricanes at times.

The atmosphere is composed of nitrogren, oxygen, 3% of GHG water as water vapour and clouds and trace gases including another GHG CO2.


There are several different concepts at play here.

One is whether rotational speed can increase the estimated average temperature of a planet.
This is different to the amount of energy emitted to space by the planet which has an average temperature for an ideal black body.

Hence if we put 100 W/Sm in, we get 100 W/Sm out.
There is a temperature associated with a true black body determined by the surface area that absorbs the 100W/Sm

If the planet does not emit equally from all surfaces and does not rotate then the hotter areas temperature releasing the larger amounts of energy do not go up enough [SB] to give the same average temperature of a true black body.

Note that any energy coming from a general internal source is emitted as if the planet was a black body, rotating or not.

Hence by the physics the temperatures of all externally heated planets will increase a slight amount as the spin allows an evening of the radiation emitted to space which in turn allows the temperature to approach the expected temperature.Hence by the physics the temperatures of all externally heated planets will increase a slight amount as the spin allows an evening of the radiation emitted to space which in turn allows the temperature to approach the expected temperature.

Note that this means virtually all externally heated planets should have a lower average temperature than their black body average temperature.

Where does this leave your assertion [*altered]
“It is obvious, that [virtually] satellite measured planet mean surface temperatures are higher than their corresponding planet black body temperatures.”

You are talking about planet mean surface temperatures measured by satellite.
Yet you also assert that gas giants do not have a surface?
How can you claim a surface temperature by satellite without a surface?

There are a number of definitions of a surface yet you are confounding them.
if you take TOA as measured by a satellite

There are two different concepts at play here.
Quite confusing.
The first is your actual definition where you use terms like
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature
yet make comments like
– Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation.
-the satellite measured planet mean surface temperatures
-Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law

I think that this needs sorting out.
The problem is the definition of the Planet mean temperature
to that of Planet surface mean temperature

The true temperature of Venus IS 228.5 k
The true temperature of earth is

The first should be a description of equivalent black body TOA emission.
Which is wha
Global average radiative equilibrium at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is characterized by the net flux balance of 156 W/m2, the Bond albedo of 0.76, and the effective planetary emission temperature of 228.5 K in accordance with earlier results.

outlook problems

Some Windows in Microsoft Outlook
Harshita –
March 23, 2018 20788
System resources are critically low Close some windows

“I am using Microsoft Outlook 2016, and today when I logged in to Outlook, it displayed an error message. The messages appeared in sequence. It displayed System Resources Are Critically Low Close Some Windows I am confused and scared about my account. Please help me to open my account without any issue.”

This is one of the common issue faced by many Outlook 2016 and 2010 users. The same error is also encountered in MS Exchange. The message conveys the user that he/ she needs to update information on his / her profile. And which will be impossible to do since Outlook refuses to open and the user can’t do anything with it? This error is displayed as a sequence. The first pop up will be like:

“Outlook cannot log on. Verify you are connected to the network and are using the proper Server and mailbox name. The Microsoft Exchange information service in your profile is missing required information. Modify your profile to ensure that you are using the correct Microsoft Exchange information service.”

Outlook cannot log on. Verify you are connected to the network

Then while the user clicks on OK button, it displays next error:

“System resources are critically low Close some windows.”

System resources are critically low. Close some windows

Later if the user press OK button in the displayed window it leads displays another error:

“Cannot start Microsoft Outlook. Cannot open the Outlook window. The set of folders cannot be opened. The information store could not be opened.”

Cannot start Microsoft Outlook. Cannot open the Outlook window
Why Outlook Displays This Errors?

The main two reasons that cause ‘System Resources Are Critically Low Close Some Windows’ error in Outlook 2016 and Outlook 2010 accounts are:

1.) The autodiscover information in the local hidden XML files have been corrupted or it includes bad data. Also, there could be chances for autodiscover DNS record has been changed in past.

2.) The second chance is the root domain server is reacting to autodiscover request, and this results, unable to open or use Outlook account. The real cause is, the Microsoft is constantly updating and upgrading its services often.

Thus all these errors indicates that MS Outlook 2016 profile is corrupted. To fix Outlook PST file corruptions, one can make use of manual or automated Outlook PST Repair software to fix the issue.
How to Fix Error: ‘System Resources are Critically Low Close Some Windows’

One can solve the issues with autodiscover in MS Outlook 2016 issue manually in three ways.
1. Modifying Registry

Press Windows + R keys
Type regedit >> press Enter >> click Ok
It opens a Registry editor >> use left side navigation panel
Stop after \16.0\Outlook

Outlook 2007 = \12\
MS Outlook 2010 = \14\
Outlook 2013 = \15\
MS Outlook 2016 = \16\

Click AutoDiscover >>Now right-click on the right side.
Select New >> choose DWORD (32-bit) Value >> Name the value ExcludeHttpsRootDomain
After adding >> double-click on the value >> set Value data to 1 and Base as Hexadecimal
Now close the Registry Editor window
Open Outlook account

2. Creating XML file

Create a text file which contains the text given below, and save the file as test.xml.

xml file

Save the file in a location that you won’t delete it by accident.
Now follow the steps in above method from step 1 to 4.
Get to the AutoDiscover
Create a new String value, with the e-mail domain name (for eg. com)
Double-click the new value >> enter the path to the .xml file created.
Create DWORD value >> name it PreferLocalXML
Now Double-click on value >> give value as 1.
Close Registry Editor
Open MS Outlook again

3. Delete the Profile and Create a new Outlook Profile

The user needs to delete and create a new Outlook profile by following the steps given below.

Press Windows button >> type Control Panel >> open the result.
Click Mail >> Profiles >> Outlook
Hit on Remove to delete.
Press on Add a new profile >> name profile1.
Now continue the account configuration steps.

One can refer the following article to configure MS Outlook profile without any issues.

The MS Outlook 2010, 2016 accounts showing “System Resources are Critically Low Close some Windows” error can be efficiently solved using three methods. Modifying the registry is the most effective and suggested solution. One can also solve this Outlook error by creating XML file or by deleting Outlook profile and creating a new one. This article provides a proper information to resolve the issue easily using simple manual steps.

moon rotation

So disappointed.
Reality does not match with expectation.

The moon.
rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.

The earth can legitimately be the centre of the universe.
But so can any other point in the universe, like the sun.

Accepting this simple point of logic just means saying I’m right and you are right.

Refusing it is simply saying my point of view is more important to me than yours.

As I pointed out a while ago if one wishes to say that the moon is rotating then one has to define what its motion is or appears to be when it is “not” rotating.

This simple example, that it has to be rotating to be perceived as not rotating,should be enough to quell the overconfidence in the one frame of reference that suits my argument theory.

Sadly ignored.

Take as poem, red, take a poem , blue.

dress up as the queen of May and the queen of Harlem, too.

In all this as always thus your understanding must

turn to frustration.

Short version

Short version
Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
It is the largest GHG by a considerable margin
Other GHG, chief among which is of course CO2 , are considered as a forcing.
H20 , as a GHG is therefore also a forcing.
Has to be, variable, because it varies a lot more with temperature and pressure, but nonetheless a forcing while there are any molecules in the atmosphere.
It is always resident in the atmosphere at its saturation level for that temperature and pressure.

“And what do you think would happen on Earth if there were no non-condensing GHGs, chief among which is of course CO2?”

So many earth’s to choose from.

Which one would Tony Banton care to use?
Let us take the view that it is the earth as it is now with the unreal assumption that no CO2, Methane and the other minute trace GHG are available or possible. A lifeless* rock with lots of water and Oxygen and Nitrogen. No life or possibility of life like we know it. Unreal.

But this is science. No GHG , no life but atmospheric temperatures.
Life removed, we have a rocky silicon and iron planet with oceans atmosphere and a heat source the sun.
Might be a bit more in the Zeke knowledge range now.

We would have the same planet, the same atmosphere, and the same seas.
The temperature of the world would be the same at the TOA .
Energy in equals energy out.

The atmosphere would be hotter during the day under the sun and colder at night with a marked range of extremes.
More of the earth would be covered with ice starting from the north /south boundaries where the temperature is always below zero.
The average temperature, thanks chief, on a slowly rotating planet like this, would be more or less the same as today.

Long term there would be drastic changes as the compounds would have to find new ways to achieve stability.

*A lifeless rock Tony as basically it would have to be carbon free to be CO2 free.

Alarmists use two false arguments to claim that water vapor is not a forcing.
Your argument.
The first is that water vapor does not have a residence in the atmosphere because it rains.
The falsity here is that rain does not remove water from the atmosphere. It just removes excess water for that temperature and pressure.
The second is that without CO2 forcing all the water in the world would remain as ice and that CO2 was necessary to allow water vapor to get into the atmosphere.
The point is that the earth has come from a hotter to a cooler planet and the water vapor was already in the atmosphere when the earth was much warmer. Pulling the coming out of an Ice age trick does not work either. A drop of 10-12 C could never freeze all the water in the world.
The claim that it was well below zero without an atmosphere does not work either. If one had water on the moon it would be ice on the dark side and steam on the sunny side at well over 100 C. The same argument applies to water on the Earth. Wherever the sun was water would heat up, go into the atmosphere and then exert its GHG effect.

David Appell | September 3, 2021 at 1:34 pm | Reply

angech wrote: The claim that it was well below zero without an atmosphere does not work either.

Without an atmosphere?? What relevance does that have to a discussion of water vapor?

angech | September 3, 2021 at 1:15 am | Reply

Short version Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
Water is therefore a GHG just like methane and CO2.
You consider them to be forcing so by your own logic H2O is also a forcing.

computer questions. Cookies Firefox

How to use firefox
how to clear the cache
google or firefox
settings in firefox.
allow cookies
had to for wordpress for instance
how to back up data how to set a password Howto be an administrator passwords for admin
How to connect bluetooth to other devices family sharing for computers a good or bad idea.

Where to go to look at code or to insert a code if needed to readjust a programme. Things not to do
Clearing memory
speeding up memory
old files old photos backup issues again ? onto a ubs or hard drive how to do it
how long does it take.


ATTP “I actually don’t have much of a problem with this. I don’t think we should rewrite history, but I don’t see any real reason to laud people who did things that, today, would be regarded as objectionable.”

I don’t think we should rewrite history, but …. I do.
An interesting discussion up blog with an inevitable conclusion.
One does not have to rewrite history when we continually repeat it.
Thank you for putting up the clip.
A bit like reading the book then seeing the film.
I was not even close in my assumptions.