Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Perhaps you two should argue.
Click to expand...
Maybe we shouldn't given that you missed out (oops..!) the last part of my quote. I'm trying hard not to be rude about your obfuscation because I don't want this thread to revert to being moderated. But your rudeness is really making it difficult.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
A thermometer on the Earth's surface is not at the center of the Earth (Duh!). A thermometer on the solid surface of the Earth experiences a 24-hour cycle induced by the rotation of the Earth (Duh!). Thermometers on the solid surface, even if enclosed in evacuated chambers, will experience the effects of convective heat transport.
Click to expand...
Which is why temperature anomalies are used for analysis and the data is adjusted for time-of-observation... This really is climate 101.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
W.D.Clinger said:
Why do you think that's important, or even relevant?1
You have already been told (by someone who has already run the experiment) that the effect you say you wish to understand will become clear within an hour of starting the experiment.2
That convection will be negligible if you place your insulated thermometers within a vacuum. You would want to suspend them within the vacuum using thin supports of a good thermal insulator.3If I may step back from such details for a moment: You appear determined to obstruct your learning process by pursuing call-to-perfection fallacies.4If you were thinking like a scientist, you'd want to find out. To find out, you'd conduct an experiment.5
Click to expand...
1. A sphere in orbit will experience a heat gain/loss cycle related to the period of rotation and revolution (no cycle at all of the rotation period equals the revolution period). Whatever the cycle, the center will be at a constant temperature if the body is spherical and uniform and the orbit is (nearly) circular. A thermometer on the surface of an airless body will experience the same cycle.
2. Then on Earth you will have witnessed only 1/24 th of the relevant data.
3. What moves the mercury? Radiative heat from the wall of the vacuum chamber. What warms the wall? Ambient air temperature and solar radiation.
4. I'd say "clean experiments".
Click to expand...

I'll ask you this again because it seems key to why you have such a non-analogous thought experiment.

jimbob said:
So you disbelieve the whole greenhouse effect?

Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Edit: The surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury's surface
Click to expand...

Malcolm, do you accept that the greenhouse effect explains why the surface of Venus is the hottest in the solar system?

If you don't then what do you think explains this fact?
If you do, what is the point of your thought experiments?

Actually, what is the point of your thought experiment described above?
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. A sphere in orbit will experience a heat gain/loss cycle related to the period of rotation and revolution (no cycle at all of the rotation period equals the revolution period). Whatever the cycle, the center will be at a constant temperature if the body is spherical and uniform and the orbit is (nearly) circular. A thermometer on the surface of an airless body will experience the same cycle.
2. Then on Earth you will have witnessed only 1/24 th of the relevant data.
3. What moves the mercury? Radiative heat from the wall of the vacuum chamber. What warms the wall? Ambient air temperature and solar radiation.
4. I'd say "clean experiments".
Click to expand...
What? More dribble.

Why consider the centre of the earth? The Earth is not a point in space, it's a sphereoid body, rotating in a 23.25 hr period (approx).

Say what? Any observation will be at a particular time, not at any 1/24th of anything. Data sources for climate modelling are adjusted for Time-Of-Observation

The rest is just pointless miss-direction.
 
To emphasize the core problem, I've edited this down to Malcolm Kirkpatrick's notes 4 and 5.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
W.D.Clinger said:
If I may step back from such details for a moment: You appear determined to obstruct your learning process by pursuing call-to-perfection fallacies.4If you were thinking like a scientist, you'd want to find out. To find out, you'd conduct an experiment.5
Click to expand...
4. I'd say "clean experiments".
Click to expand...


Yes, you would prefer to characterize your call-for-perfection fallacies as a demand for perfectly clean experiments.

You had no response for the sentence to which you added your fifth superscript.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Why don't you apply that standard to those who cite Skeptical Science?
Click to expand...

Citing internet blogs isn't the same thing as citing science. McIntyre isn't doing science, he's doing PR, if he were doing science he'd be able to get it published. He's just praying on those to stupid to know the difference.
 
aleCcowaN said:
The wrongdoers can argue that they didn't make the data up and even say that their source was their rivals.
Click to expand...

Which is the beauty of it.

Well, it'd be good if their haven't chosen among the multiple possible analysis and data sources those that allowed them showing what they want.
Click to expand...

A much more difficult point to make than that the data is simply manufactured (such as Plimer's solar-activity graph).

If called on the choice of analysis the deceiver can simply refer to it as the correct or accepted method in the statistical community, an opinion handed down with supreme confidence by someone pretending to have expertise in the subject. Someone like McIntyre, for instance. Or Monckton (who'll do it in Latin for added effect).
 
lomiller said:
Pretty close, but remember standard deviation is a measure of how much difference there is between data points. The difference between data points in Arctic sea ice is big because more than half of it has disappeared over the last decade. Or put another way the standard deviation is smaller in the Antarctic because the ice hasn't changed much.
Click to expand...

Another reason for the low proportional variation is that Antarctic sea-ice includes (as I understand it) grounded ice, which is effectively a large constant. Until one day it isn't, but that'll be a different story.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Thermometers on the solid surface, even if enclosed in evacuated chambers, will experience the effects of convective heat transport.
Click to expand...

There is no convective heat transport through a vacuum or a solid. How, then, do you expect the thermometer to "experience the effects of convective heat transport"?

Convection occurs in fluids.
 
CapelDodger said:
There is no convective heat transport through a vacuum or a solid. How, then, do you expect the thermometer to "experience the effects of convective heat transport"?
Convection occurs in fluids.
Click to expand...
Put the evacuated chamber upslope from a black rock desert. Air warms on the desert floor, rises upslope, and warms the walls of the evacuated vessel. The walls warm the mercury directly or the glass directly and then the mercury indirectly through radiation. The heat moves from the desert floor to the vessel through convection. Or put the vessel in southern England. The Gulf Stream brings warm water from latitudes closer to the equator to southern England. Warm water warms the air over England. This warms the walls of the vessel, and so on.
 
Mikemcc said:
What? More dribble.1Why consider the centre of the earth?2 The Earth is not a point in space, it's a sphereoid body, rotating in a 23.25 hr period (approx).

Say what? Any observation will be at a particular time, not at any 1/24th of anything. Data sources for climate modelling are adjusted for Time-Of-Observation.3
The rest is just pointless miss-direction.4
Click to expand...
1. Go dribble yourself,
2. I'm not. The thought experiment concerns thermometers wrapped in insulation. I suspect that in the thought experiment the equilibrium temperature at the center will depend on nothing but the distance to the sun. If that's not the case, I'd like to know why. A name (e.g., triboluminescence) isn't an explanation.
3. It's not in dispute that some surfaces will absorb more of certain frequences of radiation per unit time than will others.
4. Go misdirect yourself.
 
lomiller said:
Again, what is the point of this? As it's currently constructed it doesn't show anything about any topic of interest in this thread because it's not analogous.
Click to expand...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick has told us he doesn't have an elementary-school understanding of albedo's influence upon equilibrium temperatures. The point of the experiment he refuses to run is that it would inform him concerning one particular implication of the loss of Arctic ice (as well as the widespread human custom of wearing lighter clothing in summer and darker clothing in winter).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick does not wish to become more informed about this subject, so he's been inventing excuses not to perform the experiment. A good many of his recent posts have been devoted to those excuses.
 
jimbob said:
I'll ask you this again because it seems key to why you have such a non-analogous thought experiment.



Malcolm, do you accept that the greenhouse effect explains why the surface of Venus is the hottest in the solar system?

If you don't then what do you think explains this fact?
If you do, what is the point of your thought experiments?

Actually, what is the point of your thought experiment described above?
Click to expand...

lomiller said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
2. I'm not. The thought experiment concerns thermometers wrapped in insulation.
Click to expand...

Again, what is the point of this? As it's currently constructed it doesn't show anything about any topic of interest in this thread because it's not analogous.
Click to expand...



W.D.Clinger said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick has told us he doesn't have an elementary-school understanding of albedo's influence upon equilibrium temperatures. The point of the experiment he refuses to run is that it would inform him concerning one particular implication of the loss of Arctic ice (as well as the widespread human custom of wearing lighter clothing in summer and darker clothing in winter).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick does not wish to become more informed about this subject, so he's been inventing excuses not to perform the experiment. A good many of his recent posts have been devoted to those excuses.
Click to expand...

In which case: forget about thermometers, get a sheet of white paper, cover half with black ink and leave the other half white. Put the paper in strong sunlight for a few minutes and then feel which side is hotter.

Malcolm, is W.D.Clinger right about the purpose of your thought experiment?
 
Last edited:
Don't you realise that Malcolm mixes up the measuring instrument with the measured variable? That's why the problem is the albedo of a thermometer, and a thermometer having a temperature in its centre. I think his strategy is having things confused to avoid reaching any piece of knowledge needed to make evident AGW.

Why not playing along and following the way of perfecting his "experiments"? In such a case the fact of he offering more mumble jumble again will show mala fide clearly.

For instance:

A set of glass-mercury thermometers is arranged in a circular orbit around the Sun with a radius of, say, 150 million kilometres. Every thermometer is either surrounded by some kind of insulation or has some kind of surface finishing and it is placed in a way that it always faces the sun in the same angle and on the same side. All thermometers are alike. For the sake of the experiment consider every glass to be an ideal unbreakable glass with little reflectivity and transparent for every wavelength that may be of interest; all the materials to be strong enough to avoid being worn out and off during the experiment; the measuring scale and body of the thermometers to be inconsiderable in size for any practical end when compared with the bulb; and every reaction in a molecular scale to be prevented inside the system. Consider that enough time has passed to reach a steady state in all thermometers.

Here is the set of thermometers:

A- A bare thermometer
B- A thermometer surrounded by a small glass capsule with vacuum in it
C- A thermometer surrounded by a small glass capsule with 1013 mb normal air in it.
D- A thermometer surrounded by concentric small glass capsules --in an onion-like fashion -- every capsule filled with some gas at 1013 mb and thin enough to avoid any convection.
D.1- Filled with nitrogen
D.2- Filled with argon
D.3- Filled with carbon dioxide
D.4- Filled with methane
D.5- Filled with methyl chloroform
E- A thermometer surrounded by a small glass capsule with vacuum in it, but painted in a different fashion.
E.1 - Painted black
E.2 - Painted white
E.3 - Painted black on the half facing the sun and white on the opposite half.
E.4 - Painted white on the half facing the sun and black on the opposite half.
F- A thermometer surrounded by an inch thick coat of aerogel.
G- A thermometer surrounded by a material thermally equivalent to an inch thick coat of Styrofoam.
H- A thermometer surrounded by a capsule made of a special material Alpha that allows wavelengths larger than 2000 nm in but not shorter than that, and with vacuum in it.
I- A thermometer surrounded by a capsule made of a special material Beta that allows wavelengths shorter than 2000 nm in but not larger than that, and with vacuum in it.

Questions:

1- Do all thermometers reach the same temperature? No (unless by chance)
2- Which one is the coldest thermometer?
2- Order all thermometers from hotter to colder.

[I've never read a problem of physics in English in all my life, but I feel this looks more like it when compared with Malcolm's]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom