You see, I like to believe that a good deal of my audience consists of informed students and some actual scientists - it's time for me to put it to a test. You who do possess the knowledge to see through Bob's game, can you help teach me how to explain it?
Back to the issue at hand: Bob Armstrong's supposed rewriting of "settled physics" and his contempt for the "consensus" understanding. I'll admit I take a different approach. While I tend to be skeptical of all I hear - at least until mounting evidence turns a claim into something more substantial - I admit it's been good enough for me to know many thousands of experts have been refining this understanding for centuries and decades.
Bob, on the other hand has convinced himself all those accomplished experts are too stupid to grasp the basics. Since I've been spending time looking into Bob's spiel and all the bizarre dead-ends they lead me into, I've been wanting to know a bit more about it.Thus, I'm sending out this plea into the ether for someone(s) who are fluent in these matters to spend a few minutes explaining their understanding and observations regarding the various deceptions Bob Armstrong has been projecting.
Simple straight-forward response would be welcome. Clarity is the object.
What's it got to do with the changes brought about by increasing GHG levels?
The only obvious one is the change in temperature of a gas with adiabatic expansion or compression. This then leads to a Lapse Rate - the rate at which atmospheric temperature decreases with an increase in altitude (see Lapse Rate in Wikipedia).
In reality, due to the inhomogeneity of the atmosphere and interactions with radiation the Lapse Rate is just an idealised figure (see Atmospheric temperature in Wikipedia). There is certainly no simple application when comparing different planets.
As to greenhouse gases, they actually interfere with the idealised calculations of lapse rates as they assume some sort of even warming, and do not calculate radiative heat transfers. In short increases in CO2 result in increased warmth in the troposphere with cooling in the stratosphere and above. Dave Smith
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Even though time is not an explicit variable in thermostatics, we are interested in situations where the system goes through a succession of different equilibrium states. This is referred to as a “thermodynamical process”. A process is quasistatic if the transformation is so slow as to always leave the state in equilibrium."
They most certainly do, this sort of physics is the simple basics of what they need to understand. Bob seems to be making some bizarre claim of a greater understanding of climate physics than climate physicists.
From this he also appears to be hinting at the impossibility of radiative forcing changing the temperature by assuming that simplistic idealised physics are the be all and end all of reality.
Climate models use complex calculations of radiative heat transfer, vertical mixing and inhomogeneities, and cloud and aerosol formation.
Thermostatics is the study of systems in thermal equilibrium. Lapse rates are an example of that. Dave Smith
What I got out of all of it was that it has more to do with statistical processing technics, here again, it doesn't seem to me to directly help with understanding the fundamentals of what increasing our atmosphere's CO2 concentration Earth's heat holding capacity.
Am I correct? Why would that be? Can you explain?
There are many ways of looking at this, but in essence it is the attempt to change a function dependent on multiple variables where those variables have some interaction with each other, into one where the variables are chosen such that the results can be expressed as the sum or the product of functions of those variables.
For example if we have y=f(x1, x2) and how x2 affect y is dependent on the value of x1 then orthogonal function decomposition will result in y = f1(X1) + f2(X2), where X1 and X2 are new data inputs based on x1 and x2. It's called orthogonal because of the concept of dot products being zero if they are orthogonal.
See 'Empirical orthogonal functions' in Wikipedia. Dave Smith
Pure fluff Dave Smith
"ratio of the dot products of source and object spectra which gives you the difference from that temperature for colored balls. ... It was ridiculously hard to figure this out because I know of no explication of it on any supposed presentation of the "greenhouse effect" -- just the endless parroting of the "255K" , "33c" meme"
Can someone explain this relationship and it's salient importance to understanding global warming?
Well I'll start with the last one. "ratio of the dot products of source and object spectra" is meaningless gibberish.
First off, a dot product, like a regular numerical (scalar) product, is two things multiplied together. Likewise a ratio involves two inputs. So, either he means the dot product of source and object spectra, in which case there is only one input to his ratio, or he means the ratio of (source spectrum • something) to (object spectrum • something), in which case what are the somethings?
Johnny Vector There's more, check out his comment.
He repeatedly makes elementary errors, such as writing down equations whose units don't balance. He doesn't understand Kirchoff's law of radiation, and he misapplies it. And more.
Armstrong won't even discuss these flaws or address criticisms of his calculations. He simply won't address them, as if that keeps him right. He prefers to pretend he doesn't hear these criticisms, so he can pretend this work is perfect. It is anything but -- it contains basic flaws that even a high school senior would not make.
David Appell There's more, check out his comment.====================================================
"The point about the first 2%3 of Griffiths E&M text being on statics is that you've got to understand statics before even contemplating dynamics . But I see no evidence that the journeyman "climate scientist" has anywhere near that background in "thermostatics" . I mean it quite literally when I say there is little evidence that many of them know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball . They certainly don't seem to understand the notion of orthogonal function decomposition or they wouldn't keep parroting the "33c" warming meme rather than starting from the computationally useful 279k gray body temperature in our orbit."
"Stefan-Boltzmann gets you the gray body temperature given the total energy impinging on a point in our orbit . It is the ratio of the dot products of source and object spectra which gives you the difference from that temperature for colored balls . These are the computations , the experimental validation of which would make a gang busters science project .
It was ridiculously hard to figure this out because I know of no explication of it on any supposed presentation of the "greenhouse effect" -- just the endless parroting of the "255K" , "33c" meme."