“…climate models are as problematic as the paleoclimatologists reconstructing temperature from proxy data …. wanted to prove that the current warm period is warmer than the MWP”

There are exceptions:

A team of paleoceanographers, lead by Dalia Oppo of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, concluded in 2009 that the MWP was indeed warmer than current temperatures.

http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases/2009?tid=3622&cid=59106

Richard

]]>Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing. ]]>

The issues Joe Born has raised are interesting in the way that pondering such questions reveals something about physics. In this case perhaps most about the nature of microcanonical ensembles, but also more generally about statistical physics.

What I don’t like in his texts is the criticism he presents on Brown’s comment. The comment is, unavoidably, simplifying, but not in a way that could be considered wrong in any sense.

]]>Likewise with the M cycle 18O correlation. The data can be off by 10ky but the fact that such approximate correlation exists and that a number of wave shapes match makes a reasonable case for M cycle tuning. If Vostok is anywhere near 400ky old, then the cycles match closely. Add to that that from 1-3mya the 41ky obliquity cycle matches climate fluctuations, and the so called “transition problem” provides further evidence of M cycle pacing–far beyond what coincidence would reasonably allow.

So yeah, for decades Wegener was ridiculed and old geologists still hang on to feeble reasons for why his detractors were right, but the fact remains they were statistically incompetent. His evidence was compelling for any who knew how to put puzzles together. –AGF

]]>Assuming that this is the article to which Joe Born refers, an insulated silver wire thermally connects the top and bottom of the gas column. Any calculations related to a microcanonical ensemble are therefore irrelevant.

]]>In physics values that are not measurable even in principle are usually not considered worth any attention. Therefore the calculated very small difference in the average kinetic energy is not of physical significance. Thus it does not contradict anything Dr. Brown wrote.

]]>It is possible, however, that a sort of EM standing wave is created where there is no real photon transfer (they’d cancel each other out) and the only real photon transfer occurs NET. This would be aligned to the SQED approach I outlined above, rather than a discrete particle approach.

And this isn’t a:

…pure and unproven conjecture … and remains a mathematical and non-physical artifact. You cannot state with certainty that it exists in the real world.

Standard physics works. Until you can show an example where it doesn’t, there is no reason to complicate calculations.

If it is there, then you can show that the separate elements of radiation occur as more than just mathematical constructs of the calculation of net heat transfer.

That’s not the way science works. It’s up to you to show by experiment that the separate elements of radiation *don’t* exist and that non-existence results in measurable consequences. I don’t really care what you *believe* if you can’t back it up with data rather than hand waving.

Sorry been away for a bit …

Anyway, yes you can calculate radiation pressure as per below. The formula you quote is probably correct (I haven’t looked at it too closely as it is not fundamental to the argument).

However, my question is can you measure it?

If there is genuinely 1.8Gw of radiation whizzing backward and forward in the above case, then you should be able to measure an increased radiation pressure. Not theory, conjecture or formulae. But an actual measurement.

If it is there, then you can show that the separate elements of radiation occur as more than just mathematical constructs of the calculation of net heat transfer.

It is possible, however, that a sort of EM standing wave is created where there is no real photon transfer (they’d cancel each other out) and the only real photon transfer occurs NET. This would be aligned to the SQED approach I outlined above, rather than a discrete particle approach.

In that case, there wouldn’t be any real individual radiation component, only the net effect and the radiation pressure would be commensurate with the 30kW net power transfer.

And actually I don’t know which outcome would occur, until tested. Do you?

I couldn’t even guess.

How astounded were the people who did the single-photon inteferometry experiments that a photon could interfere with itself!!! You don’t know until you try.

Anyone know if this type of experiment has actually been done???

This is, as far as I know, the only way to resolve this issue. All the other pyrgeometer style of pseudo-scientific nonsense doesn’t actually measure anything it is representing to do until this issue is resolved!

If someone can show me that there is a radiation pressure effect in a similar example to the above of the incoming plus outgoing radiation and the two do not cancel each other out, then I would happily concede that my earlier statement that:

“However stating that bodies radiate and absorb separately is a bit of a guess/unproven assumption. Isn’t it?

And I am not sure it is supported by observation. All we can ever observe is a net transfer.”

.. is entirely and completely wrong!

If you can show BY EXPERIMENT IN THE REAL WORLD that we can observe more than just a net transfer, then everyone must rationally concede that the two occur independently.

Otherwise and until such an experiment is conducted, it remains pure and unproven conjecture … and remains a mathematical and non-physical artifact. You cannot state with certainty that it exists in the real world.

Regards,

Andrew

]]>So what? The premise of Dr. Brown’s thought experiment is a non-zero equilibrium lapse rate. Is that physically meaningful? The issue is whether Dr. Brown’s logic is valid, and to test whether it is we have to deal with the world that his proof’s premise assumes, physically meaningful or not.

Pekka Pirilä: “Therefore all measurements of the nature you propose are impossible.”

But I didn’t propose any measurements. I took note of the value that theory gives an unmeasurable quantity, and I used it to test an assumption, on which Dr. Brown’s silver-wire proof is based, about what would happen in the perhaps physically unrealizable world of his proof’s ostensible premise.

Pekka Pirilä: “Therefore any measurement of the temperature disturbs the system much more than the difference to be measured.”

I have never contended otherwise. In fact, I said from the beginning that the incredible smallness of that gradient’s magnitude—which in most cases is probably orders of magnitude smaller than even the fluctuations in the gradient—shows that Velasco et al. essentially establish the ultimate conclusion of Dr. Brown’s proof. My problem is not his ultimate conclusion but his logic.

Please try to focus on the issue. The issue is not whether any physically measurable non-zero equilibrium lapse rate exists. The issue is whether Dr. Brown successfully refuted that proposition, i.e., whether he successfully established that non-zero equilibrium lapse rates necessarily imply that net heat could flow undriven perpetually.

I know you have contended that “The issue is not, whether a situation will result in perpetual motion or not.” But you’re wrong. Or, rather, the precise issue is perpetual heat flow; Dr. Brown’s whole proof depends on such a result’s following logically from the non-zero-equilibrium-lapse-rate premise to be refuted. Unless you can see that it does, we have nothing to discuss.

]]>