From: Karl Zeller
Sent: November 20, 2024
Subject: Re: Draft communique: Addressing Monckton's Comments
Aaaah Tomas,
Thank you!
It's good to see someone enjoying the theater and taking a broader perspective. What my colleague Dr. Nikolov and his esteemed coprotagonist Professor Zharkova seem to be incapable of grasping is that they are arguing apples and oranges.
Apples: longer times scales where a quasi equilibrium can be determined; larger space scales like a planetary global mean parameter, etc. Oranges: smaller times scales with no equilibrium where colliding molecules and vibrational frequency make a difference; smaller space scales where absorbing photons are accounted for, etc.
It’s the times we live in, Dr. Nikolov has become and behaves like any American and look at us, we’re deeply divided across our country ~51% to ~49% and which side is 51% can be discounted by the other thanks to our electoral system. I can surmise Dr. Zharkova being a lady has had to hold her own with the opposite gender, be rigorous to achieve her successes and ready to take on the next disagreeable male scientist.
That said, there is a reason Dr. Nikolov (and myself) have been so tenacious about ’sharing’ our discovery in that it provides an easily understood, physically sound baseline (grounding, boundary condition) that all the other climate related knowledge and theories fit into.
Being a fluid turbulence guy myself, my favorite poem by Lewis
Richardson:
“Big whirls have little whirls, That feed on their velocity; And little whirls have lesser whirls, And so on to viscosity.”
As an analogy, Dr. Zharkova perhaps is focussed on viscosity (radiative transfer, etc.) while Dr. Nikolov is arguing about the big whirls (gas physics of planets). And btw there are others intent on including their ‘little whirls’ like ENSO, ocean currents, ocean heat uptake, etc etc. etc. Yes ocean heat uptake is a major part of understanding Earth’s climate but it is way way way inside of what Ned (& I) are trying to communicate.
I surmise, based on my previous email attempts, this email will have no impact whatsoever on our protagonists, so in the mean time keep enjoying the drama!
As you suggest: Let the show go on, Karl :)
Our discovery (that implies a theory): long term surface temperature of any celestial body with a surface and a tangible atmosphere is determined by solar input energy and atmospheric mass.
Then added on: using the equation that comes with the discovery it appears that shorter term small deviations in that global temperature are determined by observed changes in albedo.
On Nov 20, 2024 Tomas Furst
Dear colleagues,
With interest and some amusement I follow your discussion.
I am glad that your interest in Truth is so great that sometimes courtesy must wait:)
I really mean it -- it is more important to find out who is right than it is not to offend anyone.
The one point that I would like to raise:
In my opinion, much confusion comes from not using "equilibrium" and "steady state" carefully.
The atmosphere is far from equilibrium.
A system may be far from equilibrium, although all time derivatives of all quantities are zero!
I am not a specialist in atmospheric science and I think many people like me would greatly benefit from a more structured discussion between (or among?) the sides of this heated exchange.
Would you be willing to make the discussion written?
Needs to be more concise and structured.
That would be a valuable contribution to the proceedings.
Thank you and good luck!
Tomas.
Od: Valentina Zharkova
Datum: 20. 11. 2024
Předmět: Re: Draft communique: Addressing Monckton's Comments
Ned,
I would say to you: 'watch my lips' - thermodynamic equilibrium does not exist in the radiation field!. You actually raised the stock of the IPCC models since they are no complete dummies, they at least considered the exchange of the solar radiation with molecules and absorption and reemission between r the various molecules afterwards. They are one step if not two steps ahead of you dear..
I understand your education has been finished on molecular physics and thermodynamics, while quantum physics is left beyond your reach.. Well.. My condolences… You should object to the paper by Bohr, Dirak and many other prominent physicists because their results do not comply with the second law of thermodynamics..... Your position reminds me of these astronomers in the 17 century during the Spanish Inquisition which
insisted that the Sun and planets rotate around the Earth.. You can stick to your beliefs and end up exactly where the geocentric system ended. Or make an effort and learn a bit about quantum physics and electromagnetic field dynamics.
I refuse to engage in this discussion where you substitute your lack of knowledge with pushing and assaults.
I will publish the paper explaining the points and send you a copy.
Best regards
Prof. Valentina Zharkova
Director of ZVS Research Enterprise Ltd. London, EC1V 2NX, UK
Emerita Prof. of Mathematics
MSc, PhD, FRAS, FLMS, FHEA
Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical
Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Environment
Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST UK
On 20 Nov 2024, at 03:18, NT Consulting wrote:
Valentina,
Now we are getting somewhere: You said below that "energy can be accumulated within media by a strong opacity in particular wavelengths". So, you basically support the IPCC's claim that an open system such as the atmosphere can accumulate or trap radiant heat through the action of some trace gases that absorb & reemit IR radiation.
You are apparently not bothered by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which explicitly bans any heat trapping in an open system. This is a major offense in physical sciences worthy of revoking your PhD degree!
You also talk about a TSI "deposition" on Earth, which is another absurd and nonsensical concept invented by you. TSI is the solar flux incident on a perpendicular plane above the Earth's atmosphere. It has absolutely nothing to do with any actual absorption of solar energy by Earth. There cannot be physically any "deposition" of TSI to any portion of Earth. Furthermore, there are no physical laws relating temperature to a radiation accumulation or sum. All existing laws relate temperature to a radiation flux density. This is yet another reason for revoking your PhD degree!
Your understanding of the climate system is
simply ludicrous. It's appalling to see this level of science mediocrity in the climate skeptic community!
-Ned