Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2022 was +0.36 deg. C, up from the June, 2022 value of +0.06 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.23 0.19
2022 06 0.06 0.07 0.04 -0.36 0.46 0.33 0.11
2022 07 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.13 0.70 0.55 0.65
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Although we had the long-lasting double-dip La Nina, this year thru July is up 0.07 from the same period last year.
Up 0.07 on last year!!! Aaaaahhh, were all going to diiiiiiieeee!!
Any chance you could resort to a reasoned argument instead on nonsense?
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I’m ready to make $200/h to get done with few tasks on home PC. Ive never believed that its even reachable however my dearest friend acquiring $25k just in the span of five weeks basically working this driving undertaking and she had persuaded me to joinDiscover additional subtleties by going following connection https://www.worksful.com
https://pharmacocaine.com/
“were all going to diiiiiiieeee”
No, but the dream that an extended La Nina period portends a great reversal of the long term warming trend seems to be in doubt.
Individual months are well know to be variable around the ‘average’. Wait until the long term plays out. Unless you believe that somehow ENSO + a few months is not representative of global T.
I’ve been reading this line on here for over a decade now… How’s that longer-term trend going? Or do you just prefer to keep stating how it WILL trend down ad nauseum…
a period of 7 months is not an ‘individual month’.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-tropics-1.jpeg
shows what UAH has measured since 1979.
From above we see:-
Year Month Tropics
2022 01 -0.24
2022 02 -0.24
2022 03 -0.08
2022 04 -0.04
2022 05 0.01
2022 06 -0.36
2022 07 0.13
RSS for the same period to Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/rss-tropics.jpeg
7 months is weather. 17 years is climate. we will know if we entered a cooling climate period today in August 2039.
Alright, see you back here then! Take care.
Why? Seems to me the intelligent thing would be to stop talking about weather like it was climate. Seems that somebody needs to hang around to remind you of that.
We could look back to 2005 and see what the trend has been. It shows 0.2C per decade warming despite 2005 starting in El Nino conditions and the last two years being la Nina.
Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change. Most impressive example in recent earth history is the Younger Dryas event where temperatures suddenly rose 10+-4C in 50 years. Many others exist also of temp changes from 4C to 10C where the effects have been seen on civilizations such as the Star Carr events.
These are frequent in terms of the history of the Quaternary.
In fact the larger examples of these events can be spaced it seems as little as 800 to 1000 years apart and is obvious in ice core proxy variation and the records of Star Carr and Greenland and temperature proxies of various types.
Our current warming spell appears to be about 320 years long. Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years as the warming climate slowly overcame feedback effects of continuing glaciation from the centuries of cooling prior to that.
It shouldn’t be surprising that surface temperatures could remain flat due to a competition between ocean uptake of heat and increasing albedo. At least that is pretty mainstream thought.
Increasing albedo continued to decelerate until the mid 19th century when it then began to decrease. The expected result would be surface temperatures to begin to rise again.
If that is part of a thousand year cycle we are only 30% into it. Evidence is mixed as to whether warming occurs faster than cooling but if there is no difference we may still have 200 years of warming in the cards. So its hard to expect cooling anytime soon.
What drives most predictions is a multi-decadal variation most prominently seen in the mid-20th century, modest warming followed by modest cooling. since this pattern is only around a very modest half degree it is hard to actually expect it as a regular occurrence. . . .but who knows?
“Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change.”
I hadn’t started looking at the factors yet – just pointing out that we could talk about climate and not write the changes off as weather.
“Our current warming spell appears to be about 320 years long. Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years as the warming climate slowly overcame feedback effects of continuing glaciation from the centuries of cooling prior to that.”
As usual, Bill just makes up nonsense and declares it as if it is a fact.
We have learned not to take him seriously.
Craig T says:
”Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change.”
I hadnt started looking at the factors yet just pointing out that we could talk about climate and not write the changes off as weather.
—————————–
No problem with that. We are apparently on the same page of what constitutes climate even if it is rather poorly defined. Using 17 years at least is widely accepted as per Ben Santer and his contention that it is at least a multi-decadal phenomena.
Nate says:
As usual, Bill just makes up nonsense and declares it as if it is a fact.
We have learned not to take him seriously.
——————
As usual Nate you lack any kind of an argument at all.
320 years of warming is perfectly consistent with instrument records and the effects of changing albedo is widely accepted in the science community and can be seen today in Arctic warming vs Antarctic warming.
” then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years ”
DO SHOW us a source for this ‘fact’ Bill.
If not, then admit that it is just invented and declared as if it is a fact.
We see the opposite effect occuring in the Arctic currently.
Check here Nate. NASA says: ”The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
See Nate if you pay attention you can learn something new every day! Isn’t that cool!
As noted, you show no source to back up your made up nonsense ‘then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years.”
Your posts can be safely ignored.
yep Nate says move along folks there is nothing to see here.
I guess thats so if you are a moron. But we had for almost 100 years flat temperatures and advancing ice sheets.
the ice sheets were still advancing coming out of the LIA. That is well documented on every glacier measured during that period. People were trying and failing to sail through the Northwest Passage on the basis of ‘intel’ gathered that it was there.
So temperatures were flat and albedo was increasing – according to albedo theories held by science that must mean there was a large imbalance and there was a ‘missing’ cooling.
Same deal as today where ice sheets are decreasing and they think there is a ‘missing warming’ so they used models to calculate an imbalance.
Nate you have to learn to not go by what people say but by what they do. Like Newton. Him saying the moon rotates on its axis doesn’t amount to a science-based investigation of the matter. In science you have to be consistent. . . .what you say and what you want to do science on doesn’t.
Still more nonsense, and, shockingly, still no source for it.
I guess you don’t know how to click on a link Nate.
Here I will post it again. Ask your daddy how to open it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
Nope.
you show no source to back up your made up nonsense then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years.”
Now go play in traffic.
Geez Nate could you add 2+2 if you hadn’t had your daddy do it for you and you memorized the answer?
“The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”
Yep. If there is warming, the ice-albedo effect enhances it. It cannot produce a ‘hidden warming’
Your claim makes no sense. No one other than YOU have asserted such nonsense.
Thanks again for playing, Bill. Goobye.
“Like Newton. Him saying the moon rotates on its axis doesn’t amount to a science-based investigation of the matter.”
It took seven days for the Moon to rotate back into the conversation.
Nate says:
”The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”
Yep. If there is warming, the ice-albedo effect enhances it. It cannot produce a hidden warming
——————————
Geez you don’t understand this at all! The ice albedo effect results in a warming influence via radiation when ice is shrinking.
Therefore when its expanding it creates a cooling influence. An effect as fundamental in physics as there is. When things go up they also come down!
And you really don’t understand that??? Freaking amazing! You really need somebody to verify that for you?? ROTFLMAO!!!
Craig T says:
It took seven days for the Moon to rotate back into the conversation.
————————
Seven days? Not hardly!
“Therefore when its expanding it creates a cooling influence. An effect as fundamental in physics as there is. When things go up they also come down!”
As YOU claimed, “Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades”
Warming produces RECEDING arctic sea ice. That produces a positive albedo feedback, and further warming.
You offer no rationale for the ice to start expanding again, and creating ‘a cooling influence’ many decades after the warming started.
Logic fails you, again.
Nate says:
Warming produces RECEDING arctic sea ice. That produces a positive albedo feedback, and further warming.
You offer no rationale for the ice to start expanding again, and creating a cooling influence many decades after the warming started.
Logic fails you, again.
————————
Yes warming eventually melts ice. . . .but first the feedback from the cooling has to run its course. You know like in ‘feedback’ comes ‘after’? I guess you didn’t know that.
Should be obvious that if positive feedback to cooling is observed and no warming is occurring. . . .that the warming and cooling feedback are cancelling each other out. Obviously you don’t have an alternative explanation.
“Should be obvious ”
It isnt obvious to me how you can get warming for several decades, then pause for 100 y, then get sustained, faster warming, with this vague model.
Come back when you have worked that out.
The alternative is that the first warming is natural recovery from the Maunder minimum of solar activity.
The second warming is AGW.
There is a nice theory for this and lots of confirming evidence.
Nate says:
”It isnt obvious to me how you can get warming for several decades, then pause for 100 y, then get sustained, faster warming, with this vague model.”
———————————-
Why not? After the glaciation stopped increasing it reversed direction. Why wouldn’t that create sustained positive warming feedback?
—————–
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
”Come back when you have worked that out.”
———————
I suppose I could follow science precedence and just pick a factor to multiply the warming by. . . .like ‘3x’ as a substitute for a quantified blueprint of how it actually works.
—————–
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
”The alternative is that the first warming is natural recovery from the Maunder minimum of solar activity.
The second warming is AGW.
There is a nice theory for this and lots of confirming evidence.”
——————————–
Beyond the fact that there is fossil fuel emissions and the use of a 3rd grader radiation model which has been debunked many times over the years. . . .what evidence are you referring to?
And of course it doesn’t have to be black or white. There can be multiple causes for warming.
“Why not?”
Sorry, Bill, your model cannot, logically, explain the 3 phases.
”
the use of a 3rd grader radiation model
which has been debunked many times”
As I noted to Vaughan Pratt:
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
It seems you are putting yourself squarely in the ignorant skeptics category.
Nate says:
”Sorry, Bill, your model cannot, logically, explain the 3 phases.”
———————-
thats incorrect! 3 phases is only the most simplistic example. real world examples probably have a lot more phases due to many other feedbacks and internal variations.
Nate says:
” Bill:”the use of a 3rd grader radiation model
which has been debunked many times”
As I noted to Vaughan Pratt:
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
———————-
Oh its debunked alright! What is debunked?
1) The 3rd grader radiation model! A model that doesn’t include all ‘necessary’ variables is simply WRONG!
2) It debunks Climate Science in their claim that the the physics behind the GHE is settled. They acknowledge that the 3rd grader model doesn’t work unless there is a lapse rate. But at no point do they explain exactly exactly where warming occurs and what physical process explains its occurrence. They claim a modification of the lapse rate (hot spot) but they don’t explain the physics of it nor can they point to a changing lapse rate. the only way I am aware of how to change the lapse rate is put more water vapor in the atmosphere, then it changes to the moist lapse rate and things at the surface tend to get warmer. then they revert to the 3rd grader radiation model to get cold CO2 to warm water and evaporate more.
—————
—————
—————-
Nate says:
”It seems you are putting yourself squarely in the ignorant skeptics category.”
——————–
Thats really hilarious! Sort of the pot calling the kettle black. But in this case its the pot that can’t see through the propaganda. Lindzen scoffs at the lapse rate argument. Pretty hilarious when your debate opponent retreats behind a skirt.
“1) The 3rd grader radiation model! A model that doesnt include all ‘necessary’ variables is simply WRONG!”
More BS from Bill. WTF is this model? Show us where ‘climate science’ uses this model.
“They acknowledge that the 3rd grader model doesnt work unless there is a lapse rate. But at no point do they explain exactly exactly where warming occurs and what physical process explains its occurrence. ”
Who is they, Bill? Show me a quote of ‘climate science’ ‘not explaining’ any of these things.
We’ve discussed GHE models before. Your track is to misunderstand, misconstrue, or just make it up.
Nate says:
More BS from Bill. WTF is this model? Show us where climate science uses this model.
———————-
Nate continues his retreat from: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Its a near rout as he only occasionally posts a rear guard post and pretends he isn’t a major defender of the model as he madly scrambles for the ‘lapse rate’ heights where the model continues to be used in as low of a profile manner possible.
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
Nate says:
Who is they, Bill? Show me a quote of climate science not explaining any of these things.
———————-
Didn’t M&W just get a Nobel Prize for doing the math? A.P. Smith must feel miffed that M&W would get it without doing the math.
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
———————-
Nate says:
Weve discussed GHE models before. Your track is to misunderstand, misconstrue, or just make it up.
——————-
You mean I have mounted such a flank attack on your position above that you find yourself in retreat?
Don’t feel bad Nate. Halpern also failed to relevantly respond to G&T. Arrhenius failed to respond to R.W Woods. You refuse to defend your ‘brick in the middle of the room model’ beyond waving your arms and trying to meekly claim it is irrelevant without going into any detail.
Bill, you know very well that the GPE is not the GHE, nor has anyone claimed it to be. It is simply illustrating how back radiation can produce insulation.
So you are either very very confused, or just trolling.
Likely both.
Nate says:
It is simply illustrating how back radiation can produce insulation.
——————–
1) It doesn’t matter if its a GPE or GHE nothing can violate 2LOT.
2) Insulation cannot violate 2LOT either, thats why the results of your GPE results here ( https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057 )
is total unadulterated bullshit
People claiming that a situation where heat is clearly flowing from hot to cold is somehow a violation of 2LOT are simply wrong.
This has been explained here many times. If you refuse to learn basic thermodynamic principles and basic heat transfer principles, and are determined to remain ignorant, then I can’t help you.
Goodbye, Bill.
Nate decides to give up on trying to explain how two passive 290k plates on either side of a plate heated with a 290k source of heat makes that heated plate 321k as he claims here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
“on either side of a plate heated with a 290k source ”
FALSE.
Now you are just lying in a pathetic attempt to bait me.
Seek attention from someone else.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Nate thats your post. The middle plate is warmed with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1.0. A 290k source (though the 3rd grader radiation model specifies it at 400w/m2).
You haven’t even begun to explain how that is turned into 600w/m2. What does it do start an energy production program? One way glass? Perpetuum Mobile?
Ad hominems isn’t any form of support of your statement. I realize you have none. And what is it about requiring a lapse rate before it works. The 3rd grader radiation model never specified anything like that.
“The middle plate is warmed with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1.0.”
Yep, which is a CONSTANT HEAT FLUX boundary condition, NOT A FIXED T boundary condition.
Not the same, as repeatedly explained to you.
That means T is not constrained. But you refuse to learn. You are an auditor who has no clue about heat transfer physics, and keep getting it WRONG.
Now stop man-splaining and misrepresenting stuff that is well beyond your knowledge.
There is no physics to support your point of view Nate and further its a violation of 2LOT.
The brick in the middle of the room is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2 = equals zero net transfer of energy.
The middle plate is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2. That is a zero net transfer of energy.
Not the same, as repeatedly explained to you. Will you learn? Go read the source I gave you on boundary conditions.
“The middle plate is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2. That is a zero net transfer of energy.”
As I noted
“The net transfer from hp to uh is then 600 400 = 200 W/m^2, on both sides, so total is 400 W/m^2, which satisfies 1LOT.”
You are apparently unable to read or understand plain English.
should say ‘then 600 – 400’
“The middle plate is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2. That is a zero net transfer of energy.”
The middle plate, if @ 290 K, and surrounded by plates @ 290 K, would be emitting 400 W/m^2 from each side and would be receiving 400 W/m^2 from the SURROUNDING PLATES on each side. This would be in balance, and identical to your brick in the room.
But the middle plate is ALSO RECEIVING 400 W/m^2 of heat input from an external source. That would leave an imbalance of inputs and outputs to the middle plate, and would be a 1LOT violation.
This is a fundamental accounting error.
In reality, if the middle is heated by an ADDITIONAL 400 W/m^2, it must rise in temperature until it emits an ADDITIONAL 400 W/m^2. It rises to 321 K to accomplish this.
Nate says:
As I noted
The net transfer from hp to uh is then 600 400 = 200 W/m^2, on both sides, so total is 400 W/m^2, which satisfies 1LOT.
You are apparently unable to read or understand plain English.
——————-
Yes you claim this but you have no source. You send an link on boundary layers none of which lay out the above.
And you also haven’t explained the contribution of the lapse rate which you said was also required.
Nate says:
The middle plate, if @ 290 K, and surrounded by plates @ 290 K, would be emitting 400 W/m^2 from each side and would be receiving 400 W/m^2 from the SURROUNDING PLATES on each side. This would be in balance, and identical to your brick in the room.
————–
Incorrect
In the imaginary GPE in space the middle plate receives 400w/m2 from a point source on one side. It remits this 400m/m2 split in two directions at 200w/m2 since the emitting surface area is double that of the receiving surface area. This warms the outer plates to 244k balancing with the 244k center plate and each of those emits 200w/m2 (outer emitting surface area still double that of inner plate radiation receiving area).
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Nate says:
But the middle plate is ALSO RECEIVING 400 W/m^2 of heat input from an external source. That would leave an imbalance of inputs and outputs to the middle plate, and would be a 1LOT violation.
This is a fundamental accounting error.
In reality, if the middle is heated by an ADDITIONAL 400 W/m^2, it must rise in temperature until it emits an ADDITIONAL 400 W/m^2. It rises to 321 K to accomplish this.
——————–
Total BS!
The only radiation received by the middle plate is the 400w/m2 from the source. You are trying to count backradiation whereas all back radiation does is regulate the warming rate of the outer plates. Since this is a logarithmic function it never actually fully reaches equilibrium and it explains why NASA spent months cooling the JWebb telescope. In your little imaginary world equilibrium isn’t even possible without conduction.
Bill,
“‘The middle plate, if @ 290 K, and surrounded by plates @ 290 K, would be emitting 400 W/m^2 from each side and would be receiving 400 W/m^2 from the SURROUNDING PLATES on each side. This would be in balance, and identical to your brick in the room.
Incorrect”
Why?
You say: “The brick in the middle of the room is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2 = equals zero net transfer of energy.”
How is the above any different?
“Yes you claim this but you have no source. ”
You need a source to show you that 1LOT and the SB Law are true and valid? If you don’t know that by now…it is hopeless.
SB Law and 1LOT do not specify the disposition of energy only that it exists and is emitted.
You simply extrapolate where the energy ends up and pretend that this weird disconnect results in some kind of balance. Its an extrapolation from atmospheric physics that was proven to NOT be a radiation effect over 100 years ago by R.W. Wood. Arrhenius never responded once Wood did his work.
So where is the energy. Simple! In the atmosphere it goes toward warming the surrounding air via collision. In space it goes toward warming the outer plates.
You would have us believe that a plate warmed to 290k in space cannot warm an outer plate to equilibrium and instead warms the inner plate to a larger discrepancy. We already know this brick in the middle of the room effect doesn’t exist. We know the reason why the window glass on a house has a mean temperature between the inside and the outside is because energy is being lost to conduction.
My observation is SB Law is based upon surfaces facing each other with no attention paid to heat losses out the opposite side surfaces.
I see nothing in SB Law that deals with that issue. If you see where it is dealt with, please provide a source.
Obviously if the unheated plate is losing heat that heat needs to be replaced.
In space there is no air. I would contend that if your viewpoint prevailed in space, insulating space craft would be a piece of cake.
As it is we pour tons of money into highly reflective vacuum pocket insulation to stop both conduction and radiation simultaneously with the vacuum stopping the conduction and the 99% reflective surfaces slowing but not stopping warming via radiation.
Still you need a cooling system to dump off the 1% or so getting through as it won’t dump that heat to space until equilibrium is reached at the solar constant temperature.
So the reflection doesn’t change the equilibrium it just changes the amount of energy/heat one needs to provide another avenue for escape.
This was all well known well before Climate Science started accumulating a collection of scientists not doing well in their own fields who remained totally ignorant of this stuff.
Now they hide behind a lapse rate and so far you haven’t explained why that is necessary for your effect to exist. . . .after you admitted it was necessary. You continue to support a model that doesn’t have a lapse rate while admitting you believe it needs one. You are trying to keep one foot each in two different boats and I am giving one of those boats a little shove. Good luck!
“SB Law and 1LOT do not specify the disposition of energy only that it exists and is emitted.
You simply extrapolate where the energy ends up and pretend that this weird disconnect results in some kind of balance.”
Well you seemed to be able to apply them to your brick in a room.
‘The brick in the middle of the room is receiving 400w/m2 and emitting 400w/m2 = equals zero net transfer of energy.’
Here you seem to realize that emitted radiation will be absorbed.
For the plates problem, you claim ignorance.
OK, you don’t know how to apply these laws to the plates. Then you have no business asserting that I have done it wrong, do you.
The rest is off-topic distractions and squirrels.
You didnt answer my question above.
“‘The middle plate, if @ 290 K, and surrounded by plates @ 290 K, would be emitting 400 W/m^2 from each side and would be receiving 400 W/m^2 from the SURROUNDING PLATES on each side. This would be in balance, and identical to your brick in the room.’
Incorrect”
Why?
Nate says:
Here you seem to realize that emitted radiation will be absorbed.
————————-
Sure Nate but unless the backradiation is greater than the primary radiation its completely impotent to warm anything.
You can run around all you want parroting what your Daddy told you. But you need to provide the experiment that demonstrates the effect you describe. It is not adequate to assume you can use mathematics to extrapolate the result. You need to follow the advice of Lord Kelvin and Clausius.
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Nate says:
For the plates problem, you claim ignorance.
OK, you dont know how to apply these laws to the plates. Then you have no business asserting that I have done it wrong, do you.
—————————–
At least I have engineered some of this stuff. What is your resume on that? An unemployed college graduate?
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Nate says:
Why?
——————————
Because you haven’t yet even begun to explain why your version requires a lapse rate.
You need to blueprint out your entire theory before starting to loudly bleat that it is valid.
“Because you havent yet even begun to explain why your version requires a lapse rate.”
So you claim ‘incorrect’ but cannot explain why. So toss out squirrels.
You continue to be a loser-troll. Too bad.
And you continue to avoid explaining why you believe a lapse rate is necessary. No doubt the reason why is you can’t. All you can do is parrot your daddy who also can’t explain.
In fact Nate what did you say here?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347211
”The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.”
And here you are lying your arse off that the cartoon model, the 3rd grader radiation model is valid?
You are really a total piece of shit liar Nate!
Nobody lied about that toy model, Bill, except perhaps Sky Dragon cranks who cannot bring themselves to read real scientific sources and not K12 stuff.
As for your other bait:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/
“And you continue to avoid explaining ”
There is no point in trying to explain, again, anything to Bill. He is unable to to stay on-topic and always makes hash out of it.
He mixes all the issues into a melange of confusion, bad fiziks, political rants, philosophical mumbo jumbo, and ad homs designed to bait people down endless rabbit holes.
Nate you never have explained. You can’t explain. So stop lying!
Willard says:
Nobody lied about that toy model, Bill, except perhaps Sky Dragon cranks who cannot bring themselves to read real scientific sources and not K12 stuff.
———————
You are lying if you believe the model is incorrect and you continue to defend it.
Is there a way to donate? I click on the donate and get a message that the link is broken.
Try this:
https://clownswithoutborders.org/donate-clowns-without-borders/
Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career, I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com
I am very interested in knowing why and how La Nina and El Nino are formed, although I believe it is the result of huge amount of waste heat from human activities (about 80% of global energy consumption) that over 90% has been accumulated in oceans.
Meanwhile, I still believe that waste heat caused the warming. According to thermodynamics, the temperature changes in air, land and oceans as well as the sea level rise are well correlated to this waste heat, while CO2 and air temperature anomalies doesn’t have any correlation. The details can be found here https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=118741.
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/arctic-warming-4-times-faster-than-rest-of-world
Dr Spencer
What are we to make of this report concerning faster
Arctic temperature rise and suggesting it is a precursor to
Future global temp changes?
The usual suspects- eg defining Arctic area etc but its from Fox News which
Isnt usual. Lol
are we talking like 4 degrees warmer from -50 to -46 degrees F type Of situation?
Thank you
Richard M 2 months ago after the update for May of +0.17:
“The next two months will likely stay close to this value as the SSTs were fairly flat”
Next two months:
June +0.06
July +0.36
Neither was close.
The average of 0.06 and 0.36 is 0.21.
Wow – “I made two mistakes but look – I can make the errors cancel out if I average them.”
Can you see a prediction of the average in that comment?
@Antonin-Q: It seems there is a friction over what “close to this value” means. If, for example, “close” means +/- 0.2 degrees, then Richard-M’s assertion would stand. Richard-M will need to be more specific about what “close to this value” means before his assertion can be deemed invalid.
If close means 0.2 degrees then it says little.
Less than a fifth of a degree change is not clise enough for you?
Really the whole climate change emergency is just panic about background noise in the temperature data. 1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C change over a hundred years when the baseline is about 15C or more properly when dealing with heat, 288K – at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.
” at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.”
A change similar to the change since 20,000 y ago, when a kilometer of ice covered NY city, is Yawn?
Gads Nate! You are predicting a kilometer of ice on top of New York!!!! When is this going to occur?
You can’t read, Bill.
And once again are claiming BS that I never said!
Now stop being a loser-troll.
Nate says:
”You cant read, Bill.
And once again are claiming BS that I never said!
Now stop being a loser-troll.”
——————
IMHO, a loser troll would be somebody who tries to ridicule somebody who pointed out the absurdity of concern about a recent warming of .2 of a degree over the past 17 years by comparing it to the end of the ice age.
A troll lies about and distorts what other people said in order to ridicule them.
You did that here, Bill.
Thus you are a troll, but not very good at it, since the lie and the distortion are plainly obvious for all to see, and the ridicule is neither clever nor funny.
Nate says:
Thus you are a troll, but not very good at it, since the lie and the distortion are plainly obvious for all to see, and the ridicule is neither clever nor funny.
——————–
Which lie, which distortion?
I just asked a question. You just recognized it as ridiculous but it led directly from your trolling as to how ridiculous it is respond to somebody suggesting .2c warming over a couple decades was insignificant by making a stupid and blatant attempt to try to make it look significant.
I was just feeding you back your own garbage. . . .and you choked on it. Congratulations!
Go troll your mom, Bill.
“who pointed out the absurdity of concern about a recent warming of .2 of a degree over the past 17 years by comparing it to the end of the ice age.”
Lets see what the poster actually said that I responded to:
“1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C change over a hundred years when the baseline is about 15C or more properly when dealing with heat, 288K at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.”
4 C IS INDEED comparable to the ~ 5 C global change since the ice age.
So, again, YOU can’t read, distort and lie about what I said, and do it with 5th grade level ‘humor’.
so in your mind Nate ”1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C” change was the estimated change brought by the last glacial? To my knowledge that is only one tenth to one fifth the temperature change was during the last glacial.
” To my knowledge”
And therein lies your problem….as always.
I suppose you are one of those nutcases that think New York is going to be buried under a kilometer of ice due to global warming too.
Makes sense since all this panic about climate change involves . . . any climate change. Like everything else what it is about is Total Control!
“I suppose you”
And therein lies your other problem..as ever.
Nater I am not the nutcase running around equating 1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C climate change to New York being under a kilometer of ice!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1342586
Interesting that there’s so much “agreement” between areas this month. For example look at
NHEM 0.37
SHEM 0.35
and,
USA48 0.70
ARCTIC 0.55
AUST 0.65
Typically these areas can vary quite a bit from each other.
Just a statistical oddity, I suppose….
We’re told that UAH lags ENSO by about 5 months. ONI was -0.94 and MEI was -0.97 in February. Yet here we are with July at +0.36 C or 0.14 C above the trendline. We are no where close to going below 0 C on the old 1981-2010 baseline or even the new 1991-2020 baseline. I am rooting for the rare triple dip La Nina though. I want to see just how low UAH can go.
The 4 out of 7 models that predict another La Nina all seem to be predicting a weak borderline event. So I don’t think we will get very low anomalies/
But when will we get the next EL Nino and how strong is it going to be?
Not relevant to this discussion.
bdgwx says:
I am rooting for the rare triple dip La Nina though. I want to see just how low UAH can go.
==========================
Probably not very low this is a pretty weak La Nina cycle. there isn’t a lot of evidence that ENSO can have much longterm effect over a projected 30 month La Nina cycle. Icecore records suggest cooling occurs far more slowly than warming. https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/images/8/8f/Ice_ages2.gif
Transition to glacial periods look like they take at least 5 times longer than the warming takes. Doesn’t look too much like orbital variation to me.
The reasons for the rapid warming and slower cooling during glacials/interglacials are quite well understood. Links very well to orbital variations.
So you are saying the planet changes its orbit by slowly moving away from the sun, then it quickly zips back in closer? I get that there is more than one kind of orbital change, but to have several interglacials all have a similar pattern to above seems rather interesting. Can you explain that or are you just going with your inculcated viewpoint.
Also, this is the 2nd warmest July in the UAH record. The first is 1998 of +0.38 C in which 1998/02 had an ONI and MEI of +1.93 and +2.43 respectively. We were only 0.02 C away despite 2022/02 having an ONI and MEI of -0.94 C and -0.97 C respectively. What will the next July look like when ENSO is strongly positive?
Sorry, you beat me to it.
And if ENSO is only weakly positive?
Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career,e3 I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com
A surprisingly warm July given the continuing negative ENSO conditions.
This was the 2nd warmest July in the data set and only 0.02C cooler than the record set in 1998. Of the top 10, or even 15, warmest July’s, only one was before the 21st century.
Looks like a repeat of the 1930s and continuing to come out of the Little Ice Age. In a few months we will return to flattish for a few decades.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYY3u4uaUAAICNr?format=jpg&name=large
Denny
Your comparison is doubly flawed:
– you compare the Globe (oceans included) with the US (2 % of it)
– you compare anomalies with absolute data.
The same flaw you obtain when comparing for CONUS descending sorts of
– the absolute TMAX values
1936 7 32.86
1934 7 32.75
1980 7 32.68
1901 7 32.61
1931 7 32.53
1930 7 32.40
1937 8 32.23
1917 7 32.13
1910 7 32.11
1954 7 32.10
to
– the TMAX anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010
1910 3 4.36
1954 2 3.56
2012 3 3.43
2006 1 3.36
2021 12 3.34
1939 12 3.25
1930 2 3.02
1999 11 2.88
2017 2 2.82
This makes no sense, let alone at the Globe’s level.
La Nina is still going strong, and it is likely to persist through summer and perhaps into the winter. So with lag of 5months,the cool temperatures on L troposphere global temperature will likely persist until next year (2023). Obviously, there is always noise in the system on a month to month basis, but this is an interesting phase of luke warm temperatures.
“The trade winds re-strengthened over the second half of June (2022), and remain stronger than average as we go to press. This will likely help to cool the surface, and may contribute to an upwelling Kelvin wave, a region of cooler-than-average subsurface water that moves west to east. Along with being a sign that La Nias amped-up Walker circulationthe atmospheric response to La Nias cooler sea surfaceis still present, the stronger trades are a source of confidence in the forecast for La Nia to continue through the summer.”
Climate dot gov ENSO blog
Something wrong with the temperatures ove Australia. Should be a lot colder.
angech
The best for you will be to watch July temperatures measured by Australian radiosondes at 700 hPa.
Ta
“So with lag of 5months,the cool temperatures on L troposphere global temperature will likely persist… this is an interesting phase of luke warm temperatures.”
Let’s quantify.
2nd warmest July in the UAH record.
2022 is currently the 6th warmest year.
“2nd warmest July in the UAH record”
By Jove you are correct.
1998 7 0.38
Mind you GISS, Had5 and RSS (amongst others) do not consider 1998 to be that important.
P.S. Care to guess what next month will be?
Sometimes.
Using the Monckton method…
The pause period (0 C/decade or less) is at 94 months (7 years, 10 months).
The doubled warming period (+0.26 C/decade or greater) is at 186 months (15 years, 6 months).
The peak warming period (+0.33 C/decade) is at 140 months (11 years, 8 months).
The positive warming period (0 C/decade or greater) is at 524 months (43 years, 8 months).
“The pause period (0 C/decade or less) is at 94 months (7 years, 10 months).”
__________________
Same duration as last month, only he has to start it a month later now! The start points for his latest series of ‘no warming since…’ trends must be reaching double figures.
I think it will be 7 years 11 months. The trend starting with September 2014 is positive, but when rounded off will be 0. Only about 0.003C / decade.
So I think this will count, using Monckton’s rules as showing “no warming trend”.
Ah…right. Yeah, we’ll have to see how Monckton handles the rounding.
Bingo!
Yep. 7 years 11 months. You were right!
Is he still doing this?
The New Pause lengthens to 7 years 11 months
4 hours ago
Guest Blogger
39 Comments
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-11-months/
What a doofus.
Please, Barry.
Monktopus.
I prefer the tradition term, crackpot
Brits have quite a number of them.
RE: 3C warming on a doubling of CO2 has been nothing but a long pause.
Well Dr. Roy’s data confirms what is pretty obvious. July 2022 was brutally hot across the globe.
Climate Change drove killer heat waves during the month and continues to do so this month. These heat waves are particularly dangerous for older adults and young children. I’ve posted a video on the dangers for seniors. Here’s the link.
https://youtu.be/FpmMEn0pmmQ
Climate Change also has been driving dangerous wildfire conditions, and I’ve posted a video on how the northern hemisphere has been affected. Here’s the link:
https://youtu.be/laeiVoSAcdE
Happy viewing, Dr. Mark
You’re a doctor of what precisely? There is no link between climate change and these heat waves, and if you assert it, you are a fraud.
If “Dr” Mark is not a fraud, he’s trying awfully hard to be one.
He comments here monthly, and links to his alarmist videos. He knows NOTHING about climate, or the related physics. When asked to describe the GHE, he rambled in such a way that would make Norman proud, and ended with the fact that a hot vacuum tube can burn your hand is “proof” of the GHE!
“You can do a simple experiment to understand this. Take an old-fashioned vacuum tube. Put a finger on the surface of the vacuum tube. Run a large enough current through the filament of the tube so that it just begins to glow red. You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.”
clint…quote from Dr. Mark…”You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.
***
We both know Doc Mark’s analysis is way of here. Each element within a vacuum tube has to be brought out to the real world by metal pins. Each vacuum tube has metal pins on the bottom of it to apply voltages to the internal elements and to retrieve current from the anode. Also, to apply voltage to the heaters that glow red.
All the heat produced exits the tube via the metal pins. Even though the tube is evacuated, the glass is well-sealed around the pins. Guess what??? Heat flows through metal pins as well as electrical current, ergo, the glass heats directly from the heat in the pins.
I might add that the sockets into which the tubes are inserted can get mighty hot as well. I have seen bakelite tube bases burned out and ceramic bases get discoloured by the heat.
On top of that, the heated filament in a vacuum tube, which produces most of the heat, is surrounded by a metal cylinder, the anode. IR cannot travel through metal, therefore any IR emitted by the filament will be absorbed by the anode cylinder
Same with light bulbs. A 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts of electrical power and although the bulb is evacuated, heat from the tungsten filament flows down metal parts to the base and heats the glass.
“There is no link …”
I will point out that, statistically speaking, your claim is AT LEAST as dubious as the other claim.
There are two claims we could test.
1) There IS a (statistically significant) link between climate change and the extreme heat waves.
2) There IS NOT a (statistically significant) link between climate change and the extreme heat waves.
Lack of a statistically significant link is not statistically significant evidence there is no link.
(And the intuitive conclusion is that the increasing temperatures overall contribute to the high temperatures. It would take VERY strong evidence that temperatures have risen but that does NOT contribute to heat waves.)
The data does not show an increase in the frequency of heat waves in the first place, so the link doesnt exist by default, since (mild) warming is happening. When any of these alarmist can come up with a physical model for why Europe should get more heat waves because Siberia is 2C warmer on average or northernmost Quebec is slightly less freezing, I am willing to listen to it. Conflating weather and climate is not a good look.
Today, heat waves are more frequent, last longer, begin earlier in the season, extend later in the year, and are more intense.
Basically, heat waves are just _more_ than they were in previous decades.
The claim that there is no increase in frequency is just weird.
For a quick visual of specifically US data, you can go to the EPA/Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves page
This reading comes as a surprise with the tropics still cool and the arctic ice seeming very stable. Earth spin rate showing ice mass still building at the poles. This was not only the 2nd hottest reading for July, but also the 2nd hottest reading period going by the absolute earth temperature. Remember we are dealing with departures from each month’s average. The earth is actually the warmest in July despite it being in it’s aphelion. It could still be a massive energy discharge before continuing the drop from the 2016 highs. We’ve seen these pops before and they are not usually sustained. Still, challenging the 1998 record which happened during a record el nino during a la nina is a significant occurrence. Even folks on the warmist train should be wondering how the earth might have warmed so much month over month. I hope Dr Spencer double checked all of these numbers as it seems like all regions popped higher at nearly the same amounts… an unusual occurrence worthy of a double check.
” This reading comes as a surprise with the tropics still cool… ”
I didn’t know that a move from -0.36 to +0.13 is an indicator for cooling. But I love to learn.
The tropics look like this at present.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
As usual, dumb, tricky daily stuff.
Where is your monthly data for July 2022, trickster?
When Roy publishes it, not until then.
I mean SST data, you trickster.
“Where is your monthly data for July 2022”
As I said, this is rarely available for the first few days of any month. Roy is usually the first to publish it in the monthly cycle.
If you want the last 90 days try this
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
Bindidon
All I am asking for is that the data is checked to make sure. We don’t usually see all regions warming at once and by so much. It’s like 0.3c was added to all the data.
Yes, the Pacific, ocean tropics are still below baseline. The delays definitely are a factor here but the tropics didn’t go above baseline and are headed lower again. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
It could be completely legit. Let’s see if we get the usual drop that follows sudden pops like this, meaning this was an energy discharge, which puts the future earth in an energy deficit.
” Its like 0.3c was added to all the data. ”
Curiously, no one in the Skeptic community says that when the temperature experiences a drop of the same size.
Typical Pavlovian reflex, like
– when it’s cooling a bit, they say ‘Global cooling ahead’
but
– when it’s warming a bit, they say ‘It was warmer in the Holocene’.
As
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_
coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
shows that the tropics are not symmetrically distributed about the equator perhaps having North and South Tropics treated separately would help in any plots/graphs.
Sorry that should be
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
-62C at Antarctic today.
By all account the ice is melting dramatically but I doubt it.
Yes but although it’s -62C the ice identifies as 1C, so it’s melting.
-62C over an entire area of 14 million square kilometres! How freakish!
There you go:
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place/#antarctica
” By all account the ice is melting dramatically but I doubt it. ”
Please Ken, keep serious.
While in the Arctic the ice doesn’t melt as much as usual, in the Antarctic the ice rebuilds less than usual.
That’s all.
The temperature measured by one or more weather stations at some given points is by no means an indicator for how ice melts or grows.
Its the dead of winter in the coldest place on Earth. And the Antarctic has been in total darkness for a few months.
And people are surprised that ice is frozen there??
Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career,t5 I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com
I get your humour but we need to remind the unwary that climate alarmists have found a location on the Antarctic Peninsular, near the latitude of the tip of South America, where a slight warming has taken place. Objective scientists point out it is caused by ocean activity but alarmists continue to flock there with thermometers clutched in their cheating hands. They lack the courage to move onto the Antarctic mainland to do their measurements.
We also need to remind them of the words of polar expert, Duncan Wingham…”It is far to cold for ice to melt in Antarctica”.
It is likely that La Nina will strengthen by November, when water from melting sea ice in the south will feed the surface Humboldt Current.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=08
Yeah.
” when water from melting sea ice in the south will feed the surface Humboldt Current. ”
And if this analysis is correct
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
then we should expect a very strong La Nina, shouldn’t we?
L’Heureux suggested that La Nina will continue on until winter. But you knew that, right?
Since the solar wind is weak, La Nina may be weak. I did not write that La Nina will be strong, but that it will intensify in November. Moreover, if La Nina is weak no strong El Nino will form after the solar cycle maximum.
During La Nina, heat accumulates beneath the surface of the western tropical Pacific. If the easterly winds are too weak, these warm subsurface waters will not reach the Peruvian Current because the amount of heat stored will be too small.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The jet stream pulls lows with precipitation from the Indian Ocean to Australia, which is why Australia’s average temperature overstates the global average.
ren…it is well-known that BOM is as much a climate alarmist cheater as NOAA and NASA GISS. They have obviously fudged Australian temps to make them look warmer.
Explain this “obviousness”.
I thought it would be cooler mostly due to lack of hurricanes.
I have not followed or know much hurricanes, but I thought there should more of them, and it continue none are expected in next 48 hours:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
I am guessing if this continue thru Aug, it might be even more odd?
Or I am expecting more to at least start to form in August.
There was something earlier dust getting to Europe from Africa, does
dust have anything to do it?
A look at the surface temperature anomalies of the tropical North Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/51M5vGX/cdas-sflux-ssta-eatl-1.png
I thought La Nia is suppose to have more hurricanes.
And Tropical ocean surface is always warm enough for hurricanes.
I maybe they mean in Pacific, there been two of them {though they didn’t close to me- and died quickly.
No, the temperature of the eastern tropical Atlantic is important for hurricane formation.
https://i.ibb.co/jbQ8MYt/eatlssta.png
Happy 10th anniversary to Tonys pre-print, which Senior presented as a game changer:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-10th-anniversary-of-still.html
Perhaps he meant a changeup pitch.
It’s obvious where he screwed the pooch, people like to live in warm places, that explains the UHI effect completely.
good
Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career, I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading following page..
Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career,y6 I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com
It’s a bit strange that the satellite temperature is up 0,3 degrees while the 2 meter temperature is the same as for June.
Strange? Why?
UAH’s absolute temperatures are measured at an average altitude of 4-5 km.
Quite different things appear there, e.g. huge poleward advection streams we (happily) never experience at the surface.
UAH temperatures are extrapolated downwards towards the ground into the SBL/PBL (Surface Boundary Layer/Planetary Boundary Layer) in the same way that the 2m ‘ground’ thermometers are extrapolated upwards from inside the SBL/PBL for the higher atmosphere layers.
The SBL/PBL is not mentioned that often but is one of the most turbulent and layered sections of the atmosphere that has distinctive and different day/night profiles.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
To make things even more complicated, the SBL/PBL differs considerably between the land and the oceans as well.
https://www.globalweatherclimatecenter.com/weather-education/a-comparison-between-the-land-and-marine-boundary-layers-photo-credit-arm-ena-site
” UAH temperatures are extrapolated downwards towards the ground into the SBL/PBL (Surface Boundary Layer/Planetary Boundary Layer) in the same way that the 2m ground thermometers are extrapolated upwards from inside the SBL/PBL for the higher atmosphere layers. ”
Any official UAH reference, trickster?
Or is it once more your private guess?
Roy said that (or something similar) in one of his explanations about how the LT profile was constructed for v6.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MSU2-vs-LT23-vs-LT.gif
How else do you think it was constructed?
binny…”UAHs absolute temperatures are measured at an average altitude of 4-5 km”.
***
Binny is being an idiot again. It has been explained how the AMSU coverage works, with channel 5 reaching right to the surface. The centre frequency of channel 5 may be at 4 km but the weighting curve shows clearly that coverage extends to the surface.
Robertson
You prove here one more time how ignorant you are.
Roy Spencer has explained often enough that this ‘reaching right to the surface’ is not a solution but a problem because it creates biases over the oceans and contaminates the tropospheric data.
Stop talking about things you don’t understand.
Could that be that the SBL/PBL is so different over the land and the ocean?
frank…sats cover 95% of the Earth’s solid surface and oceans while surface stations cover no more than 30%, and poorly.
If only satellites gave readings at the earth’s surface instead of kilometres aloft.
If there only wasn’t an SBL/PBL (see above) to complicate things regardless if it is ‘measured’ from above of below.
….above or below….
Where is the hockey stick?
Isn’t the end of times coming around in a decade or less?
I mean, come on, there is PLENTY of data by now.
The hockey stick is still there, but… still no end of times coming around in a decade or less. Sorry.
Just saw an article about the Mann’s hockey stick being discarded and replaced with new reconstructions that restores the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age, except I don’t remember where it was
Whoever wrote the article did a piss-poor job then.
MBH99:
“Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age.”
It doesn’t matter who wrote it , the charts were the latest from official government agencies, it’s your piss-poor reply linking to 28 years old page
“Mann’s hockey stick”
is what I linked to. The one that supposedly didn’t include MWP and LIA according to whatever dross article you read.
Completely unsurprised you didn’t even recognize the material your article criticizes. Par for the course for skeptics.
martha…the original MBH98/99 hockey stick was discarded by the IPCC after a ruling by the National Academy of Science and an expert statistician, Wegmann, declared it seriously inaccurate.
NAS told MBH that they could not base the 20th century reconstructions on pine tree bristlecone, as they had done. Without the 20th century they had no blade for the stick and a good portion of the handle was missing. NAS also told them they could not apply their proxy data after 1600 AD, mainly because one of the years before that relied on one tree for the entire annual reconstruction.
The IPCC re-based the hockey stick in 1850 and added so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. They also re-instated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that had been omitted by MBH to make the shaft of the stick seem straight.
What MBH was left with in the end was a portion of the hockey stick between 1600 and 1900 AD.
Here’s one example of a spaghetti graph.
https://climateaudit.org/2004/10/26/spaghetti-diagrams/
An explanation by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit on the IPCC graph…
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/
ps. if you look at the 2nd link, you can see what’s really wrong with the hockey stick…
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/
MBH shows a slight negative trend from 1000 AD to 1850 AD, of about 2/10ths C. Similar proxy data reveals that the dip in global temps was 1C to 2C between about 1300 AD and 1850 AD, when the LIA ended. Furthermore, proxy data shows the Medieval warm period circa 1000 AD as being at least equivalent to today.
There is better evidence for this mini-ice age than proxy data. Across the globe, glaciers increased in length and girth dramatically. The Mer de Glace in the Alps progressed down a valley, wiping out villages and farms that had been long established.
There are written reports about the extent of the cold that produced crop failures in the Scottish highlands and in North America. Arctic explorers reported on how locked the channels f the Northwest Passage were with ice, during summer months.
What is not clearly shown is that MBH, the dark blue line, ended around 1960. That’s when the proxy data temps were falling while real temps were rising. So, you see the fudged blue upturn then the red so-called Industrial average takes over.
That was referred to as Mann’s trick in the climategate email scandal, meaning he hid declining proxy temperatures by splicing in real temperatures. Phil Jones of Had-crut bragged about using the same trick.
This is apparently the IPCC version from TAR, the Third Assessment (review). The IPCC are claiming, with the red curve that during the LIA temps only dropped about 0.5C below average at best. That is a blatant lie according to many proxy studies, the red curve being based on them in the early days as well.
The point is, what was the average they are using as a baseline? Global temps are shown to increase dramatically from 1850 onward and it is blamed on a trace gas, CO2. They are claiming, essentially, that the 400 year LIA was par for the course and that CO2 suddenly warmed the planet.
Geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has called them on that false claim. He pointed out that re-warming occurred naturally from the LIA and the IPCC did not acknowledge it. MBH completely ignored the LIA as well as warming from it.
The truth is that Mann, who led MBH, had just received his degree and was totally incapable of understanding the statistical analysis involved. He was revealed as a nincompoop, first by McIntyre and McKitrick, then by NAS, and Wegmann, after complaints from M&M went unheeded by the IPCC. Finally, the US government interceded by appointing NAS and Wegmann to investigate.
C’mon, Gordo.
There’s so many things you got wrong.
The NAS panel has nothing to do with the IPCC.
Mike did not testify on the NAS panel.
MBH starts in 1400.
The IPCC did not “rebase” in 1850.
Among the recons, MBH shows one of the biggest MWP.
Please stop trying to soapbox about your weight.
The hockey stick is still there.
But looking at the data it appears that the blade has dropped down and we are seeing a levelling off in the temp rise.
Can you show us what you are talking about?
I would be interested in what Mark can bring forward. But what we have seen since 2000 is a doubling of the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the 1990 to 2000 rate of increase from a 3.5gt per decade increase to 7gt per decade increase.
So is there any evidence of an increase in the rate of warming from this? Seems to me it should have doubled if the mainstream compromised institutional view on this were correct. Can you show us that doubling Nate? I haven’t seen hide nor hair of it.
Of course China alone provided almost 60% of that increase and China and India combined provided about 2/3rds of the total increase.
Meanwhile the US reduced its emissions in the last 2 decades by 10%. China emissions passed the US in 2005 and is now more than twice that of the US. How much do we hear from the democrats about that? Nothing!
IMHO, the way forward is to look at efficiency of emissions and to begin to reward efficiency to a material degree, rather than penalize inefficiency. US GDP efficiency is 129% that of China. So penalizing US GDP simply increases any problem from emissions rather than decreasing it. Is that a conspiracy?
the US has followed a unilateral policy of penalizing the US poor people by raising the cost everything. Our homeless population is almost entirely attributable to the twin evils of regressive legislation and substance abuse with the regressive legislation strongly feeding the substance abuse problem.
This is classic control philosophy. Treat the population like a mushroom farm by keeping it in the dark and feeding it shit.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC004.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC003.gif
These are links to BOM Australia maps of global ocean temperatures to depth of 400m and 150m.
If you look at the anomalies at the bottom is seems to me that a lot of the ocean heat has been pushed to the ocean surface and then evaporated into the atmosphere, over the last month.
These maps were published August 1st
Thanks, interesting!
What about these graphs tell you that? This is not a time series. The three graphs are measuring different things, all for August 1.
BOM are NOAA clones. They are all liars and cheats.
Robertson
You are this blog’s greatest liar.
More importantly:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Important video, Dremt. Well presented.
DREMT, is there any truth to the rumor that Coldplay is going to do a cover?
Chris Martin did DM me the other day. I said I’d consider it, just as a favour to him, really.
Graham, please stop trolling.
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
OK, Kiddo.
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
There used to be someone commenting under GW.
Do you happen to know that person, Graham?
“…Graham?”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
Please pick your “GW” nick, Graham.
“…Graham.”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
Sure, GW:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
Yes, GW:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
“GW”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
You sure like to repeat irrelevancies, Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
“…Graham:”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
You used to comment under other names,, silly sock puppet.
One of them was GW.
https://imgur.io/a/5DMTE1Q
You do not seem to understand what sock-puppetry is. It’s not changing names a couple of times before you settle on one that lasts. The reason I keep saying “there is nobody here commenting under that name” is to try to get across to you that the etiquette dictates you should refer to me either as Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team or DREMT. If you can’t do that, then you will just keep getting the “there is nobody here commenting under that name” message, for the rest of the time here that you try to address me. Which, let’s face it, will be every time that I comment, since you are completely obsessed with me.
You do not understand anything about honour, Graham.
In Climateball, you pick a normal name. You stick to it. If you do not, you become a sock puppet. This is the normal usage of the term in online communities since before the Internet.
You do not use a name to bypass blog policy. You do not pick a name to be smug or ironic.
So you are more GW than any moderator. We know why:
https://imgur.io/a/5DMTE1Q
GW is perfectly acceptable. The one you insist in keeping is not.
Among the Dragon Cranks here, only Gordo and Bill kept their original identity.
Drop the ad nauseam, and please stop trolling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account
“A sock puppet is defined as a person whose actions are controlled by another.[1] It is a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, and is often used to refer to alternative online identities or user accounts used for purposes of deception. Online, it came to be used to refer to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[2]
In Internet terms, sock puppets are online identities used for disguised activity by the operator. The use of the term has expanded to now include other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend, or support a person or organization,[3] to manipulate public opinion,[4] or to circumvent restrictions, such as viewing a social media account that they are blocked from, suspension, or an outright ban from a website.”
“alternative online identities or user accounts”
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
I do not have alternative online identities. I comment here under DREMT, and DREMT only.
Sure, Chartmaster:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Or is it Rajinder or Hapless?
But once again you are missing the point:
GW is acceptable.
The nick you actually use is not.
Chartmaster’s my music name. Talk about unreasonable. I only comment here under the name DREMT. Since I have taken that name, I have not commented anywhere else under any different name. So no, I do not have alternate online identities. Any alternate online identities used in the past were not used for purposes of deception, and nor is DREMT used for any nefarious purposes. So no, I’m not a “sock puppet”. And I couldn’t care less if you think DREMT is an “unacceptable” name.
[GRAHAM] I do not have alternative online identities.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Chartmaster’s my music name.
So I’m not allowed a different name for my music!? Lol. You really are desperate.
You can do whatever you please, Graham.
Please stick to GW:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
So you agree I’m not a sock puppet, accept you were wrong, and apologize for your previous false accusations. Great.
I agree that you do not understand that your silly nick would be against the sock puppet rule in many, many online communities, Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1343385
OK, Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
“OK, Graham:”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
Will do, GW:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
“Will do, GW:”
There is not a single commenter here who cares about your extended personal attack, Willard.
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
Solar wind
speed: 532.5 km/sec
density: 9.13 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 32
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.82×10^10 W Neutral
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Not much of solar Max conditions.
Still might get a spotless day, but
I think it will pick and get use to
150 and + sunspots fairly soon [few weeks] and:
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
48-hr change: +1.1%
This kind what I thought it would do, if it
gets to +5, then not what thought it would do,
or still somewhat low {but historical high for Solar Max}
So long as it’s +5 or more and lasting for weeks it’s not
going add much to astronauts lifetime radiation limits and I think
will get -3 or lower within few weeks and last a long time below
0.
They got july:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Aug should jump up quite a bit
The Sun activity is flat for the last 4 month, and almost dead right now, some think it could be already the first of the double peaks
Sunspot number: 25
Updated 03 Aug 2022
“Some” being which solar scientists?
Just observe the data.
https://i.ibb.co/MkQW00L/EISNcurrent.png
Heliospheric Current Sheet
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
Why would it have to solar scientists, Why can’t anybody have an opinion where the solar cycle is and where its going and turned out to be right about it,
Why did a prominent solar scientist Scott McIntosh predict the 25 would be one of biggest cycles ever and is now backpedaling on it as being all wrong
Because they are the ones whose opinion matters, and because science.
Any other rhetorical question?
Because them so called scientists cannot tell the Picture of the star from the slice of salami
Chorizo is not exactly salami, Eboy.
And the guy who made the spoof was a scientist.
Contrarianism in a nutshell.
Solar wind
speed: 401.5 km/sec
density: 6.06 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 52
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.86×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.1%
“FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There is a sunspot on the farside of the sun so big it is changing the way the sun vibrates. ”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Well probably not going to get a day or more of spotless.
But seems we going to get something like a Solar Max.
And sunspots numbers are going to go up.
And Neutron Counts going to go down and we will get our thermosphere heating up.
August could be exciting in many ways- and maybe, in some ways which are good.
Made me look at Parker Solar probe.
{It currently back out near Venus distance, but will back fairly near the sun, let’s see: September 6, 2022: Perihelion #13}
Anyhow:
Parker Solar Probe Mission Earns International Academy of Astronautics Laurels Team Award
Posted on 07/28/2022 15:58:09
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=178
” …
A mission six decades in the making, Parker Solar Probe was enabled by innovative technology and engineering elements, including a durable and lightweight thermal protection system, water-cooled solar panels, a robust autonomy system, large solid-state data recorders, and a state-of-the-art payload.
Already demonstrating the durability of its robust design, Parker Solar Probe has made numerous discoveries, including the myriad of energetic kinks in the solar magnetic field called “switchbacks,” the dust-free zone near the Sun predicted nearly a century ago, energetic-particle events produced by the Sun even when it is quiet, and a circumsolar dust ring along the orbit of Venus. “
Ah, it didn’t mention that it detected glowing Venus rocky surface from one of it’s Venus flybys.
Solar wind
speed: 542.4 km/sec
density: 10.29 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 87
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.21×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.3%
Getting sunspots in northern hemisphere
It seems like normal Solar Max- not a lot spots
nor that going to be spotless, it seems there will
less, and could get more in northern as compared to
southern hemisphere on our near side.
And it seems it will take longer to get to +150 sunspots
It seems any change in duration sunspot activity- fading
in a week or lasting more than month is a metric not given or
that I am not aware of.
Solar wind
speed: 585.8 km/sec
density: 12.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 58
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.53×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -2.0%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Neutron Counts going down, and
think it will continue to go down
and seems likely will increase, though
see nothing rotating to near side. It
seems to me the spots could grow and eventually,
days, other spots rotate to near side.
It seems there has been higher density of solar wind, and
no real clue, it means anything, but generally it seems we are back to growing in terms of Solar Max conditions.
RLH,
With your affection for the UAH temperature record and fixation on the relative strength of the 1998 and 2018 super el Ninos, I’m interested how you explain this.
The warmest 3 years in the UAH LT record are:
2016: 0.39
2020: 0.36
1998: 0.35
2020 was the beginning of the trip-dip la Nina.
How do you explain 2020 being warmer than 1998?
*2016
What’s to explain Barry…a tiny fraction of a degree C???
Why is it that the averages of 1998, 2016, and 2020 were essentially the same with no obvious trend in between? That’s 22 years with no significant trend.
The trend from 1998 to present compared to 1979 to present is also different by a fraction of a degree C per year (2 thousandths). But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
You haven’t been around for the conversation, Gordon. RLH has pretty fixed ideas about super el Ninos and how they stand out from the intervening years.
I’m curious to see how he explains 2020 being warmer than 1998 when it is a la Nina year.
I am curious to see how the El Nino of 1998, 2010, 2016 and 2020 are compared. Why is it that 1998 is so small comparted to the others on everything other than UAH?
Year Month Tropics
2022 01 -0.24
2022 02 -0.24
2022 03 -0.08
2022 04 -0.04
2022 05 0.01
2022 06 -0.36
2022 07 0.13
Year Mo Tropics
2010 1 0.49
2010 2 0.72
2010 3 0.66
2010 4 0.57
2010 5 0.68
2010 6 0.30
2010 7 0.13
2016 1 0.77
2016 2 0.88
2016 3 1.01
2016 4 0.84
2016 5 0.59
2016 6 0.24
2016 7 0.30
2020 1 0.52
2020 2 0.63
2020 3 0.53
2020 4 0.35
2020 5 0.53
2020 6 0.31
2020 7 0.28
Year Mo Tropics
1998 1 1.04
1998 2 1.15
1998 3 1.03
1998 4 1.09
1998 5 0.86
1998 6 0.48
1998 7 0.28
RLH,
What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?
Any chance you might answer the question?
Any chance that the above observation is about the tropics as determined by UAH. Your ‘warmer’ statement does NOT apply to that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/?replytocom=1342525#respond
Sorry https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1342547
RLH,
What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?
Any chance you might answer the question?
Any chance you might remember you saying that EL Nino/La Nina only really affected things in the tropics?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1342547
RLH,
I don’t think you are capable of answering this question, because facing this fact undoes much of the commentary you’ve made on the subject of the relation between ENSO and global temperature.
I’m going to ask again the question that I opened this subthread with, and that you’ve strenuously avoided answering.
What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?
The question is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The figures in the Tropics that I quoted show that they do indeed follow El Nino/La Nina. That is hardly surprising.
It would appear that the adage that global T follows ENSO with a lag of say 5 months is not so reliable as it first seems.
Still as everybody will point out, one months data does not mean that much. The longer term ‘averages’ (such as the 5 year S-G trace) show that it is likely that the general trend is not going upwards in the near future.
The future will tell who’s opinion is closer to the truth. We shall see won’t we.
I’m talking about a whole year’s worth of global data for 1998, a super el Nino year, and for 2020, a year that had no super el Nino but instead had a la Nina. The ENSO signal is much stronger and clearer in the tropics, obviously, but I’m asking you about global data based on your remarks about ENSO effects on global temperature.
5 month lag isn’t going to explain it. The weak el Nino of 2019 finished in May/June.
Can you not conceive of an explanation why 2020 was warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temperature record?
Any theories at all why the UAH global data would show this to be the case? I’m really curious to see if you can come up with a reasonable hypothesis.
It’s summer in the NH and a few days of extreme temperatures seems to have skewed the global average by a whole 3/10ths C. I wanted to turn on my thermostat to test the effect but found the thermostat does not have gradations that low.
It’s notable that the extreme temperatures were caused by the La Nina that also causes cooling in places. That makes sense, what does not make sense is that a trace gas is causing a myriad of climate issues.
“…what does not make sense is that a trace gas is causing a myriad of climate issues.”
Exactly Gordon, CO2 can NOT warm the planet. What makes sense is that there are agendas being carried out.
As this keeps being argued on another site, it would be quite useful if Dr Spencer could say if there are any estimated uncertainties for the monthly UAH anomalies.
Before long, someone will be claiming that the UAH data has a monthly uncertainty of at least plus or minus 1.4C.
IIRC it’s somewhere in the documentation. The 95% confidence limits of the monthly values are about +/- 0.1C.
Thus this month’s anomaly figure is 0.36C +/- 0.1C.
For comparison Had*CRUT4 has a published uncertainty of +/- 0.1C and GISTEMP +/- 0.06C.
Christy et al. 2003 say it +/- 0.20 for 95% CI. The problem is that assessment is almost 20 years old and for a previous version. I did a type A evaluation with RSS and got +/- 0.16 C.
Yes, that’s the assessment I keep being told, and it seems reasonable. But it’s for an older version. This version was supposed to improve the accuracy, but there’s no uncertainty published along side the reported monthly values.
Meanwhile some on WUWT keep pulling unrealistic uncertainty values out of the air. I know it’s nonsense, but it would be useful if there was some “official” analysis to counter these claims.
Absolutely. Many of the other datasets provide this information some (like Berkeley Earth) provide an uncertainty for each month individually.
Is that uncertainty about the actual measurements or the number compared to the real ‘average’ temperature of the atmosphere from TOA to the surface, all over the Earth?
It looks more and more like step changes occur in the temperature record. Is that an artifact of the measurement or is it a real thing. And if it is a real thing – what causes those step changes? If it is an artifact the temperature record is more or less useless for anything.
What do you get when you superimpose natural variation over a rising trend?
Type y=x+sin(x) into google to see the answer.
ant…”Type y=x+sin(x) into google to see the answer”.
***
What’s even more fun is to use Newton’s method for finding the roots of y = x + sin(x) graphically. If you draw the straight line y = x and the curve y = sin(x), they will intercept in at least two points. We are interested in the points where they intersect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
“If you draw the straight line y = x and the curve y = sin(x), they will intercept in at least two points. ”
1) sin(x) and x intersect each other at exactly 1 point: (0,0)
2) We are interested here in the shape of the curve x + Sin(x) and how it seem to go up in steps. We are not interested in where the curves intercept (or ‘intersect’).
y=sinx intersects y=kx at only one point for k>=1.
If k<1 then there are rises and falls, but the rises are larger than the falls.
No need for Newtons method if all you care about is whether there are zero, one, or more than one solution. Just differentiate sinx = kx to get cosx=k, and it's easy to see how many turning points there are.
I should say … for | k | >= 1
Are you forgetting the intercept at 0?
If my range is 0 < or = x < or = 2pi the line y = x should intercept y = sinx at two points. If I make the range -2pi < or = x < or = +2pi, I should get three intercepts.
Make sense? It's been a while since I dealt with this stuff.
x=0 is the only solution to x=sinx. y=x is a tangent to the sine curve at the origin, so it is not possible to intersect anywhere else. The only way you can get intersections elsewhere is if you measure angles in some unit larger than a radian.
sinx=0 twice in every cycle.
Which has little to do with when sinx=x
The Fourier Spectrum of detrended UAH.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/detrend:0.585/fourier/magnitude/low-pass:20/to:100/high-pass:1
It shows a strong peak at harmonic 12, which corresponds to around 12 major oscillations during the entire UAH record.
The UAH record has a trend and noise which is correlated over typically 2.5 y, due to ENSO.
Thus with respect to Monckton Pauses, it could be expected to have around 11.
But its just a property of any data with a trend and correlated noise.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
Shows about 12 peaks in UAH yearly series too. But the 5 year S-G shows the future trend is not upwards.
Of course an OLS over the whole period shows a continuously upwards trend but….
“. But the 5 year S-G shows the future trend is not upwards.”
You can expect such for a linear increase plus correlated noise.
So what is x modelling – and what is sin(x) modelling. You have just answered a question with a question.
I would have thought it was obvious that sin x is the natural variation and x is the trend.
They say that more the 90% of all global warming is warming our cold 3.5 C average temperature ocean. It’s warmed by about .05 C in last several decades.
If it is, then if the ocean gradually cooled than it would step down, also.
The heat of ocean is roughly 1000 times heat of atmosphere.
.01 C of ocean would be 10 times the total heat of 1 C increase of the atmosphere.
It takes a long time to warm the ocean by .5 C but .5 C increase in Ocean temperature has big effects when you have a cold ocean. It wouldn’t change global climate much if ocean wasn’t so cold.
The warmest times of past interglacial periods had ocean of at least 4 C. But we have had ocean of 5 C or more, within last couple million years.
Since our interglacial period has been cooling for over 5000 years, it seems unlikely we will get a 4 C ocean.
Some think increased CO2 levels will delay this cooling, and if ocean got close to 4 C, it should delay for many thousands of years.
“Is that an artifact of the measurement or is it a real thing. ”
Or Option 3 — people are excellent at imagining patterns that are not really there. For example, a steady upward trend overlaid with various oscillations or noise will often appear to “jump” up rapidly. But until we apply some sort of statistical test to distinguish “true” step changes vs “imagined” step changes, we are really just speculating.
tim…”Or Option 3 people are excellent at imagining patterns that are not really there”.
***
Case in point, the IPCC and other alarmists, like yourself.
Chris…I have asked the same question in the past. There is a known step change of about 0.2C circa 1977 that many scientists wanted to discard as an error. It turned out to be the first indication of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
You can see another step change following the 1998 super El Nino. Before the EN, there was a rewarming trend then after it, global temps jumped about 0.2C above the baseline.
Following the 2016 super EN, there was another step change.
All told, if those steps changes are summed, we have most of the pre -Industrial warming accounted for. Throw in rewarming from the Little Ice Age and we have it all accounted for by natural variability.
> You can see another step change following the 1998 super El Nino.
C’mon, Gordo.
You can do better than that:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
Strange how the ‘steps’ have gotten smaller and smaller as we get closer to today. Almost as though the OLS straight line was an overestimation.
You should ask Lord Monkton. He’s the one who calculated that the current pause is 7 years old.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-11-months/
Six pauses since 1970. Who’d have thought it!
Each pause has been the prelude to a jump in temperature. When should we expect the next jump?
I tried a quick calculation using the peaks of the UAH 13 month moving mean. I used the peaks as they damp out a lot of the monthly noise.
New records appeared in 1980,1988,1991,1998 and 2016.
The pauses between them were 8,3,7 and 18 years, giving an average pause of 9 years.
Conclusions?
Pauses are normal. You would expect gaps of a number of years between successive records.
There is a lot of variability in pause length, between 3 years and 18 years in a 43 year record.
Pauses end. Each pause is the prelude to a new record, not the end of global warming.
Monckton is getting excited about nothing. Seven years isn’t even the average UAH pause length.
I implemented a version of the SKS escalator graph using the ‘Monckton Method’ of working backwards to find the longest period of zero or negative trend.
With UAH there are 4 ‘steps’ in the 43+ year record, so about 11 years for an expectation value. UAH with the lowest trend and high variance has the longest ‘pauses’.
With RSS there are 6 ‘steps’ over the same period, this mostly attributable to the highest trend and in spite of variance similar to UAH. UAH has a single long ‘pause’ from 1996-2014 which segments to 3 steps in RSS (1996-2000, 2001-2009, 2009-2014).
Had also gives 6 ‘steps’ over the same period with similar breakpoints as RSS.
The algorithm blows up on GISS after finding the most recent pause, which is to say the trend is positive for any possible period ending at the break point (Sept 2014).
“I implemented a version of the SKS escalator graph”
Any comment of the fact that the steps in the SKS escalator graph get smaller and smaller as we get closer to today?
As Mark B described
Large variance= long pauses. Small variance = brief pauses.
Small variance=small steps. Large variance=large steps.
I suspect that the pattern of pauses varies with the ratio between variance and rate of change.
Large variance and small rate of change gives long pauses and large steps.
Small variance and large rate of change gives shortage pauses and small steps.
Take your pick. Small steps mean either that the variance is decreasing or the rate of change is increasing.
Warming is accelerating.
Here’s the graphic for the four temperature anomaly series with ‘pauses’:
escalatorGraph.png
It’s not obvious that the premise ‘the steps are getting smaller’ has any merit.
It also bears repeating that the ‘escalator graph’ was introduced as an illustration of cherry picking the data sub-series by picking a trend going from a locally high point to a recent low point.
“no warming since 1998 !” smile emoji.
“It’s not obvious that the premise ‘the steps are getting smaller’ has any merit”
See
https://skepticalscience.com/escalator
for the steps that I was referring to.
The 4 major series since 1979
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/had5-recent.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/giss-recent.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
Those are for Jun 2022. July 2022 will have to wait until they all catch up.
Would you buy or would you sell, Richard?
What does the 5 year S-G projection show for all of those series?
If you short that time series, Richard, you might get squeezed out of your position.
A bit like here:
https://internationalbanker.com/history-of-financial-crises/the-volkswagen-short-squeeze-2008/
but on a longer time scale.
‘Might’ is not ‘will’ and you do not hold the future solely in your hands. Others can have a different view. Time alone may tell who is correct.
Two things, Richard:
It was a Brit “might.” There is no will about future events since Hume at least.
If you are not willing to bet on the side of your beliefs what worth are they, really?
I’m willing to bet that CTRMs and S-Gs provides more insight into the future trends that OLS does.
Try predicting a sine wave with an OLS.
How would you set up that bet, Richard?
Your low-pass filters don’t extend past the latest observations, Richard. Therefore you’re not predicting anything.
RLH, Given the function y = x+sin(x) modeled with an OLS trend I get an RMSE of 0.7. At x = 100 the model predicts 100 which is only 0.5 higher than the actual value of 99.5. The OLS model seems to have excellent skill in predicting the function with a sine wave term at least this case.
If that’s not enough, you can always get it semi-empirically:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13897316/approximating-the-sine-function-with-a-neural-network
To help illustrate how natural variability creates the pause-up-pause-up pattern I developed a simple 4 component model and trained the model to minimize the root mean square error of the monthly UAH TLT values. The model is as follows.
T = -0.35 + [1.7*log2(CO2)] + [0.12*ENSOlag5] + [0.16*AMOlag3] + [-5.0*VolcanicAOD]
The RMSE is 0.128 C which is surprisingly low since Christy et al. 2003 claim the monthly uncertainty to be +/- 0.10 C (1-sigma).
Anyway, notice how ENSO, AMO, and volcanism provide the bulk of the variability while CO2 provides the bulk of upward trend.
https://i.imgur.com/SiRHXMp.png
This post seemed to get lost so I am reposting down here rather than trying to find it.
clint…quote from Dr. Mark…”You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.
***
We both know Doc Mark’s analysis is way of here. Each element within a vacuum tube has to be brought out to the real world by metal pins. Each vacuum tube has metal pins on the bottom of it to apply voltages to the internal elements and to retrieve current from the anode. Also, to apply voltage to the heaters that glow red.
All the heat produced exits the tube via the metal pins. Even though the tube is evacuated, the glass is well-sealed around the pins. Guess what??? Heat flows through metal pins as well as electrical current, ergo, the glass heats directly from the heat in the pins.
I might add that the sockets into which the tubes are inserted can get mighty hot as well. I have seen bakelite tube bases burned out and ceramic bases get discoloured by the heat.
On top of that, the heated filament in a vacuum tube, which produces most of the heat, is surrounded by a metal cylinder, the anode. IR cannot travel through metal, therefore any IR emitted by the filament will be absorbed by the anode cylinder
Same with light bulbs. A 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts of electrical power and although the bulb is evacuated, heat from the tungsten filament flows down metal parts to the base and heats the glass.
The point was, “Dr.” Mark had no clue what the GHE involves. He didn’t even know his own cult science. He was totally onboard, without a clue how it is claimed to work.
So his example of a hot vacuum tube burning your fingers meant he believes CO2 can do the same. Like most of the cult, he believes ALL infrared can heat a surface. They even believe they can boil water with ice cubes!
Gordon Robertson
Easy to demonstrate you are clueless and just make up false and misleading information based on nothing but your invalid opinion.
Look at reality (actual science, something you do not understand…you think science is based upon your version of reality and not experimental data).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwORsv0rWY
The have a 60 Watt bulb. The hottest part is at the top where the energy from the filament is directly heating the glass. If your invalid version was correct you would observe the base as warmer and the top would be the coolest. Will science and real experiments prevail or will by close your mind to your own fabrications.
You and Clint R belong to the same cult. Make up stuff and reject any science or experiments that do not agree with your cult mentality.
Why does Clint R constantly use cult minded. He knows it well because everyone of his idiotic posts is a cult minded lunancy.
Neither of you have ever studied real science and are clueless of how it works. Both of you just make up false ideas by the dozen. I have demonstrated both of you wrong many times but nothing changes with the two of you. You continue in mindless cult programs and continue to make up false physics.
That’s another great rant Norman, full of insults and false accusations.
As much as I enjoy your meltdown, don’t forget to find a valid technical reference that two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes.
You’ve said you ALWAYS support your beliefs.
See the water boiled with ice cubes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ2tPVSoiH0&t=15s
Begone Troll
I already knew you didn’t understand any of this Ken.
But further confirmation doesn’t hurt.
Thanks.
ken…you are making fools of the good people of Vancouver Island. The argument presented about ice boiling water has always been about IR from the ice raising the temperature of water or any other object above the temperature of ice.
We are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The experiment to which you linked has nothing to do with anything we have discussed re ice. It does not prove that ice can raise the temperature of water by supplying it with heat.
The nimrod in the video is using smoke and mirrors to state his case incorrectly. He had already and stupidly put water in a glass bottle and put it on a stove, albeit in a pan. After supplying the water in the bottle with heat from a considerably hot heat source, he then claimed the ice was causing the water to boil.
Utter nimrodery. Water will boil at a lower temperature if you lower the pressure in its environment. The ice is not causing it to boil by adding heat to the water, it is actually cooling the base of the bottle, producing a partial vacuum. At no time is heat transferred from the ice to the water.
Gordon, water doesn’t boil because of heat; it boils because of vapor pressure. If you heat the water or cool the atmosphere above the water you change the vapor pressure equilibrium and water boils. No IR required.
Ken,
Not sure what this discussion is all about – I can’t be bothered reading it.
But I believe that would be called a false dichotomy.
Antonin, its basic study of enthalpy.
It’s still a false dichotomy.
Just because vapour pressure plays a role does not mean that heat doesn’t.
Pressing the accelerator in a car feeds more fuel to the engine which in turn causes the car to go faster. That doesn’t mean it is wrong to claim that pressing the accelerator causes the car to go faster, just because there is an intermediate process.
Enthalpy is all about volume, pressure, and internal energy. Internal energy is usually about heat but it also is defined by the absence of energy. Ignoring volume and pressure is missing the point.
norman…if you understood science, you’d take your foot out of your mouth before leaping to conclusions.
The red portion in each example as measured by the FLIR is not measuring glass temperature it is measuring the filament temperature in the case of the tungsten lamp on the left. You can clearly see there is no heat signature from the glass itself, the red region is around the filament.
With the CFL in the middle, you have electrons bombarding mercury droplets as in a typical fluorescent lamp. Same thing.
The FLIR is indicating the FREQUENCY in both cases, not the heat. A FLIR does not measure heat directly but frequencies in the IR band that come from a heat source.
It’s obvious from the red colour in the CFL and in the tungsten lamp that it is indicating such frequencies but it is confused between the electrons running through a tungsten filament, producing heat, and electrons running through a gas.
Anyone who has dealt with CFLs know they get a bit warm but you can hold one as either a CFL lamp or a 48″ tube whereas you could not do that with a tungsten lamp.
With a CFL the ballast is in the base and with both the CFL and the 48″ tube the ballast gets quite hot. Obviously that heat is being transmitted to the glass, fooling the FLIR.
Seriously, Norman, you should try to stop making such a fool of yourself.
Gordon Robertson
Most IR does not go through glass, it is almost completely absorbed. You can’t “see” the hot filament in Infrared bands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfUzKcAcX0Q
The IR cameras that use frequency measure the amplitude of a given frequency of IR and use that to determine the temperature of the object being measured.
https://www.sentronic.com/data/product_datasheets/KnowHow_CalexPyro-EN.pdf
In the previous video the glass at the top of the 60 watt bulb on left is hottest. It is not seeing the filament, that would be the glass temp. It is absorbing the IR from the filament and converting it into heat which is then measured by the IR camera.
Norman, the situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes. The example was 315 W/m^2 PLUS 315 W/m^2 arriving the surface, and at steady state, the surface is emitting 630 W/m^2. You have NOT provided anything close to that. You don’t understand ANY of this.
The reason you need to be held to such nonsense is that it blows up your GHE nonsense. If your belief were valid, it would mean you could boil water with ice cubes.
Now back to your evasions, insults, and false accusations. That’s all you’ve got.
Clint R.
Maybe check out E. Swanson test with two heat lamps and a surface.
Norman, you STILL don’t get it. The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.
That’s your cult nonsense that would mean ice cubes can boil water.
Clint R
I get it, did you check out E Swanson link as requested?
Sorry Norman, you STILL don’t get it.
The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.
Clint R
I think E. Swanson experiment does a good job of showing you fluxes add at a surface and cause it to emit more IR. In his experiment with two fluxes the surface does not emit as much as both fluxes add which is probably do to other heat transfer processes increasing as the plate gets hotter (conduction and convection). It clearly shows that two fluxes are added to a surface which increases in temperature and rate of emission.
If you want two identical fluxes do the test yourself with the same wattage bulbs. If you want to get it to match your conditions do it in a high vacuum so the energy lost by the heated plate is only via radiant heat transfer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338162
This experiment demonstrates what you are wanting. Two fluxes add at a surface, the surface heats up and emits more energy.
Also Roy Spencer clearly demonstrates a cold container top can add IR to a heated object and raise its temperature when compared to the lesser IR emission of ice. You have two cases just here showing you are wrong. I gave you an example earlier that you could not figure out so you bailed on it but it shows two fluxes adding. Not much more needed to demonstrate to you. If you want to be an arrogant ass and not learn then enjoy your cult. You have a few nutjobs on this blog who might follow your unfounded opinions. That is about it though
That’s just more of your distractions, Norman. You can’t support your nonsense so you’re throwing everything you can find against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Swanson is as incompetent and dishonest as you, so he’s easily rejected as a “valid technical reference”. Like you, he has been unable to answer ANY of the simple physics problems. You both are frauds.
And you don’t understand Spencer’s experiment. It didn’t “prove” what you believe it proved. You don’t understand ANY of this.
The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.
Keep trying to fake it. That’s all you can do.
Clint R
Time to educate you. Telling people they do not understand things is quite meaningless. You say this many times with no explanation on any of it. Pretty easy to pretend you have a brain. Not real proof of one though. Let you explain what I got wrong about Roy Spencer’s experiment. You never do though you are all mouth and opinion. Your opinion is I do not understand Roy’s experiment (my understanding is what he himself claims it shows so I am not the only one lacking in “understanding”).
Can you define “understanding” I don’t think you know what that word even means. You are a word generator. You throw out words that you don’t even know what they mean.
That’s right Norman, you don’t understand any of this. You’ve probably spent hours searching the internet to find something to support your nonsense. But, you can’t understand it ain’t there.
You keep trying to distract, because you’ve got NOTHING. You can’t understand that makes you a fraud.
The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.
Clint R
Whatever you have to believe. It is okay.
Fair enough.
I believe your lame response means you’ve figured out that you have NOTHING, and that you’ve realized you’re a complete fraud and phony.
” two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes.”
Tee hee hee.
No longer is Clint erroneously asserting that fluxes don’t add.
Or that fluxes arriving at a surface don’t add.
Or that a surface receiving two fluxes won’t be warmer than a surface receiving one.
The latest strawman that nobody ever claimed: ‘ the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes”.
Sly moving of the goal posts!
Yeah Nate, Folkerts gave us another great example of your cult’s incompetence. His nonsense would mean that ice cubes could boil water!
No wonder none of you idiots can ever address the basic physics. You don’t understand ANY of this.
“His nonsense would mean that ice cubes could boil water”
Oh how’s that? Does it also mean pigs can fly?
Don’t pay any attention to Nate. He still effectively believes that putting a large inert brick in the middle of a room will cause the room to warm up.
He tries to deny that claiming anonymous differences in boundary conditions but until he does the math and submits his greenhouse effect theory. . . .a brick in the middle of room is what it amounts to with his support of the 3rd grader radiation model that is foisted on the public.
Bill, you are perpetually confused and trolling.
Nate you need to explain why you think a brick in the middle of 290k room will help warm the room.
You need to explain why the brick in a room is a red herring, Bill.
Its not a red herring Brandon, its an exact analogy to the 3rd grader model description of the earth’s greenhouse effect foisted on the uninformed.
Its a rock surrounded by an atmosphere with radiation as the only insulation.
This has been repeatedly explained. But Bill refuses to read, learn, and mixes everything up.
Rational discussion with him is utterly hopeless.
bright boy put a link to where you ever explained anything.
Why not use the largest waterfall on Earth?
I have not done the math, but it could equal to 100 nuclear powerplants? Or maybe a 1000?
Though it not very close to anything other then Iceland, and Iceland has a lot “zero emission” power, already.
But if Iceland doesn’t care about world, there other massive waterfall under the ocean in other parts of world.
You should do the math. You’ll probably find out its not worth it.
–Ocean Current Energy Technologies
The United States and other countries are pursuing ocean current energy; however, marine current energy is at an early stage of development. Relative to wind, wave, and tidal resources, the energy resource potential for ocean current power is the least understood, and its technology is the least mature. There are no commercial grid-connected turbines currently operating, and only a small number of prototypes and demonstration units have been tested.–
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/zarubin2/
Some things said:
“Marine turbines are the most popular piece of technology being proposed. The blades of these turbines need to be about 20 meters, only one third the size of a wind generator to produce three times as much power.”
“Current energy technologies, also called tidal or hydrokinetic technologies, convert the kinetic energy of moving water into electricity. Current energy technologies take advantage of the horizontal flow ocean currents to power a generator that converts mechanical power into electrical power. Current energy devices are often rotating machines similar to wind turbines with a rotor that spins in response to the speed of water currents with the rotational speed proportional to the velocity of the water. The rotor may have an open design comparable to a wind turbine or may be enclosed in a duct that channels the current and water flow. Current energy converters can be into four main types:”
And:
“To calculate the number of joules available for extraction by turbines in all the oceans of the entire world, lets speculate that the ocean ubiquitously is moving at a speed in a certain direction, equal to that of the Gulf Stream; about 2 meters per second. Therefore, each cubic meter of water has a kinetic energy 1/2 Mv2 = 2000 joules. This may be an extreme overestimate since most of the ocean moves much more slowly than the Gulf Stream”
So you don’t want average flow, you want to pick location of fastest flow with Denmark Strait cataract or any the other deep ocean cataract.
It’s similar to mining water on the Moon- it appears to lack enough exploration/information.
Only thing I could find vaguely specific is:
“The currents were so severe that 20 of the meters were
never recovered. Those that were recovered had recorded currents of
up to 1.4 meters per second, which is sizable compared with the rates
from . 1 to .5 meter per second-at which surface currents usually flow. ”
https://www2.whoi.edu/staff/jwhitehead/wp-content/uploads/sites/123/2017/12/1989_Whitehead_Giant_SciAmer.pdf
[[ SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1989
This content downloaded from 128.128.30.61 on Tue, 05 Dec 2017
19:33:45 UT]] Which I called ancient one.
We’ve had these technologies proposed for Campbell River area. There are some massive tidal currents here.
Someone did the math for a Bay of Fundy project. They found tides in Boston would be reduced by some 6 feet. The impact on eco system would be enormous.
Another problem of harnessing tide is that you increase tidal friction. An increase in tidal friction would result in reducing the rotational energy of the earth itself. Its not renewable, there is no way to restore rotational energy to the earth. Tide power is therefore a very dangerous proposition that really will alter climate.
So one or two plants scattered about the planet won’t make a difference. But, if you try to harness every potential scrap of current everywhere there most certainly will be an irreversible impact.
Too, the engineering issues would be difficult to overcome. Corrosion is a big factor. So is running the underwater infrastructure such as power cables.
You don’t have my permission to build a tide power plant anywhere.
“You don’t have my permission to build a tide power plant anywhere”
What makes you think your permission is needed?
Campbell River is unusual in ocean currents, and I wouldn’t argue against trying to use that tidal energy. But tidal energy in general doesn’t seem like good idea.
It seems largest waterfall in the world could work much better than what is available near Campbell River.
But I don’t think governments can run any kind of business, so in same way I am against NASA mining lunar water, any kind of governmental project [related to business] will always fail.
You cannot build anything without agreement of the population.
Then you will not build anything.
You need laws [which you could call as being established agreements]
to build anything.
“You cannot build anything without agreement of the population”
You are not the population, just a very small part of it.
I was at a meeting a few years ago where a number of such crackpot schemes were discussed. Wave pumps in the ocean and wave pumps on the beach. Davis wheel for the currents. The idea was touted as a tourist attraction at Tofino in Long Beach National Park. Yeah, people will gather from everywhere to watch a bunch of inefficient generators screw up the environment.
The riparian zone is critical to all varieties of marine mammals and sea birds. The ocean is critical for migrating whales and fish of all kinds. Never mind the impact on tidal frictions; the concept of TANSTAAFL must be understood.
So far no one has spoken in favor of the ideas except the proponents who clearly have no thoughts for the environment they will destroy.
Its just like wind turbines; anyone who understands the impacts will be vigorously opposed to having one within 50 km of their home
“An increase in tidal friction would result in reducing the rotational energy of the earth itself. Its not renewable, there is no way to restore rotational energy to the earth. Tide power is therefore a very dangerous proposition that really will alter climate.”
Do the calculation of Earth’s rotational energy.
Quite sure you will find that project is unlikely to produce a significant reduction in it for millions of years.
Bigger concern is local ecological effects that you mentioned.
Solar in the Sahara and high V power lines to Europe, seems like a better option.
==Nate says:
August 4, 2022 at 6:30 AM
Solar in the Sahara and high V power lines to Europe, seems like a better option.==
How about power lines to Africa, it’s shorter distance.
Sahara has various political problems, keeping power in Africa would help deal with these political problems.
The largest waterfall in Iceland has only one quarter the flow rate of Niagara Falls.
Niagara already supplies power, and it would rate only 13th in the world in comparison to the largest nuclear plants.
So no, not 100 and certainly not 1000.
How many power plants are there at Niagara Falls? There are a total of 5 power stations on the Niagara River. 2 of which are on the US side and 3 on the Canadian side.
“How much of the water is being diverted for power generation?
The simple answer is: most of it.
At any given moment the water diverted upstream from the falls, to run the various power plants, is anywhere from 60 to 75%. Thats an average of 1,200,000 gallons (4,542,500 liters) of water per second with only 600,000 gal/sec (2,271,250 liters/sec) left to run over the Horseshoe Falls and a mere 150,000 gal/sec (567,811 liters/sec) for the American Falls. Although it may seem as though the Falls are being deprived of their natural flow, the water that remains to cover the falls is still an impressive sight. Many waterfall enthusiasts agree that reduced flow makes for waterfalls with more character.
Robert Moses Power Plant [2,525 MW]
Lewiston Pump Generating Plant
[[“The Robert Moses and Lewiston plants, which together comprise the Niagara Power Project, have a combined net dependable capability of 2,675 MW, making it the largest generating facility in the state and one of the largest in the country.” – Lewiston is called pump storage and is less]
Canada Niagara Falls Canada
Sir Adam Beck #1-“The ten generators of Sir Adam Beck #1 Power Station produce 403,900 kilowatts of electricity. It’s old and state improved]
Sir Adam Beck #2:
Sir Adam Beck Power Station #2 was located just south of Beck Power Station #1 and would require three times the water the first station required. It consists of 16 generators, which are totally enclosed and water cooled. Each generator has non-continuous amortisseur windings and is equipped with directly connected exciters and with static voltage regulators. Each unit is running at 60 cycle is capable of producing 80,000 kVA for a total capacity of 130,000 kVA.
Generators: Units 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 went into service in 1954.
Generators: Units 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 went into service in 1955.
Generators: Units 23 and 24 went into service in 1957.
Generators: Units 25 and 26 went into service in 1958.
-The sixteen generators are housed in a building almost twice as long as plant #1 and have a capacity of 1,223,600 kilowatts. ”
Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station
[doesn’t say, but it actually loses energy- but it managing peak power needs]. Anyhow, Niagara Falls is tiny compare to largest waterfall in the world.
Waterfalls in Africa are useless for supplying the rest of the planet. The longest transmission line on the planet is 2500 km, and the theoretical limit is 3500 km before there is no juice left. If you knock out three in Congo and one in Laos (also not central), there are only two with a larger flow rate than Niagara, both less than 50% greater, and one already hydroelectric.
The local population would use any electricity that is generated.
Indeed – but do you believe that was the intent of OPs post?
Its not the waterfall that provides the power; its the potential to capture head pressure via penstocks that is attractive.
The Toba inlet has several run-of-river power projects. When they were built the main criticism is that they rob the environment of its water sources and there was a requirement for power lines cutting through otherwise pristine environment.
So just because you have a waterfall doesn’t mean there is sufficient head pressure available to make it worth the cost.
TANSTAAFL
I don’t think a waterfall per se would make an ideal prime mover for a generator. Normally, a dam is built with chutes that can control the water flow that drives the generator. They can divert the chutes to shut the generator down for service or maintenance.
Also, how would you build a generator plant under an active waterfall?
“Also, how would you build a generator plant under an active waterfall?”
There is an idea, how about catching Niagara Falls 5 feet under the waterline. You have your cake and eat it too.
Now fish can’t go up that waterfall, but can survive going down it.
“Yes, they do. But fish have more luck in surviving the plunge than humans. They are better built to survive the plunge because they live in water all the time and are much more pliable and lighter than humans. At the bottom of the falls is a cushion of air bubbles that softens their fall. The body of a fish is also more suitable to absorb a tremendous amount of pressure hence, less injury in the plunge.” And:
“Niagara River expert, Wes Hill, estimates that 90 per cent of fish survive the drop over Niagara Falls. But a waterfall that cascades over rocks, such as Yosemite Falls, will be fatal to all but the smallest fish.”
So now have to do it somehow without killing any fish.
So, next question, are fish going down the largest waterfall on Earth?
So, it’s a fall of 3500 meter or a change of 350 atm of pressure.
Fish probably sense pressure, and could swim fast straight down pretty fast [and don’t do it]. So only marine animal riding it down 3500 meters, are those can not swim, well.
How fast can fish descend in water column:
“Because fish with an open swim bladder must gulp air, they are generally restricted to shallow water or surface waters. If a fish with an open swim bladder, herring or sturgeon for instance, were to stay neutrally buoyant below 33 feet, it would need to fill the gas bladder to above two atmospheres, which could not be accomplished through the pneumatic duct. At greater depths the swim bladders of these fish will collapse, resulting in the fish becoming negatively buoyant. This is probably why so many modern fish evolved to having a closed swim bladder.
Fish with closed swim bladders are better suited to all water column and bottom water depths, but rapid ascent can still pose problems.”
But it also seems going really deep quickly is also problem.
“Of course, not all fish even have a swim bladder. Sharks, flounder, cobia, and mackerel, do not have a swim bladder and as a result, sink when they stop swimming. These fish can only maintain their position in the water column through active swimming”
https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/charlotteco/2019/10/15/weightless-in-the-water/
Anyways it seems fish have to be able to sense depth, and if they can swim, they will not allow a current take them deeper than they want to be. But I wonder if whales or other mammals would use it.
How deep can a whale dive?
“The deepest recorded dive was 2,992 metres, breaking the record for diving mammals. Experts have suggested that this dive was unusually deep for this species. A more normal depth would be 2,000 metres. Sperm whales also regularly dive 1,000 to 2,000 metres deep.”
Maybe they do it just to break records.
“So, next question, are fish going down the largest waterfall on Earth?
So, its a fall of 3500 meter or a change of 350 atm of pressure.”
That only applies to confined water (like in a pipe or in an ocean). Falling water in a waterfall is ~ 1 Atm the whole way down,
“That only applies to confined water (like in a pipe or in an ocean)”
The largest waterfall on Earth IS in the ocean.
How would you capture head pressure for an undersea waterfall?
How would you capture head pressure for an undersea waterfall?
You dont. You let gravity convert potential energy into kinetic energy and then harvest the latter using water turbine farms.
The inertia of a moving body is present everywhere. It is like tidal flow only with this being a waterfall under water.
“It is like tidal flow only with this being a waterfall under water.”
Sort of, but sort of like low gravity also.
Near Campbell River, BC the strait narrows and in narrow gap the current runs faster.
But I think largest river is constant rather than varying with the tide. The River is like river fed by a lake. “Lake level” might vary.
It seems if have flowing to pipe the flow will have more resistence.
Or put a pole in stream, water ahead of pole, will start bending around it, and pipe stops that. Though possible you get more power by have water upstream changing direction. Likewise, one put funnel ahead of pipe and capture that flowing energy. And if water flowing faster than water outside pipe, it create slight vacuum.
Terrian will create turbulence, and larger pipes less turbulence.
Inertia increases with velocity. The underwater waterfall is as consistent as the river, indeed it is driven by gravity in the same way. The density differences between air and water and waters of different salinity/temperature are different true but the volumes are different too.
A renewed increase in SOI since the end of July.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Since the end of July …. so – two days. Wow.
Yes, a visible increase since July 18.
18 Jul 2022 SOI -6.40
Why do you think longer term averages are taken?
And if you are mentioning every move in one direction, why aren’t you reporting every move in the other?
Are there any comments on whether the regionally levelised LT temp value across the globe is due to heat release from the oceans, or heat retention from above the LT. As a resident of SE Australia, we have experienced a generally cold winter – all the surface heat seems to have escaped to the NH. The July Australian LT temp was a surprise. I have also been reading about the increasing water vapor in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, and how recent numerous rocket launches appear to have added to it. Any thoughts?
Why is there a positive anomaly in Australia in July? It’s the latent heat of water vapor from around the tropics.
https://i.ibb.co/vPKrQjq/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-08-03-093751.png
My query might also be partially answered by a recent WUWT post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/02/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
“The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earths global average temperature.”
The total WV content of the entire atmosphere is 0.3%. Considering the immensity of the atmosphere compared to the eruption, I seriously doubt that much WV would have a significant effect on atmospheric WV content.
Current global temps are affected by La Nina messing with the jet stream and ocean currents.
If La Nia remains weak, there will be no strong El Nio after solar maximum because too little heat will be accumulated under the surface of the western Pacific and the subsurface Kelvin wave will not reach the Nio 1.2 region.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202208.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
I’ve noticed that you never revisit your claims to assess for correctness.
The Earth’s temperature is constant within certain limits due to the height of the troposphere, which in winter above the 60th parallel drops to an average of only about 6 km.
https://i.ibb.co/stR8F47/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
https://i.ibb.co/tKTGc1L/time-pres-TEMP-MEAN-ALL-NH-2022.png
If Earth were not a water planet and there were no water vapor in the air, temperatures on Earth would be almost as extreme as on planets without an atmosphere. This is very evident in the Sahara, and also during La Nina, when the tropical Pacific produces less water vapor. Heat waves in Europe are not unusual.
” Heat waves in Europe are not unusual. ”
Could you please list them all?
Or are you as usual just guessing?
Bindidon
Here is a list of some notable heat waves in Europe and elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
Interesting – 20 European heat waves in the last 40 years, 8 in the previous 80.
But few, if any, match the one in 1878 which was world wide.
Really? What was the global anomaly for 1878?
There are numerous papers around that say that 1878 world T was similar to 2016. The droughts that both caused are likely to be much bigger in 1878 as that killed millions of people. There are T series which also say that is not the truth.
As the T series that say that also show that 1998 was much less important than 2016, with only UAH showing them to be similar, perhaps their accuracy for the past leaves something to be desired.
(Not posting, so I am breaking up my comment into pieces)
There was indeed a heat wave in 1878. It lasted 3 months, Feb-Apr 1878.
And March 1878 was the warmest month in the HC record until beaten in Dec 1979.
It was then beaten by 5 months in the 1980s, 42 months in the 1990s, 106 months in the first decade of the 2000s, and every month since March 2008.
There has never been a single day when every location on the planet has been in heat wave. There are ALWAYS cold areas (a fact which adapt2030 takes advantage of as he cherry picks only the coldest places on the planet to create the illusion that the planet is cooling).
It is almost certainly true that many regions had very high temperatures in that 3-month window, probably comparable with and in some cases higher than in some areas today. But it would absolutely not have been general across the planet, and it didn’t last. The 1870s was the warmest decade from the 1850s to the 1910s, but was colder than every decade since.
RLH says: There are numerous papers around that say that 1878 world T was similar to 2016.
I’m not aware of any credible source that says the world temperature anomaly in 1878 was similar to 2016.
What you have shown are studies that say the 1878 El Nino Index (ONI or similar metrics) was similar to 2016, 1998, and 1982. While El Nino indices are correlated with inter annual global temperature variations, they are not global temperatures.
You have shown also papers documenting widespread severe socioeconomic impacts from the 1878 El Nino event, but these impacts are broadly driven by drought. Drought is a function of precipitation deficiencies related to persistent deviations in circulation patterns and regional temperatures. They are not strictly indicators of temperature and certainly not indicators of global temperature.
Linsley Hood
Where are your valuable sources concerning this 1878 date?
Btw, a date you yourself never mentioned before ‘discovering’ the NCEP data.
ENSO indices and temperatures do by far not have the same source.
In your endless trials to dispute any warming, you intentionally confound the SST within a minuscule area (700,000 km^2) with the global temperature record.
*
Global temperature anomalies wrt the mean of 1961-1990
Had-CRUT4 Globe
– 1878 02: 0.40
– 2016 02: 1.11
Had-CRUT5 Globe
– 1878 02: 0.36
– 2016 02: 1.22
My evaluation of raw GHCN daily (43 stations in 1878, 8279 in 2016)
– 1878 03: 1.73
– 2016 03: 2.70
RLH,
Berkeley Earth shows 14.204 +/- 0.106 C for 1878.
Berkeley Earth shows 15.158 +/- 0.033 C for 2016.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-nino-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine
“History’s Greatest El Nino May Have Caused Severe 19th Century Famine”
So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9470-5
“The 18771878 El Nio episode: associated impacts in South America”
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/
“Causes of the Great Famine, One of the Deadliest Environmental Disasters”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/
“A freak 1870s climate event caused drought across three continents”
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10089000
“Climate and the Global Famine of 187678”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC51F..04S/abstract
“El-Nino Grande and the Great Famine (1876-78)”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.7535
“there have been six Super El Nios (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”
Linsley Hood
1. Why didn’t you publish that before I had to ask?
2. Did you consider what would have happened in 1998 and 2016, when the socioeconomic patterns of 1878 still would have hold, beginning with no UN i.e. here: no global programme against diseases and famine?
3. I recommend to have a look at
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/quinn/
*
4. ” So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH? ”
You are so excessively opinionated that you wouldn’t spend even half a second to ask the inverse.
Like to all coolistas, anything other than UAH seems wrong to you.
Perhaps, for once, you think outside the box, and compare
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199802e.png
to
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201602e.png
Blinny: Just compare
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
for the differences globally between 1998 and 2016 by 2 different satellite series.
As to 1878 look at Fig 3 in “The Ensemble Oceanic Nio Index”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.7535
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
and consider what that means for 1870s to 2000s comparisons.
Blinny: Also consider that John Christy published a paper that showed that RSS continued to use a known drifting satellite whereas UAH did not which led to RSS having 10 times the rate of change between approx 2000 and 2008 that UAH did.
That means that RSS excessively cools 1998 compared to 2016 whereas UAH does not.
According to the RSS paper there is also a significant time of observation/diurnal drift problem with NOAA-15 during the period in question.
The issues during that time period include at least the following:
1) Temperature target drift issue with NOAA-14.
2) Diural drift issue with NOAA-15
3) Channel frequency change between MSU (NOAA-14) and AMSU (NOAA-15) instrumentation requiring cross calibration between the two instruments in light of 1 & 2 above.
In light of this, it is not at all clear that UAH is decidedly more likely to be closer to the truth than is the RSS time series.
“According to the RSS paper there is also a significant time of observation/diurnal drift problem with NOAA-15 during the period in question”
According to the data the RSS paper is wrong. The data clearly shows that during the period 2000 to 2008 RSS changes are a rate that is some 10 times that of UAH.
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.
Why would the first ASMU satellite be uniquely wrong but all the MSU and the later AMSU ones be correct?
After all, outside the 2000 to 2008 period both RSS and UAH agree quite well.
….the first AMSU satellite….
You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.
No, the point is that subjective choices were made by both groups in the face of uncertainty. I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I can’t say with certainty which is closer to being right.
Why would the first ASMU satellite be uniquely wrong but all the MSU and the later AMSU ones be correct?
It’s not that the first AMSU is ‘wrong’, it’s that it is ‘different’ than the MSU, thus cross calibration is required to merge the two series. Subsequent AMSUs are all nominally the same sensor.
After all, outside the 2000 to 2008 period both RSS and UAH agree quite well.
RSS stopped using NOAA-14, the alleged source of the data series difference, after 2004. MetOp-A, the first AMSU satellite with thrusters to virtually eliminate the diurnal drift issue came online in mid-2007.
Linsley Hood
” Blinny: Just compare
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg ”
*
I have explained to you several times that this comparison is meaningless.
No one can accurately compare the two series when you show them not only on different charts, but above all when the anomalies plotted are based on different reference periods.
But.. you are so excessively opinionated that you aren’t even willing to accept it, and moreover, you still lack the courage to ask Roy Spencer’s meaning about this dispute (let alone Vaughan Pratt’s) as I proposed you to do.
*
Here is a correct comparison of UAH6.0 and RSS4.0 for the Globe, including
– original anomalies,
– 60 month original Savitzky-Golay and 60/50/39 month CTRM processing,
and finally
– the linear estimates for the three series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
Though the resolution isn’t satisfying, we can see that for both UAH and RSS
– the S-G series has a slightly lower trend than the original data, and that conversely
– the CTRM series shows a slightly higher trend:
UAH: S-G 0.129 / orig 0.133 / CTRM 0.139 C / decade
RSS: S-G 0.201 / orig 0.212 / CTRM 0.226
This clearly contradicts your claims that
– OLS trends have no meaning (no: you didn’t just mean in case of predictions)
– original data mostly shows a higher trend than that of its HQLP processing.
*
By using your tricky charts endlessly, you only convince those who share your coolista views, even though you call them idiots regarding the lunar spin.
*
By the way, I enjoy it when people like you feel the need to call me “Blinny” all the time, because that attitude reveals their own weakness.
Weiter so, Linsley Hood! Weiter so!
RLH,
“So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH?”
The global data is processed differently by each group. While the sign of the annual ups and downs are a near perfect match, the details to 2 decimal points vary between datasets. Hardly surprising.
“there have been six Super El Ninos (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”
And the la Nina year of 2020 was warmer than the 1998 super el Nino year in the UAH global LT record. Because it’s not just ENSO that impacts global temperatures.
“You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.”
John Christy is one of the main compilers of UAH data. Of course he believes UAH to be superior.
“RSS continued to use a known drifting satellite whereas UAH did not”
UAH use 6 years of NOAA14 data, from July 1995 to July 2001.
I’m curious why you believe UAH use no data from NOAA14.
Could it be because you rely on blog comments for your education rather than read the actual methods paper for the UAH dataset?
“I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I cant say with certainty which is closer to being right”
Other 3rd party data, such as reanalysis and balloons, agree with UAH during this period. See JCs paper.
Blinny: It is not just the 2 series that support what I show. Other things like reanalysis and balloon datasets do so also.
“UAH use 6 years of NOAA14 data, from July 1995 to July 2001”
I know. However in 2001 UAH stopped using it altogether as the drift had got to beyond correction. RSS continued to use it as though it was perfect for the whole of its lifetime as if though there was no error to be seen.
That is why the 2 series show such a difference.
“Could it be because you rely on blog comments for your education rather than read the actual methods paper for the UAH dataset”
Nope.
Could it be that you rely on RSS as the source of your information?
“the details to 2 decimal points vary between datasets”
This is far more than a difference at 2 decimal places that just goes away by magic.
” the S-G series has a slightly lower trend than the original data, and that conversely
the CTRM series shows a slightly higher trend”
Blinny says that either Vaughan Pratt was wrong or S-G were. Neither is true of course. The fact that the CTRM output covers a smaller time period than a full S-G does not come to his mind at all.
Exceptionally, trickster Linsley Hood made a giant point!
I indeed forgot to calculate the 60 month S-G trends for UAH and RSS wrt the same period as for the 60/50/39 CTRMs.
New, correct comparison:
UAH: S-G 0.142 / orig 0.133 / CTRM 0.139 C / decade
RSS: S-G 0.229 / orig 0.212 / CTRM 0.226
This is still a pretty confirmation of
– how near both S-G and CTRM keep in trend with regard to the original data, what confirms its OLS trend quality;
– how correct my original S-G filter outputs are with regard to CTRM.
Why both smoothing trends are a tiny bit higher than those of the original data: no se.
*
And by the way, I still ask why, in these college boy charts, the multipass S-G smoothing (proudly named ‘projection’, OMG) is shown only at the end of the 5-year low pass plot.
Why is the left side of the multipass S-G smoothing absent in all your charts, trickster?
RLH
“I know.”
No you didn’t. This is not the first time you said that RSS uses NOAA14 data and UAH doesn’t. Now you’re pretending differently. Zero integrity.
“RSS continued to use it as though it was perfect for the whole of its lifetime as if though there was no error to be seen.”
And this is just as opposite to the truth as your first fantasy.
And you continue to opine in this subject when you have still read NEITHER methods papers. That’s why you are spouting pure nonsense.
“Could it be that you rely on RSS as the source of your information?”
Nope, it’s YOUR preference to pick a team without questioning it.
I’ve read several of the papers behind different versions of UAH and RSS, as well as commentary on them. For my own view, Mark puts it well:
“the point is that subjective choices were made by both groups in the face of uncertainty. I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I can’t say with certainty which is closer to being right.”
UAH say their product is closer to radiosondes, RSS, say the same. These comparisons are also problematic.
You wouldn’t know that, of course, because your only source of information is the compilers of the dataset you prefer. That’s some red hot skepticism there, RLH.
Here is a chart comparing
– UAH 6.0 LT land
– RSS 4.0 LT land
– RATPAC B radiosonde data at 700 hPa (used among other balloon series by J. Christy):
https://tinyurl.com/2p862j37
We see indeed that RATPAC B fits better to UAH land than to RSS land, but the difference is by no means appropriate to view RSS as an outlier.
Each team has his position, and it is strange to see people discrediting RSS just because they think they have enough understanding of the problems.
*
It is funny to see that the anomalies in RSS land plunge a lot more than those of UAH for the recent years.
*
Why ‘land’ ?
70 % of the RATPAC sondes are on land, 30 % on islands. Thus, comparing RATPAC to any LT land+ocean is idiocy.
*
Why 700 hPa?
The absolute temperature difference between UAH and the surface is about -24 K; with 6.5 K/km lapse rate, you obtain an altitude of 3.7 km, what corresponds to a pressure of 640 hPa.
*
Here too, Linsley Hood’s 2002-2008 comparison becomes a non-sequitur when all data is shown wrt the mean of one and the same reference period.
Source
https://tinyurl.com/5n8spk5c
A simpler look at UAH land versus RSS land
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6-land/from:1979/mean:60/plot/rss-land/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.454
RLH,
I think you need to be more skeptical. There is no way to know which satellite dataset is more correct at this point. The most skeptical approach here is to equally weight UAH and RSS. That gives us a warming trend of +0.17 C/decade.
I also don’t know why balloon datasets are considered the gold standard. But if that’s the bar to meet then know that UAH diverges from those datasets more than RSS. RATPAC is +0.21 C/decade, RAOBCore is +0.19 C/decade, and RICH is +0.21 C/decade. Note that in the Christy et al. 2018 publication they compare UAH to IGRA. IGRA says their dataset should not be used for climatic research. Furthermore, the Christy et al approach is to literally “adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite” (their own words). I’m not saying the Christy et al. 2018 methodology is flawed. I’m just saying you should not form your position solely on it.
I’ll leave you with the fact that their TLT weighting function LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS has been suspected of being contaminated by the cooling stratosphere? Did you know that TLT is very sensitive to the weighting function? For example, LT = 1.25*MT + 0*TP – 0.25*LS yields a warming rate of +0.19 C/decade?
In a comment upthread, I wrote:
” It is funny to see that the anomalies in RSS land plunge a lot more than those of UAH for the recent years. ”
Sorry, this was wrong, I mistakenly used the wrong RSS land region.
The chart is now corrected:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GmK5QAzhX_1MEPU5tkmywCxM1nigfGLw/view
*
Btw I’m wondering a bit about bdgwx’s statement:
” But if thats the bar to meet then know that UAH diverges from those datasets more than RSS. RATPAC is +0.21 C/decade, RAOBCore is +0.19 C/decade, and RICH is +0.21 C/decade. ”
It’s difficult to agree!
Trends for land-only series in C/decade:
UAH: 0.18
RSS: 0.26
RATPAC at 700 hPa: 0.19.
*
Conversely, I fully agree with his statement concerning UAH having in the past adapted radiosonde data to satellite data.
Who doesn’t believe this should read
Christy, J. R., and W. B. Norris (2006), Satellite and VIZ-radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 11811194.
Interesting, especially because this paper had a major influence on Leopold Haimberger (U Vienna, Austria) who designed RICH and RAOBCORE, ballooon series homogenizing methods which later on had also influence on… RATPAC.
When comparing the UAH, RSS and RATPAC B time series, one must be aware tht the RATPAC B data includes data from the Antarctic stations:
AMUNDSEN SCOTT AY -90.00S
BELLINGSHAUSEN AY -62.20S
SYOWA AY -69.00S
MOLODEZHNAYA AY -67.67S
MAWSON AAS-BASE AY -67.60S
MCMURDO AY -77.85S
These data may also exhibit the same cooling trend found in the UAH data over the South Polar region, which explains some of the difference between UAH LT and RSS TLT where RSS excludes data poleward of 70S.
“There is no way to know which satellite dataset is more correct at this point”
True if only the satellite series were compared, but John Christy compared reanalysis and balloon data too over the period in question and he then came to the conclusion that those supported UAH.
“Christy, J. R., and W. B. Norris (2006), Satellite and VIZ-radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 11811194”
https://www.proquest.com/openview/e95b35239735543e242eab7353f2865b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=33207
for a link to the actual paper.
And this is also relevant
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006881
“Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements”
16 March 2007
” True if only the satellite series were compared, but John Christy compared reanalysis and balloon data too over the period in question and he then came to the conclusion that those supported UAH. ”
As expected, Linsley Hood deliberately ignores the fact that J. Christy has himself created the conditions ensuring best possible comparison of radiosonde data to satellite data.
Moreover, it is known since longer time that reanalysis data is entirely based on models.
As we all know, models are ALL WRONG – except the few which show… cooling.
“my original S-G filter outputs are with regard to CTRM”
Single pass S-G leaks too much high frequencies, as Mark B observed.
5 pass, multi-pass removes much more high frequency as Nate Drake concluded.
Balloon data is not based on models.
“The tendency of climate models to overstate warming in the tropical troposphere has long been noted”
RLH,
I’ll remind you that Christy’s comparison is 1) not independent 2) used a radiosonde dataset that the maintainers warn not to use for climatic research, and 3) involved a procedure to adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite (Christy’s own words).
Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying Christy’s method of comparison is necessarily flawed. I’m saying that you are basing your position on a single comparison that has questionable methodology at best even though there are other comparisons available that could have been incorporated into your analysis. I’m saying that you need to be more skeptical.
“I’m saying that you are basing your position on a single comparison that has questionable methodology at best”
Questionable only if you support RSSs point of view.
I think it is important to note that both UAH and RSS broadly agree, one with the other, before 2000 and after 2008.
RLH, wrote:
Your references above were for the earlier version of UAH products ~2006, which employed the same algorithm as RSS. Your conclusion has no merit wrt comparisons with the latest UAH v6.
RLH said: “Questionable only if you support RSSs point of view.”
I don’t support RSS’s point of view any more or less than UAH.
E. Swanson: The comparison between UAH and RSS is using UAH v6 since the beginning of the data, just like RSS is using v4.0.
Whatever has been done by them both is backdated to all the data they publish.
“I don’t support RSS’s point of view any more or less than UAH”
But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent but contend that RSS is.
Linsley Hood
You are a thoroughly indoctrinated person, who gullibly believes in what he wants to believe.
Neither Mark B nor bdgwx nor I myself do claim that RSS is better than UAH.
YOU are the one who claims that UAH is better than RSS – despite lacking the technical skills and scientific knowledge enabling you to do so.
Your position is solely based on stubborn, opinionated ideology.
RLH,
You are saying that others base their analysis on a presumed superiority of the RSS dataset when every comment here says the opposite in reply to you. You have a binary view of this discussion where each side clings to their preferences. That view is quite mistaken WRT to the interlocutors replying to you.
We have read the source material for both UAH and RSS, you have not. Swanson has had papers on these differences peer reviewed and published and is the most knowledgeable of all of us in this matter.
You have confined your self education to believing whatever Roy Spencer and John Christy say in blog comments and from looking at graphs.
And you think that this gives you a good overview.
We can deal with the uncertainty inherent in these data and the provisionality of the different methodologies. We don’t need to pick a side. It is enough to understand that every dataset is an estimate, and all groups are doing their best with suboptimal data. We also know we are not experts in satellite retrieval and processing of O2 radiance data to infer atmospheric temperatures. We do not suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, which you may wish to look up.
Your one-sided reading of source material is standard confirmation bias. Surely you can understand that.
“But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent”
You seem to have mistaken a comment about methodology for a comment about personality. The point was that the construction of UAH data is guided by radiosonde data, whereas RSS methodology is independent of radiosonde data.
So little wonder that UAH more closely resembles the radiosonde data that they chose to use, when that radiosonde data was incorporated into the construction of their atmospheric temperature data.
Different radiosonde datasets are just as different from each other and even more uncertain than the satellite data owing to much sparser coverage. UAH and RSS have different opinions about the most appropriate comparisons.
Here is RSS’ opinion:
“In our paper, we compare our results to the four homogenized radiosonde datasets that are currently being updated and are available in gridded or individual station form (we have shown that it is important to sample the satellite data at radiosonde locations when doing these kinds of comparisons). In all the radiosonde datasets, the measurements have been “homogenized” in an attempt to remove the effects of changing radiosonde instrumentation, siting, and observing practices. The UAH researchers like to say that their data agree better with radiosondes. This depends on which radiosonde dataset is under consideration, and what one means by “agree better.” We did find one thing that the radiosondes datasets all agree on. During the main period of disagreement between RSS V4.0 and UAH V6.0 (i.e., 1998-2007), a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement with RSS V4.0 than UAH V6.0….
…the difference trend between UAH and the various radiosonde datasets for 1998-2007… suggest that our changes to the AMSU data are supported by the radiosondes (RSS V3.3 also shows a large cooling signal relative to the radiosondes over the 1998-2007 period).”
https://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/
I want to be very clear that I am not saying RSS or UAH are superior. I’m saying that there is other useful information for you to consider.
RLH said: “But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent but contend that RSS is.”
I did no such thing. I don’t think Mears is any more independent in support of RSS than Christy is for UAH.
ren…actually it is convection that keeps us cool, not WV. Without convection the surface could not rid itself of heat since radiation is a very poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. That is apparent in homes, where R-rated insulation is used to prevent heat loss by conduction, with little thought given to heat loss by radiation.
When heated air at the surface rises it is replaced by cooler air from above via convection. The presence of that cooler air next to the hotter surface allows heat transfer from the surface to the air. When it warms, it rises too and more cooler air takes it’s place.
If air temperature next to the surface was constantly in thermal equilibrium, no heat would be transferred to the atmosphere and the surface temperature would rise despite radiation.
As usual, Gordo presents an incomplete description of atmospheric convection, when he writes:
He fails to mention the reason that the upper air is cooler than that which is lifted from below. He can’t accept that the upper air is cooled because it radiates thermal IR radiation to deep space with only the greenhouse gasses as the source of that IR radiation. That would blow up his entire denialist narrative.
Earth atmosphere is mostly warmed and cooler at the ocean surface.
Though land surface mostly cools and ocean surface mostly warms.
“renactually it is convection that keeps us cool, not WV.”
Definitely convection because water vapor packets are definitely lighter than the surrounding dry air (molecular weight of H2O = 18, mass of O2 is 36 and N2 is 28).
Sorry.
O2=32
“Without convection the surface could not rid itself of heat since radiation is a very poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. That is apparent in homes, where R-rated insulation is used to prevent heat loss by conduction, with little thought given to heat loss by radiation.”
Are you sure?
“Radiant barriers reflect radiant heat rather than absorb it, which reduces the amount of heat in your home, further reducing cooling costs…. Insulation can only do so much to trap hot air. If your home is under constant assault from the hot sun, you need to divert the thermal energy before it has the opportunity to heat your living space.
This is where radiant barriers help by reflecting the thermal energy toward the roof and outside walls and away from inside the home.
Using a radiant barrier in conjunction with extra insulation gives maximum protection because they work together. However, suppose you live in a hot climate, and you have to choose between radiant barriers and extra insulation to help reduce cooling costs. In that case, a radiant barrier is probably the better choice.”
https://hvacseer.com/r-value-of-radiant-barrier/
antonin and tim f…[ant]”x=0 is the only solution to x=sinx. y=x is a tangent to the sine curve at the origin…”.
[tim]”1) sin(x) and x intersect each other at exactly 1 point: (0,0)
2) We are interested here in the shape of the curve x + Sin(x) and how it seem to go up in steps. We are not interested in where the curves intercept (or intersect)”.
***
You guys are correct, of course. I got myself turned around thinking of sine waves from a perspective of electrical engineering machines and amplifiers rather than distance along the x-axis.
Actually, Tim, I was interested in where they intercept since I was posing a problem using the Newton-Rhapson method. To get an intersection other than zero I’d need to use y = cosx.
When I plot y = sinx roughly, at 45 degrees (pi/4) and 135 degrees (3pi/4) I get y = 0.707. At x = 90 degrees (1.57 along x-axis), y = 1. The line y = x has passed through (1,1) long before sinx reaches y = 1.
WRT the current math, rust had so firmly set in that I had to inject WD40 into my ears to lubricate my brain. By the time the WD40 was gushing out my nose, my brain had finally turned on.
Antonin introduced the multiplier y = kx for the straight line but did not use a multiplier with sinx as in y = ksinx.
The multiplier in y = mx increases/decreases the slope of the line but with sinx, it increases/decreases the amplitude of the sine wave.
In electrical engineering, we use the equation in the form
y = Asin(t)
where y is a function of time, not distance, and t is normally represented as wt (omega.t), which is the distance along the circumference of a circle, or the angular displacement of a radial line, called a phasor, from the x-axis.
That’s why I got stymied. I am used to sine waves of various amplitudes and frequencies but y = sinx is restricted to an amplitude of 1 and a wavelength of 2pi. I should have seen that right away.
As an aside, here is how the engineering derivation goes.
In electrical engineering we generally use y = sin(t) and not y = sin(x). y becomes a function of time, not distance along the x-axis. With y as a function of time, the x-axis is now in seconds or fractions thereof.
The derivation is simple. Consider a rotating radial line in a circle (a phasor). The length of the line is A, therefore the projection of the tip of the phasor on the y-axis is y = A sin(theta).
The rotating phasor has a physical counterpart, like a rotor in a generator or a motor. However, it is also applied to the alternating motion of electrons in an amplifier and frequency of the alteration becomes important. Quantum theory as a wave equation is based on the same motion of an electron, albeit as an orbiting particle in a field.
Basic trig. The phasor as hypotenuse is A and the sine of the angle theta between the phasor and the x-axis is opposite/hypotenuse. Since the opposite side of the angle is the y-projection and the hypotenuse is A we have sin theta = y/A.
y = A.sin(theta)
If that phasor is rotating at a rate of so many radians/second = w (omega) then the angular distance moved in t seconds is wt. Therefore…
y = A.sin(wt)
That equation is applied to the frequency response of an amplifier as well as to a rotating rotor. I recall working in EE classes with an extension of that equation as applied to an amplifier. Of course it included imaginary, reactive components like jXl and jXc.
That too creates a sine wave along the x-axis which is now measured in seconds rather than distance or degrees/radians.
Of course, in that context, y = x would make no sense, unless y was expressed as a function of time as well.
y=6x+2sinx is the same as y=3x+sinx, but scaled by a factor of two.
For a qualitative analysis you only need to know the ratio between the sine term and the x term. There is no need to scale both.
Scaling was not my point. When I first visualized the graph of y = sinx, I saw it mentally as rising more sharply than it does. I was used to sine waves that rose abruptly and it took a bit to get the rust out and see what y = sin x does not only not rise abruptly it has a limit in altitude of 1.
For example, if you consider the normal North America residential house voltage it is normally rated at 120 volts RMS. However, that is the equivalent direct current voltage for an alternating voltage of that size, and it is 0.707 of the sine wave peak amplitude. If you want to know the peak amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform representing it, you must multiply the 120 volts by 1.414, or divide it by 0.707.
That gives you 169.69 volts. That value is far different than the amplitude of 1 you get by taking the peak of y = sinx. The sine wave also rises more sharply than y = sinx, mainly because it is based on y = A sin wt. That’s where I made my mistake. I speculated that y = sinx rose more sharply than it does, therefor y = x should intercept it twice. Engineers should not speculate as such.
Due to the rust, and other matters, I was not seeing that at first, although I had learned it well.
When you scale y = 3x + sinx by a factor of two, that’s not what you suggested earlier in the analysis. You only scaled y = x by declaring it as y = kx. That makes it a different problem, if k = 2. It becomes y = 2x +sin x. The slope of the straight line will be doubled but sinx will have the same amplitude at y = 1.
I don’t want to work this out right now, but I am curious as y how much you’d need to descale y = x to make it intercept y = sinx at (0,0) and another point on y = sinx.
For example, if I wrote it as y = 1/2x + sinx, y would not = 1 till x = 2. Meantime y = sinx would have reached it’s peak at pi/2 when x = 3.14/2 = 1.57 approximately. Therefore y = 1/2x should intercept y = sinx at two points.
Only someone who enjoys math could appreciate such trivia. There’s no particular meaning behind my interest.
I’ve already answered that question. sin x = kx has more than one solution when |k|<1
My point is, under which values of k does the line y = kx intercept the curve sinx in two places?
I explained my mistake based on a bad assumption about the rise rate of a sine wave restricted by y = sinx. Can we work together on this? No particular reason.
We know that k greater than or equal to 1 cannot intercept y = sinx more than once, at 0,0, but I demonstrated that y = 1/2x does intercept it in two places. I explained why.
This is what math is really about. When you work extensively with a problem, you gain insight into the physical meaning of the equation. Working with this simple problem has cleared out some cobwebs (rust). I had never focused on the issues related to the restrictions of y = sinx since most of the work I had done were of the form y = A sin(wt).
In y = A.sin(wt), the A replaces your k and allows the amplitude of the sine wave to vary. The wt allows the width of it to vary. With y = sinx, no variation is possible.
I could have saved myself a lot of trouble had I applied math in the first place.
I needed the slope of the tangent line at 0,0 for y = sinx.
The slope of any line can be given as y – yo = m(x – xo). For a tangent line it becomes, y – yo = f'(x)(x – xo)
Since xo,yo is 0,0 we can write the tangent line equation as …
y = f'(x).x
f'(x) for sinx is cosx
So, y = cosx . x
at 0,0, the tangent line is
y = cos(0).x and since cos(0) = 1
y = x is the equation of the tangent line at 0,0 on the curve y = sinx. You guys were right, that line does not intercept y = sinx more than once, at 0,0.
Of course, the tangent line angle with the x-axis is 45 degrees at 0,0 but it will change at points above 0,0 and below (pi/2,1). Let’s check it at x = pi/4 = 0.785 along the x-axis.
Remember, pi is a real number along the x-axis and it also represents 180 degrees, or pi radians. Although it is claimed formally that it cannot be represented by a fraction, I have seen 22/7 used in that capacity as an approximation.
If you calculate pi/4 along the x-axis, you need to divide 3.14…. by 4. If you take sin x, however, you need to convert pi/4 to degrees or radians. That’s because the sine is a ratio of two sides of a triangle related to the angle of the triangle in question.
I guess it would be easier to mark the x-axis in degrees or radians but I am working with the real number range as indicated by x. Or, using numbers like pi/2. pi/3, etc., which can be quickly converted to degrees/radians. I am just being clear that if real numbers are used for x that it must be kept in mind that when used in a sin or cos function, the argument must be the angle represented by the real number if the x-axis was laid out in degrees or radians.
For y = sinx, y = sin 45 degrees = 0.707. So, at a point on y = sinx where x = 0.785, y = 0.707.
y – yo = cosx (x – xo) where cos x now = cos 45 degrees = 0.707 as well.
(y – 0.707) = 0.707(x – 0.785)
(y – 0.707) = 0.707x – 0.555
y = 0.707x + 0.707 – 0.555
y = 0.707x + 0.152
Can’t guarantee my math in my current state.
So, the new tangent line has a slope of 0.707 and a y-intercept of 0.152
That makes sense with what I claimed earlier. If y = x, the line cuts the origin at a 45 degree angle with a slope of 1. Therefore, a line through the origin with an angle > 45 degrees will slope higher toward the vertical and a line with a slope < 45 degrees will slope toward the horizontal.
Anyone wondering why I am going through all this? Anyone rolling his/her eyes? Ken??? RLH???
What I jut proved, re tangent lines, is that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. I demonstrated clearly how a tangent line changes its angle wrt the x-axis on a sine waveform at each point on the waveform.
It’s exactly the same with the Moon. Think of the tangent line as the side of the Moon always facing Earth. As the Moon orbits, the angle of that side changes wrt the stars but the side cannot rotate about the Moons local axis.
Is that what you believe you’ve proved?
Take a pair of antipodal points on the moon of mass delta m, and calculate the kinetic energy of those points averaged over a cycle:
Case 1: The moon always points toward the earth
Case 2: The moon always has the same orientation relative to the background universe
Report back with calculation on what you come up with.
“As the Moon orbits, the angle of that side changes wrt the stars but the side cannot rotate about the Moons local axis”
Now define the local center wrt the ‘fixed’ stars and the local surface wrt the ‘fixed’ stars and tell me the surface does not rotate wrt the center.
So the tangent line is rotating but the Moon is not.
Got it!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Welcome to the greenhouse effect defense team!
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
There has been weather modifying going off in the UK, especially when we had record heat. There is a massive difference between contrails and chemtrails.
Chemtrails are a myth.
It is hard to protest against vaccine mandates because of the science and then watch members of your group protest about chemtrails too.
I try to point them to videos of WWII bombers too high in the sky to see from the ground yet they have contrails pointing out their exact location in the sky.
https://contrailscience.com/fightercontrails-over-kent-1941/
Good advice for all you science deniers too…
The AGW cult does more than deny science. They actively attempt to pervert science.
So you need to specify both science-deniers and science-perverters.
Hey Pup, you might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
Thanks for your invaluable contributions.
TM, It was great to see that in a clip of Jones’ testimony (@ 2:16 min). HERE’s another discussion
If only all the lying climate deniers would face a judge under oath.
As Vaughan Pratt would happily testify, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Graham, please stop trolling.
Still wondering why Vaughan Pratt is allowed to say that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, but if the group of us who have been arguing that for years say it, we get no end of grief. Weird.
You are still trolling, Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
” … the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. ”
What a ridiculous blah blah.
You should read Vaughan Pratt’s wording a bit more carefully:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
and above all move down into the discussion around it.
He recently stated the back-radiation version of the GHE was debunked. He said so here, at Dr Spencer’s blog. Get over it, Bindidon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
Agreed, you (exceptionnally) made a good point.
Yes he explained there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface due to back radiation or down welling IR.
The heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere.
But as Pratt points out, the atmosphere cools the surface.
But then more CO2
“Just to clarify my own position, it is clear to me, based solely on the temperature and CO2 records to date, that if CO2 continues on its present course it will reach between 850 and 1000 ppmv by 2100, by which time temperatures worldwide will have increased some 2 C.”
More CO2 means more DWIR which warms the surface even though there will still be no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
That’s all that he is saying, there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
Cult Leader Grammie pup, Pratt’s comment lauds S&O, but he fails to recognize the fact that their experiment did actually find “back radiation” when using the IR detector device. Other than that, the S&O experiment is grossly flawed on several levels, such as the fact that they used fans which would promote convection and thus reduce the impact of the heating of their temperature monitor mounted on the back wall and failed to describe how they maintained the temperature of their heating source.
Furthermore, he claims that the lapse rate will remain constant, without proof. In addition, he ignores the possibility that given a fixed lapse rate, if the temperature at the tropopause increases or the level of the tropopause increases, that would propagate down to the surface as a warming trend.
Sorry troll, Pratt’s comments do not “debunk” AGW.
Yes, Pratt’s still an “alarmist”
“Cult Leader Grammie pup”
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
“Pratt’s comment lauds S&O, but he fails to recognize the fact that their experiment did actually find “back radiation” when using the IR detector device.”
Swanson, Pratt and Team Good are not questioning that back-radiation exists and can be measured. Please stop attacking the same straw man over and over again. It is not a question of whether or not back-radiation exists. It is a question of whether or not it can increase temperatures. Why does Team Evil always have to resort to misrepresentation?
“Furthermore, he claims that the lapse rate will remain constant, without proof. In addition, he ignores the possibility that given a fixed lapse rate, if the temperature at the tropopause increases or the level of the tropopause increases, that would propagate down to the surface as a warming trend.”
He still believes in the GHE, Swanson.
“Sorry troll, Pratt’s comments do not “debunk” AGW”
Never said they did. Try listening to what I am saying before you make a fool of yourself again.
I hadn’t paid any attention Vaughan Pratt’s view. Coming to it as a newbie I note that he agrees with the notion that more GHGs will cause more warming at the surface.
If ‘skeptics’ here disagree with that, especially those skeptics here who propose that only demented, cultish minds can hold that point of view, it doesn’t seem reasonable that they would give Pratt any credence on anything.
The only disagreement he appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:
“Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
“it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.
1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925
His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratt’s own ideas about ‘backradiation’.
That doesn’t make Pratt’s reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion – for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.
No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.
“Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur”
Some arm-chair scientists are claiming more from the Seim Olsen experiment than the authors themselves are willing to claim.
I asked Seim, in email, whether he had discovered something new here, he said NO. Seim admitted that he lost track of heat in his experiment. He cannot explain where the missing heat has gone.
But he agreed that radiative heat transfer laws should be obeyed, and the first law of thermodynamics should be obeyed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316614
IOW experiments are difficult. The apparent violation of long-established laws of physics in an experiment are, with high probability, simply erroneous.
Dr. Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Yes, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.
Cult Leader grammie pup, the S&O paper presents deeply flawed results, as I mentioned above. Until you take the time to understand what they did and why they failed, your are just blowing smoke, as usual.
The point I am making is not even about S & O, Swanson. You people just read trigger words and react. You do not even read the whole comment correctly.
NEWS FLASH – Area Troll Wonders Why People React to His Trolling
Cult Leader grammie pup, Here’s a quote from Pratt’s 2021 post:
Pratt doesn’t understand how to model the thermodynamics of the air mass. Such slabs are treated as homogeneous parcels, the heat transfer being from the center of the parcel. In that case, the thermal IR is emitted both upward and downward directions and passes to the other slabs both below and on top. His mental model ignores the downward emission out of the slab toward lower layers and the surface, as well as the upward emission out of the slab toward the higher layers and deep space. This approach requires integrating the energy flow thru the entire atmosphere and would also include vertical convection.
Sure Swanson, I agree – on the GHE, Pratt has no idea what he is talking about. The only thing I agree with him on, is that the back-radiation version of the GHE, is debunked. You’ll get there, Swanson.
The never-ending GHE debate:
Warmist: Radiative gases warm the planet.
Physicist: No, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That violates 2LoT.
Warmist: Okay then, but the radiative gases keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
Physicist: No, that’s “insulation”. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.
Warmist: The radiative gases also emit back to the surface, warming the planet.
Physicist: No, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That violates 2LoT.
Warmist: Okay then, but the radiative gases keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
Physicist: No, that’s “insulation”. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.
(Continue, ad nauseum.)
> Physicist
Here’s what a real physicist says, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339085
You’re not NOTHING.
You’re our most adorable Sky Dragon Crank!
Clint R
Real Climate Scientist (not the phony make believe one that exist in the twisted mind of Clint R): The GHG in atmosphere lower the heat leaving the Earth’s surface allowing the Solar input to reach a higher surface steady state temperture.
Real Physicist (Not the idiot Clint R imagines): Yes correct this uses the well established radiative heat transfer equation which determines that the amount of heat lost by a object is influenced by the temperature of the object surroundings.
Clint R: But, but that violates the 2nd Law which I don’t understand but am an arrogant ass thinking I do and going on blogs belittling anyone who does not accept my cult version of reality.
Physicist: No Clint R that does not violate the 2nd Law at all, it is your misunderstanding of the law that is the problem.
Clint R: I know I am right, don’t challenge me you cult minded idiot. Fluxes don’t add, the Moon does not rotate on its axis, the radiative heat transfer law is bogus, a hot object can’t absorb energy from a colder one.
Physicist: Calm down Clint R. Have you had any actual physics classes? Have you ever performed any experiments on your own?
Clint R: I am right that is all that matters you are all a bunch of cult minded idiots. Only people who blindly believe all the opinions I make up are real thinkers. You scientists are all a bunch of idiots who pervert my twisted version of science (even though I never have proven any of it and avoid offering any evidence for all my stupid ideas).
Oh good, worthless willard and poor Norman have teamed up to produce some ineffective flak. Obviously I was over the target.
And, what a team! It’s a “synergy of incompetence”.
Norman, don’t forget to provide a credible reference to support your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can raise its temperature to 325K.
Clint R
I guess it is just sufficient to call you an idiot. It is unreal how stupid you are. You keep repeating the same stupid things over and over.
Just a complete idiot. I try sometimes to reason with you. It is a wasted effort. You are either to stupid to communicate ideas or are a braindead BOT. I believe you are a BOT since it is hard for me to imagine a real human as stupid as you seem to be.
Can you explain why you repeat the same things over and over?
Norman, you always forget to mention that you have NO meaningful background in the relevant physics. You can’t even solve the simple physics problems.
When you finish with your mindless insults and false accusations, please provide a credible reference to support your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can raise its temperature to 325K.
A REAL Physicist met that trivial challenge many times, Pup, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333149
You forgot to answer the question BG asked you:
What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon?
“What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon?”
At what velocity is the receiver? (hint Doppler).
Line broadening is the advanced class, Richard. These clowns are still arguing with first-year texts.
Brandon, please stop trolling.
“Physicist: No, thats ‘insulation’. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.”
That is something an imaginary physicist from an alternate universe said.
Here is what an actual physicist, John Tyndall, the pioneer of IR radiative heat transfer, said:
“when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
That process fits with the atmosphere being a conductive insulator. But, it fails with photons. Photon accumulation does NOT result in the type of heating needed to warm Earth’s surface. The simple analogy is bricks-in-a-box. A brick in the box is at 288K. The box is at 288K. Now, a second brick, also at 288K, is added to the box. The number of photons flying in the box has been increased, yet the temperature remains unchanged. This works for the next 100 288K bricks added to the box.
Now, a second brick, also at 288K, is added to the box adding to the mass in the box. The number of photons flying in the box really has been increased.
Added photons to Earth’s 288K atm. do not increase the mass of Earth’s atm., however the added photons do increase its thermodynamic internal energy.
Think again Clint R.
Billions of 15μphotons can’t increase the frequency above the frequency of ONE 15μ photon, Ball4.
I know you want to BELIEVE more photons mean higher temperature. But that would mean you could boil water with ice cubes. But, I know you want to believe that also….
> I know you want to BELIEVE more photons mean higher temperature.
Clint has just proven that an increase in solar irradiance won’t warm the planet.
You just can’t make this up.
Good point Brandon.
Clint, billions of 15μ internal photons add up to more internal energy than one internal 15μ photon.
Thanks Ball4.
After I posted I thought about it a little more. Increasing the irradiance of the sun implies an increase in temperature which as we know changes the distribution of photons toward higher frequencies. So it’s just possible that the number of photons per unit area stays the same while the average energy per photon increases.
So far teh Goggle is only showing me answers to the question on Quora, Stack Exchange, etc., which I don’t trust. In any case this is one of those moments I live for in Climateball; a novel question presenting a research and learning opportunity … yay!
In the meantime I can make the same point by moving the earth closer to the sun and keeping all else constant.
Increasing solar irradiance increases average higher frequencies, increasing temperature.
Congratulations Brandon. You’ve finally arrived at “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
> Increasing solar irradiance increases average higher frequencies, increasing temperature.
Mmm hmm, it also increases intensity in each frequency band, answering my own question as to whether or not the total number of photons increases.
I suggested a better example below: move the earth closer to the sun. But you predictably dodged it.
> Youve finally arrived at Its the Sun, stupid.
One small problem, Clint: solar irradiance hasn’t increased since 1950. Temperature has.
Ta.
Brandon, you’re the one that misrepresented my words.
So, you get to live with your own perversion of reality.
All Pratt demonstrates at your link is that he too misunderstands the 2nd law. We can forgive him, he is a computer programmer. Pratt states…
“The problem with this argument is that the CO2 flux is bi-directional, and it is the net flux that matters”.
No, Vaughn, flux has nothing to do with the 2nd law, it’s about heat. Since we are talking about heat transfer from a colder region to a warmer region BY ITS OWN MEANS this is covered by the 2nd law. The law states clearly, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.
IR fluxes from CO2 play no part in heat transfer unless the IR they contain is absorbed and converted to heat. Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source. The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in the atoms of a warmer body to transition.
Conversely, IR from a warmer body does have the frequency and intensity to excite electrons to transition in the atoms of a cooler body.
> The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency
A 255 K body emits over virtually the same frequencies as a 288 K one, Gordon:
https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl
You ran away last time I showed you.
Ah, but that was eleven years ago, Gordon. Although he does still believe there’s a Greenhouse Effect, Vaughan Pratt now accepts that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. He said:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
So the idea that back-radiation warms the surface is starting to be rejected by some members of Team Evil. Of course, they still find some other way to claim that CO2 is warming the planet, but it looks like some progress has finally been made.
Pseudomod
You still didn’t manage to read the comment section of Vaughan Pratt’s guest post at Climate Etc.
Judith Curry has clearly explained that this name ‘back radiation’ is a non-sequitur, and that the really existing concept of ‘downwelling LWIR’ clearly exists and can be measured.
And among the 3,000+ comments, you’ll see enough doubting about Pratt’s competence to discuss this difficult point.
As usual, you are manipulating us.
> BY ITS OWN MEANS
C’mon, Gordo.
Not that Dragon Crank crap again.
Please.
Bindidon, the fact that “downwelling LWIR clearly exists and can be measured”, doesn’t mean much. Ice emits IR and the IR can be measured. That does NOT mean ice can boil water.
brandon…”[GR]> The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency
[BG]A 255 K body emits over virtually the same frequencies as a 288 K one, Gordon:”
***
You too are missing the point of the 2nd law, it’s about heat. The radiation leaving a 255K body has a lower intensity and frequency than than radiation leaving a 288K body. Neither radiation is heat, it is electromagnetic energy defined as an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Neither an electric field nor a magnetic field carries heat.
However, radiation of a higher intensity and frequency from a hotter body can be converted to heat in a cooler body. The opposite is not true. Radiation form a cooler body is ignored by a hotter body hence no heat is created in a warmer body by radiation from a cooler body.
The 2nd law is about heat transfer, not radiation per se. No heat can be transferred physically by radiation through space or a vacuum. The heat gain in a cooler body is locally produced and the radiation converted to heat was created at a loss of heat in the radiating body.
Heat transfer via radiation refers to the loss of heat in a hotter body when heat is converted to EM and the gain of heat in a cooler body when the radiation is converted back to heat. At no time does EM carry heat or move it from one body to another through space. It is strictly a phenomenon of energy that one form of energy can be converted to another, however, the conversion does not happen at random.
EM is converted to heat in a mass when electrons in the atoms of the mass absorb it, become excited and move to a higher level of kinetic energy. That increase in KE is heat. Therefore it is electrons that produce the heat in a cooler body when they are excited by EM.
That cannot work in the opposite direction because electrons in a hotter body are already at a higher kinetic energy level than the atoms in a cooler body that produced the EM. The EM from a cooler body cannot affect the electrons at their higher energy level.
That satisfies the 2nd law, any other explanation does not.
–So the idea that back-radiation warms the surface is starting to be rejected by some members of Team Evil.–
It’s been rejected by most of them for quite a while. The only agreement is, it’s the end of world, fund us.
> it’s about heat.
We know, Gordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285868
“We can forgive him, he is a computer programmer.” … just like we can forgive you, Gordon, because you are an electrical engineer. We all have our strengths. While I am sure you are a fine electrical engineer, that does not make you an expert in physics or climate or math.
For example, it is completely false that ‘Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source.”
You will never find any text on “quantum theory” saying anything vaguely like that!
Quantum theory does help us figure out what energies (frequencies, wavelengths) of photons can be absorbed by a material. But quantum theory doesn’t say that a 15 um photon from 400 K CO2 will be absorbed, but an identical 15 um photon from 200 K CO2 will not not absorbed. In fact, quantum theory tells us that identical photons must behave identically.
It has been a long time since I’ve taken Quantum Mechanics and Spectroscopy classes, but that’s not how I remember it, Tim. Molecules receive energy in packets and multiples of the packets. A molecule at a higher energy state cannot receive energy from a molecule at a lower state.
Stephen
My quantum mechanics is even further than yours, but I recall that atoms and molecules have multiple energy states. They can absorb or emit photons of various energies which is why most elements show multiple absor*btion/emission lines in a stellar spectrum.
They can absorb photons of whatever energy raises them to the next higher energy state.
Nothing said about relative energy states of emitter and absorber. Just that the absorbed photon is sufficient to raise the absorber to the next level.
No, Bindidon, I am not manipulating anyone. Nobody is denying that back-radiation exists and can be measured. What Vaughan Pratt recently stated is:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
So what he is saying is, the back-radiation (which exists, nobody is denying that) does not warm the surface. Which is exactly the same thing that a few of us have been arguing for years on this blog. What I still don’t understand is, why Pratt is allowed to say that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, whereas when the few of us that have been arguing the exact same thing on this blog for years say it, we get no end of grief.
CO2 doesn’t absorb all emitted longwave radiation as long as it is higher or has enough energy. The bands are discreet.
Gordon,
“Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source.”
Except we are talking about electron transitions in molecules, the greenhouse effect if from poly-atomic molecules and the electron in those molecules.
And what counts is the wavelength or frequency, temperature has almost nothing to do with it.
Greenhouse effect is still alive and well.
Though it’s enhancement seems to be responsible for some deaths lately.
Also, if the CO2 is already at a higher state, it isn’t going to absorb the photon. A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state. A 15u photo has 15u energy. A molecule wants to give up its energy, always seeking a lower energy state.
Stephen,
“A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state.”
No, this is not correct.
Even at 400K, most of the CO2 molecules will be in the ground state.
I’ll try and find the equation for that.
Anyway, a CO2 in an excited state will transfer that energy to other atoms or molecules in the atmosphere on the order of a billionth of a second, where it takes about 1 second for the CO2 to emit a photon.
But then the CO2 molecule can also be excited through collisions, and this is actually why the back radiation model is a poor explanation of the greenhouse effect.
Here is the equation,
N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)
> Nobody is denying
Who died and made you King of the nobodies, Graham?
In any event, you already know Nabil:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/why-havent-the-tropics-warmed-much-a-tantalizing-piece-of-evidence/#comment-393924
Well, Vaughan Pratt is not denying that back-radiation exists, and nor is Clint R, Gordon, or myself. What we are all saying is that back-radiation does not warm. It’s just that apparently Vaughan Pratt is allowed to say it, the rest of us are not.
> A 400K CO2
Individual molecules don’t have a temperature, Stephen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
The velocities of molecules in a gas at a given temperature follow the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution as a function of temperature:
https://ibchem.com/root_img/boltz2.jpg
As in the Planck distribution — which not coincidentally looks very similar — the curves for different temperatures overlap.
The implication of all this is that a photon interacting with a single molecule can’t tell temperature of the entire receiving body from the kinetic energy of that molecule alone. Likewise, a photon doesn’t know the temperature of the emitting body, nor could it carry that information even if it did.
DREMT 7:50 am wrongly writes: “It’s just that apparently Vaughan Pratt is allowed to say it, the rest of us are not.”
Dr. Pratt never said “that back-radiation does not warm” so DREMT just makes that up from nowhere.
Based on experiments Dr. Pratt really conducted, he actually said: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
DREMPTY,
“What we are all saying is that back-radiation does not warm.”
That’s still incorrect, if you mean by warm, being an increase in temperature.
The correct statement is back-radiation does not transfer heat.
So stop playing semantic games and use the correct technical terms.
bob’s comment does not merit a response. Ball4, Pratt said:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
There is no other inference that can be made from this besides “back-radiation does not warm”.
Graham prudently refrains from responding to Bob.
If he did he would have to acknowledge that he plays a silly semantic game.
Pup holds that CO2 is cooling. Is he a spokesperson for that view too?
So DREMT now admits Dr. Pratt has not said: “that back-radiation does not warm”, thx.
Based on experiments Dr. Pratt really conducted, he actually said: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect” actually inferring increased back-radiation does warm the surface by Dr. Pratt writing a “TCR closer to 1.85 C/doubling” of CO2 ppm.
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
DREMT 10:24 am still admits Dr. Pratt has not said: “that back-radiation does not warm”, thx.
Dr. Pratt: “What (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.” When the lapse rate is properly not experimentally or theoretically ignored as in nature, Dr. Pratt says: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect”.
So of course the Wiki article needs correcting as Dr. Pratt says since the Wiki statement DREMT clips “ignores the lapse rate”. Interested DREMT should be Dr. Pratt’s hero and go correct Wiki on that subject.
It looks like wikipedia no longer says its warming the surface.
“Radiant heat going downwards further increases the surface temperature, adding to energy going up into the atmosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
no back radiation to be found.
So we can put the straw baler away.
But it will be hard, you know, with the kung-fu grip.
bob, the point of me quoting that particular quote is not about whether Wikipedia needs updating or not. The point is, Pratt is saying that this proposition:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
is incorrect. Thus he is saying that the idea back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface is incorrect.
Wiki: “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
is incorrect since it ignores the lapse rate in the statement. Pratt is saying that the idea back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface is incorrect when the lapse rate is ignored.
Look at them all. They’re going berserk just because one of their own happened to stray a little bit closer to reality than normal.
OK,
But he makes a better statement of the greenhouse effect with this statement.
“The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.”
The “Greenhouse Effect” is whatever you guys want it to be, which changes whenever you need it to.
No it doesn’t DREMPTY.
It’s always been the surface is warmer with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than it would be without them.
So you lose an argument and resort to lying.
All in your bag of tricks.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Here is your participation trophy.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
[GRAHAM] The “Greenhouse Effect” is whatever you guys want it to be
[THE IPCC] Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.
Nearly as vague as bob’s “definition”, Willard.
Reposting from above – comment is better placed here:
I hadn’t paid any attention Vaughan Pratt’s view. Coming to it as a newbie I note that he agrees with the notion that more GHGs will cause more warming at the surface.
If ‘skeptics’ here disagree with that, especially those skeptics here who propose that only demented, cultish minds can hold that point of view, it doesn’t seem reasonable that they would give Pratt any credence on anything.
The only disagreement he appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:
“Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
“it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.
1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925
His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratt’s own ideas about ‘backradiation’.
That doesn’t make Pratt’s reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion – for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.
No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.
Dr. Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Yes, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.
Cult Leader:https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344640
The point I am making is not even about S & O, Swanson. You people just read trigger words and react. You do not even read the whole comment correctly.
Sometimes Graham complains that greenhouse theory is whatever its proponents what it to be. Other times he complains that it’s vague. His complaint about vagueness often follows comments to spoon-feed him.
As if nobody would notice the goalposts moving.
“I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years.”
Pratt was trying to give comfort to skpetics by dissing back radiation as the only cause for surface warming.
That’s why you pounced on his comments to that effect, and completely disregard his view that the enhanced GHE will cause more surface warming.
Because understanding Pratt’s view of the GHE isn’t the point for you. The point is about scoring points.
If it weren’t, you would be talking about Pratt’s actual view of the GHE. Which isn’t very helpful to your general position. So the optics is what you will pursue. Not the truth.
Cult Leader grammie pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344862
barry, you are still talking about what VP said eleven years ago. Times change. People’s opinions change. VP said, more recently, that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. He said that the idea that back-radiation warms the surface, is incorrect. He basically said that everything we have been trying to tell you about back-radiation, is correct. You won’t listen to us. So try to listen to him, instead.
Pratt’s alternative view is ok. He’s not an expert in this area, so it’s not perturbing that he offers an alternative theory.
“He basically said that everything we have been trying to tell you about back-radiation, is correct.”
He doesn’t agree with the skeptic views that:
a) back radiation doesn’t exists
b) back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface
No skeptic I’ve ever seen explain away back-radiation does it the way he does, with the lapse rate argument. You certainly haven’t.
When I describe the GHE I tend to do it like he does – that the atmosphere slows the escape of upwelling radiation, like insulation.
As I’ve said many times, if a system or body receiving continuous radiative energy has its rate of radiative emission slowed, then that system/body must warm.
“He doesn’t agree with the skeptic views that:
a) back radiation doesn’t exists
b) back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface”
Well, barry, a) appears to be something of a recurring straw man, as far as I’m concerned. Although there do appear to be an odd few people out there who claim that back-radiation does not exist, it is not a view that I agree with or tend to take seriously. As far as I’m concerned, back-radiation exists, and every serious skeptic of the GHE agrees that it exists. As for b), Pratt said:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
He certainly seems to be saying that he thinks back-radiation does not warm the surface. So whether that means he is saying it is not absorbed by the surface, who knows? The important part seems to be that it does not warm the surface. I would agree with that.
DREMT certainly remains wrong since, based on his own experiments, Dr. Pratt clearly writes for the surface: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
Also Dr. Pratt tells DREMT: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Ball4 never listens.
“He certainly seems to be saying that he thinks back-radiation does not warm the surface.”
If so, it’s not because he believes a warm surface can’t absorb radiation from a cool object, as his earlier comments make clear – unless he has fundamentally altered his view of radiative transfer since 2011, which I very much doubt.
His apparent rejection of backradiation warming is not based on that thinking at any rate.
Maybe it is based on the result of the experiment he was discussing, where back-radiation was measured but the expected warming did not occur.
Yes, substance is a bit thin on the ground here. What paper is he talking about?
Seim & Olsen. Though he said of the paper that:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
So the results of that experiment were apparently no surprise to him, as that is what he thought “theory predicts”. Of course, that is also what we thought “theory predicts”, and had been arguing that for the last several years on this blog whilst receiving relentless false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, for doing so. Also, the experiment itself received relentless OTT criticism, a whole post on WUWT “reviewing” it, and suddenly there were lots of armchair experts on experimental design and how terribly flawed it all was. At least WUWT allowed Seim & Olsen an article in response to defend themselves.
Seim & Olsen. Though he said of the paper that:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
So the results of that experiment were apparently no surprise to him, as that is what he thought “theory predicts”. Of course, that is also what we thought “theory predicts”, and had been arguing that for the last several years on this blog whilst receiving relentless false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, for doing so. Also, the experiment itself received relentless OTT criticism, a whole post on WUWT “reviewing” it, and suddenly there were lots of armchair experts on experimental design and how terribly flawed it all was. At least WUWT allowed Seim & Olsen an article in response to defend themselves.
Found the paper, read it, checked out the authors.
Yeah, I’m not terribly impressed either. It’s ‘interesting’ in the way I can cite a bunch of skeptic stuff that cross-contradicts other skeptic stuff. Oh look, one of your own said the opposite of another one.
None of these people are experts in the matters they are discussing. No idea if the experiment in the paper was valid. Shrug.
Downplay it all you want, barry, but someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked is a big deal. Especially since it is so regularly debated on this site, and has been for years.
WH/SI: someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked
Also WH/SI: I wasnt aware that this meant I had to defend every word
Priceless.
OK, Brandon.
The two situations aren’t really comparable, Brandy Guts.
DREMT is still wrong.
Dr. Pratt actually wrote: “What (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) should.”
S&O paper ignores the lapse rate so Dr. Pratt correctly wrote: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Lapse rate! Lapse rate! Lapse rate! Troll.
“someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked is a big deal.”
Huh? Team which? Pratt is a computer scientist. And he didn’t ‘admit’ anything, as if he’s been hiding the truth. Nice rhetoric, DREMT.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a moment there but it turns out you’re just stirring as usual. Should have realized when you didn’t spend a single sentence in all the subthreads talking about the reasoning behind his notion. No illumination or quest for understanding, just point-scoring as I said earlier.
Want to hear more rhetoric?
Vaughan Pratt doesn’t like backradiation. Oh noes. That changes everything!
barry, Vaughan Pratt is just a “computer scientist” when you guys want him to be, but when he is repeating Woods experiment and finding flaws in it he is definitely “one of the guys you can trust”. Now you want to downplay the significance of him saying that this proposition is wrong:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it”
Yet others, like Swanson, are keen to point out:
““back radiation” between atmospheric layers down to the surface by the greenhouse gasses IS THE GHE.”
You guys have been all over the place on this, throwing everything you can at the wall in the hope that something will stick. Some are in denial of what he said, some are desperately trying to spin it as if he really meant something else, most are taking all their frustrations out on me. When all else fails, I guess going “oh well, he’s only a computer scientist” is the best we’re going to get. God forbid you might actually think for a moment about whether we have been right all along.
Again, the local reps of the Sky Dragon Slayer community cannot make a sound science-based argument.
What to do? Seek out faux authority figures who are not representative of climate science, or physics, or meteorology, and mine their quotes, take them out of context, to find ‘faux’ agreement with the Sky Dragon Slayer meme.
First of all, no one who thinks the Seim and Olsen paper is a good paper should be credited as authority on this subject.
Second, as I noted to Pratt:
“Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.”
“Vaughan Pratt is just a ‘computer scientist’ when you guys want him to be, but when he is repeating Woods experiment and finding flaws in it he is definitely ‘one of the guys you can trust’.”
I’d never heard of Pratt before this conversation.
OK, barry. Odd that you got involved at all, then, really.
Typically, Maguff supplies a quotation from a law case aimed at discrediting skeptics yet he/she fails to explain scientifically why his/her claim is true.
That is typical of the arrogance of climate alarmists. They set themselves up as demi-Gods with an omnipotence that gives them insight the rest of us lack. Yet, they cannot prove their insights as having any scientific value. They rely solely on the consensus of their peer alarmists.
C’mon, Gordo.
“Your beliefs do not make something true” is common knowledge.
We learn it around at around 10:
https://theconversation.com/what-is-magical-thinking-and-do-we-grow-out-of-it-35384
In your case, it’s give or take a few decades.
Never trust a psychologist called Jean, especially if it’s a man. That goes doubly when its last name is Piaget. Sounds like a misspelled French car.
Furthermore, never trust a post by anyone called Willard.
Come on, Gordo.
Jean was Swiss, not French. You do need to trust an observable fact:
> The data of this study suggest that in the modern industrialized world, magical beliefs persist but are disguised to fit the dominant scientific paradigm.
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/026151004772901140
That line reminds me of you for some reason.
Willard, please stop trolling.
La Nia is affecting weather around the world. A jetstream can be seen descending from the north over the eastern U.S., and its cold fronts are bringing flooding to the Appalachians. The jetstream then ripples over the Atlantic, bringing air from the south over Europe. As long as La Nia continues and solar winds are weak, this circulation will continue.
https://i.ibb.co/Y8dnj4J/gfs-nh-sat1-t2anom-1-day.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Still low probability of tropical cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef. Apparent increase in SOI.
More rainfall in Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
Why Fijis sea level is rising as SOI rises.
“The northern and central sections of the reef have the highest levels of coral cover recorded in 36 years of monitoring by the Australian Institute of Marine Science.”
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2022/08/04/coral-great-barrier-reef/
” Why Fi[d]jis sea level is rising as SOI rises. ”
This is exactly the reason why people doing serious work on sea levels, like Dangendorf and Frederikse, account for such things.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
What is the meaning of that [d] you’ve stuck in Fiji?
Ooops?! My bad.
That was clearly a germanism, due to the fact that the blog’s software didn’t like ‘Fiji’ in my previous post.
Now, curiously, it does.
Fiji is sinking, it’s not the sea level rising.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/fijis-sinking-vunidogoloa-village-victim-of-agw-or-opportunistic-at-cop23/
Sea level at Fiji has risen by 6 mm per year since 1993, and you have explained away 10% of that due to subsidence.
Consider that Fiji geology is coral and volcano. The coral depends on sea levels to rise in order to grow higher. So sea levels must have been higher in the past or there would be no Fiji now.
Raised coral reefs are exposed by tectonic uplift.
But keep trying.
On chemtrails.
https://xkcd.com
He is so good..
Yes indeed.
https://xkcd.com/2652/
Very:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
what happened to the Younger Dryas event Willard?
https://xkcd.com/2618/
You could not find it on the xkcd posted by Willard?
Try looking again, about 11000 BC, right before humans reach Argentina.
I see it. He is using the South Pole version.
He is referencing Shakun Et al, a global reconstruction.
Not a good source. One should use replicable science. When one replicates this work one comes up with greatly different results like here: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/alkenone-comparison1.png
done by simply removing the date manipulation.
Again, the Greenland Ice Cores show the YD event to be -12C to -15C
https://www.britannica.com/science/Younger-Dryas-climate-interval
and the Antarctic cores show it to be ~-2C. Shakun using magical trickery gets it down to -.4C.
Like I said a magicians disappearing act. Uncovered here: https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
The Marcott/Shakun Dating Service at your service!
We can all easily get sucked in by that, studies show that there is a broad and strong tendency towards acquiescence and authority biases.
Sorry,
McIntyre is not a reputable source.
why do you say that?
There’s more juice, it rains harder:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/an-extreme-weather-climate-change-communications-masterclass/
stephen….”Molecules receive energy in packets and multiples of the packets. A molecule at a higher energy state cannot receive energy from a molecule at a lower state”.
***
That’s right, Stephen, energy in general cannot move from a lower state of potential, by its own means, to a state of higher potential. Water dos not flow uphill by its own means and boulders don’t jump onto cliff by their own means. External energy is required to move either against a potential gradient.
I don’t like talking in terms of molecules, I think it obfuscates the action taking place. A molecule, as you know, is nothing more than a name for two or more atoms bonded by electrons, either by sharing electrons or through the charges created by electrons.
When atoms form molecules, that does not prevent the electrons in the associated atoms from behaving normally re transitions. Even the bonding electrons can transition.
The packets to which you refer, which I call quanta, are emitted and absorbed by electrons in atoms. There is nothing else in an ordinary atom can deal with them. The electron is a negatively charged particle with an electric field, and it produces a magnetic field when it moves. That’s true whether the electron is moving through a conductor or in an orbit.
It’s no mystery the electron produces EM when it transitions downward in energy levels. Where else would EM come from? What other mechanism in an atom or a molecule can possibly produce an electric field with an associated magnetic field?
That’s the basis of Bohr’s quantum theory, and even though it is only applicable to the hydrogen atom, modifications of his basic theory have allowed his theory to be applied to multi-electron/proton atoms. Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on an electron moving in a field.
Quantum snobs will have us believe that Bohr’s model is dead, just as they want us to believe Newtonian physics is dead. I think what is really dead is their brains.
Yes, Bohr would tell you his model is dead, and he did before he died.
He did a lot of work on the upgraded model.
tim…”Quantum theory does help us figure out what energies (frequencies, wavelengths) of photons can be absorbed by a material”.
***
Tell that to Neils Bohr. It was the discrete nature of spectral lines in hydrogen that lead him to the insight required for his theory, and the proof. The discrete frequencies of hydrogen spectral lines were already known but no one could explain them.
It was Bohr, based on good groundwork from Rutherford, who figured out a relationship between the discrete spectral line frequencies and electron transitions that produced the answer.
Each of the emission spectral lines of hydrogen can be directly related to electron transitions between certain energy levels. It’s the same for discrete gaps in the absorp-tion spectrum when electrons excited by the absorp-tion of certain frequencies of EM transition between certain energy levels in an upward direction.
The emission spectrum for hydrogen is the inverse of the absorp-tion spectrum. That is, to get an absorp-tion spectrum, polychromatic light is used as a spectrum and where gaps appear in the spectrum, those lines represent EM energy absorbed by the hydrogen.
I am seeing many article written by people who are seriously confused as to the reality of atoms. One article I just read compared the internals of a molecule to particles attached by springs. Duh!!! Those particles are atoms and the springs are electrons that bond the atoms.
Much is made of molecular vibration. Articles make it sound as if there really are little springs in molecules attached to tiny particles. Molecules vibrate due to a charge difference between atoms and atoms vibrate due to an electrostatic difference between protons in the nucleus and electrons orbiting the nucleus.
The cause of vibration in CO2 and water are well known. It’s due to a difference in electronegativity between constituent atoms. Any time you have a difference in electrical potential with atoms you get vibration. What causes the difference in electronegativity??? Electrons!!!
The thing to note is that the vibration involves the bonds. The bonds are formed by electrons or charges produced by electrons. Those bonding, or valence electrons, can also absorb EM and transition to higher energy levels. That cause vibration to increase.
All vibration, and rotation in molecules can be related to electron transitions, or to changes in energy levels of the electrons due to absorbing EM or another energy like heat.
> Tell that to Neils Bohr.
Niels, Gordo. Niels.
Also, he ded. Find another figure of speech.
Heavy precipitation again in Kentucky as a cold front descends from the northwest. La Nina works.
Heavy voting in Kansas as a conservative state give the Supreme Court the finger.
And Dred Scott says I though I was screwed.
And Dred Scott says I thought I was screwed
To present WUWT ‘reports’ about sea levels couldn’t be more naive.
WUWT is a blog 100% financed by the Heartland Institute and the GWPF, two institutions 100% busy with the denial of any CO2 effect, be it on temperature, sea level, glacier retreat etc etc.
*
PSMSL, the organism responsible for the worldwide management of tide gauges, has three gauges located on the Fiji island:
1327; -18.135678; 178.422839; SUVA-A (1972-1997)
1805; -17.604917; 177.438250; LAUTOKA (1992-2020)
2356; -18.132500; 178.427500; SUVA-B (1997-2020)
Only Lautoka has a GPS station sufficiently in the near, which reports s subsidence of 1 mm/yr.
Raw sea level change trends at the gauges, in mm/yr
– SUVA-A: 6
– LAUTOKA: 4
– SUVA-B: 8
What are such differences between Lautoka and Suva due to?
No se.
Maybe the subsidence is much higher at the Suva location, maybe the sea level rise is higher in Fiji’s south due to stronger currents.
Anyway, saying ‘No SLR, all subsidence, move along’ sounds a bit dumb compared to
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-fiji-sealevels/
I think it’s better to ask the people living there than to say they have no SLR problems.
“The Suva tide-gauge record as appearing in the PSMSL database shows a misleading trend as, in fact, this record represents the combined measurements at three different locations”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316313844_The_Fiji_Tide-Gauge_Stations/fulltext/591ebaeb0f7e9b6428193e21/The-Fiji-Tide-Gauge-Stations.pdf
https://www.graphyonline.com/archives/IJEES/2017/IJEES-137/
“Previously, the changes in sea level during the last 500 years were not covered by adequate research in the Fiji Islands. The present paper provides a detailed analyses documenting a +70 cm high level in the 16th and 17th centuries, a -50 cm low in the 18th century and a period of virtually stability in the 19th to early 21st centuries, the last period of which may be subdivided into an early 19th century +30 cm high, a long period of stability and a 10-20 cm fall in sea level in the last 60 years forcing corals to grew into microatolls under strictly stable sea level conditions. This means there are no traces of a present rise in sea level; on the contrary: full stability.
The long-term trend is almost identical to the trends documented in the Indian Ocean in the Maldives, Goa and Bangladesh. This implies a eustatic origin of the changes recorded; not of glacial eustatic origin, however, but of rotational eustatic origin.
The rotational eustatic changes in sea level are driven by the alternations of speeding-up during Grand Solar Minima (the Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima) forcing water towards the equator, and slowing-down during Grand Solar Maxima (in the 18th century, around 1930-1940 and at about 1970-2000)”
Bindidon, as Earth’s sea level has varied by hundreds of meters, what is the correct level supposed to be?
How much has it varied while we have had coastal cities?
Good point, AQ. We know there were several cities underwater before all this silly obsession with CO2 even began.
All due to dam and waterway construction, subsidence, past tsunamis and other shifts in land/ None due to a general sea level change.
Exactly. There are many reasons sea levels change.
That’s probably why it happens all the time.
Except past sea level changes (since the advent of cities) have gone in both directions (you’ve focused only on one direction) and have approximately averaged out to zero. Now we have a systemic increase.
The cities which were submerged by dam construction were planned, they were few, and they were small. You don’t seem to understand the much larger scale of the threat.
Sorry AQ, but you misunderstood. Sea levels have “varied”. That means both directions.
And what threat do you see? The advance of perversion and idiocy is a real threat. But CO2 warming the planet is a cult belief, NOT based on science.
Gee – I wonder what the threat of rising sea levels in low lying areas could be. Stumps me. Please keep your questions simple.
AQ, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was wanting you to define your perceived “threat”, in terms of how high sea levels were going to get in this current trend. We know sea levels vary by hundreds of meters, so is the “average” how we judge the threat?
How far above, or below, the average are we now?
When you acknowledge that the sea level before the advent of cities is irrelevant to present day society I will be happy to answer.
Since we should be interested in science and reality, we need as much information as we can get to determine the range of natural sea level change.
Otherwise, it looks like we’re just cherry-picking periods that fit some kind of anti-science cult agenda.
We don’t want to do that, do we?
Doctor: “You have been diagnosed with AIDS.”
Clint (g!e!r!a!n): “Don’t tell me what I have today. That is cherry picking. My case of Ebola last year was much worse. By focussing solely on what I have today you are being unscientific”.
AQ, you’re panicked over sea level rise, but you don’t know what Earth’s sea level is “supposed” to be. It has changed dramatically over many thousands of years. It’s gone up, and it’s gone down. You can’t explain any of it.
At least you have your false beliefs to comfort you….
> Its gone up, and its gone down. You cant explain any of it.
You’re a Bill O’Reilly fan, Clint? This explains so much!
“Supposed to” would imply a “god”, and we both know there is no such thing.
I see you have a talent for using words and phrases like that which don’t apply. But hey, so do adolescents.
Ant, it’s no wonder you dad was a keyboard.
I would posit that we are in an interglacial period. That the ‘normal’ is continents covered with ice and the sea levels dramatically lower; a 120 meters lower.
It would be interesting to conduct archeological search for old coastal cities that got inundated at the start of the Holocene. Radar search at 120 meter depth might unearth some interesting stuff.
Ken
” t would be interesting to conduct archeological search for old coastal cities that got inundated at the start of the Holocene. ”
We aren’t talking about the sea levels as they were about 12 thousand years ago, a period in which the human world population
– was about 2 (TWO) million individuals, and not 8 billion
– lived without any infrastructure in coastal regions.
No idea what you want to say here.
The question was: Bindidon, as Earths sea level has varied by hundreds of meters, what is the correct level supposed to be?
The geological history is that sea level is usually 120 meters lower than it is now.
Given that sea levels are usually 120 meters lower and that continents are usually covered with a mile thick ice sheet then I guess we really are in the midst of a climate crisis.
I hope the crisis goes on.
I don’t wonder that people like Linsley Hood refer to things published by Nils-Axel Mörner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Mörner utterly denied recent sea level rise and even global warming.
From the German Wiki which publishes a lot more about him we can read
1. ” Among other things, he claimed, contrary to the current state of science, that there is currently no sea level rise and that sea level rise is the “biggest lie ever spread”.
Mörner believed that there will be a cooling in the near future due to decreasing solar activity and the associated drop in sea level.
He was a member of the advisory board of several climate denial groups, including the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the European Institute for Climate & Energy (EIKE). ”
EIKE has exactly the same goals as Heartland and GWPF, and EIKE’s blog is a German variant of WUWT.
*
2. ” In 2018 it became known that Mörner published several supposedly peer-reviewed papers in so-called pirated journals, which often only simulate a peer review.
In 2017, together with OMICS International, an Indian pirate journal publisher that is being sued for fraudulent business practices, he organized an alleged climate conference that was mainly attended by climate deniers. ”
*
Thus, as one can see, everyone has his/her preferred sources.
Mörner does NOT belong to mine.
Yeah Bin, you rely on centuries-old astrology for your sources.
Each to his own….
Are you saying that his observation of
“The Suva tide-gauge record as appearing in the PSMSL database shows a misleading trend as, in fact, this record represents the combined measurements at three different locations”
is wrong?
I delved into his stuff some time ago. It is rank with a lack of understanding, misconceptions and unprofessional commentary unbecoming research scholarship. I see no reason to give his work the credence required to re-investigate.
What Id really LOVE to see here, is an explanation for the cause of the persistent, multi-year drought in the far West. Theyre saying its the worst drought in 1,200 years~! Although Im not sure it really is but even if it were the worst drought in 50 or 100 years, what is the cause?
Headlines blame global warming and climate change and we seem to be reminded of this on a daily basis. But is that really true? Is climate change the direct cause of the drought or is it actually being caused by something else?
The news media says that scientists say climate change is leading to higher summer temperatures and more aridification. Thats a good and very logical theory. But is that whats causing the drought? Furthermore, they usually do not mention just who the scientists actually are.
It seems to me like a warmer world could lead to a longer summer monsoon season in Arizona, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwest. Last year and so far this year, the monsoon has been a wet one. But we cant just look at two years. Looking at a ten-year average, I am not seeing any data that supports either a longer, wetter monsoon or a shorter, drier monsoon.
With a warming planet, I would expect the jet stream and its associated middle latitude, moisture-bearing storms to shift northward. That would lead to much drier conditions in California and perhaps even Oregon. That would be logical and make sense. But is that actually happening? Has the Jet permanently shifted substantially northward? I am not seeing that.
What I am seeing is a puzzling, stubborn, blocking ridge of high pressure thats establishing itself along or just off the West Coast while the southern jet far out at sea dips well down into the tropics. I am skeptical that global warming would cause this but perhaps I am wrong.
Any thought on this?
It would be very interesting if Dr. Roy would post a blog article on the subject.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
Topeka, IN
I fear that this is not the end of “climate change.”
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
https://www.weather.gov/images/ama/climate/ElNino/LaNina.PNG
What about showing a bit more than MEI v2?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
MEI at record low for this time of year. What will happen in November?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=08
How about showing all of it?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-1.jpeg
Firstly, I digress so as to set the context. Progressing from forecasts to weather to neoclimate to archeoclimate to paleoclimate, the data move from high accuracy/granularity to low accuracy/granularity. Because atmospheric characteristics are so dissimilar at each end of the spectrum, the larger the span, more absurd the comparison between then and now. As an example, our atmosphere was at least five times denser ~100.Mya (when pterosaurs could fly) than it is today with a far higher CO2-to-O2 concentration as well. In other words, the further back in time a comparison goes, the more of an apples-to-oranges comparison it becomes unless those various differences are taken into account. But they mostly are not. What differences? A partial list is atmospheric density/composition, oceanic gyres/depth/salinity/volcanism, terrestrial flora/fauna/volcanism, and unknown solar metrics.
Secondly, given the contextual diversity in the preceding paragraph (and the lack of its inclusion in climatology,) any cause-effect relationship regarding weather and neoclimate is extremely tenuous. Climate models are severely deficient in accounting for all contextual climate variables; they attempt to do so by adjusting coefficients, exponents, and “forcings” to get the graphs to fit in short spans, but they all fail miserably for extended spans because the equations are incomplete.
Thirdly, our solar system is traversing around our galaxy at ~222 arc-miles/second, through its extremely varying intergalactic dust composition and density; thats almost 117 million arc-miles per year. Our solar system hasnt been in the same galactic locale in 220 million years!
Lastly, to determine why theres a drought in a specific locale this year, looking back over a paltry 1,200 years, is irrational. In Florida, the popular phrase is, “If you dont like the weather, wait 20 minutes.” For our dear planet Earth, “If you dont like the weather, wait a year–itll be 100 million miles different.” In short: Why? Only the Shadow knows….
— Fred M. Cain says:
August 5, 2022 at 6:27 AM
What Id really LOVE to see here, is an explanation for the cause of the persistent, multi-year drought in the far West. Theyre saying its the worst drought in 1,200 years~! Although Im not sure it really is but even if it were the worst drought in 50 or 100 years, what is the cause?–
I think you can say, it was once an Ocean a long time, ever since, then it’s been pretty dry.
I believe during colder period of Little Ice Age it had longer droughts.
We are in an Ice Age, and in last couple million years it’s been colder and drier. But imagine even in warmer and wetter times of our Ice Age, it was still fairly dry.
So, I would say global climate has little to do with it, instead I would say related to global weather patterns.
An example of this is polar vortex changing pattern and of course we we in an La Nina [for a long time and probably last a while longer.
But just normal weather may change it a bit.
I am in high desert of southern California, had a little rain yesterday and could have more but we in drought. I think it’s more important of how your government is managing the problem. As it’s not unexpected.
Fred…the drought in the far west recently is due to the three year La Nina. It’s well known that La Ninas produce drought conditions in California and Texas while they produce excess rainfall further north along the same coast.
In the Vancouver, Canada area, La Nina produced major flooding in November 2021 that was blamed on climate change. A few months before, it parked a heat dome over the entire Pacific Northwest that ranged from Oregon in the US to several hundred miles north of Vancouver.
This too was blamed on climate change but the evidence proves that wrong. For example, on the southern-most part of the heat dome, it was 40C+ a few miles east of the ocean in Oregon, yet on the coast, at Astoria, they were unaffected by the heat. Temperatures were in the low 20s.
There is no way so-called GHGs could do that. Nor could they arbitrarily raise temperatures 10C+ above average.
La Nina is the only explanation. It messes with the jet stream and that creates strange weather conditions globally.
I might also add here that although it’s the popular theory that higher temperatures are the root cause of the drought, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that it’s the other way around.
Wouldn’t a drought lead to less temperature-moderating soil moisture and, therefore, higher temperatures and more severe heat waves?
Just a guess.
Warming temperatures increase the water vapor the air can hold. Not only does the ground lose more water to evaporation but plants draw more water from the soil.
https://www.climatesignals.org/resources/explainer-what-vapor-pressure-deficit-vpd
“Warming temperatures increase the water vapor the air can hold”
But the humidity paradox say that is not actually happening.
“But the humidity paradox say that is not actually happening.”
Not sure what you mean. The specific humidity measured in grams of water vaper per kilo of moist air is increasing.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Global-time-series-of-annual-average-specific-humidity-for-the-land-ocean-and-global-average-relative-to-1981-2010.jpg
Could it be that the calculated specific humidity may be inflated because its inputs from improperly-placed temperature monitoring stations are corrupted by UHI effects?: https://tinyurl.com/3enmnnjh
For all you fools that believe “science” is your god and not that real science demonstrates there IS a living and true God. Jason Lisle is your worst enemy and can demonstrate why you bow at the wrong throne! Have at it: https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/?fbclid=IwAR3KvOAFF49bOdbAdoYnVMFH6i6-qUAfx_Fx9wDAcdKs7T1CUeEBRW9fqdY
You are not going to catch any fish with your all you fools lure.
“For all you fools…”
So much hate in your heart is not very Christian of you. Not very Luke 6:27-36!
So, you are saying the Word of God is a lie? What is a fool? Indeed, the biblical description of a person who denies the authority of God to rule one’s life! As such, the reference is CORRECT!
God’s “lure” IS the Gospel. Rom. 10:14-17. The MEANS known as the Gospel either, brings you to a place of conviction of your sin and need for redemption; or confirms your utter rejection of the Word of God so that you REMAIN in your unbelief. Heb. 3: 12-19; John 3:36 (the wrath of God REMAINS upon you) and many other places.
Like many who fail to do proper interpretation, they (fools) rip verses out of context and give the words meaning(s) NOT intended by the original writer. Why does Luke write? This helps to determine how, the vague reference you make to the Sermon on the Mount, is to be interpreted! Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3 are a 2-volume set. Luke is demonstrating the Messiah who came to bring redemption and Acts is the resurrected Messiah who sends forth His disciples to proclaim the truth of His word SO THAT by their preaching folks will BELIEVE the Gospel message and be justified by faith, NO LONGER FOOLS but believers who follow the RESURRECTED Messiah!
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction!
Or Psalm 14: The FOOL has said in his heart,
there is no God,
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Again, the 66 Books found in the English translation of the Bible are LIKE 66 chapters of one book! Their message points to the One who created them, was rejected by them, sent His Son to die for them and is continually being rejected by many, but some, a remnant, come to faith by the very Word of God. IT IS THE MEANS HE USES TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT THAT IS COMING. Indeed, this is love……………FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME. Whose wrath remains upon you UNTIL you repent and believe the Gospel! This is not hate! You are dead in (the first) Adam who disobeyed and are under the curse of sin and death because of his disobedience (mommy and daddy did NOT have to teach you to disobey, that came naturally) and anyone who believes is made alive by the 2nd Adam, Jesus, who obeyed the Law of God perfectly and whose righteous obedience is charged to the account of one who believes! In other words, salvation is obtained by Jesus who not only obeyed the Law of God but endured the just punishment we deserve. Indeed, He took upon Himself the wrath of God, we deserve, on the Cross of Calvary and took our place in judgment. That is, those who believe on HIM and them alone! Read Romans 5.
If I walked by your house and it was on fire and DID NOT SCREAM, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, that would be hate! Instead, I say fire and you fools, say he hates us! This is what happened to Jesus! Read Matt. 11 to see how he came to His own (ethnic) people, and to the towns near to where He grew up, and the towns where the disciples grew up, and they rejected Him. Then read His pronouncement of judgment upon them! See also The Gospel of John 6:41-70;8:48-59;12:37-50. Matt. 22:41-46: 26, the whole chapter and many more places.
REPENT OR PERISH! There is NO middle ground!
TL;DR
You will have enough time in hell then to evaluate. Peace!
May you’ll be half an hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead.
You have a blessed day now you hear!
‘God’ did not write the gospels, humans around the Middle ages did.
You’re a few centuries late with the middle ages.
Luke-Act is the New Testament and Proverbs is one of the poetical books of the Old One, Fish.
No wonder you cling to the old vengeful ways instead of embracing socialism like teh Jesus did.
Go Fish
You are the perfect representative of the typical US “Christian” (quotation marks needed) men and women.
In your strange corner, you all only talk about hate, worst enemies, war, weapons, Second Amendment etc etc.
You are the symbol of the Antichrist.
The biblical science institute for oxymorons.
“Jason Lisle is your worst enemy and can demonstrate why you bow at the wrong throne!”
Lisle believes that light travels instantaneously toward a viewer but away from the viewer it travels at one half the “scientific” speed of light. The logic is that the speed of light is usually measured by reflecting off of a mirror and returning to the source. This mental contortion is so that we can see light from stars billions of light years away in a universe only 6 thousand years old.
If Go Fish really wants to argue the point I’ll go through why this is easy to disprove. While the logic is painful I have worse enemies than Lisle.
You can prove nothing of the sort! Neither can Jason. But you can point to evidence, which then MUST BE INTERPRETED! Therein lies the issue!
Gordon, this is Go Fish. This is why I mentioned him and GPS.
“Essentially, the GPS receiver measures the distance to each satellite by the amount of time it takes to receive a transmitted signal. With distance measurements from a few more satellites, the receiver can determine a user’s position and display it electronically to measure your running route, map a golf course, find a way home or adventure anywhere.”
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/aboutgps/
If light traveled instantaneously toward an observer then the signal from each GPS satellite would reach the receiver at the instant it was sent. There would be no way to calculate how far away any satellite was so the receiver’s position could not be found.
I’ll agree that that is only evidence and not proof, but it’s only one of a long list of evidence against a convoluted hypothesis designed only to prop up the biblical age of the Earth.
The point I want to argue you do NOT want to discuss. It is your eternal destiny! That is the point of all my posts: Where are you destined to go when you die? You do know death is coming, don’t you? You do believe you WILL die one day? That is what my concern is. Are you among the redeemed or does the wrath of God abide on you still?
I stick my head in this echo chamber of AGW debate, at times, to shake it up a bit in an attempt to draw attention to one’s eternal destiny. It becomes evident very quickly who believes they remain on the throne of their life and who rejects the rule of God over their life. Psalm 24:1:- The earth is the LORD’s, and ALL its fullness,
The world and THOSE who dwell therein!
Whether you acknowledge it or not you are under the Theocratic RULE of the King of the universe! He holds your destiny in His hands!
You God does not rule my destiny.
Who does?
“Where are you destined to go when you die?
The number of religions just keeps growing, now about 4000, and all have different ideas about that.
When you find out where you go, let us know!
I like this answer:
https://youtu.be/sZpZuIWu1tw
In a way, Climateball is a preview of heaven.
Another fool who needs comprehension skills to boot.
I have told you but you scoff at His Word! Not a religion, except by mans’ definition, but a relationship. A relationship, either, severed in the garden or restored at the Cross!
The words and concepts I speak ARE found in the Word of God. It is His communication to us but you and others, will listen more closely to any opposition to it before you would ever earnestly evaluate its own claims!
You think, as others on this forum, you believe you have the answers to AGW yet it is your interpretation of the data! There is an opposing view, hence this venue of never ending arguments with no solution or agreement in sight.
I have observed this utter insanity for the better part of 4-5 years now. Same folks, insulting other folks, who disagree with their interpretation of the data and attack their character as a result. So, I ought to be welcomed with open arms! Some folks even have multiple names to badger and mock others. The moderator deals with children on this thread daily!
All in the name of hysteria and a false reality that AGW will destroy us altogehter!
How many genders are there?
Nate says:
”The number of religions just keeps growing, now about 4000, and all have different ideas about that.”
———————
And the 4,000 doesn’t include them all. Nate’s Inert Brick in the room warming the room religion isn’t on the list.
Why would a supporter of just one religion be more correct than any other?
Simple, yet you miss the connection! Why? You are DEAD in your trespasses and sins, separated from God and destined to an eternal hell UNLESS you repent and believe the message of the Gospel!
In other words, there IS such a thing as truth and its counterpart, ERROR! Simple logic but not logical!
The LORD has blinded your eyes, like Pharoah and many others, and until that veil is removed, you will remain in darkness!
I suggest you use Google Translate before posting.
Which God is that? Why is ‘he’ so important?
In order to do real science you must begin with a correct worldview:
https://youtu.be/taKaFUNJ6Ec
I see you were providing a counter-example to the “correct world view”.
Explain where death comes from in your counter example of origins! Explain where marriage originated! Explain the origin of the nation Israel? Explain why toddlers do not have to be taught to disobey and that comes naturally! You are the quintessential FOOL to which the Scripture refers!
(1) Death doesn’t “come from” anywhere. Everything must exhaust it’s supplies.
(2) Marriage came from the same place as native tribal customs – the human mind.
(3) Israel is a country that was unethically supported by the western powers over the rightful inhabitants.
(4) If you think toddlers obey then you have no experience with toddlers.
Why are you people such angry and unhappy SOBS?
LOL,your ignorance is sad indeed. The likes of which you will one day give an account to your Maker!
So I’m ignorant because I know that toddlers obey no one – interesting.
It’s funny how you people get your validation by telling other they’re going to hell. Perhaps you should address your own personal issues first. I bet you’re “born again”.
Go Fish,
“(4) If you think toddlers obey then you have no experience with toddlers.”
If you can’t get toddlers to obey you then you are a bad parent.
Probably trying to get them to obey by following the Bible and beating them.
Well your theist fails to explain it as well.
Oh but you happily accept the Goddidit explanation.
Must be nice.
For those interested in Vaughan Pratt’s views on back radiation, near as I can tell his guest post at Judy’s is the origin of his argument. Well down in the comments he offers some clarifications, which I quote in full:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
IOW, since some will struggle with the concept of a cooler body reducing the energy loss of a warmer one, and because more complete explanations exist, it’s not necessary to give a back radiation explantion for the greenhouse effect, and may be preferable not to.
Nothing about “debunking”; he’s simply stating a preference.
Why anyone should feel obliged to be bound to his preference is not clear, and personally I don’t have trouble with the back radiation concept any more than I struggle to understand how a heavy coat keeps me warmer than I’d be without it.
Brandon R. Gates
Thank you, I had read exactly that comment yesterday evening (among many many others) but was too lazy to do that job.
You’re welcome, Bindidon.
One thing is sure –
Graham will soldier on.
Job security is a Good Thing. 😉
Just check GW’s latest wriggling, BG:
[GRAHAM] It is a question of whether or not it can increase temperatures.
[ALSO GRAHAM] There is no other inference that can be made from this besides “back-radiation does not warm”.
Do you think he wears clothes? I think he does:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Who should we believe, the Graham who trolls or the Graham who wears clothes?
In their full context, both those quotes make sense and there is no contradiction between them. Isolate them and you can pretend there’s a problem. Pure sophistry from Willard.
Graham cannot bring himself to admit that his clothes keep him warm without increasing BY THEMSELVES the temperature of his musical body:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
70 of trollings and he is still stuck at the silly blankets.
My clothes keep me warm, and that has absolutely nothing to do with back-radiation.
Back-radiation does not warm.
Back-radiation is not insulation.
Have the last word.
C’mon whoever you are, the 2nd Law applies to all forms of energy transfer.
Yes.
Then how does cold clothing keep you warm and not violate 2LOT.
It’s called “insulation”, Brandon.
Brandon, to even pose such a stupid question means you don’t understand the physics involved.
Clothing serves as “insulation”. Clothing is NOT heating your body. The heat transfer is from your body to your clothes to the atmosphere.
You clearly don’t have a clue about any of this. Just like the other cult idiots. And, if you can’t learn, you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Can you learn?
> “insulation”
Quotated in stereo no less. The sad fact is that both mechanisms retard heat loss, but your orthodoxy demands otherwise. Sad.
Yes, BG. But consider:
(G1) Backradiation exists.
(G2) Backradiation does not warm.
(G3) Backradiation does not work by insulation.
Notice how Graham cannot bring himself to tell us how Team Joe believes backradiation works?
70 months of that crap.
Brandon, it’s important that you try to learn.
“Retarding heat loss” of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object. Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.
Now, try to absorb that before you make another comment. Remember, it’s important to learn.
Perhaps “but insulation” needs to be added to the bingo, W. In any case here’s how I’d classify this particular style of magical thinking:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Escape_hatch
> Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.
Repeat after me, Clint: the naked emperor is NOT freezing.
lulz
Brando, it appears trolling is more important to you than learning. That’s pretty common in your cult. That’s why we have so many braindead cult idiots here.
> Perhaps “but insulation” needs to be added to the bingo
Here you go, BG:
climateball.net/but-ABC#backradiation
“‘Retarding heat loss’ of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object. Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.”
The biggest problem with the analogy is that human bodies are heated internally while the Earth’s main energy source is external. Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.
How else would insulators work except by retarding heat loss, Clint. Go ahead, try to explain, without resorting to level 4 photons if you please.
“Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.”
…but not via back-radiation, in either case. The non-radiative gases “hold on to the heat”, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.
> The non-radiative gases
Are you Stephen Wilde, Graham?
Craig T says: “Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.”
Yes, it’s the atmosphere, as in Oxygen and Nitrogen. The non-radiative gases act as insulation. That’s why we have the lapse rate. The lapse rate is nothing more than the temperature gradient through Earth’s “blanket”.
Brandon says: “How else would insulators work except by retarding heat loss”
That IS how insulation works, Brandon. But the heat transfer is from the body through the clothes to the atmosphere. Or in the case of Earth — from the surface to the atmosphere (oxygen and nitrogen), to then be radiated to space by radiative gases.
This was explained earlier, but you can’t learn. Trolling is more important to you than learning.
Clint: Retarding heat loss of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object.
Also Clint: [Retarding heat loss] IS how insulation works
I couldn’t make this up.
DREMPTY,
Again you fall foul.
“but not via back-radiation, in either case. The non-radiative gases hold on to the heat, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.”
Heat transfer takes three forms, conduction, convection, and radiation.
Non-radiative gases only insulate by limiting conduction and convection.
Radiative gases can insulate by limiting all three.
Though you would have to consider that in the case of a pure radiative gas, it would thermalize by transferring the absorbed energy to another radiative gas molecule.
Thanks for quoting me exactly, Brandon. I didn’t expect you would understand.
When you get into advanced trolling, you will be misrepresenting my words. That’s what trolls do.
“Again you fall foul.”
I’m happy I’m correct, bob.
Graham needs attention again.
Clint: “The non-radiative gases act as insulation.”
For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection. Atmospheric gases transport heat upward. And all gases are “radiative”, just at differing frequencies.
“For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection.”
Not when thinking in terms of insulation on a planetary scale.
Craig T is tangled up in his own nonsense.
Since we pointed out that the non-radiative gases act as insulation, he’s now claiming the atmosphere can’t insulate!
And he now claims that ALL gases are radiative.
Craig T just destroyed his own cult’s made-up nonsense. And, he did it all with more made-up nonsense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> Not when thinking
Now Graham is the Master Thinker now.
Instead of special pleading, he could acknowledge a point even Stephen Wilde acknowledges.
70 months like that.
Clint R,
“Thats why we have the lapse rate.”
Moron, please explain why the lapse rate is different depending on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Sorry, but you are too stupid to do that.
NEXT!
braindead bob, water vapor increases the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, consequently affecting the lapse rate.
Thermodynamics is hard, huh?
Sure Clint R,
Unless you can provide a cite for that, it just your beliefs, and it’s not correct.
So cite?
> The non-radiative gases hold on to the heat, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.
The additional heat wouldn’t be there had not the IR active species captured it to begin with, whoever-you-are.
Here’s a “cite”, bob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity
But, you won’t be able to understand it.
Clint R,
“Heres a cite, bob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity
But, you wont be able to understand it.”
No Clint R, that’s not a cite explaining how specific heat capacity affects the lapse rate.
Try again.
As I stated bob, you can’t understand it.
Thanks for the verification.
CLint R,
Your cite says nothing about the lapse rate.
Also it has partial derivatives and integrals, are you sure you understand it?
No bob, the reason you can’t understand it is because you can’t put things together. The lapse rate is about the temperature gradient through the atmosphere. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere affects the temperatures due to specific heat capacity differences.
You’re still at the macaroni and cheese level.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344183
You know NoTHinG about heat capacity, Pup. Here is something more at your level:
https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2703/bulletin-may26.pdf
Clint R,
Repeating an incorrect assertation does not make it correct.
Here try this correct explanation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate
“The adiabatic lapse rate for a saturated parcel is expected to be different from that of an unsaturated parcel. If we lift a saturated parcel, it will expand and cool down, leading to vapour condensation. This condensation will release latent heat, which will partially offset the cooling. The adiabatic lapse rate for a saturated parcel is therefore lower than that for an unsaturated parcel.”
And then there is this
https://www.briangwilliams.us/climate-forecast-system/lapse-rate-and-the-greenhouse-effect.html
bob, your first link gets it mostly right.
Your second link is mostly wrong.
But, you don’t have any appreciation for right vs. wrong, do you?
Please stop saying stuff, Pup.
Have some more Rick Astley:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess124/Lecture.6.stability.all.pdf
Clint R,
You are just making a claim.
How about backing it up with evidence and arguments?
Oh, wait, then you would be doing science and following the scientific method.
Which you have no intention of doing, being just an internet troll.
Clint R,
And another thing,
You might try to explain why you say my first cite is mostly right when it is different from your explanation of the lapse rate.
So which is right, your explanation or my first one?
Is it specific heat or latent heat?
That’s right bob, you can’t understand any of this.
It’s like the solution to the vector problem you couldn’t solve. You couldn’t even understand the solution!
You’re so braindead you have to fake a job history:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344978
Clint: “And he now claims that ALL gases are radiative.”
Doesn’t all matter radiate electromagnetic energy? The question is what gases absorb the longwave radiation from the surface.
Craig T: “For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection.”
DREMT: “Not when thinking in terms of insulation on a planetary scale.”
Loss of heat through Convection is most important at the planetary scale. That’s what the lapse rate is all about. Without it the only way heat could escape the surface is through radiant energy.
I am a bit of a fan of this comment, not written by me:
“Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.“
Clint R,
“Its like the solution to the vector problem you couldnt solve. You couldnt even understand the solution!”
Incorrect, actually I wouldn’t solve the problem because you wouldn’t tell me the units of the vectors, a necessary piece of information to solve the problem.
You are too stupid to realize that.
DREMPTY says
“Yes, earths atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface.”
DREMPTY says the atmosphere heats the surface!
DREMPTY believes in the Greenhouse Effect!
The atmosphere heats the surface!
Also amusing is that I doubt the author’s more complete explanation would be seriously challenged by any consensus atmospheric scientist. Indeed I wonder if he realizes that’s where he got his information to begin with!
And for the record, the below link appears to be the source of whoever-s/he-is’s quote. It contains much of the usual contrarian fare, including the natural emissions are an order of magnitude larger than human’s meme.
https://rclutz.com/2022/06/09/zero-carbon-false-pretenses/
Nice find, BG. Here is the gist of the argument:
> The full complexity of earths climate includes many processes, some poorly understood, but known to have effects orders of magnitude greater than the potential of CO2 warming.
Basic appeal to ignorance and the usual armwaving around complexity.
I wonder if Graham would agree to say that his clothes process heat.
“Also amusing is that I doubt the author’s more complete explanation would be seriously challenged by any consensus atmospheric scientist.”
Good, so we’re all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate.
… in addition to the GHGs.
DREMPTY,
“Good, so were all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate.”
No agreement there, but it’s nice to be in agreement that there is a greenhouse effect.
We’re not in agreement that there’s a GHE, bob.
> were all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate
Clutz wrote, “The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface”, whoever-you-are. I agree with that.
Here’s where he and I part ways:
What is absor*ption if not “trapping”.
It’s semantics all the way down.
> Were not in agreement that theres a GHE
If only tacitly, Clutz acknowledged the GHE’s existence and did a fair job describing how it works.
You’re going to need a different citation.
Why do you keep saying "whoever-you-are"? Just call me DREMT, if you want a response.
DREMPTY,
“Were not in agreement that theres a GHE, bob.”
Your cite, which I assumed that you agree with, describes it nicely.
So sorry for your loss.
Not letting you back out of it.
No bob, it describes how the GHGs lead to only a negligible delay in energy getting out of the Earth system, whereas the third pathway (involving the non-GHGs) is what leads to the largest delay and thus is the actual cause of the insulation effect.
DREMPTY,
you have to realize how your source say the non radiative gases trap heat.
“They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun.”
and
“This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C.”
There it is, the greenhouse effect.
Moral of the story, don’t post things you don’t understand.
Let’s review your citation, whoever-you-are:
The emboldened bit is the starting point for the GHE.
Clutz doesn’t quantify how much of the heating comes from the presence of GHGs, allowing him some wiggle room. But you have no such out since you deny *any* warming due to GHGs.
… or what Bob wrote.
I’m happy that the comment I quoted challenges the GHE, rather than endorsing it. It’s you that needs to improve your reading comprehension, bob.
> the comment I quoted challenges the GHE
It describes it pretty much perfectly, whoever-you-are. You’ve been suckered again.
Then I’m glad you agree there’s no GHE, whoever-you-are. Well done on finally joining Team Good.
> Im glad you agree theres no GHE
All I can do is laugh.
Well, whoever-you-are, if you think that a comment which describes how there is no GHE is a description of the GHE, then you must agree that there is no GHE. I’m not sure what to tell you.
Reading comprehension quiz: what are the similarities in the following two paragraphs?
a) In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel.
b) Some gases in the atmosphere can absorb Earths long-wave radiation and heat up the surrounding air by collisions with the neighboring molecules. The heated layer can then radiate energy back to Earths surface. This effect of trapping the outgoing long-wave radiation and warming up Earths atmosphere and surface is referred to as the Greenhouse effect and the gases that absorb long-wave radiation and create the greenhouse effect are called Greenhouse gases (GHGs).
The comment I quoted, in its entirety, describes how the non-GHGs are the planetary insulators, not GHGs.
> The comment I quoted, in its entirety
… but apparently failed to read and comprehend in its entirety.
I get it. You don’t.
DREMT: “They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun.”
And I thought DREMT would never get around to accepting that. I picked a good month to check on the site.
Now we can work on him believing that the atmosphere absorbs 70-85% of the upgoing IR we can make some real progress.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
It is exactly like Clint R said on August 4, 2022 at 3:06 PM. Round and round in circles it goes.
DREMPTY,
“No bob, it describes how the GHGs lead to only a negligible delay in energy getting out of the Earth system,”
The delay is more like a factor of 136.
It takes the energy 136 times as long to leave.
He can call that negligible, but it’s not.
https://rclutz.com/tag/global-warming-theory/
More like 50%, with 25% due to cloud and 20% due to CO2. Remaining 5% to methane, CFCs, ozone, etc. In any case this statement isn’t terribly controversial except to those who can’t (or won’t) read everything in their own citations. The rest of the quoted paper … is pretty controversial.
> The delay is more like a factor of 136.
This part of the argument I’m hazy on, Bob; I don’t know the process being referenced or how the calculations are made.
Where I’m on more solid footing is that about 40% of the energy going into the atmosphere at the surface is due to IR absor*ption, and virtually *all* of that energy (including the other 60% due to latent and sensible heat transfer) needs to be carried by aloft by *convection* to an altitude where GHGs can radiate it away to space.
Nowhere close to the speed of light.
Brandon,
I used the average height of the Tropopause at 11,000 meters, the speed of light 300,000,000 meters per second to get the time it takes a photon to reach the tropopause.
5 milliseconds divide by that gives 136.
The comment I quoted was left at a blog called “Digging in the Clay”. That’s how I came across it. It was written by R Clutz. I wasn’t aware that this meant I had to defend every word Clutz had ever written, or quoted, on his own blog. That seems a little stupid.
DREMPTY,
There are errors in the post from digging in the clay.
He’s handwaving, and I was pointing that out.
It’s not defendable, so don’t bother.
I was actually responding to Brandon, bob.
Cult Leader grammie pup, Your quote did appear on Ron Clutz’s web site, dated 20 Nov 2015. It also appeared previously on Roy’s site, dated 2 May 2014, more than a year earlier, posted by “Ron C.”. He spent the intervening time to make the presentation look better and to include more denialist crap.
I’m not denying that the quote appears on Ron’s site, Swanson. I’m saying I did not discover it there, I read it as a comment he left on a different blog. Most importantly, I’m saying that agreeing with one comment does not mean that I have to endorse every single word he has written or quoted on his blog. So Brandon’s 7:18 PM comment is a bit silly.
Who said it: One of your own agrees with something weve been arguing for years.
…so Brandon’s 7:18 PM comment is a bit silly.
Perhaps it is a bit silly to expect contrarians to be consistent in both their own words and expectations of others, but hope springs eternal.
Perhaps you could explain what inconsistency you believe has occurred, Brandy Guts. Then I’ll set you straight, once again.
I already gave you a hint, clueless one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345952
No inconsistency then. Got it.
Clutz isn’t consistent with himself, for starters, WYA. In fact if you dig around a bit (you won’t have to dig much) you’ll find some Dragon Crank Approved ™ content.
So it’s not really clear what the man actually believes, though I am leaning toward what he himself writes over what he passes on from others.
But that’s not the main point you silly pratt.
No more hints.
No inconsistency then. Thought not.
I am a bit of a fan of this comment:
> You say that pyrgeometers measure the temperature of the sky rather than radiation. Since the pyrgeometer is not in physical contact with the sky, precisely how does it measure the temperature? The answer, of course, is that the detector in the pyrgeometer emits and receives IR radiation and the instrument is configured to measure the difference between emitted and received radiation and the temperature of the detector.
> The received radiation is, of course, back radiation. If the received radiation is less than the emitted radiation, the object being measured is colder than the temperature of the detector. The converse is also true. The construction of a pyrgeometer is basically the same as most hand held non-contact IR thermometers except a hand-held instrument has a lens and a restricted field of view. They also measure the emitted radiation of the object of interest (non-contact, remember). Buy one and aim it at the inside of your freezer and compare it to a liquid-in-glass or bimetallic coil thermometer in the freezer.
You are often a fan of off-topic diversions, though.
All wrong, Brandon. That was eleven years ago now. These are Vaughan Pratt’s words, from comments left at this blog only a year ago:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
Pratt believes there is a GHE but agrees with Team Good that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. We have been arguing that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked for the last several years, receiving relentless systematic abuse and constant misrepresentation for doing so. I think it is noteworthy that a member of Team Evil has finally accepted that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. So I mentioned it, and will continue to do so whenever and wherever possible.
Team Good versus Team Evil…
Oh Noes. Religion is a plague, and it shows.
> Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says
That was more a long time ago, Graham.
Vaughan’s opinion did not change from the one he expressed 11 years ago, whereas thy Wiki gets edited daily.
W
I like how you taking charge. You just let that Type A stuff come rollin out. Carry on, bro.
Retweeting Matt Walsh, Fernando?
You surprise me.
What matters is that he’s now saying this is incorrect:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
This being the concept that back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface.
If he thought that eleven years ago, he did not make it as clear as he did at this blog, one year ago.
What matters is that Graham is that Graham is the captain of Team Joe, and that Joe denies the greenhouse effect.
One does not simply revolutionize physics by playing word games around what it really means to warm or to transfer heat by its own accord.
What warms Earth is the sun.
Can Earth be warm without the sun?
All you need to make Earth warm is to have a warm surface.
If Earth’s ocean average temperature was 20 C, instead being 3.5 C, Earth could be traveling light years from any star, and be warm.
The average temperature of Earth’s ocean determines, Earth global climate.
We have a cold ocean and this is why we are in ice house global climate.
Earth ocean average temperature in the past has been 10 C or warmer.
A ocean which is 10 C, means Earth is in a greenhouse global climate.
It seems having more CO2 in atmosphere could slightly make Earth’s atmosphere warmer. But if Earth ocean were 4 C rather than 3.5 C this has larger warming effect than any amount of CO2.
The effect increasing CO2 levels to cause warming, must make the atmosphere have higher heat content.
The ocean has 1000 times more heat content than the atmosphere.
The tropical ocean has more heat content near it’s surface, let say in the top 100 meters of the ocean surface.
If you are on a tropical island, and sun disappears, you will stay warmer for weeks of time, as compared any island at say 45 degree latitude.
The reason Earth tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world is because it thick layer of warmer water.
The heat engine runs 24 hour a day- it doesn’t turn off at night. If it didn’t run 24 hour a day, it wouldn’t be the Earth’s heat engine.
Or tropical land is not part of Earth’s heat engine.
Far below the tropical ocean surface is a very cold ocean, if were to throughly mix that vast amount of cold water with the 100 meters of warmer tropical water, you could stop the earth’s heat engine.
And as long as you kept the tropical surface water cold by mixing it with “unlimited” cold water, you make Earth colder than it’s ever been. Though this mixing is actually warming the average temperature of the entire ocean, or you causing “global warming” despite everyone getting very cold.
Or La Nina lowers air temperature, but tropical ocean is absorbing more energy from the sunlight and also part of this is warm water is being pushed to deeper ocean depths.
It’s said more than 90% of all global warming is warming the average temperature of our ocean, it claimed it’s warmed the average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C to about 3.55 C.
Or .05 C of warming is more than 90% of all global warming, they say.
I would say is more 95% of all global warming.
“But if Earth ocean were 4 C rather than 3.5 C this has larger warming effect than any amount of CO2.”
The specific heat capacity of water is higher than land or the atmosphere so more energy is needed to heat or cool the ocean.
“I would say is more 95% of all global warming.”
I would say that 100% of global warming is warming. There’s no evidence that the warming trend of the last 100 years is caused by changes in the mixing of deep ocean and surface water, so what’s the cause?
“Theres no evidence that the warming trend of the last 100 years is caused by changes in the mixing of deep ocean and surface water, so whats the cause?”
Little Ice Age period had an ocean which cooled by about .1 C and sea levels fell a bit. We have recovering from the colder period of little Ice Age. There has warming and events of century or longer for 5000 years and Little Ice Age was coldest dip in 5000 years. And there has been a slight cooling trend over last 5000 years.
And Sahara became more like the present desert, about 5000 years ago.
Before this Sahara desert was green and was green for about 8000 years- mostly grassland, and river and lakes and forests that have disappeared over the last 5000 years.
It helps to listen to what Pratt actually said
“With this in mind Id like to propose a strengthening of the skeptic argument that downward longwave radiation or DLR, popularly called back radiation, cannot be held responsible for warming the surface of the Earth.”
He goes on further to explain why, I leave it to you to figure it out, but he does not “debunk” the back radiation warms the surface.
Because it is with the solar radiation that the greenhouse effect works.
Solar radiation plus the back radiation warms the earth’s surface.
debunk that
Yes, bob, it helps even more to listen to what Pratt actually said recently, on this blog, a year ago, not what he said eleven years ago on a different blog. Here is what he said:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
Graham again shies away from providing the citation. One reason could be that he’s on his phone. Another is that if we can read Vaughan say:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
Another reason is that Sky Dragon cranks deny the emphasized bit too!
70 months of baits and switches.
No wonder he keeps dodging Bob’s point.
Vaughan Pratt says:
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
If I had said either of those things, we’d have never heard the end of it. How does Vaughan Pratt get a free pass?
In their full context, both those quotes make sense and there is no contradiction between them and the IPCC’s position. Isolate them and you can pretend Team Joe has a leg to stand on.
Seventy months of pure trolling from Graham.
…whereas I get grief for simply pointing out what Pratt said! Amazing.
That statement is no longer in the wikipedia article, let me call the Stoat and have that put back in.
Utterly irrelevant, bob, as already explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344027
> That statement is no longer in the wikipedia article
Here’s what we can find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Graham has been forcing an open door for seventy months.
Forcing an open door isn’t the best way to revolutionize physics.
…so much grief just for pointing out what Pratt said.
[GRAHAM] The non-radiative gases “hold on to the heat”, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.
[THE IPCC] Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.
Yeah DREMPTY,
You can’t have mac and cheese without macaroni and cheese.
“whereas I get grief for simply pointing out what Pratt said! Amazing.”
Because you are trying to take that statement and debunk the greenhouse effect.
Remember we are the greenhouse effect defense team.
We will take you down before you get the the moat.
“Because you are trying to take that statement and debunk the greenhouse effect.”
Absolutely wrong, as always, bob. All I am doing is pointing out that Pratt agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. One of your own agrees with something we’ve been arguing for years. That’s all. He still believes in the GHE, don’t worry, bob.
Braindead bob, the GHE nonsense has been debunked for years. That’s the science. The cult lives on because of all the agendas.
The fact that you STILL can’t state what the GHE is, without changing, should tell you something.
All Graham is doing is trolling.
He points out stuff. When it’s ignored, he points it again. And again. And when it’s not ignored, he whines that he’s only pointing out stuff.
He should own his schtick, but he won’t.
Willard needs some attention again.
Graham, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
If you wanted to have a civil conversation, you would not lead with the insults, so we are not going to have a civil conversation.
So Fuck Off.
“Braindead bob, the GHE nonsense has been debunked for years. Thats the science. The cult lives on because of all the agendas.
The fact that you STILL cant state what the GHE is, without changing, should tell you something.”
You have miserably failed in you lame ass attempts to debunk the greenhouse effect, by perverting science, misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics and generally showing you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Here’s the greenhouse effect, dumbed down to your level.
The presence in the atmosphere of gases that absorb infrared radiation makes the surface of a planet warmer than it would be with out those gases present.
The fact is, you are too stupid to get into the finer points of the phenomenon, so I’ll leave it at that.
Braindead bob announces his belief in the GHE: “The presence in the atmosphere of gases that absorb infrared radiation makes the surface of a planet warmer than it would be with out those gases present.”
That’s a belief, bob. To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures. Neither CO2 nor water vapor emit higher energy photos than they absorb from surface emissions. Translation: The molecules have no more energy than they absorb. Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder.
Earth’s average 288K is WAY to hot to be “warmed” by 10-15μ photons.
You’re just parroting your cult’s belief. You have no science.
> To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures.
Which has been done, Clint: it retards radiative energy loss from the system analogous to how a real greenhouse retards convective heat loss.
That you don’t accept that explanation can’t be helped by anyone but yourself.
Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder…like above the brightness temperature of deep space thus:
Measured Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K earthen GHE
Measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE
Clint R,
Looks like we will have to stick with beliefs!
“Thats a belief, bob. To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures. Neither CO2 nor water vapor emit higher energy photos than they absorb from surface emissions. Translation: The molecules have no more energy than they absorb. Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder.”
Because this is your bullshit belief and has nothing to do with science.
Here’s the second law dumbed down for you.
Heat transfer is from hot to cold, but that does not preclude cold warming hot as long as the heat transfer is from hot to cold.
Your beliefs as you stated above are just your beliefs and actually are not scientific.
You are just a fucking moron, try learning some science.
Brandon: “it retards radiative energy loss from the system analogous to how a real greenhouse retards convective heat loss.”
Brandon, this has been explained to you several times. Your imaginative “retards radiative energy” does NOT result in warming the surface.
Trolling is more important to you than learning. That makes you braindead. And, being braindead, you will be repeating the same nonsense, over and over, repeatedly.
I can’t help braindead.
At least you’re not alone….
Yes braindead bob, you need to change the laws of physics to support your cult beliefs.
Clint: Retarding heat loss of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object.
Also Clint: [Retarding heat loss] IS how insulation works
Now Clint: retards radiative energy [loss] does NOT result in warming
Do you get dizzy chasing your own tail like this?
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Brandon. I’m not used to that….
Your problem seems to be you believe 100 15μ photons are “hotter” than one 15μ photon. That’s the wrong thinking. All 101 photons have the same frequency, so they effectively have the same “temperature”. (Now don’t go off in idiot-land trying to avoid understanding by contesting photons being “hotter” and having a “temperature”. I’m just trying to get you to understand some basics so you won’t keep making such a fool of yourself.)
Adding more photons with the same frequency just results in the same frequency. The frequency is NOT increased by adding photons with the same frequency.
Now, let’s check your learning progress:
Will adding a billion photons, with frequency F, to another billion photons also with frequency F, raise the frequency?
(The correct answer is a simple YES or NO.)
> The frequency is NOT increased by adding photons with the same frequency.
No kidding, Clint. But any kid outside on sunny day with a magnifying glass can tell you what increasing the number of photons per unit area will do to a pile of dry leaves.
Oh I’m sorry, did you grow up in a bubble?
A magnifying glass?
What a great “red herring”, Brandon.
Now, since you tried a “red herring”, I’ll let you explain WHY it’s a red herring.
Go for it.
> A magnifying glass?
Does it or does it not increase the number of photons per unit area, Clint? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Or if that’s too much for you, move the earth closer to the sun and ponder why the inverse square law is a thing.
Your choice.
Clint R,
“so they effectively have the same temperature. (Now dont go off in idiot-land trying to avoid understanding by contesting photons being hotter and having a temperature. Im just trying to get you to understand some basics so you wont keep making such a fool of yourself.)”
There you go Clint R, off into la la land.
Moron, photons don’t have a temperature.
Photons only have three things.
1 thing is either wavelength, frequency, or energy, which reduce to one thing because if you know one, you know the other two.
The other two things describe the direction of travel, two numbers being necessary to describe direction in spherical coordinates.
Brandon, you didn’t explain why your magnifying glass is a red herring.
I’ll give you one more chance.
> Ill give you one more chance.
Oh goody Clint, how generous.
Remember microwave ovens? I’ll tell you how “cold” photons make your coffee hot: the magnetron packs more of them into the mug than were there before.
You’re welcome!
Sorry Brandon, but you don’t fix one red herring with another red herring.
I always like to give people several chances. I don’t want to leave any child behind. But, you’ve convinced me you want to be braindead. So next time, you can start off by explaining why your two red herrings are red herrings.
Until then, enjoy chasing your tail in your bubble.
Clint: The number of photons flying in the box has been increased, yet the temperature remains unchanged.
Me: [Gives four examples of cases when increasing number of incident photons increases temperature]
Clint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc&ab_channel=TH
Wrong-o Brand-o.
You gave “four examples” of you NOT understanding any of this.
Red herrings ain’t science.
Here’s what I understand: the planet isn’t an isolated isothermal system like your 288 K box of bricks, Clint.
Thanks for playing.
Here’s what I understand: You have no interest in learning. You prefer trolling. That’s why you say juvenile things like, “Thanks for playing”.
For some reason you believe being an uninformed adolescent makes you appear intelligent.
You must get that from your cult hero, worthless willard. That’s how he performs.
Clint R
Another example of a juvenile comment:
“Ant, its no wonder you dad was a keyboard.”
Does that mean you also enjoy trolling, or are you somehow exempt from that inference?
No, it means I recognize frauds when I see them.
So choosing to use a pseudonym makes me a “fraud” does it?
Kindly explain the “logic” behind that claim. In doing so, recall your previous moniker on this site.
Clint: “What a great ‘red herring’, Brandon.
Now, since you tried a ‘red herring’, I’ll let you explain WHY it’s a red herring.”
Since you declared something a red herring it’s up to you to explain WHY it’s a red herring.
No Qwerty, your pseudonym is not the problem.
When you pervert reality while calling others “liars”, is when you need to be exposed.
Low energy lulz is so unlike you, Pup.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Re-posting (again) from above:
—————————————————
The only disagreement [Pratt] appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:
“Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
“it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.
1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925
His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratts own ideas about ‘backradiation’.
That doesn’t make Pratts reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.
————————————————
No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.
Dr. Pratt wrote on this blog: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
BG discusses a post Vaughan wrote.
GW dismisses what Vaughan says in that post to plug the quotes he used earlier as bait.
Barry reformulates the point BG made.
GW dismisses that point to plug the quotes he used earlier as bait.
70 months of trolling like that.
Yes, Ball4, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.
Willard, Brandon was not the one who started this whole discussion. I did, further upthread. I could argue the following:
DREMT brings up what VP said a year ago.
Bindidon, Brandon and barry all recognize that what he said a year ago is troublesome for their belief system. So they try to make it about what he said eleven years ago, which is a bit more palatable for their beliefs.
DREMT keeps trying to remind them of what he said more recently.
The three Bs continue to try to make it about what he said eleven years ago.
There has been years of them trolling like that.
Graham keeps tilting at windmills.
No scientist holds that backradiation is the correct scientific explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is just a simple way to explain a complex phenomenon which involves infinitesimals like lapse rates.
Graham does not even deny backradiation.
Perhaps he tries to find a father figure for his misconception. That is not hard to do. After all, Sky Dragon cranks are not all as dumb as Gordo.
Or perhaps he is just trolling, like he did for 70 months.
Could be both.
Lots of theories.
DREMT 7:31 am changes “fact” and is “at pains” to admit Dr. Pratt “still believes in the GHE” so Dr. Pratt really was disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment thereby correcting DREMT’s 4:04 am comment, thx.
Trolls will be trolls.
[BG] For those interested in Vaughan Pratt’s views on back radiation, near as I can tell his guest post at Judy’s is the origin of his argument:
[VP] Just for the record, what I’m claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you. That point of view may work for some people, but there may be people for whom it doesn’t work because they regard the ice as cooling you.
[GW] All wrong, BG. It’s all about what *I* want to talk about. Talk about me instead. ME ME ME.
The sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of water ice next to you warms you more than a block of dry ice next to you.
“Bindidon, Brandon and barry all recognize that what he said a year ago is troublesome for their belief system.”
On the contrary, I admire Pratt’s efforts to try and make the ‘skeptic’ position less ridiculous. That kind of generosity is worth a round of applause.
barry, Pratt agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. Do you? Or do you still try to defend it with every comment that you make? Seems like you try to defend the back-radiation account of the GHE with every comment that you make. Sorry barry.
I think Pratt allows that backradiation that can add energy to the surface – the quotes provided say exactly that – but he has tailored an argument to help skeptics refine their objection to the matter in the spirit of inclusiveness.
His remarks aren’t entirely congruent. As well as the quotes where he allows for backradiation warming, he also says what you say. So we are left with a quandary – if you look at everything he says without excluding whatever is unfavourable to your take.
His actual take – his view that is not solely devoted to lending credence to the skeptic position – seems to be that any warming from backradiation is overwhelmed by convection/conduction and the diurnal cycle, and it is thus impossible to calculate any contribution from backradiation, regardless of whether it is happening or not, so why not give up trying to persuade skeptics of something they won’t ever accept and go with a formulation that will prevent an unnecessary conflict? For Pratt the GHE still occurs, but if you want to include skeptics then just don’t talk about backradiation.
All the above is to try to give Pratt his due. I’m not sure why he is so important to you, but there’s nothing to recommend that his formula for the GHE is correct or any better than the standard definition.
He doesn’t deal well with a pointed rebuttal to his analogy – a block of ice will keep you warmer than the cold of space. He fails to account for what the temperature of an Earth without an atmosphere would be. His analogy is weak. He takes a long time to finally address criticism of the analogy it down the comments, and his response doesn’t actually address the point.
His construction is interesting – generous even. But not convincing. As he says himself several times, he would need to plug in actual numbers to test his theory, but he doesn’t bother. Perhaps because he’s not as interested in the actual truth of the matter as he is in building bridges.
Now that was a much more pleasant, reasonable response than your 10:40 AM trolling. Thanks.
“His remarks aren’t entirely congruent. As well as the quotes where he allows for backradiation warming, he also says what you say. So we are left with a quandary – if you look at everything he says without excluding whatever is unfavourable to your take.”
Well, a possible resolution to the quandary is that the quotes where he allows for back-radiation warming are from eleven years ago, whereas he said what I mentioned that he said only a year or so ago. It’s entirely possible that he has simply changed his mind over the course of those eleven years. The Seim & Olsen experiment seemed to prompt the change.
“I’m not sure why he is so important to you”
It all gets blown out of proportion. I say something, the usual trolls go crazy and won’t let it go for days on end. That’s just how it works whenever I comment. It’s not that he’s important to me, really. I was just making the simple point that someone from Team GHE is in apparent agreement with what we have argued for the last few years. Seems like a change in the narrative is brewing. Maybe out with the back-radiation, and in with something else, but who knows? The die-hards on here aren’t going to let go of their green and blue plates drama any time soon.
Of course Graham misses two important details.
Tyson was talking about Alex Jones when he responded by quoting Vaughan. It was the second time he quoted him in this thread. Since he did have much traction with his first bait, he had to try again. That he lost his three main baits, it is easy to understand why he would go for that quote. This is far from being the first thread in which he injects that quote.
He has yet to acknowledge that he is tilting at windmills. The backradiation account of the greenhouse effect is a simplification. Baby steps.
The second point is that there is no incompatibility between what Vaughan said 11 years ago and what he said last year. That will be a harder point to acknowledge, for the main Sky Dragon Crank bible rests on the idea that refuting a toy model will make greenhouse gases disappear.
So here we are, the trollest troll of this site impersonating the moderator and telling people to stop trolling while trolling himself.
Graham should write more songs on that.
Cult leader grammie pup wrote:
grammie can’t understand that he gets replies because he is wrong, then he is the one who incessantly replies when corrected. Remember his delusions about the non-rotating Moon, ignoring hundredsd of years of information to the contrary? And grammie is the most prolific posting troll on the blog.
But, on topic again, grammie pup just claimed that “Pratt has no idea what he is talking about”, that after pointing to Pratt’s work as debunking the GHE.
Swanson, I don’t think that Pratt’s work debunks the GHE. You still have no idea what my argument is, do you?
grammie previously wrote:
Sorry, grammie pup, “back radiation” between atmospheric layers down to the surface by the greenhouse gasses IS THE GHE.
Well, Pratt argues that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, but still argues that there’s a GHE. So I guess you and him fundamentally disagree. Certainly not my problem.
Dr. Pratt correctly argues only when the lapse rate is ignored the GHE is incorrectly debunked.
Twisters will twist words. Nobody is surprised.
Try not to be too hard on yourself, Graham.
You can work out how backradiation and the greenhouse effect are connected.
At least you could try.
Only then will your seventy months of trolling will be worth something,
I believe in you.
See what I mean?
“It all gets blown out of proportion. I say something, the usual trolls go crazy and won’t let it go for days on end. Thats just how it works whenever I comment.”
I think this is the first time I’ve seen you post something like that, and I actually sympathise.
To be fair – you could let it go at any moment and the noise would taper off in a day or two, when people have all chimed in.
Vaughan does not need to explain backradiation by anything else than the usual greenhouse theory, Graham.
As team captain of Team Joe and someone who accepts that backradiation is a thing, you do.
Best of luck!
VP argues that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. Sorry that you cannot accept that.
See what I mean?
Graham will return to the ad nauseam instead of acknowledging the obvious tension in his actual peddling –
Vaughan argues that a scientific explanation of the greenhouse effect needs to take lapse rate into account. Everybody accepts that except Sky Dragon cranks, among them Team Joe, of whom Graham is the captain.
Sorry that you cannot accept that.
Vaughan made that comment because I emailed him, Graham.
Your trolling reveals more your ignorance than you could ever imagine.
Ah, so I’ve got you to thank, then. Thanks for getting someone from Team GHE to acknowledge that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. It was nice to get that vindication.
… acknowledge that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked only when the lapse rate is ignored.
It was nice to get that vindication.
Graham, please stop tilting at windmills.
…nice to get that vindication.
These windmills are truly vanquished, Graham.
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
…to get that vindication.
Contrary to Vaughan Pratt’s claim that the back radiation description is not used by the IPCC:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html
Another one:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
Brandon, if you understood the science you would be ashamed to use that IPCC nonsense for support. Every sentence is either wrong, misleading, or used to confuse.
What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon, Pup?
The thing is if you use IPCC’s data to contradict their climate change mantra, like their data supports short e-times, then you know it isn’t about the science but about the agenda.
There’s no such thing as IPCC’s data, Troglodyte.
Revise and resubmit.
The data they publish. They own it.
> The data they publish. They own it.
False on both counts, Troglodyte.
Revise and resubmit.
Nope.
OK, Troglodyte.
Your miss.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A little addendum to the discussion about how radiosondes fit UAH’s LT time series.
Some might guess radiosondes match only satellites in the LT or above.
No.
IGRA (and by extension: RATPAC) watches 13 different atmospheric layers, from the surface via e.g. 700 hPa up to 30 hPa.
Here is a comparison of GISS land-only to RATPAC B’s surface layer data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZMSSAlNV_Lr97f1UJcNl66LJLjr88l_/view
Trends 1979-2022 in C / decade
– GISS: 0.25 +- 0.006
– RAT surf: 0.27 +- 0.009
Source
– GISS land-only
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts.txt
– RATPAC B
https://tinyurl.com/5n8spk5c
Do you dispute UAHs comparison to Balloon data as published by JC and RS? If so, how?
Why don’t you look upthread, trickster?
All you need is there.
Didn’t you understand what I wrote?
” A little addendum to the discussion about how radiosondes fit UAHs LT time series.
Some might guess radiosondes match only satellites in the LT or above. ”
You become opinionated to such an extent that in between, you are so busy with your own thoughts that you no longer take the time to read what others write.
So do you agree with JC and RS then?
I am a trickster in your mind only as all I do is simply apply what Vaughan Pratt and Nate Drake claimed was the best way to use CTRMs and S-Gs.
“you are so busy with your own thoughts that you no longer take the time to read what others write.”
Quite. Although ‘no longer’ is not right. This has always been the case.
Slow down, RLH. Increase the ratio of understanding to posting. And for goodness sake read some of the published research papers – especially from work you criticise, so that you have a firmer foundation from which to mount that criticism.
Barry: Do you agree with JC and RS about balloon to satellite comparisons or do you have a detailed rebuttal of them?
My ‘detailed rebuttal’ isn’t a patch on the broader knowledge on these issues from the experts.
It’s totally up to you whether you want to broaden you education by reading more widely. Why should I try to guide you there if you have no interest in informing yourself?
The thermosphere can radiate at 1000 C, and this radiation is not warming anything, in or near the thermosphere or at earth surface.
At 7 km elevation, the cold atmosphere has CO2 molecules radiating at this cold temperature. This radiation is likewise not warming anything at 7 km elevation, nor anything 7 km down on the surface of Earth.
At warmer sea level, C02 molecules are radiating at warmer temperature, this radiation is not warming anything.
If surface at sea level was cold sea ice, the air above the ice would be colder air, and CO2 would radiating at colder temperature, and it’s not warming anything. The air will warm or cool things mostly by convectional heat transfer. If warm air enters area it will warm ice, if colder air enters area, it cool sea ice by convectional heat transfer not by air radiating. Generally warmer air, will cause ice to evaporate more, and cold air slows evaporation and/or more ice forms on the ice, Or it’s evaporative/condensative convectional heat transfer.
Nor is bright blue sky causing any radiant heat transfer, and blue sky is scattered shortwave light {it’s “hotter” than longwave and “hotter” than Thermosphere] though plants can absorb this scattered/indirect sunlight- or use this energy.
I am lukewarmer, meaning I think more CO2 in atmosphere could cause some amount of warming.
I tend of favor surface levels air with more CO2 in it, has “most” of warming effect, and tend to think energized CO2 is converted into kinetic energy. Or air temperature is kinetic energy. CO2 can increase and can decrease the kinetic energy of gases in Atmosphere.
And I was just thinking that what if having less CO2 in atmosphere [any atmosphere will have CO2 in it- space is raining carbon via impactors] causes some cooling.
Anyhow, maybe if have smaller amount of CO2, it slightly cool Earth, but if have enough CO2, it doesn’t cool Earth.
Or Mars and Venus have enough CO2, so Mars and Venus are not cooled, because they have more CO2 than Earth has.
Or more CO2 lessen amount CO2 cools.
One then broaden it, to include other greenhouse gases.
But then again, the greenhouse gases is very screwed term.
We call Ozone in Ozone layer a greenhouse gas. And acid clouds on
Venus, a greenhouse gas. And since clouds on Earth have warming effect, they want to call clouds a greenhouse gas.
Or whole premise is utter and complete idiots could not imagine how Earth which as suppose to be 33 C cooler was somehow warmed, and whatever warms it, is called a greenhouse gas.
One could revert to greenhouse effect.
And Earth’s most significant greenhouse is not sky, but it’s the Earth’s transparent ocean.
Is the first peak in this solar cycle behind us?
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Is it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
No. It is.
https://i.ibb.co/Mg5JTqd/solar-cycle-progression.png
Sunspot number: 52
Updated 05 Aug 2022
I am guessing it’s going reverse it’s humps [peaks] highest first
peak and lower second peak.
And if does, it seems likely to me, we will get a grand solar min.
[26 will be weaker and weird]
Is it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeTmv3aYPCjUhQcP2HMgftcEFwNOVlNH/view
Your data is out of date. UV has dropped noticeably.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
Out of date? Really?
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
2022 08 01 0.15611
2022 08 02 0.15686
2022 08 03 0.15779
2022 08 04 0.15862
2022 08 05 0.15954
Are you joking, Mr Palmowski?
I haven’t seen any sign that he is capable of joking. Lying is a different matter.
Patience et longueur de temps font plus que force ni que rage.
Jean de La Fontaine
Yeah, but most of the rise has been natural. Also, if the model is correct, CO2 only contributes about 30W/m^2 of warming, much ado about nothing.
The difference between average TSI during the Maunder minimum and average TSI at the peak of the 20th century maximum was only 2 Watts per square metre. So thanks for letting us know that the effect of a GSM is only one-fifteenth of “nothing”.
[TEAM SKY DRAGON CRANKS] They seem to forget that molecules of gas that are receiving solar energy vibrate, moving in ALL directions, by virtue of their kinetic energy which is why they are in gaseous form and not a solid.
[IPCC GLOSSARY] Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.
To be honest, I perfectly understand this concept of backradiation but not at all the need for it.
All we need is the fact that some gases in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs etc) intercept upwelling IR and do not reemit it is the same original direction, what results in less IR directly emitted to space.
This ‘backradiation’ reminds me the horrible ‘CO2 traps heat’.
“All we need is the fact that some gases in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs etc) intercept upwelling IR and do not reemit it is the same original direction, ”
Right enough. A CO2 molecule reradiates in a random direction.
You can show this in the laboratory. Shine a beam of 15 micrometre radiation into a spherical container of CO2 and the gas reradiates uniformly in all directions.
Simplifying slightly, think of the atmosphere as a layer with the surface below and space above.
15 micrometre IR radiates from the surface into the atmosphere as Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiation. It is absorbed by CO2 molecules and reradiated in all directions.
Photons(or at least their energy) pass between molecules in the atmosphere. There are two directions in which they can escape.
If emitted at the top of the atmosphere photons have a 50% chance of being emitted upwards to space and are measured as outward longwave radiation.
If emitted at the bottom of the atmosphere photons have a 50% chance of being reabs*orbed by the surface and are measured as back radiation.
There are monitoring instruments in orbit measuring outward longwave radiation. There are also monitoring instruments measuring the downwelling longwave radiation (aka back radiation). It is a little difficult to disbelieve in a type of radiation which is being measured by instruments around the world.
Regarding the effect of DWLR on surface temperature, the surface receives flux from three sources; sunlight, DWLR from GHGs, longwave radiation reflected downwards by clouds. The surface temperature reaches equilibrium when incoming radiation from these three sources matches the net loss from convection and radiation from the surface.
If you increase GHG concentrations you reduce OLR and correspondingly increase DWLR. With more DWLR reaching the surface the equilibrium temperature increases.
As usual Ent, you were doing okay until you implied DWLR will increase surface temperature. Your cult believes that, and in order to believe it, they MUST also believe ice cubes can boil water. Because the bogus science is the same in both cases.
We even have an example from your cult, with numbers: Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface will heat it to 325K.
If you believe that nonsense, then you must also believe 4 such fluxes would heat the surface to 386 K (113C, 235F).
Pure cult nonsense.
Clint R
Again you need to review E. Swanson experiment with two lamps. The link is in his post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338162
This experiment was not run in a vacuum and had background temperature.
If you do some calculations you will find the two fluxes do add at the surface and increase the temperature of a plate painted black to maximize absorb the incoming radiant energy.
The plate does not emit the sum of the two fluxes in this condition but would approach the value if run in a vacuum condition to remove the other heat transfer mechanisms.
You are just wrong but too blind to realize it. You have the information. You just will not accept you can be wrong. You are but that will not change your point of view.
Again Norman, you have NO background in radiative physics or thermodynamics. I get tired to mentioning that.
All you have are your cult beliefs and your keyboard. That’s it. You search for things you believe support your cult nonsense, but they never do, and you can’t understand why. Instead of trying to learn, you resort to insults and false accusations.
You BELIEVE fluxes simply add, so you BELIEVE anything that seems to support that. If your beliefs were true, you could boil water with ice cubes. But that can’t happen, and you will never understand why. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add, like you believe they do.
So be honest for a change and admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the two fluxes.
That won’t happen. You reject reality.
Clint R
I know much more about actual physics than you will ever know. I can read textbooks. You cannot. You can’t think logically.
Again, E. Swanson experiment does show that two fluxes arriving at a surface add and the result is a surface that emits more energy. You ask for some explicit example but don’t have any logical inference to see that Swanson experiment satisfies your request. It does both, it demonstrates flues adding at a surface and it shows that the result will cause the surface to emit more energy and even up to the sum of both fluxes that arrive at the surface.
Now the insults and false accusations begin. You’re so predictable, Norman.
Making stuff up on your keyboard is NOT reality. If you knew any of the basics you would have been able to answer the simple problems I presented. But, you couldn’t even attempt them. (And don’t pretend you didn’t see them. You see everyone of my comments. You’re a relentless stalker.)
So be honest for a change and admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the two fluxes.
That won’t happen. You reject reality.
EM,
And still, the surface temperature falls at night. Or when clouds occlude the sun, in the shade, in winter – and so on.
As a matter of fact, the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled by thousands of degrees since it was molten – regardless of all your delusional nonsense.
Just for fun, use all your pseudoscientific claptrap to explain why the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found where the so-called “greenhouse gases” are at their lowest – arid desert regions like the Lut Desert in Iran!
Go away, you silly man. Maybe you could join the singularly dim likes of Bindidon, who seems to think that rigorous analysis of the past somehow reveals the future.
You still can’t figure out why temperatures are measured in arbitrary degrees of hotness, can you? No Watts or meters to be found at all.
Carry on.
> As a matter of fact, the Earths surface seems to have cooled by thousands of degrees since it was molten
The problem is not factuality, Mike Flynn.
The problem is the unimportance of that fact.
More on the idea:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
FAIL better next time.
Cheers.
Willard, you idiot.
There is no problem at all. The fact that you can’t make the fact that the Earth has cooled, showing complete disregard for the insane calculations of Sky Dragons (believers in the magical heating powers of CO2), go away, shows that the religious fanaticism of Sky Dragons is insufficient to overcome reality.
I suppose you can’t actually explain why the hottest places on Earth are also those with the least amount of “greenhouse gases”?
Or anything else based on reality, either!
Do you have to take stupidity lessons from Ken Rice, or are you just naturally gifted in the stupidity area?
Off you go – have a tantrum if you wish. See if I care.
The fact that the internal temperature of the Earth is cooling down since the dawn of time Is of no importance whatsoever, Mike.
Sorry,
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”15 micrometre IR radiates from the surface into the atmosphere as Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiation. It is absorbed by CO2 molecules and reradiated in all directions”.
***
Can you explain how a trace gas at 0.04% can absorb any more than a tiny fraction of surface radiation? The actual amount it theoretically absorbs is about 5% of surface radiation.
Although you specify 15 um, it’s actually a band of IR radiated from the surface. CO2 can only absorb at a specific frequency related to the carbon and oxygen line spectra.
The entire AGW theory has no scientific merit.It’s obvious that nitrogen and oxygen control atmospheric temperature.
A molecule of CO2, at 0.04%, has 2500 molecules of N2/O2 surrounding it. Exactly how does the surface IR reach the CO2 molecules?
> Can you explain how a trace gas at
C’mon, Gordo:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Please.
For your sake I seriously hope you are just playing dumb.
But your belief about the moon’s phases suggests otherwise.
“CO2 can only absorb at a specific frequency related to the carbon and oxygen line spectra.”
Have you measured or researched what spectra CO2 absorbs?
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Gordon Robertson at 7:40 PM
I see that you are in fine form today: https://i.redd.it/likdgd6ffvn41.jpg
willard…the IPCC are the leaders of the sky dragon sect. You still can’t get it straight that you are in the sky dragon camp even though you try to incorrectly apply that metaphor to skeptics.
IPCC…”…everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers …”
***
This reveals the abject ignorance of the IPCC. They think the Earth’s average temperature is based on the absorp-tion and emission of trace gases. They know nothing about heat transfer because they use climate models that cannot be programmed effectively for conduction and convection.
The IPCC are so stupid and so afraid of real science they exclude skeptics from their reviews.
Modelling is not even conducive to radiation since models rely on Stefan-Boltzmann as well as differential equation that can do nothing more than produce extreme generalizations of the climate.
Therefore the notion that Earth’s average temperature relies on trace gases is the highest form of witch-doctoring. Standing at the front of the line, awaiting his dose of kool-aid, is Willard the Sky Dragon groupie.
C’mon, Gordo.
You are a crank.
A Sky Dragon crank.
You believe in the Sky Dragon crap.
Stop being a crank.
Wacky Wee Willard,
You are still confused. No surprise there, I suppose.
Sky Dragons are those nutters who are terrified of the imaginary world destroying heating properties of that most essential plant food, CO2, and its equally essential companion, H2O.
There was even a book – “Slaying The Sky Dragon”, or somesuch.
Maybe you have heard of it? Probably too hard for you to comprehend, I suppose.
Such is life.
Mike, Mike,
There is no confusion.
Sky Dragon cranks deny the greenhouse theory.
Some of them wrote a book where they refer to that theory as a Sky Drsgon.
So no, even by their own logic Sky Dragon does not refer to nutters.
They also claim to be slayers.
They slayed nothing, alas.
They are just cranks.
So Sky Dragon cranks it is.
Cheers.
You idiot, Willard.
There is no “greenhouse theory”, dummy.
If there was, you would be able to say what it was.
But you can’t of course.
Away with you, Sky Dragon. Try another fairy tale.
Indeed there is a greenhouse theory, Mike Flynn.
Just as there is a trace to your years at Exxon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Exxon
No sh!t.
“The IPCC are so stupid and so afraid of real science they exclude skeptics from their reviews.”
Do you mean ‘skeptics’ like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Murray Salby, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roger Pielke Junior & Senior, Bjorn Lomborg, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Fred Singer, Chris de Freitas, Richard Tol, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Robert C. Balling, Vincent Gray, Craig Idso, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Chris Landsea, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, and Carl Wunsch?
All these ‘skeptics’ have had their published works referenced in the IPCC and many have been contributing authors to the reports.
Your head is full of fanciful stories, Gordon.
How many spots do you see on the solar disk?
https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/7JKGR9H/onlinequery.gif
This is of no interest to anyone who lacks the technical skills to judge the image you are showing.
The galactic radiation graph is hard to understand? Maybe for you.
https://i.ibb.co/fHf6pKG/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-08-06-064732.png
No title
Percentage of WHAT?
What is the significance of a ZERO reading?
You don’t explain ANYTHING, but those on your side of the fence will slap you on the back and say “well done”, despite not understanding it themselves.
” … but those on your side of the fence will slap you on the back and say ‘well done’, despite not understanding it themselves. ”
This is the best possible description of those I name the ‘Pseudoskeptic’s.
“No title
Percentage of WHAT?”
It’s measurement GCR [galactic cosmic rays] which are near light speed particles [protons, mostly] which can come supernovas in the universe.
The point is our solar activity effects the amount of GRC which are detected but they come everywhere and vary regardless of our sun’s effect.
It possible for these high velocities particle to pass right thru human body without any effect. You could in basement and particle could travel thru atmosphere thru dirt and concrete and a person.
But most of them would hit atmosphere and create cascade of secondary particles.
Or we are living in a natural super colliders doing experiments in our sky and these particles could go faster and can be heavier particles than what your super colliders can do. But significant difference is one can control it with a constructed super collider.
The percentage the variation with zero as baseline or zero is average
over period of decades.
Or it make a lot more sense if looking at the neutron count [a result of GCR collision] over longer time period {rather than 30 day splice of time]
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/12/13/the-ironic-behavior-of-cosmic-rays/
And solar activity which effects GCR hitting Earth is a accumulated
effect of solar activity over months of solar activity- or perhaps a year of time
I see you’ve been doing a bit of swotting in the last few hours.
Today the SSN is as high as 69.
Sunspot number: 69
Updated 06 Aug 2022
ren shows real progress: he no longer only posts SSN when it falls :- )
https://tinyurl.com/bddw5jtf
This is an actual SILSO chart of the number of sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/3sRsNGt/EISNcurrent-1.png
And… what’s the difference between the two charts, ren?
Why don’t you show the chart in its original context?
bob droege…”Except we are talking about electron transitions in molecules, the greenhouse effect if from poly-atomic molecules and the electron in those molecules.
And what counts is the wavelength or frequency, temperature has almost nothing to do with it”.
***
Bob…I have been trying to get through to you that a molecule is just a name. It describes an aggregation of two or more atoms bonded together by electron bonds.
There is no such thing as an electron transition in a molecule, all transitions are related to the electrons of specific atoms. If the electrons are shared in an orbit related to both atoms, the bonding (valence) electrons can transition as well.
You cannot talk about electrons wrt molecules.
*********************************
[Stephen]”Stephen,
A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state.
[Bob D]No, this is not correct.
Even at 400K, most of the CO2 molecules will be in the ground state”.
“Here is the equation,
N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)”
***
That is an equation from Boltzmann and I don’t see how it supports your point.
http://www.aml.engineering.columbia.edu/ntm/level2/ch02/html/l2c02s03.html
“All objects above absolute zero temperature have spontaneous emission. At thermal equilibrium, the number of atoms at different energy levels obeys the Boltzmann population distribution equation:
N2= N1 exp[-(E2-E1)/kT]”
For one, it applies at thermal equilibrium, and he seems to be quantifying the energy levels of atoms in different masses at the same temperature.
The thing that sticks out wrt your claim about temperature, is that the equation you provide has a reference to temperature in the exponential function. It’s telling you the energy levels of atoms are related to temperature.
I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion? When electrons absorb EM, they are already at the temperature represented by the atoms.
I question the equation because Boltzmann’s work was done before electrons were discovered. He died in 1906, only a few years after they were discovered. It would be another 7 years before Bohr presented the relationship between electrons and EM emission/absorp-tion.
Much of the work Boltzmann did was statistical analysis. Although you have to give him credit for the work he did, he was never able to prove the 2nd law using statistical analysis. It seems his work applied to conditions of thermal equilibrium.
Gordon,
“You cannot talk about electrons wrt molecules.”
Yeah you can, stop acting like you know Chemistry.
You Don’t.
You are just trying to bullshit people.
Gordon,
“I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion?”
Collisions with other atoms or molecules.
Just shut the fuck up and forget it, you are too old to learn any Chemistry.
Egads!
“N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)
***
That is an equation from Boltzmann and I dont see how it supports your point.”
Then you don’t understand thermodynamics enough to be in this discussion!
(E2-E1) represents the transition from one state to another. In this case, that would correspond to the energy of a 15 um photon can can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 when the CO2 molecule vibrates. E = hf = hc/lambda = 1.33E-20 J. kb*T is related to average thermal energy. at 400 K, that is kbT = (1.38E-23)*(400K) = 5.5E-21 J
The fraction of molecules in the upper state would then be
N2/N1 = e ^ -(1.33e-20/5.5e-21) = e ^ (-2.4) = 0.09
9% are in the upper level at 400 K.
91% are in the ground state.
“Its telling you the energy levels of atoms are related to temperature.”
No. the difference in energy is fixed. E2 – E1 = 1.33E-20 J for vibrations of CO2. The equation is about how commonly such vibrations occur in CO2.
“For one, it applies at thermal equilibrium …”
Since we are talking about a group of atoms “at 400K” then by definition, that group is in thermal equilibrium at 400 K.
“and he seems to be quantifying the energy levels of atoms in different masses at the same temperature.”
No again. He is quantifying the NUMBER OF MOLECLES in different energy states of IDENTICAL gas molecules.
“I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion? ”
ummm … collisions with other gas molecules! The collision exchange energy between particles in the gas. Basic kinetic theory!
Thanks Tim,
I am a little under the weather and the brain refuses to do math.
Tim,
So you believe the Earth’s surface is 255K and the atmosphere heats it to 288K?
No, the Sun and the atmosphere heat it to 288 K.
So, do you believe the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?
Only if you believe that your winter coat gets warmer than your skin, Stephen.
You guys need new material.
Stephen,
In my experience, sometimes it is.
On the other hand, you claim to be a chemist, you should understand the difference between
Heat transfer is always hot to cold excepting some exceptions.
and
Cold can make a warmer object warmer without changing the direction of heat flow.
Having worked at 5 thermal power plants, 1 coal or oil fired and 4 nuclear power plants, I know a cold object can keep a warmer object warmer still, by reducing the rate of heat transfer, but keeping the direction from hot to cold.
Remember what I said, it’s not just the atmosphere doing the heating, the atmosphere has help from the Sun.
bob, what were the nuclear plants you worked at, itemized with years and supervisors. Since you believe your work history gives you credence, you won’t mind verifying it.
You don’t want people thinking you’re just another fake, do you?
S5G prototype 1979
USS Atlanta SSN712 1980 to 1984
USS San Francisco initial criticality testing 1981
Clinton Power Station 1984 to 1999
Now if you will tell me where you studied physics, I’ll raise your credibility to 0.1%.
And by the way Clint R, I notice that since you can’t argue against my physics, you make a personal attack.
Nice
Too little info to verify, bob.
Need supervisor names, contact info, positions held, etc.
Being a janitor for Lockheed does NOT mean someone “built satellites”.
Clint R,
But you already claimed I faked it.
So it’s up to you to support your claim.
You lying sack of shit.
It’s frustrating when you get caught, huh bob?
Not a very good ninja are you, Pup?
For fifty bucks I could give you what you want.
Cult Leader grammie pup appears to be confusing me with bobdroege, with another of his infantile remarks about a janitor. It’s equally hilarious that he insists that bob provide a detailed resume, given that grammie refuses to admit who he is, even after he’s been outed.
Clint R and myself are two different people, Swanson. I don’t know how many times you need to be told that.
Clint R,
Take this
http://www.hullnumber.com/crew1.php?cm=SSN-712
and go fuck yourself
Now that’s more like it, bob.
You learned to change lube oil. And now you believe you get to change the laws of physics.
Sorry. That ain’t the way it works.
Clint R,
Yeah, I learned to change lube oil.
But I was required to pass a course in thermodynamics before they let me near any oil lubricated machines.
That was the third place I learned about the second law of thermodynamics.
But then my last position on that boat was Engineering Watch Supervisor.
You still don’t know what you are talking about you ignorant unskilled landlubber.
So will you apologize for claiming I faked my job history?
Go fuck yourself anyway.
Bob,
I also trained on S5G, qualified 7 weeks early, Boomer sailor, Gold Dolphins as a JG, didn’t do a department head tour. Yes, I do believe the atmosphere slows the rate of heat transfer, mostly convective and conductive. I don’t believe the atmosphere can warm the surface. I believe CO2 has a very small effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. If it had a large effect, we wouldn’t be here.
P.S. there’s nothing remarkable about today’s temperature or its rate of change.
Stephen,
Ring Thumper or no?
Temperatures are not the real issue yet, but they might be in a few years.
Fires, floods, and storms do seem to be killing more people lately.
Not to worry too much, even without Biden’s bill, no dumbass utility manager is going to build other than solar and wind with battery backup these days.
With commodity prices in you bottom line you will lose money.
No, NUPOC.
“So you believe the Earths surface is 255K and the atmosphere heats it to 288K?”
That doesn’t even make sense! The surface cannot be both 255K and 288K.
I do ‘believe’ (ie physics predicts) a planet with similar size, rotation rate, solar irradiation, albedo, etc as earth — but no atmosphere — would have an effective surface temperature of about 255 K (with an actual average temperature a bit lower).
I do also ‘believe’ the addition of an IR active atmosphere will allow the sun to heat the surface to a higher temperature by restricting the escape of heat from the surface to space.
But the atmosphere itself does not ‘heat’ the surface. (Others have already given analogies like a winter coat allows your body to heat your skin to a higher temperature than if you were standing bare outside in the cold).
Wrong again Folkerts.
The 255K refers to an imaginary sphere. An atmosphere with only radiative gases would not have any surface temperature increase.
It’s nice to see you use the word “believe”. You get to believe whatever you want.
But, beliefs ain’t science.
There are quote marks around the word ‘believe’ in Tim’s remarks. What operating system/browser are you using, Clint?
Correct barry, there are quote marks around the word ‘believe’ in Tim’s remarks.
He used single (‘…’), as opposed to the more correct double (“…”).
Is that what confused you?
You are possibly confused about the use of quotes in this context. I’m glad you can see them now.
Clint, I think you need to look up the meaning of “i.e.”.
Tim, I think you need to look up the meaning of “Wrong again Folkerts”.
tim…”(E2-E1) represents the transition from one state to another. In this case, that would correspond to the energy of a 15 um photon can can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 when the CO2 molecule vibrates”.
***
Again, the Boltzmann equation represents thermal equilibrium and has nothing to do with electron transitions. When you say ‘one state to another’, what states do you mean? The only transition states possible are one electron energy level to another. Boltzmann knew nothing about electrons.
Again, it’s not possible to generalize about molecular and atomic states without reference to electrons and their energy levels. Valence electrons hold atoms together, hence molecules. The electrons produce the vibrations you talk about, sometimes in conjunction with protons in the nucleus.
tim….”For one, it applies at thermal equilibrium
Since we are talking about a group of atoms at 400K then by definition, that group is in thermal equilibrium at 400 K”.
***
Need to stay in context. Stephen claimed originally, “A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state”.
What we are talking about is the inability of EM emitted by a cooler body to have the energy to excite an electron in the atoms of a body already at a higher energy level (temperature). The temperature of the body is related to that.
Compare two extremes of temperature like the temperature of ice to the temperature of the Sun. In ice, atoms in water molecules are arranged in a solid lattice with the electrons in H and O atoms at a relatively low energy state. The electrons related to the hydrogen atoms in the Sun are at such a high energy level the electrons leave the atoms.
It is EM from those electrons in the Sun, and maybe even protons, that travels 83 million miles to warm the Earth. Any ice left out in summer will melt. Bob D., Swannie, Norman, and others are arguing that EM radiated by the ice will warm the Sun.
It seems you are supporting that argument.
Gordon,
I am not arguing anything about ice.
“A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state.
What I am arguing is that even at 400K, most of the electron are at the ground state instead of an excited state.
And remember, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.
So when individual molecules exchange a photon, temperature is not involved.
“Need to stay in context. ”
OK.
“Stephen claimed originally, “A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state”.”
As others have pointed out, there are two problems just in this sentence!
1) temperature only applies to a COLLECTION of particles.
2) ~ 90% of 400K CO2 molecules with be in the ground state for vibration.
So appealing back to this puts you on shaky ground to begin with.
“What we are talking about is the inability of EM emitted by a cooler body to have the energy to excite an electron in the atoms of a body already at a higher energy level (temperature). ”
But we know that 200 K CO2 DOES emit 15 um photons. And we know 15 um photon DO have enough energy to excite 400 K CO2 from the ground state to the 1st excited state. (Also, these are vibrational states of the whole molecule, not excitations of individual electrons to higher orbits like in the Bohr model. YOu seem to have a big mental block in this area.)
So what we are actually talking about is the ABILITY of EM emitted by a cooler body to have the energy to excite a MOLECULE of a GAS INITIALLY in the GROUND STATE.
“Compare two extremes of temperature … ”
We could, but as you say, we need to ‘stay in context’. there is no reason to change materials and to change temperature realms to answer the original issue about CO2 exchanging photons.
That’s a probability distribution of molecules in thermal equilibrium. But, I’m not necessarily talking about one CO2 molecule heating another CO2 molecule. I’m talking about radiant heat transfer. The LOT apply to conduction, convection, and radiation. I’ve never ever heard it taught in a thermodynamics class that there is an “exchange” and that there is a “net” heat flow. Heat flows from higher temperature to lower temperature. There is a temperature gradient from surface to TOA. And, there is a 159W/m^2 that warms the atmosphere. How much is conductive, convective, and radiant? I don’t think we know.
Also, you talk about molecules having a temperature but not a single molecule. Are you saying a 400K molecule in a group of molecules is not going to have more energy (heat) than a 200K molecule in a group of molecules?
> Ive never ever heard it taught in a thermodynamics class that there is an exchange and that there is a net heat flow.
Here you go, Stephen.
https://imgur.com/gallery/uIzd8c3
Another one:
https://imgur.com/gallery/T1EBkiw
Brandon,
I can google. I see it too. There’s a lot of BS out there. I’m saying I’ve taken quite a bit of thermodynamics and never ever heard that in any class or text. Heat, whether conductive, convective or radiative only flows one way, from hot to cold.
Brandon,
I think your first link is BS and the second doesn’t support your claim.
“Are you saying a 400K molecule in a group of molecules is not going to have more energy (heat) than a 200K molecule in a group of molecules?”
I am saying the question doesn’t really even make sense!
A group of molecules doesn’t have some 400 K molecule with a single, well-defined energy and some other 399 K molecules and some 200 K molecules and some 57 K molecules. A group of molecules has an average KE of 3/2 kT, with some having a higher energy and some having a lower energy.
Assuming you mean one molecule from a gas at 400 K and one molecule from a gas at 200 K, then WE SIMPLY DON’T KNOW which will have more energy. Most likely the atom from the hotter gas has more energy. But if we happened to pick a slow molecule from the 400 K gas and a fast particle from the 200 K gas, the “200K molecule” could easily have more energy than the “400K molecule”
> I think your first link is BS
Of course you do, Stephen. But I only needed to show you that the concept of net energy transfer is indeed mentioned in thermo texts. Can’t force you to accept it.
> and the second doesnt support your claim.
I highlighted the relevant bit in purple.
That’ll be all of your homework I’ll be doing.
“Heat, whether conductive, convective or radiative only flows one way, from hot to cold.”
Place a warm, smooth block of metal against a cooler block of metal. If the block is even is even 1 cm x 1 cm, that is well over 10,000,000 x 10,000,000 atoms on the surface of each; about 1e15 atoms! not all will be touching, but there will still be billion and billions in contact.
At the scale of individual atoms, collisions transfer energy from one block of metal to another. When a fast atom hits a slower atom, the faster one loses energy and the slower one gains energy. This usually means the atom in the hotter block loses energy (and hence the block itself loses some tiny bit of energy), and the atom in the cooler block gains energy.
But sometimes it goes the other way. An especially fast, high energy atom in the cooler block can hit an especially slow, low energy atom in the warmer block. When this happens energy is transferred FROM the cool block TO the warm block.
Energy transfers both ways. All the time. But statistics shows that the NET transfer of energy (aka “heat”) will always be from warmer to cooler. Which is the origin of the 2nd Law.
So the ENERGY flows BOTH ways (whether conduction via atomic collisions or radiation via photons). And the HEAT flows one way.
If your thermo classes didn’t get these ideas across then either 1) they were not taught well, or 2) they were designed for practical engineering, where atomic level details are irrelevant.
In your description, it is always flowing from hot to cold. In Brandon’s first link, he could construct a perpetual motion machine.
Let’s see, my thermodynamics professors were from Caltech, Purdue, Illinois. I guess they don’t teach well.
Also, the first link is a quantum mechanics problem. Max Planck couldn’t figure it out but Brandon and Wiki have it figured out. The second is just a straight-forward heat transfer of two objects trying to achieve equilibrium.
bobdroege, Tim Folkerts, Norman, …
Thanks for your comments.
Robertson isn’t interested in any discussion. He is only here for endlessly throwing out his egomaniac nonsense, and repeats all the time the same, regardless what it is about (lunar spin, viruses, Einstein, Clausius, etc etc etc).
Even today, though having been explained at least 100 times he’s wrong, he still would trash us with nonsense like
‘GPS perfectly works without considering relativity’.
Yeah.
Got any more of them JWST pictures ?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/05/europe/scientist-space-image-chorizo-intl-scli-scn/index.html
How many of them so called scientists cannot tell the Picture of the star from the slice of salami
https://youtu.be/F0mu3WJ6Pns
Can you link to a scientist that actually thought the picture was really from JWST? All I see is non-scientists missing the joke.
La Nina and weak solar wind will intensify the drought in Western Europe and will “scorch” Southern Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/qjkztBV/plot-image-1.png
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/3hPG4T0/297984154-485497350243913-5176749361861489762-n.jpg
The One you deny exists and to whom you will give an account.
You shall have no gods before Me, saith the LORD. YAHWEH, the Sovereign Covenant keeping God!
This was in response to RLH
Which God is that? Why is he so important?
The phone is not the laptop.
Since I believe in no gods, therefore I have no gods before he whose name shall not be mentioned.
You know you are a sinner and are going to hell, can’t avoid it, probably have to do more than the 36 hours Jesus did.
We know, Bob, you are a legend, in your own mind.
At least I don’t think I am smarter than Einstein.
Effing foaming-at-the-mouth christard.
ant…”Effing foaming-at-the-mouth christard”.
***
That’s a classless, ignorant thing to say on the blog of a man who has a religious faith. You should learn when to keep you mouth shut but I am sure that is a lesson your obtuse mind will never absorb.
It clearly refers only to those christians who are mouth-foamers.
So you believe. You are wrong.
“You shall have no gods before Me, saith the LORD”
Did you actually hear him, or did some other human say that he said it?
RLH…obviously, most quotes from Jesus are from other human sources. Still, what he preached is the basis of our modern civilization.
We are all born with the capacity for love, compassion, and empathy, but prior to the time of Jesus, no one seemed to clue into that. The Jews in his time were still offering animal sacrifices. Jesus rebelled against their ways and they turned him over to the Romans to murder him.
Some of the Gospels were omitted from the modern Bible because a group of bishops under the guidance of Roman emperor Constantine, at Nicea in 325 BC, made the decision not only about who God is, but what books could be in the Bible. Fortunately, the omitted Gospels had been stashed away in an urn in the Egyptian desert and only discovered recently.
On of the Gospels discarded was the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas having been a disciple of Jesus and who spoke with him directly. The Gospel offers us a collections of thoughts from Jesus, many of the being in parable form. One of them, however, is pretty clear. Jesus advised to bring out whatever is within us.
To me, that is an obvious reference to love, compassion, and empathy, with which we are born. One might argue it means other things like greed, arrogance, violence, etc. However, that was already en vogue and that was what he preached against. So, I’m, sure Jesus had a tremendous insight into what we could be if we tried to bring out what we are blessed with at birth.
For more on that, read Elaine Pagels and the Gnostic Gospels.
I am not religious in a conventional sense. The meaning of ‘to be religious’ is ‘to be serious’. A serious inquiry into life must challenge what is written in the Bible, as advised by Jesus before the New Testament was written. Look within, whatever one needs in life is already there.
Why???
Why would evolution build things like love, compassion, and empathy into humans? How could evolution build codes into DNA?
I don’t think we are equipped with our normal minds to understand anything about life. Ironically, we also have a means built in to bypass the normal mind. The Bhuddists know about it as does anyone who has encountered the silence of awareness. I have no proof but it seems apparent there are other forces at work. Then again, there is not a shred of evidence to support evolution theory.
Come on, Gordo.
Karuna was many centuries when teh Jesus made it His brand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karuṇā
Also, you misunderstand. Fish speaks of the Old God. Not His Son.
Please keep to scientific fantasies, and leave theological disputes to grown ups.
Willard the misconstruing contemporary serpent and ignoramus exemplar!
Come on, Gordo.
Karuna was many centuries when teh Jesus made it His brand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karuṇā
Also, you misunderstand. Fish speaks of the Old God. Not His Son.
Please keep to scientific fantasies, and leave theological disputes to grown ups.
The words of Jesus:- John 8:37 “I know that you are Abraham’s (physical) descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
Indeed Willard, the serpent, Satan is your father!”
John 10:25, 29,30 Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name they bear witness of Me.”
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father, (We) are one.” Koine’ greek here emphasizes the plural pronoun.
John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
John 15:1 I AM the true vine and My Father is the vinedresser.
John 8:58-59 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
There IS no separation between the God of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. IT IS THE SAME GOD, the ONE and ONLY true and living Triune God.
Concerning apocryphal books (Gordon) that were never received as the Word of God, but have ALWAYS been rejected as such, do NOT embrace that which clearly demonstrates no alliance with the received text. In other words, there are plenty of works and words of men, that claim an affinity with the Word of God but ARE NOT to be embraced as true! Why? They fail to be confirmed in the message they speak; they are at odds with the true and living Word of God. That means they DO NOT concur with the same message of the Gospel!
Jude 17-23
But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts. 19These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. 20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God, looking forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 22And have mercy on some, who are doubting; 23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
The Gospel of Thomas was NOT written by Thomas, nor was it received like Paul’s letters by local congregations. They knew it was an apocryphal book.
Peter acknowledged that Paul’s letters were Scripture though.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unscrupulous people and lose your own firm commitment, 18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Indeed, rejoicing in Jesus!
John 8:37
John 10:25, 29,30
John 17:5
John 15:1
John 8:58-59
Jude 17-23
2 Peter 3:14-18
So you DO believe that what was said by other humans, and the being written down in the Middle ages, was actually a prefect translation of what your ‘God’ actually said?
John 8:37
John 10:25, 29,30
John 17:5
John 15:1
John 8:58-59
Jude 17-23
2 Peter 3:14-18
So you DO believe that what was said by other humans, and the being written down in the Middle ages, was actually a prefect translation of what your God actually said?
I believe in the perspicuity, authority, sufficiency, inerrant, infallible and inspired Word of God. So, yes!
Come on, Fish.
You miss the point of the verses you quote, i.e:
*This* is the theme you keep missing. If you really are on teh Jesus side, side with love, and leave vengeance and condescension to teh Old One.
On the contrary, you miss the point. I am throwing you a lifeline, but you do not desire it. Why?
Of course, there are many reasons, not just one. Probably, because I am perceived as being a right-wing conservative Christian as defined by the contemporary culture. Instead of reading and comprehending what I am saying, you misconstrue my motives and attempt to assign other motives without asking me what my motives are! I have even used the example of walking past a house on fire. What is more loving: to walk by silently? Or to scream FIRE!!!! ???????????
The progressive indoctrination of the global death culture has you in its grip! If you believe my convictions, based upon credible evidence, are something other than loving, that is on you, not me!
I am the one who is throwing the life line here, Fish.
Teh Jesus is all about love. You do not talk about love.
Show more love and I will ignore you. Continue your double standard and I will show you that you do not own the scriptures.
Your choice.
Seems we are at an impasse.
I am the one who is throwing the life line here, Fish.
Teh Jesus is all about love. You do not talk about love.
Show more love and I will ignore you. Continue your double standard and I will show you that you do not own the scriptures.
Your choice.
Are you without sin? Do you confess them to Him?
1 John 1:5-9
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
Do you love those who are born of God? You have a skewed view of love for it is defined by God, not by you. Is Jesus the Son of God? Is God a liar? Does God provide eternal life? If so, how? If not, why not?
1 John 5:1-2
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and follow His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4For whoever has been born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith.
5Who is the one who overcomes the world, but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. 10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
The lifeline IS Jesus!
There is no impasse, Fish.
Your fear-of-God act reinforces my point that you are impersonating the Old One.
It does not counter my point that teh Jesus is about Love.
What I do within the confine of my soul is none of your business.
Let go of John. Start with Matthew.
Your proselytism is unwelcome here.
How many blogs do you throw your pseudo-Christian spam on?
Only on the ones that I am burdened by God to do so. I do not count them, but they are not many. FB is another platform I use though.
I am willing anytime and anyplace to speak about my Master and my Savior as his slave to do His will though! Since He purchased me out of the slave market (of the curse) of sin and death by His own blood. Willingly submitting to endure the punishment of crucifixion and separation from the Father to accomplish the task for which He was sent! A just punishment which I deserve, and He did not! He ALWAYS perfectly obeyed the Law of God and it is why His sacrifice was accepted in our stead! I have no righteousness of myself, but His righteousness is deposited to my account. Why? Because I repented and believe the message! This is justification by faith, not by works!
Repent and believe and you shall be saved from the wrath to come!
Still foaming at the mouth I see. Is it worth it all to live your life in such anger?
You mean love, else Jesus would have to be misconstrued to have hated while offering His own life as a sacrifice to propitiate the wrath of God from remaining upon His ransomed people! A real paradox not an oxymoron!
You couldn’t tell I was talking about YOU?
You couldnt tell I was talking about YOU?
Of course, I could and they talked about Jesus too!
AM I supposed to fear you because you talk about me and mock, scoff and hurl insults?
Luke 12:4-5
I tell you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear the One who, after you have been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him!
I am willing to face death before ceasing to speak of my Redeemer! Get in line, this is the cost of being a true disciple!
Matt. 10:32-39 but esp. v38.
“Only on the ones that I am burdened by God to do so”
Did ‘he’ tell you directly? Or did you just think of it for yourself?
That depends on how you view the Word of God. If you view it as the word of men then no. But if you believe its own testimony, as I already pointed out to Willard and others, then from God. Matt. 28:19-20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the NAME (singular) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
You cannot, because of historical records, say this testimony is NOT the Word of God. Since the evidence clearly attests that it IS what it claims to be! One would have to deny the scrupulous efforts of Hebrew Scribes that meticulously hand copied them and preserved them down through history. Otherwise, how can you explain, not only their existence, but when compared to other scrolls confirm the same exact message? This is known as the transmission of the Bible.
I suppose you deny the writings of Plato, Aristotle & Socrates among others? Do you allow for the preservation of their works, but deny the preservation of this work? Do you credit their works to them and believe they wrote what they claim to have written?What is the difference except the Bible claims to be the Word of God? How do you explain that the Scriptures were written over a period of about 1500 years, by 39 different authors, while maintaining the same theme of redemption concerning the promised Messiah, His coming, the fulfillment of those promises seen in His death, burial and resurrection and His coming again? All in the compilation of 66 (English) books, beginning in Genesis to Revelation!
For example, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration (greek word theopneustos, literally meaning God-breathed) of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (mature/growing), thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This reference was to the Old Covenant Scripture since the New Covenant was in the process of being written as I pointed out already seen in 2 Peter 3:14-16.
Exodus 34:27 says Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” The reference is to the preceding words found in vv 10-26 of the same chapter. The second giving of the 10 Commandments were also received at the same time but not written by Moses. Rather, by the finger of God like the first giving of the Tablets of Stone! This was the 2nd copy of the Tablets of Stone for when Moses came down after the first copy, the people were worshipping a golden calf and Moses threw the Tablets of Stone so that they broke, since Israel broke the covenant by their idolatry Ex. 32:19. Indeed, that generation wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and perished. They DID NOT enter into the promised land of Canaan.
The LXX, aka the Septuagint, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Covenant and translated the 3rd century B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt. The first 5 books of Moses were completed first and the rest done over the next century or less. One reason for this is Alexander the Great’s conquest of the populated world and Palestine brought with it the Hellenization of their culture so that Koine’ Greek became the language of the marketplace. Thus, to buy and sell, you had to learn the language. This is significant since all of the N.T. writers quote from the LXX when they refer to the Old Covenant promises of God concerning His redemptive plan and the Messiah!
There is more but this ought to suffice for now. The resources available to study this subject matter are vast. But, like AGW, there are conflicting views which must be navigated! Thankfully, God has promised that the work of the Holy Spirit would lead His people to the truth!
RLH…………crickets make noise. Silence can mean you ignore the evidence or have no intellectual reply except to say these words were written by men in the middle ages.
Indeed, ignorant, obstinate and stiff-necked, like Israel on many occasions.
The greatest crisis in your life seems to be AGW. Now regurgitate that drivel you espouse.
This is an actual SILSO chart of the number of sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/3sRsNGt/EISNcurrent-1.png
Who Cares?
I do. I read all of Ren’s posts. Unlike you, he’s qualified to post what he posts.
What is that qualification? What is his work experience in meteorology, climate science, and/or solar science? And what do you see as significant in this particular post in regard to weather or climate?
Never ask him. I just find Ren’s information to be factual. Don’t care about qualifications.
What’s your qualifications?
So you agreeing with his claims make him qualified? Interesting “logic” there. Nice example of unabashed overt confirmation bias.
I have never claimed to have qualifications in meteorology or climatology, so I am not the one lying here. But I follow the people who DO have qualifications.
“makes”
I could just as meaningfully have used “ovine” instead of “overt”.
4,000 years or so ago, the Widder said: ‘Taurus, it is time for you to go…’
2,000 years or so ago, the Fish said: ‘Widder, it is time for you to go…’
Nowadays, the Aquarius could say: ‘Fish, it is time for you to go…’.
Religions changed according to the ~ 25,000 years Zodiac.
No idea if Gemini was already linked to a religion like these signs above.
For those interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Year
What is a “Widder” ?
Widder = Aries. Old Norse.
Oh I see… apos, I forgot to translate it from German into English.
I meant Aries indeed.
” You shall have no gods before Me, saith the LORD. ”
Somehow one of the main problems of Humanity is that we have a lot of such LORDs, and that all these kind LORDs are saying the same thing.
binny…” You shall have no gods before Me…”
***
Someone should talk to climate alarmists about that. Climate propaganda is their god.
Trouble posting, claims the post is duplicate but I don’t see it anywhere.
binny..GPS has nothing to do with relativity other than the Newtonian relativity related to satellite moving as a platform wrt to the motion of the Earth. When a sat is communicating with a ground station, the transmitter is moving wrt receiver, introducing Doppler effect.
That has nothing to do with time or time dilation. The frequency/phase change is in the EM wave. It’s a problem of changes within an EM medium. Only an idiot would claim that time was changing, it doesn’t even exist.
There is nothing in a GPS system that could not be worked out with a slide rule. You believe the bs about time dilation propaganda with regard to GPS because you have no idea how the electronics works. There is no know electronic circuit that can work with time.
Prior to GPS, we had Loran-C, a system using broad.casting towers that would radiate beams of EM, from which ships could triangulate their position on the ocean. GPS is very similar with the excep.tion the EM is broad.cast to and from moving platforms. Newton would have worked it out without Einstein’s sci-fi, thought experiments on the subject.
So everyone who works in GPS design are just lying are they Gordon?
Anyone who is associated with GPS, and claims time dilation is involved, is a major liar. I have pointed out several times there is no means in electronics to measure such a fantasy as time dilation. How do you apply a related theory when there is no way to implement it?
What they are doing is mistaking changes in some other physical phenomenon for a change in time interval length. That error will persist as long as Einstein’s thought experiments are worshiped and an objective comments on them are dismissed.
You clearly don’t have the knowledge to explain it away, leading to a vague “some other”.
Relativity will be “worshiped” as long as the predictions keep checking out. Your friend Go Fish earlier mentioned Jason Lisle, who proposed a modified speed of light to allow us to see starts billions of light years away and make the Earth only 6 thousand years old.
His solution is to have light travel toward a viewer instantaneously but travel away from a viewer at 1/2 the conventional speed of light.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/nrtb-e-zine/an-infinite-speed-of-light
Try making GPS work under those constraints.
If there is a Sovereign God who created, and there is, then the very fact that He created DEMONSTRATES that He RULES the laws that govern the universe. As such the speed of light is only a measure for us to detect and IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THAT SPEED WAS REQUIRED WHEN HE CREATED. Thus, His power easily could have made light travel from point A to point B in fractions of a second to accomplish His purpose. Moreover, this may be a natural manner in which blind hearts to the truth remain blind since they embrace their own conventional wisdom, INSTEAD of embracing and believing the Word of God!
You Do understand that our abilities are indeed limited, don’t you? Ah, but you can point to some historical discoveries, many of which are small victories, compared to our failures to comprehend the whole of creation as revealed! So, we see the Law of Gravity and the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics among many others! These point to my worldview more than to yours IMO!
“If there is a Sovereign God who created, and there is”
Which of the many Gods is that?
“Thus, His power easily could have made light travel from point A to point B in fractions of a second to accomplish His purpose.”
Sure, an all powerful being could have made light travel from galaxies billions of light years away in seconds. He could have created Adam with a navel and changed the radioisotope content of fossils to create the illusion of a distant past that never was. But that sounds more like the work of the god of mischief than the god of truth.
craig…”Relativity will be worshiped as long as the predictions keep checking out”.
***
You haven’t mentioned any ‘predictions’ yet or supplied scientific proof of time dilation. You haven’t even defined time.
You mentioned time is not intuitive but you seem to to steer away from understanding why. It’s not intuitive because it has no existence. Things that don’t exist cannot dilate. Einstein should have gotten that but instead, he buried himself in a mental world where it can dilate. Anything can happen in the human mind, even catastrophic global warming or catastrophic climate change.
We live in a universe of ‘now’. There is no past and no future, both being illusions created by the human mind which has a means of storing data and projecting it as a future.
That’s why the IPCC and climate alarmists are such jokes, they keep predicting a future that has no existence and never will exist. If there is to be climate change it will happen in the ‘now’, right here in this now.
Does anyone see evidence of that? I don’t.
craig…you seem to have associated my thoughts with those of Go Fish. I have not endorsed his thoughts, I have no beliefs and I have only spoken of a non-religious intelligent design.
I simply don’t think evolution is tenable, given the complexity of life and the glaring fact that DNA has codes in it that determine and support life. That has to originate from a design.
Studies were done on this in the 1950s and ’60s, examining the likelihood that covalent bonding of primal elements like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus could bond together to produce life as we know it. The conclusion was it being billions and billions to one against. Another study looked at it from the view of entropy, and reached a similar conclusion.
I am considering a simple fact. DNA has codes in it that are used to produce amino acids, the basis of proteins. Without those codes, live disappears. Is anyone going to tell me that the sci-fi about natural selection could produce intelligent codes in DNA, the basis of life?
I won’t go as far as Go Fish with regard to defining God or trying to speak on behalf of a God. I don’t accept the Bible as fact, I think it was written by well-meaning humans who embellished it here and there, likely for purposes of controlling unruly mobs.
I don’t even know if there is a God. However, I have discarded the stupidity of evolution theory and I am now leaning toward an intelligent design of a non-religious persuasion. I am using the word religious here in its conventional context. Being religious actually means, ‘to be serious’.
I was moved by the work of Elaine Pagels, professor of religious studies at Princeton. I like Pagels because she started out as an indoctrinated Christian but was open-minded enough to alter her views when she began reading the original Bible in Greek. Today, she emphasizes questioning religion, not to discard it, but to view it correctly re historical fact.
She is known for her work on the Gnostic Gospels, a reference to scrolls found in the Egyptian desert near Nag Hammadi in the 1940s. Pagels has become an authority on the Gospels and has written several books on them. Her favourite saying from one of the Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and it’s mine too, is attributed to Jesus by Thomas, who was a disciple.
Jesus urged people to bring out what is within you. He did not refer people to a Bible, he urged them to look inside. On the inside, we have access to love, compassion, and empathy. Why would evolution build those qualities into humans? After all, it’s supposed to be about the survival of the fitness, which would seem to be the antithesis of love, compassion, and empathy.
And how could an evolution based on chance produce an awareness in humans that can lead them past their darker sides related to greed, violence, and hatred?
Anyone who has done any amount of work internally, observing with a choiceless awareness, has to come away with the ‘sense’ that something far greater than our petty ego-centric minds is at work.
As I explained above, dumbass Robertson is here only to throw his utter nonsense.
Don’t try to teach him anything: it’s useless.
He even refuses to learn what causes the phases of the moon.
barry…”[GR]The IPCC are so stupid and so afraid of real science they exclude skeptics from their reviews.
[Barry]Do you mean skeptics like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Murray Salby, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry…..”
***
Exactly what I mean. John Christy, in a recent interview, pointed out that he receives no invitations as either a reviewer or a Lead Author, even though he has served as both. He claimed skeptics are no longer welcome on IPCC reviews.
In fact, in the Climatgate email scandal, representing comments circa 2007, Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, bragged that he and fellow CLA, Kevin Trenberth, would see to it that a paper co-athored by John CHristy would not reach the review stage.
Wake up, Barry. The IPCC is corrupt.
“Wake up, Barry. The IPCC is corrupt.”
And water is wet.
Any and all government is corrupt.
The only question is the depth and degree of stink.
The only people who should be most interested is the global climate
religion it represents.
It should be noted that if every did it’s job, it would not have
a job to do.
How many more decades [or centuries] will IPCC exist?
It’s reason to exist is determine how much warming CO2 does.
And I guess, then advise countries what they should do about
it, which roughly translate to dictating how much CO2 every human
can emit {which could be a gloriously long existence for IPCC- could have lifetime exceeding of the Catholic Church}.
But for us, heretics it appear they spent decades not doing their
job.
In terms of the great religions, they are failing to find a path to heaven. The advantage of great religions, is they have competition.
And they or one of them might manage to see that Heaven = Space [or the universe].
“Exactly what I mean. John Christy, in a recent interview, pointed out that he receives no invitations as either a reviewer or a Lead Author, even though he has served as both.”
So what? Phil Jones wasn’t an author on the 2013 or 2017 IPCC reports, either.
Did Christy say whether his government had nominated him? IPCC only considers authors if they’ve been nominated by their government.
You don’t need an invitation to become an IPCC reviewer. Did Christy lie about that or have you misrepresented him?
Jones’ hyperbolic email wasn’t about Christy’s work. Can you get nothing right?
Both the papers he said he’d prevent getting in to the 2007 IPCC report made it into the 2007 IPCC report. If the IPCC were corrupt it would have abetted Jones’ nefarious plans.
barry…”You dont need an invitation to become an IPCC reviewer. Did Christy lie about that or have you misrepresented him?”
***
Good red-herring argument, Barry. Reviewers are appointed by Coordinating Lead Authors, who also appoint Lead Authors. Perhaps governments do present potential reviewers but it is IPCC CLAs who pick them from the pool.
As I said, the IPCC is corrupt. When 2500 lead authors present their findings, the findings are re-written to coincide with the propaganda of 50 lead authors. The reviewers can appeal but their appeals fall on deaf ears.
That’s how we got the propaganda that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. That was in the Summary for Policymakers written by the 50 lead cheaters and presented before the review is fudged. Many reviewers wanted to wait and see what would happen but that did not suit the agenda of governments pushing the catastrophic climate change meme.
The IPCC reviews are decided by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
Lindzen…
https://cei.org/opeds_articles/ipcc-report-criticized-by-one-of-its-lead-authors/
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
“Reviewers are appointed by Coordinating Lead Authors, who also appoint Lead Authors.”
No – you simply do not know what you are talking about and are inventing a whole bunch of nonsense, easily debunked.
“The First-Order Draft is open to review by experts; the Second-Order Draft is reviewed by governments and experts; and governments send comments on the Summary for Policymakers…
Experts are invited to register for the review through the website of the IPCC Working Group or Task Force responsible for the report.
Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/
As long as you are qualified in the subject you’re commenting on, anyone can be a reviewer.
Maybe go back and re-read what Christy said, because you can’t get anything right.
1) Many ‘skeptics’ have participated as lead authors and reviewers, and all the ones I listed above have their published works included in the reports.
2) Jones’ email was not about Christy’s paper. Did you forget you screwed that up as well?
3) You don’t need a personal invitation to review, you only need to register and be an expert in the subject.
4) If you want to be an author you need to be nominated by your government.
Few authors who have participated previously are re-invited. That’s why Jones, Mann, Schmidt etc are also not authors on AR5 or AR6.
Does it impact on you when you’re demonstrably wrong?
You have a great many fanciful stories in your head.
“GENEVA, Jan 3 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has opened registration for the Government and Expert Review of the Draft of the Summary for Policymakers and longer report of the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report.
As of today, interested experts can register for participation in the review here: https://apps.ipcc.ch/comments/ar6syr/fod/register.php .”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/01/03/government-and-expert-review-ar6-synthesis-report/
If John Christy has access to a computer and knows how to operate it, he can register to review IPCC reports. He doesn’t need an invitation.
Please provide a link to where Christy talks about not being invited to review. I would be curious to know how he put it. Because if he implied he needed an invitation then he didn’t tell the truth.
“Any and all government is corrupt.”
The IPCC isn’t a government. Permanent staff are 13 people who coordinate meetings of delegates from 195 countries to map out the scope and focus of each assessment report. This panel convenes at least once a year.
How exactly would corruption take place when governments with competing interests send delegates?
The general rule is, follow the money.
But it ain’t my religion- those who really care about their religion could check it out- by following the money.
The problem is not skeptics who speak- that is simply uneducated, stupid, and insane.
Burning wood to generate electrical power, is dumb. Solar and wind is dumb, and nuclear energy would work. Why do you need the non religious have to tell you this?
> The general rule is, follow the money.
Energy companies haz lotsa cash tied up in fossilized carbon reserves, gb.
Lotsa cash in terms of lobbying and buying politicians.
If you remember the Oil for Food program which didn’t involve a lot money, but caused endless corruption.
Which was UN. And ended badly for Iraq and rest of world.
But that’s just well know example of corruption- and a minor bit player.
Sort of comparable to AL Gore film which school children were forced to watch.
But the little bits, add up.
IPCC do not dispense funds to anyone. They don’t even pay the scientific researchers that author the thing.
The cry of corruption is reflexive. It’s an auto-thought, not based in any reflection on the facts.
“Any and all government is corrupt.”
I think most people would consider the IPCC a government entity or institution, much as the UN is closely associated with governments.
And corruption takes many forms. Often it is about money, but sometimes it’s about agenda, such as cult beliefs. You see plenty of that here. People aren’t being paid to pervert science here. They do it based on their cult beliefs. Just look at the ones that repeatedly claim that ice cubes can boil water! Of course there are those that don’t actually claim it, but believe it silently, or want it to be true.
Clearly, the examples of perversion and corruption we see here exist throughout society.
What can we expect from a lying sack of shit that doesn’t know any science.
That’s why no one expects much from you, bob.
Clint R,
One comment from one poster, again proves you are a lying sack of shit.
“bobdroege, Tim Folkerts, Norman,
Thanks for your comments.”
???
Looks pretty desperate to me, bob.
But your desperation fits nicely with your meltdown.
Clint R,
Please provide a cite for you claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Or will you continue to be a lying sack of shit and an internet fraud?
bob, you should try to at least be consistent with your own words:
“If you wanted to have a civil conversation, you would not lead with the insults, so we are not going to have a civil conversation.”
So lose the immature profanity and insults, and try again.
Clint R,
Remember I am not having a civil conversation with someone who accuses me of faking my work history.
I am being consistent, you are the lying sack of shit.
You being the lying sack of shit is a proven fact and an insult.
Try lying less.
There are several requirements for you to fulfill if you want to have a civil conversation with me.
The first being a couple of apologies from you.
Second is to provide a valid scientific cite that proves the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
You might find the twelve labors of Hercules easier.
Yeah, and stop being a whiney little bitch.
But then it’s your bed, you lie in it.
Clint R
Is this man going by Nigel Cheese you by any chance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JziEOUvs7SQ&t=69s
Norman, it’s time for you to be honest for a change and admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the two fluxes.
Like braindead bob, you got caught making things up.
Clint R,
You lying sack of shit.
“Like braindead bob, you got caught making things up.”
What did I make up?
Clint R
I have already satisfied your request by linking you to E. Swanson experiment which basically does show just this reality. You are a denier of science so an actual experiment is not something that can help you.
The reality is the experiment shows what you are requesting. In your cult reality that does not matter. You will continue to troll as long as you are allowed on this blog. Nothing new.
Poor Norman can’t support his claim with a valid technical reference. And braindead bob can’t figure out what nonsense he’s made up. He can’t even live up to his own standards:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345344
Neither has ANY background in the relevant physics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
I will put you to the test. You ramble on about nothing. You criticize me endlessly without knowledge. Now you explain why you determine that E. Swanson experiment with two heat lamps does not satisfy your request.
Will you answer or ignore it and babble about like a drooling idiot that endlessly repeats the same things over and over because of some brain damage.
I am not expecting much from an cult minded idiot like you but maybe you will show you have a bit of intelligence and explain what you think is lacking.
If not then kindly shut up and go away. If you need to be an annoying fly then I will just post this reply to all you babbling BS.
Clint R,
Stop lying,
I have already posted where I studied the relevant physics.
Time for you to do the same.
Put up or shut up.
You whiney little bitch.
Sorry Norman, but this is about your cult hero’s claim that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface could heat the surface to 325K.
That is complete nonsense, but you claimed you could support it from “textbook” physics.
We’re still waiting….
braindead bob, keep arguing with yourself….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345344
Clint R,
Try understanding what I posted.
There was no quid pro quo there.
I am going to continue to treat you like a person who accuses a military veteran of faking military service.
Like a piece of shit.
Maybe if you apologize.
Braindead bob, you picked the wrong person to try to intimidate with your “veteran” bravado. With my 31 years of military and civil service background, I’ve recognized your pathetic efforts to be a hero-in-your-own-mind for about two years now.
Your immature profanity doesn’t impress me at all. It just reveals what a failure you are. Like the other cult idiots here, you have NO understanding of the physics involved. You didn’t even try to solve the “0.5” plate emissivity problem. And you couldn’t understand the solution to the vectors problem. You’re a fraud, bob.
As you can’t learn, we’ll likely see more of your juvenile profanity….
Clint R,
If you are a 31 year veteran, you should know its bad form to accuse someone of faking military service. You might want to provide proof of military service, or fuck off.
You solution to the vector problem had the object going around in circles, that only works if one vector is velocity and one vector is acceleration, which is why I correctly asked you to specify what kind of vectors they were, other wise it just goes off in a straight line.
You did the vector problem wrong, that shows your level of maturity.
And you lied and lied and lied.
Clint R,
Also your “braindead bob” shows your level of maturity, non-existent.
You are just an internet bully.
And you can’t back your shit up.
Clint R,
And I never claimed to be a hero.
Braindead bob says: “You[r] solution to the vector problem had the object going around in circles”
Correct, you were given the orbit was circular. You couldn’t solve it because you don’t understand very basic physics. Worse, you couldn’t understand the solution. You’re braindead.
It’s funny that you curse, slander, insult, and falsely accuse, yet are so offended when you’re correctly revealed as “braindead”.
Yes, you’re no “hero” — no even close.
Clint R,
You are lying again.
“Correct, you were given the orbit was circular. You couldnt solve it because you dont understand very basic physics. Worse, you couldnt understand the solution. Youre braindead.”
No, it was not given that the object was traveling in an orbit.
It was just a point shown on a circle with two vectors.
I asked you if the vectors were of the same units, and you refused to answer, making it an ambiguous problem.
And even at that, the vectors have to have the correct magnitude to produce a circular orbit, if not so, the orbit could be a number of different shapes, and possibly not even an orbit at all.
You didn’t put the magnitudes of the vectors in your stupid little problem either.
You know I am over the target, when you resort to calling me braindead.
31 years of military service, now we know you are stupid, smart folks do only one term, lifer.
Oh, and can you prove that 31 years of service?
bob claimed:
No, it was not given that the object was traveling in an orbit.
You didn’t put the magnitudes of the vectors in your stupid little problem either.
(Bold is to help braindead bob.)
— — — — —
It has been shown numerous times that the braindead cult idiots don’t understand the relevant science. They just mouth their cult’s dogma. It’s fun to see them run from an actual physics problem:
An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle. Looking down, the object is moving CCW, and at the “top” of its orbit the vectors acting on it are 50@180°, and 10@-90°. After orbiting 90 degrees, what is the resultant vector acting on the object?
I predict Willard, Bindidon, Norman, Willard Jr. (Swanson), and bob will not even attempt an answer.
That’s why this is so much fun.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036240
Clint R,
I am sorry you can’t see the contradictions in your problem.
Your vectors move the object off in a straight line.
You don’t even understand your own problem.
Clint R
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036742
Magnitude of a vector requires units.
You did not provide those.
Counter question:
What is the radius of the orbit?
You made the problem, perhaps you can solve for the radius, you have enough information.
bob, you made a statement and I proved you wrong. But, instead of admitting your mistake and learning, you just threw more crap against the wall. You reject learning. That’s why you’re braindead.
You stated: No, it was not given that the object was traveling in an orbit.
From the problem: An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle.
I don’t mind teaching you how to solve the simple problem. I enjoy teaching. But, I can’t teach braindead.
You need to admit your mistakes so you can learn from them. You ain’t learning, boy.
Clint R,
Here is the correct answer punk.
50 @-90 and 10 @0
I had to make some assumptions and solve for some variables, but as I remember you got a different answer.
“From the problem: An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle.”
If you knew your physics, that only works if the vectors are specified, and then only if the radius of the orbit is known.
Look abusive, ignorant, bully.
I know I am on the right track when someone who has a PhD in physics asks the same questions I do.
Tell the fucking truth, where did you study physics?
You can’t learn, bob. You’re “solution” is incorrect. You’re still throwing crap against the wall, like a little brat. (But, some of your crap is as funny as it is revealing!)
You reject learning. That’s why you’re braindead.
You need to admit your mistakes so you can learn from them. You ain’t learning, boy.
Clint R,
Lesson:
In order for an object to travel in an orbit there are two vectors, one acting on it, that’s acceleration, and one representing the velocity of the object.
You can’t add those two vectors, which you were asking for in your stupid fucking problem.
“After orbiting 90 degrees, what is the resultant vector acting on the object?”
You can’t add two vectors unless they have the same units.
Your problem is not representative of correct physics.
Like the ball on a string not rotating on its axis.
Like the blue plate not increasing in temperature.
You just don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Have a nice day.
Throw out as much crap as you want, bob. But, I’m sticking with your mistake because that’s the only way you can learn. If you can’t own up to your mistakes, you will just keep making them, as you so aptly demonstrate here.
When I first pointed out your mistake, you said that I was lying. Then, when I proved you wrong with actual quotes, you started slinging distracting slop.
You reject learning. That’s why youre braindead.
You need to admit your mistakes so you can learn from them. You ain’t learning, boy.
Clint R,
You can’t admit that you made mistakes in the posing of the problem and in your solution.
You don’t know how to add vectors.
You are not qualified to teach physics or general eighth grade science.
Sorry but it’s true.
Wrong braindead bob. The simple problem didn’t have any mistakes. You STILL can’t understand it and you can’t learn.
So, throw out as much crap as you want. But, I’m sticking with your mistake because that’s the only way you can learn. If you can’t own up to your mistakes, you will just keep making them, as you so aptly demonstrate here.
When I first pointed out your mistake, you said that I was lying. Then, when I proved you wrong with actual quotes, you started slinging distracting slop.
You reject learning. That’s why you’re braindead.
You need to admit your mistakes so you can learn from them.
You ain’t learning, boy.
CLint R
Admit this is an error in you problem
“After orbiting 90 degrees, what is the resultant vector acting on the object?”
My question
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036742
your response
“Thats irrelevant here, braindead bob. But thanks for verifying my prediction.”
No it’s not, vector have direction and magnitude.
Magnitude requires units.
Anyone who know high school physics knows that.
You can’t add those vectors, if you claim you can, then the object is not orbiting, like I fucking said.
You claimed in your solution that you can add those vectors, so you are fucking lying.
I predict you won’t even try to follow my argument, you will not produce any criticism of my argument, and you will just attack me again.
Winey little bitch.
Wrong braindead bob. The simple problem didn’t have any mistakes. You STILL can’t understand it and you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
So, throw out as much crap as you want. But, I’m sticking with your mistake because that’s the only way you can learn. If you can’t own up to your mistakes, you will just keep making them, as you so aptly demonstrate here.
When I first pointed out your mistake, you said that I was lying. Then, when I proved you wrong with actual quotes, you started slinging distracting slop.
Fix this mistake, then we can move on to your next mistake. You can’t learn if you don’t fix your mistakes.
And you ain’t been learning, boy.
Clint R,
Stick to your lies all you want.
There is a requirement for adding vectors that you are ignoring because you don’t know any physics.
Your problem presupposes you can add a velocity vector to an acceleration vector.
You can’t and you are lying about it.
If you could add the vectors in you problem the object would not be rotating, which is what I said, and what I said you would not address.
Lying losing dumb fuck.
That’s still all wrong, braindead bob.
The units are all the same. The problem is NOT about anything but rotating and adding vectors. You’re trying to confuse the issue because you can’t understand it. You’re only confusing yourself!
So, throw out as much crap as you want. But, I’m sticking with your mistake because that’s the only way you can learn. If you can’t own up to your mistakes, you will just keep making them, as you so aptly demonstrate here.
When I first pointed out your mistake, you said that I was lying. Then, when I proved you wrong with actual quotes, you started slinging distracting slop.
Fix this mistake, then we can move on to your next mistake. You can’t learn if you don’t fix your mistakes.
And you ain’t been learning, boy.
Clint R,
“The units are all the same. The problem is NOT about anything but rotating and adding vectors.”
OK, if the units are the same, then it is impossible for the object to orbit.
Orbiting requires a velocity vector and an acceleration vector.
Those two vectors can not be added.
If the vectors acting on the body can be added, then the object moves off in a straight line.
So I am correct in saying the object is not orbiting.
And you can’t admit your mistakes and you can’t learn anything about vectors or orbits.
Here is your original problem again
“An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle. Looking down, the object is moving CCW, and at the top of its orbit the vectors acting on it are 50@180, and 10@-90. After orbiting 90 degrees, what is the resultant vector acting on the object?”
Again, you are claiming the vectors have the same units.
“The units are all the same.”
In order to move in a perfect circle the units must be acceleration for one and velocity for the other.
You are not learning and stubborn as fuck about correcting your mistake.
Time to admit you are wrong BOY!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
You mean we aren’t going to get paid for illuminating the world with our wisdom?
Damn.
barry…”How exactly would corruption take place when governments with competing interests send delegates?”
***
Simple, the governments sending the delegates to the IPCC are corrupt as well. I know the Canadian government is corrupt in that regard.
We are so corrupt that our Prime Minister, Trudeau, pulled out a never-used war measures act to deal with a truckers’ protest who was doing no harm other than inconveniencing people. He raved about Nazis plots, called people opposed to vaccines misogynist, racist, and uneducated.
He is the one behaving like Nazis. Recently he has been trying to ram gun control legislation through Parliament, using laws that bypass Parliament. I regard this guy as a looney, a danger to the Canadian way of life.
Well that point sailed right by you. Governments compete with each other. You have the Saudis there as well as a Canadian, Russian, Chinese representative etc. They could all be completely corrupt in their own countries but they have competing interests.
Once again:
How exactly would corruption take place when governments with competing interests send delegates?
barry, people can be easily corrupted. Enemies will sit down at the same table, if they’re hungry and the food is free.
Again, look at the cult perform here. The idiots are not all the same, many almost hate the other ones. But, they all have the same agenda….
Yes, I understand the generalizations. But more waffle doesn’t really cut it. And as for following the money… there’s more easy money in fossil fuels and not changing the status quo.
No, the cry of IPCC corruption is auto-pilot. No facts or thinking required.
barry, you asked how could corruption take place with governments with competing interests. I gave you a clear example. But, you didn’t move even one picometer off your pre-established opinion. YOU are the one on auto-pilot. In your head, the IPCC is squeaky clean, pristine saints trying to save the planet, and the fossil fuel industry is a bunch of “lying dogs”, killing, plundering, and raping.
You’ve been well indoctrinated.
“I gave you a clear example.”
Your reply was so vacuous that you didn’t even name or describe the agenda you referred to, let alone explain how corruption flowed therefrom. Your attempt to explain how 195 governments with competing interests might become cooperate on corruption was 2 platitudes mashed together.
No facts or thinking required.
craig…”Relativity will be worshiped as long as the predictions keep checking out”.
***
What predictions????
What possible good has come off our obsession with Einstein’s thought experiments? Even he admitted his basic theories on relativity are based on Newtonian relativity theory and that little or no use has been found for his theory.
He added further that if Dayton Miller’s theory on the aether is right, then his theory of relativity is completely wrong. No one has ever found the aether to which Miller refers but recently some scientists have found proof that empty space is teeming with neutrinos. If that is found to be Miller’s aether I think the meaning garnered from it is that the speed of light is based on that medium and is not a constant.
http://scihi.org/dayton-miller-aether-einstein-relativity/
All Einstein did was fabricate a multiplier for time in the basic relationship, s = vt, where s = distance, and v = velocity. In Einstein’s dream state it becomes s = kvt and time is now based on the speed of light and any velocity is compared to it as a fraction. His relationship is based on the multiplier (1 – v^2/c^2) and there is not a shred of physical evidence to back the theory.
How anyone could possibly work that nonsense into GPS theory is beyond me. Maybe you could explain.
Far better people than me have noted this. Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock claimed that the theory of relativity is not even a theory, but a collection of thought experiments for which there is no proof. He also claimed that Einstein did not understand measurement.
Anyone who does understand measurement knows that time is a fabrication created by the human mind to aid in the measure of change. It is not a physical reality but a mathematical unit of the measurement of the period of Earth’s rotation.
The second is based on the Earth’s period of rotation and space is defined in science by measures like metres, which are a definition. A metre used to be a fraction of the distance between the equator and the North Pole and has now been re-defined by idiots related to Einstein’s relativity nonsense.
The second produced by the atomic clock has nothing to do with time. It is a measure of the physical vibration of the cesium atom. In order to derive our second from it, that interval of vibration has to be multiplied millionths of times.
Raving idiots will try to tell you that an atomic clock, which is the time base for GPS satellites, will change time due to time dilation. Idiots!!! Why would vibrations in a Cesium atom be related to the speed of the satellite wrt to the speed of light.
The truth is, Einstein had no idea what time is. In his paper on relativity, he claimed time is the hands on a clock. Incredible!!!
I have no idea who Fish is and I was not supporting his comment.
Gordon Robertson
It’s easy to measure time dilation.
Synchronise six atomic clocks.
Leave three of them sitting on your lab bench in Denver. These are your controls.There are three clocks so that if one clock drifts, you can detect it by comparing it to the other two. Old navigator’s trick.
Fly the other three clocks around the world. These three clocks have accelerated relative to the control clocks. When you return them to Denver the moving clocks will read slow relative to the control clocks because less time has passed for the moving clocks than for the control clocks.
Resynchronise the six clocks and move three clocks down to sea level for a month. Once again you will find that the sea level clocks ran slower than the Denver clocks because time ran slower at sea level.
“Fly the other three clocks around the world”
Make one go East to West. Make another go West to East. Make the third go North to South. Which one is the younger and why?
Or make it four and fly one South to North as well.
And before anyone says, yes I know that West to East and East to West pairing has been done before so you can just look up the answer for that, but the North to South, South to North pairing has not, so you will have to put your thinking caps on for those.
Well if follow Einstein {and Newton} everything going in straight line. And have earth orbit going about 30 km per second in straight line in a curved space.
If you went faster than 30 km/sec in this straight line, you get to less curved space.
It seems west to east or east to west have more potential go further from the Sun. And polar orbit is going in wrong vector- but would be same earth escape velocity and further you from earth the less energy
needed to change vector so go in same direction as 30 km/sec orbit.
Or seems the potential going faster or slower in terms of Earth’s orbit “counts” and being in most “bent space” slows time.
But I am probably missing frame dragging, wiki:
“The first frame-dragging effect was derived in 1918, in the framework of general relativity, by the Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the LenseThirring effect.They predicted that the rotation of a massive object would distort the spacetime metric, making the orbit of a nearby test particle precess. This does not happen in Newtonian mechanics for which the gravitational field of a body depends only on its mass, not on its rotation. The LenseThirring effect is very small about one part in a few trillion. To detect it, it is necessary to examine a very massive object, or build an instrument that is very sensitive.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
So earth is not massive nor spinning fast and it’s a small effect.
And thiogs in orbit aren’t vaguely massive.
So, seems it wouldn’t matter much which direction you orbit Earth, but matters how far you are from Earth.
West/East against East/West has been ‘proven’ by using atomic clocks on standard airplane flights.
The question is if the same atomic clocks flown North/South and South/North would see the same time dilation effect one with the other and, if so, which would be ‘slower’? (You can leave a reference atomic clock at the equator if you like)
What would you expect and why?
For West/East and East/West see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
2. ISS astronauts experience two different types of time dilation.
Remember when we said we dont really experience differences in time on Earth? Thats not exactly true. While the effects are minuscule, they are there due to gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation essential means that time moves slower when the gravitational pull is stronger. So, a watch by your feet would eventually fall behind a watch closer to your head, because its closer to the Earths core and thus experiences stronger gravity. This form of time dilation is combined with relative velocity time dilation, which is what the atomic clock experiment was testing. ISS astronauts experience both gravitational and relative velocity time dilation. The relative velocity dilation is stronger than the gravitational one, thus astronauts experience time more slowly than those of us on Earth.
https://forums.space.com/threads/do-astronauts-experience-time-differently-in-space.29456/
I’m sure you will enjoy this:
http://leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/
I posted the link along an earlier discussion about GPS some years ago, but that was of course discredited and deniǵrated by this blog’s dumbass-in-chief.
Nice to see it done privately.
Note to RLH.
It does emphasise why you should keep the clocks in triplets. I note that his Blue clock gave different results from the other two. If that had been the only clock his experimental result would have been much less reliable.
So what is your answer to the North to South and South to North paring? Which is younger and why?
And if you want to make it a triplet, keep a stationary clock at the start point.
binny…the clown at your link took an atomic clock to the top of a mountain then claimed time dilated. Duh!!!
entropic…even the most accurate quartz-digital clocks we have will drift slightly with changes in temperature.
If the atomic clocks do drift as you describe, I claim it has nothing to do with time dilation related to flying at terrestrial velocities and altitudes. I claim something else is being missed that has a valid physical, scientific explanation.
What we have today in science are people indoctrinated with Einsteinian relativity theory. They are convinced of causes without examining them, so they work toward answers based on what they know, and by Jove, they find them. Doh!!!
Not one of them can explain what time is and how it can be found physically.
Tell me this. If the second is based on the rotation of the Earth, and all clocks through the ages have been based on the Earth’s rotation wrt the Sun, and that second cannot vary, then how does the second vary in an atomic clock flying on an aircraft?
It’s impossible. Although the second is now based on the vibrations in an atomic clock (apparently it’s electron transitions) the measured intervals in the atomic clock are not time. Something is varying in the vibrations, something physical.
Accidentally made it a new thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345513
This is climate change
https://youtu.be/2KfQHxe683M
The degree of Robertson’s ignorance and stupidity you easily can measure by comparing his ‘thoughts’ with the reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
*
The correction applied to GPS is, as told since decades, a combination of Special and General Relativity together with the far less known Sagnac effect:
” The GPS time scale is defined in an inertial system but observations are processed in an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (co-rotating) system, a system in which simultaneity is not uniquely defined.
A coordinate transformation is thus applied to convert from the inertial system to the ECEF system. The resulting signal run time correction has opposite algebraic signs for satellites in the Eastern and Western celestial hemispheres.
Ignoring this effect will produce an eastwest error on the order of hundreds of nanoseconds, or tens of meters in position. ”
Yeah.
It’s the same pseudoscience problem as for the lunar spin.
You should note the inherent underlying (in)accuracy of the GPS signal
There is an uncertainty that humidity against dry air brings to the velocity or light (radio) along the paths between receiver and satellites. Also multi-path can effect the distances measured.
In a typical car based GPS the position is constrained by being on a road/path which can make the accuracy seem much better than it really is.
Richard…the air quality will affect the transmission of signals between the sat telemetry and the ground stations.
I am under no delusion that tracking GPS satellites is not complicated but the complexity comes from the delays in the EM signals between the sats and the ground stations.
An EM signal is defined as an electric field with a magnetic field perpendicular to it. In communications, it can also be defined by a particular carrier frequency upon which information is electrically modulated. There is no time element defined in an EM wave. In other words, there is nothing in an electromagnetic wave related to time. More on that below.
Any dilation in an EM wave will involved a change in wavelength, hence frequency. However, that dilation is related ‘physically’ only to the electric and magnetic fields.
When people talk about time dilation in a GPS system, they are talking about time dilation in the atomic clocks. The sats have their own atomic clocks and they use a time-based system that differs from the ground stations atomic clock time-bases. Of course, there has to be adjustments between the two systems based on relative motion but it is not the time dilation due to the velocity of the satellites wrt the speed of light claimed in Einsteinian relativity theory.
In other words, there is no change in time intervals like the second. The length of the second is strictly controlled by the standard at Greenwich, to which all Earthbound clocks are synced. I don’t know how they gurantee the length of a second in a sat time-based system but you can bet it is closely synced to Greenwich as well. They will have means in the ground station of comparing it to Greenwich and correcting it if necessary.
The mistake being made, IMHO, is that the ‘MEASURED’ frequency, hence the wavelength of the EM is based on the Greenwich based second, which cannot vary. When the EM frequency varies, rather than blaming it on the air conditions you have pointed out, the uninformed see it as a change in the time base, related to relative velocities, which is ludicrous.
The same problem occurs with colour television reception. The frequency of the EM wave carrying the television signal can vary due to weather and air conditions. So, a 3.58 Mhz colour burst signal is sent with the transmitted signal and it is compared to a 3.58 Mhz oscillator in the receiver. If they don’t correspond, corrections are made to bring the received signal into sync. Otherwise, face colour hues would vary from purple to green.
No one can claim that is due to time dilation, it is an obvious physical change in the fields of the EM of the transmitted signal. However, a theoretician working with math could juggle equations to make it appear as if time intervals are changing.
Dumb example.
S = vt
Mathematician…
t = S/v
That suggests time can vary with distance and velocity, which also contains a time factor. There are certain mathematical manipulations that make no physical sense. In this case, it’s because t is strictly defined, based on a second that cannot vary.
binny…nowhere in your article do they prove time dilation exists. In fact, if they had even the slightest awareness, they would get it that the second we use as the basis of time is totally fixed and cannot vary.
So, how do you build a system of satellites with time bases that can vary? It’s obvious that relativity theory is wrong and the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, has already pointed out the problems. He doesn’t think atomic clocks are affected by time dilation and that’s good enough for me, in essence.
I don’t need Louis as an authority figure, however. All I have to do is consider the Cesium atom wherein our second is based on its natural vibrations. Does anyone seriously think that a satellite’s speed is going to affect the rate at which the Cesium atom vibrates? It’s rate of vibrates is strictly controlled by atomic forces that don’t give a hoot about velocity or time.
Gordon you are missing the point. The rate the cesium atom vibrates is not changing. It’s the fact that time can vary. It’s not intuitive but is has been shown to be true. It was even tested during the development of GPS. (see below)
craig…it’s not intuitive at all and I claim you cannot explain time in a rational, objective, scientific manner. Time does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
If you can explain what time is, not an idea about a concept, but actually explain it as a physical entity that can dilate, then please enlighten me.
Gordon,
Time also runs more slowly or faster depending on the gravitational force (or acceleration) to which the clock is subject.
So yes, the cesium atom will appear to vary its frequency, depending on the gravitational potential it is exposed to, as well as its relative velocity to another cesium atom.
Regardless of the reasons, time dilation is supported by the reality of rigorous experiments.
Unfortunately, the theoretical predictions are still a little different from experimental results. Maybe Einstein’s ideas are not the whole story, and there is more to be found.
In the meantime, time slowing down or speeding up depending on conditions certainly seems to be an experimentally verified “thing”.
How’s it going fellow skeptic?
My main argument to all of that is the fact that time is based on the rotation of the Earth, which is a relative constant.
Gravity is considered a weak force compared to the stronger forces that bind atoms together. Whereas a mass comprised of bazzillions of atoms is certainly affected by gravitational force, I don’t see how the internal atomic forces affecting atomic vibration would be affected by gravitational forces.
Of course, I’m not a nuclear physicist.
With regard to the proof of time dilation, from what I have seen, the proof is scant and suspect. As I claimed before, I suspect those trying to prove time dilation are mistaking the actions of other natural forces for time.
For example, if I write f = ma, am I correct in claiming a = f/m? What is the physical meaning of that? Acceleration has two meanings: one natural and the other contrived. Natural acceleration is what we would see, or experience, if we sat in a vehicle at rest and a force was applied that could cause the vehicle’s velocity to change. That acceleration has no known units.
However, humans invented a term to measure such acceleration and to accomplish that, they had to invent a means of measurement. So, they invented time. Otherwise, where would one find a phenomenon called time with which to measure the change in motion?
So, we humans invented a clock, which is a machine synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. We arbitrarily assigned the value of 24 hourly divisions to the rotation of the Earth and just as arbitrarily divided the hour into 60 minutes and 3600 seconds.
So, now we can measure acceleration by laying out a distance, another human invention, and measuring how long it takes an accelerating vehicle to cover certain distances. By such an observation, we can tell that the vehicle changes velocity as it accelerates. However, our units are fabricated not actual.
Why could they not do that before time was invented. If time has been there all along as some claim, where was it to use as a measuring tool? Why was there no natural second?
If you look at what Einstein did, he used kinematics as the basis of his proof for relative motion related to accelerations. He seems to have disregarded gravitational force and focused solely on the products of it and mass, namely acceleration.
That’s what kinematics is about. Essentially it’s the study of the product of force and mass acting on a particle or mass, with the presumption that whoever is applying the kinematics has a firm grasp of how forces and masses interact. Einstein took it one step further, he presumed time was as valid a parameter as force and mass. In fact, he invented a new physics in which velocity affects not only time, but the length of an object as well.
The only way Einstein’s time dilation can work is in the imaginary space-time universe he created.
Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock claimed Einstein was wrong. He claimed Einstein did not understand measurement and that his theories were not real theories but presumptions based on thought experiment. That may sound arrogant in itself but when you consider that Einstein defined time as the hands on a clock, I think he was in over his head. As Essen claimed, he did not seem to understand that time as a measurement is a human invention and has no physical reality, like a force and a mass.
Einstein had no business adding a multiplier to time based on the ratio of velocity to the speed of light. What he did was unscientific and he not only got away with it, he was worshiped for it.
To each his own, I suppose. I favour what works.
Anyway, a bit of light (a dreadful and slightly obscure pun, I know) relief about physical anti-dilation –
There was a young fellow named Fisk,
Who fenced – exceedingly brisk,
So fast was his action,
Fitzgerald contraction,
Reduced his rapier to a disk!
At least one author is somewhat dismissive of relativistic contraction –
” . . . Fitzgeralds, Lorentzs, and Einsteins ad hoc mathematical “theories of desperation” were never even necessary. They were all meaningless, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anything.”
Still no GHE, anyway!
swenson…could you add a first name so I can use it in a more friendly manner? For example, I call Swanson ‘Swannie’ but it’s hard to say Swennie. You call me Gordon and I feel badly being so formal with you. I quite enjoy your posts.
Or, maybe I can call you Swen? Oe Sven. The Svennie would make more sense.
You mentioned, Lorentz. He had a strong influence on Einstein and it was Lorentz who first proposed the notion that time could change. It appears that Albert picked up his theory and ran with it without examining what time means.
BTW…Albert also took E = mc^2 from another source and developed it. It seems scientists of the day may have been immersed in a certain kind of thought process related to the day.
When I criticize Albert, I do so carefully. I still admire the guy and what I object to is others butt-kissing him to the point where he has become a super-genius. I think Albert would have been the first to dismiss himself as such.
I think Lorentz was wrong to presume that time can change. Maybe there was a misunderstanding about time in his day and maybe time was defined based on the Earth’s rotation at a later date.
Found this brief blurb on time. The Wiki and NASA both speak about time as if it is understood to be an accepted phenomenon. It’s not.
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/ag-441/realisation-of-the-si-second/history-of-the-unit-of-time.html
“So, they invented time. ”
Much of your post is getting into the realm of metaphysics. Does time (or distance or mass) only exist when humans are there to observe it, or is it a universal property? Or maybe time only exist for Gordon when Gordon observes it. Is 1+1=2 a human invention? A human discovery? A fundamental, absolute truth? A useful approximation?
These metaphysical, philosophical questions are interesting in their own right, I suppose. But for most people (including engineers and scientists), it is easiest to just assume things like time and mas and distance just exist, and not worry about metaphysics.
“I dont see how … ”
“I suspect … ”
“I think …”
And so it goes. Time after time. Have you considered even once that there are people who understand things that you simply don’t fathom? That your imagination is not the limiting factor for understanding the universe?
If time is an invention, we would have invented it before we did.
As Craig T mentioned:
https://i.postimg.cc/L5s9jfvb/Screenshot-20220808-080612.png
Ignoramuses can tell and tell and tell – that won’t help.
They should better carefully read the document containing the picture.
“What predictions????”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
There’s no reason to propose tests to prove time dilation. It was done in the development of GPS. The Navigation Technology Satellite 2 (NTS-2) was launched in 1977 as a test for satellite navigation. Measurements showed that the cesium clock on the satellite ran 4.43 microseconds per day faster than ground clocks.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf figure 15 page 11
Your wiki reference is based on conjecture and nonsense.
The retrograde motion of Mercury does not require Einsteinian relativity. Anyone with a half a brain can see that we are viewing Mercury from a moving platform. With such a condition, Mercury and other planets will create an illusion of moving backwards, at times, wrt Earth. The claim that the retrograde motion was predicted by Einstein’s relativity was a fluke based on mathematicians working toward a known value and condition.
The bending of light by the Sun has nothing to do with space-time curvature. Light is an electromagnetic wave with an electric field and a magnetic field. The Sun is a strong source of electric and magnetic fields. They interact, a no brainer.
Time dilation is only pertinent to eggheads with theories. Time is a constant, as Newton claimed. It is derived from the rotational period of the Earth and a clock is nothing more than a machine synched to the Earth’s rate of rotation. Furthermore, time has no physical existence, it exists only as thoughts in the human brain.
The problem with thought experiments is they rely on the content of the human mind which is, as often or not, distorted. Einstein relied heavily on thought experiments and he got it wrong about time. Even someone regarded as great as Einstein is prone to error when their source is thought experiment.
I am beginning to challenge the greatest of Einstein. Besides the photo-electric effect, what else has he ever contributed to science? He produced E = mc^2 based on a mistaken notion that EM is converted to mass. That was an older idea at the time he proposed it and it obviously does not apply as written.
Mass is never converted to energy, only the energy binding atoms in mass can be released. In a similar manner, energy can never be converted to mass. There are theories in particle physics that a mass like an electron can be created from other sub-atomic particles. I think that’s sci-fi till someone demonstrates it physically.
When someone produces mass from empty space, as is suggested by the Big Bang, I might accept it, but I’d need to be sure there was no smoke and mirrors involved.
Odd you didn’t address my link to tests during the development of GPS that measured the time dilation.
The problem in explaining Mercury’s orbit has nothing to do with retrograde motion. Light can’t be bent by electric or magnetic fields. Time is as real as the three spatial dimensions. As we say in Texas, “bless your heart.”
Earlier, the idiotic bobdroege babbled –
“Second is to provide a valid scientific cite that proves the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.”
Unfortunately, neither bobdroege nor anybody else can actually describe “the greenhouse effect” in any useful way.
For example, where may this phenomenon be reliably observed, documented, and measured?
What aspects are novel, or inexplicable using current physics knowledge?
Has a testable hypothesis been advanced to explain the observed behaviour, and what experimental support is their for the hypothesis?
Of course, dimwits like bobdroege abhor the scientific method, and are reduced to obscenities and profanities when their cultist beliefs are challenged. No “greenhouse effect”. Just sunshine and an Earth which continues to cool, albeit in the one to four millionths of a Kevin per annum region.
No CO2 heating. Just lots of hot air from self appointed “climate scientists” and their mentally challenged acolytes.
Swenson,
I have already answered those questions, and you have even told me where the greenhouse effect can be observed.
So if you want a repeat, it’s 50 bucks per question.
Choose wisely knave.
Idiotic bobdroege,
No you haven’t, and no amount of appealing to your own authority is going to convince anybody with more brainpower than a retarded pet rock that you can actually define the mythical greenhouse effect.
There is no greenhouse effect, so no one other than someone even more stupid than yourself is likely to believe that I, of all people, have told an idiot like you where a non-existent effect might be found.
You are not terribly bright, are you?
You might as well resort to profanity, obscenity, and foul language, if you think that will impress other cultists. Are they all as stupid as you?
Swenson,
You didn’t pay the 50 bucks knave. Lead with the insults you know where that gets you.
I don’t have the patience to deal with more than one ignorant, trolling, internet bully, so have a nice life.
Idiotic bobdroege,
In what alternate universe do you imagine anybody would pay you anything at all for the contents of your fantasy?
Does your admitted lack of patience correlate to your demonstrated lack of knowledge of physics?
At least you seem to realise that vulgarity does not make you look particularly erudite.
Carry on dreaming.
Flynnson,
FYI, there are instruments which can measure down welling emissions from CO2 and other GHG’s, a.k.a. “back radiation”. That’s the GHE warming the surface.
ES,
Everything above absolute zero emits radiation. You may call it down welling emission, back radiation, or whatever you like, it makes no difference, and not much sense either.
Maybe you could actually describe where the greenhouse effect may be observed, measured and documented.
Maybe you could try and convince yourself that the temperature of an object is proportional to the concentration of CO2 etc. surrounding it. Or does CO2 have no predictable effect on an object’s temperature?
Maybe something else determines how hot an object is? Heat, for example?
No GHE. You can’t even describe it in any rational way. Sad.
Flynnson, Your claim that the instruments and their measurements don’t exist is obviously wrong. NASA, NOAA and other agencies have been collecting data for decades, both from the ground and from airborne and satellite platforms. You can continue to ignore these facts as you will, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no data. The problem is, the atmosphere can’t be simulated into a lab experiment so any lab experiment is not going to work very well. Putting all that data together in a rational way requires building models, which is the basis of the theoretical foundation of the GHE. Of course, as a denialist, you will simply say that the models aren’t perfect as an excuse to keep ignoring the scientific work that’s been done for decades.
Swanson, you keep making the same mistake over and over, again, repeatedly, incessantly never ending, and repetitively.
You BELIEVE back-radiation means warming of the surface. You don’t understand the relevant physics. That’s like saying you can boil water with ice cubes.
Graham also believes in backradiation, Pup.
You got some spanking to do.
So does Clint R. What we dispute is that it warms. You’ll get there, Willard.
You both believe that cold cannot warm hot, yet that “insulation”, in “quotes”, works.
Pure gold.
Of course insulation works. What’s wrong with you?
This has been explained to Brandon, several times. But, he can’t learn.
He’d rather be a braindead troll.
You don’t need to explain to me that insulation retards energy transfer, Clint. However, you can’t explain to me that the atmosphere is an insulator since it flies in the face of your orthodoxy.
Against all expectations, whoever-s/he-is has made some progress on that front, though s/he still struggles to acknowledge the role GHGs have in warming the insulator, thereby increasing its effectiveness.
Someday yet you both may come to your senses, but I won’t be holding my breath.
If Brandon now wants to leave the CO2 nonsense and realize that the non-radiative gases act to insulate Earth, I’ll certainly accept that.
Insulation is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. The heat transfer is from the hot object to the insulation. The object is warming the insulation.
You are not supposed to argue that backradiation keeps the Earth warm, Pup.
Our Sky Dragon cranks have no team spirit.
Willard easily gets lost in a simple discussion. Now he’s imagining Clint R is saying something that he isn’t.
Two huge mistakes from him, already. Will he be able to admit he was wrong?
> Insulation is NOT an example of cold warming hot.
Yet you get warmer still when you put on a cold insulator. Your objection is nothing more than silly pedantry and semantics.
> The object is warming the insulation.
No kidding, Clint. And outbound IR makes the lower part of the insulation warmer than it would be without the GHGs there, thus increasing its efficacy.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend.
As I indicated Brandon, I’m perfectly happy with you accepting that the atmosphere acts as insulation. That’s science.
But radiative gases emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing its efficacy. Emission back to the surface can’t warm something at 288K.
Just measured blue sky directly overhead, -27F. Ground temperature was 78F. Your cult believes the blue sky can heat the surface!
> radiative gases emit thermal energy to space
Yes, in the upper atmosphere, on average at about 7 km. This is no secret, and it is why the IPCC predicts lower stratospheric cooling as a result of increasing CO2 concentration.
Near the surface it’s a different story — some emitted photons are reabs*orbed within meters, depending on the frequency band. So net radiative transfer is effectively zero until convection has lifted an air parcel high enough to where it can effectively radiate to space.
Graham does not always accept that backradiation exists, but when he does he denies that the atmosphere radiating back to Earth keeps it warmer than it would be otherwise:
Perhaps Pup should start here:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/
No, Willard could not admit he was wrong. No surprises there.
Graham would NEVER admit an implicature, however trivial or obvious it may be.
He soldiers on.
Willard could not admit he was wrong. No surprises there.
Sorry for your loss, Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Little Willy could not admit he was wrong. No surprises there.
Graham likes to play these games where he can declare a mate in two without ever showing he knows how the pieces move.
But then what else does he have left?
You made two mistakes, Little Willy. One at 10:36 AM, and one at 2:05 PM. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong and move on?
See, Graham? You are breaking basic pragmatic again. To point out or refer does not amount as a demonstration.
You do the same thing with backradiation. Which is not very surprising, for all you got is some semantic quibble about the verb to warm.
And you are wrong anyway – when Pup suggests that non-radiative gases are responsible for the backradiation, he still is trying to explain backradiation.
Backradiation implies some amount of radiation that is radiated back to Earth. We have measured some instances of that phenomenon. You do not deny that.
Yet you refuse to take the next inferential step.
Why is that, and who do you think you are fooling with that trick?
Please stop trolling.
“Which is not very surprising, for all you got is some semantic quibble about the verb to warm.“
Your third mistake. It is not a “semantic quibble about the verb to warm”.
“…when Pup suggests that non-radiative gases are responsible for the backradiation, he still is trying to explain backradiation.”
Your fourth mistake. Clint R did not suggest that non-radiative gases are responsible for the back-radiation.
Four mistakes from Little Willy, now.
Please stop arguing by assertion, Graham:
[TEAM SCIENCE] The radiative gases keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
[SKY DRAGON CRANKS] No, that’s “insulation”. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.
[TEAM SCIENCE] The radiative gases also emit back to the surface, warming the planet.
[SKY DRAGON CRANKS] No, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That violates 2LoT.
***
To see how ridiculous is your actual stance, compare and contrast:
(Classic Moore Sentence) Water falls from the sky but I don’t believe it is raining.
(Sky Dragon Version) Back-radiation exists but it does not keep the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
You made four mistakes, Little Willy. You just don’t have the integrity to admit it.
See what I mean?
Yes, we all see that you made four mistakes, and do not have the integrity to admit it.
I just proved you wrong, Graham.
No you didn’t, Little Willy. Here are your four mistakes, again:
1) At 10:36 AM, you suggested there was disagreement between Clint R and myself on back-radiation. However, both Clint R and I agree that back-radiation exists, but does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures (whatever words you choose to use is irrelevant, it is not a semantic issue, more on that later).
2) At 2:05 PM, you suggested that Clint R was arguing that back-radiation keeps the Earth warm. Clint R was not arguing any such thing. In fact he was saying that the non-radiative gases insulate the planet.
3) At 7:22 PM, you suggested that all I had was some semantic quibble about the verb to warm. As explained in 1), the issue is not a semantic one.
4) At 7:22 PM, you suggested that Clint R had said the non-radiative gases are responsible for the back-radiation. He said no such thing.
Descriptions are not explanations, Graham.
Also, Pup did not say that backradiation did not warm, he said that it did not warm the surface.
You, otoh, clearly said that backradiation did not warm. Yet once you believe that backradiation exists, you need to accept that some warming is going on. The only alternative you got is to argue over what to warm really means.
Another way explanations matter more that description: backradiation is the explicandum, not the explanans. It is what needs to be explained. It could be used as a description of what is happening, hence why you can find it on so many didactic websites.
You do not deny that it is happening. You only deny what it implies almost by virtue of the concept of radiation.
Science is about understanding the world. Descriptions are good. Explanations are better.
“Also, Pup did not say that backradiation did not warm, he said that it did not warm the surface.”
…and I agree with that. You are tying yourself up in knots doing anything you can to avoid admitting to your four mistakes.
If some thing does not warm, Graham, it does not warm anywhere. If some thing does not warm at some place, it may warm at other place.
So beautiful. So lucid.
Clint R (and many, perhaps most skeptics of the GHE) say that back-radiation exists, but does not warm the surface. I am not aware of any that say the back-radiation instead warms somewhere else.
You made four mistakes, yet cannot admit to a single one of them, because you have no integrity, Little Willy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1346750
“Just measured blue sky directly overhead, -27F. Ground temperature was 78F. Your cult believes the blue sky can heat the surface!”
Interesting. I just measured the blue sky where I live, and it was +36 F. The humidity was extremely high, 90%. The air overhead was warmer and full with water vapor (a GHG) because the jet stream brought air north from down south.
And sure enough, the T at the surface was very warm, 97 F.
Why the difference at the surface, 97 F vs 78 F, Clint?
Clearly the air above was warm, but still cooler than the surface, and was not heating the surface.
But it was INSULATING it.
Nate says:
”Clearly the air above was warm, but still cooler than the surface, and was not heating the surface.
But it was INSULATING it.”
——————————–
Gee Nate are you backing off your claim here?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
There you were supporting the 3rd grader radiation model of backradiation heating the surface? You are all over the place like a soup sandwich. You need to organize your thoughts in a more disciplined manner.
E. Swanson says:
”Putting all that data together in a rational way requires building models, which is the basis of the theoretical foundation of the GHE. Of course, as a denialist, you will simply say that the models arent perfect as an excuse to keep ignoring the scientific work thats been done for decades.”
You have that upside down and backwards Swanson. The ‘GHE Theory’ is the theoretical foundation of the models!!!
Thats why they are such a failure!
Judith Curry keeps asking how long will we continue to ignore the data in favor of institutional establishment favored theories.
And right on cue, Bill trolls in with usual made-up nonsense, squirrels, confusions.
Clint still needs to explain these observations.
Nate says:
And right on cue, Bill trolls in with usual made-up nonsense, squirrels, confusions.
—————-
once again nate joins in with a generic insult while being incapable of specifying what he objects to and much less having demonstrating being able to formulate an argument for his position.
Warming the surface implies warming, Graham, but the converse is untrue.
The backradiation you acknowledge exists has been measured by ground stations:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
I made no mistake. You simply cannot work out implicatures properly.
You made four mistakes, and lack the integrity to admit it, Little Willy.
There was no mistake, Graham,
I am fine, thank you.
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
Only if mistake you are referring to valid inferences that you shy away from they destroy your incoherent stance, Graham.
Did you know that from your inconsistencies one could derive just about anything?
#2
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
You made two mistakes right there, Graham.
Also, Pup needs your help:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347065
#3
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
Repeating your two mistakes don’t make them true, Graham.
#4
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
The claim that back-radiation exists, but does not warm the surface is incoherent, Graham.
Please seek help.
#5
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
We know that backradiation exists because we measured how it warms the surface, Graham.
Please seek help.
#6
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347140
#7
Four Mistakes and No Integrity: A Little Willy Story
As Craig T mentioned:
https://i.postimg.cc/L5s9jfvb/Screenshot-20220808-080612.png
Ignoramuses can tell and tell and tell that wont help.
They should better carefully read the document containing the picture, instead of filling this blog with their egomaniac, anti-scientific nonsense all the time.
Europe, will you have enough energy for the cold autumn evenings?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png
I’m worried about the political-climate scam, because many people may be freezing in their homes this winter. Germany wanted to be an intermediary for the sale of Russian gas. They became 50 percent dependent on Russian gas. Now they are demanding gas savings. In Poland, coal mines were closed and better coal was imported from Russia and Kazakhstan. Now the government wants to subsidize citizens to buy coal. Many stand to lose from the scam, although some are getting rich.
The Arctic ice extent may have already reached a minimum this year.
https://i.ibb.co/ZKMqqmP/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Maybe, who knows.
But… look at 2020 in your chart, and then in mine
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Do you see what happened in 2020 by mid August?
Your graph shows anomalies, my actual extent.
Here’s a better comparison.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/ice_minmax_n.png
Anomalies wrt a mean are mostly a better way to inspect the data because you can observe with more precision what happens.
Here is a view for Jul-Sep on the extent’s absolute values:
https://tinyurl.com/pbmrsp7r
Which shows that this year is closer to the mean of 1980 to 2010 than the last 10 years or so are.
I don’t see an average for the last 10 years shown on Bindinon’s graph, but at https://nsid***cannotBeNamed***c.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
it shows 2022 day 219 arctic ice extent at 6.594 million square kilometers. That’s 1.23 million square kilometers below the 1980 – 2010 average and 0.44 million square kilometers above the 2011 – 2020 average.
Since Aug. 5, something has changed.
https://i.ibb.co/Fg75BDH/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Arctic extent on Aug 5 since 2010
2014 08 05 6.739
2013 08 05 6.644
2022 08 05 6.601
2010 08 05 6.449
2015 08 05 6.440
2011 08 05 6.298
2018 08 05 6.253
2016 08 05 6.203
2017 08 05 6.160
2021 08 05 6.070
2020 08 05 5.792
2012 08 05 5.768
2019 08 05 5.595
Which shows that this year is mostly closer to the mean of 1980 to 2010 than the last 10 years or so are.
Bindidon is well aware of what can be seen on its chart.
Aug 06, 2022 northern sea ice extent of 6.9 million km^2.
“Use the MASIE-NH Daily Image Viewer to see where Arctic sea ice is now and how that data compares to the last four years. The data shown below is obtained nightly and comes from the most recent full day of data from the US National Ice Center (NIC). As is the rule with operational centers, gaps in production can occur without warning.”
Testing.
I think not. The minimum is usually reached in mid-September.
https://nsid***c.org/arcticseaicenews/
Remove *** before linking.
Using tinyURL is easy:
https://tinyurl.com/2nufaa32
So typing nsid***c.org without the *** isn’t allowed here? But dropping an F bomb is easy enough, not to mention “I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time…” spam links?
If DREMT really had anything to do with the site he’d have some ‘splaining to do.
> If DREMT really had anything to do with the site hed have some splaining to do.
Whoever-s/he-is and his/er Dragon Crank compatriots are possibly already responsible for us not being able to spell out absor*ption without some obfuscation, Craig. Please don’t tempt fate … [g]
“Whoever-s/he-is”
It’s DREMT, Brandy Guts.
Graham, BG. Graham:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
DREMT.
No.
Well, Brandon doesn’t have to call me DREMT, but if he’s not going to then I’ll be calling him Brandy Guts from now on, Little Willy.
Promises, promises.
Yes.
Would you like me to recall a time you or your previous sock puppets mentioned the A word, Graham?
After all, you are responding to a comment whose point was to blame Sky Dragon cranks like you for it being blacklisted.
Who cares, Little Willy? Why are you so bothered by the existence of people who happen to disagree with you about a “theory” that you don’t even fully understand?
What disagreement, Graham?
You’re only here for the lulz.
All your opinions of me appear to be wrong. Oh well. You will not stop going on about it all day, so carry on.
Sure, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
Context, Little Willy. The whole “Emergency Moderation Team” thing is just a bit of fun. That doesn’t mean I’m not serious about what I post. How about you defend the fact that your life’s work, Climateball, is all about reducing debate down to the level of some pathetic game.
Games are the opposite of pathetic, Graham. For a guy who only relies on dictionaries, you should be more circumspect.
Besides, were you really committed to your position, you would have put it forward a looooooong time ago instead of playing the same charades over and over again.
Take your latest one about insulation. Do you really think you’ll be able to bait me into doing all your work for you? Real life does not work that way. Unless you’re a manipulator in real life too, of course. But then there’s more risk in doing so, and you don’t have the charisma.
Arguing ought to be simple. You state a claim. You support it. You try to sound authentic, to say stuff that matters, and to remain consistent. In a nutshell:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
Don’t only rely on dictionaries, not playing charades, not trying to bait you into doing anything for me, not a manipulator on here or in real life, have charisma, and I already do all the things you mention at the end. Everything you said was wrong, basically.
Lots of negative claims do not result into a positive one, Graham.
To make a positive and valid claim, you need something that could be verified.
OK, Little Willy.
Did you notice that your list of denials does not include your silly little game about insulation, Graham?
Funny little detail.
OK Little Willy, I’m not playing a game about insulation, either.
Of course you don’t, Graham:
[BG] You both believe that cold cannot warm hot, yet that “insulation”, in “quotes”, works. Pure gold.
[GW] Of course insulation works. What’s wrong with you?
So much FAIL.
“The whole ‘Emergency Moderation Team’ thing is just a bit of fun.”
A bit of fun is a clever or sarcastic response.
This was perhaps that for the first couple of times. Now, after 10,000 identical posts, it is not that anymore.
No game, Little Willy. Brandy Guts is the one playing games in that exchange.
OK, Graham. OK.
Yes I’m fine, thank you.
I thought you said there was nobody here under that name, Graham.
There is nobody posting here under the name "Graham". Go and check. Nevertheless it’s obvious you are referring to me, since you keep referring to me by that name, and you rarely talk to anyone else due to your passionate, desperate obsession with me.
Thank you for showing why your automatic responses failed the I in FAIL, Graham.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
How long will you continue to hold that backradiation exists but cannot warm, BTW?
Here are some radiation basics:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/08/radiation-basics-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
"…Graham."
There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.
[GRAHAM] There is nobody here posting under that name.
[ALSO GRAHAM] it’s obvious you are referring to me
Pup needs your help:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347065
Yes, that’s right, Little Willy. It is obvious you are referring to me, yet I’m going to keep saying that there is nobody here posting under the name "Graham", so please try again. The reason for that, as I already explained to you, is that the etiquette dictates you should be referring to me by my screen name, or DREMT for short. If you cannot do that, you either get the automatic message, or you get referred to as Little Willy. When you can finally refer to me as DREMT, you will no longer be referred to as Little Willy.
> I’m going to keep saying that there is nobody here posting under the name “Graham”
I know you will, Graham. We all know you *do* like to keep repeating your irrelevant comments over and over again.
But you’re not playing any game. Nuh-uh.
Not irrelevant, Little Willy. It’s a reminder that you should be referring to me as DREMT, as I literally just explained, and you deliberately ignored.
It is indeed irrelevant, Graham. Everybody knows that you’re trolling under a sock puppet. You used to be GW, then Eli’s surrogate, probly others too. At Tony’s and Judy’s you were Rajinderweb.
You are not Roy’s hall monitor. So it’s either GW or Graham.
Everybody knows that you don’t know what a sock puppet is.
Everybody who knows Internet vernacular knows that you’re clinging to an usage that does not apply here, Graham.
You don’t know what a sock puppet is, Little Willy.
Craig T
This ‘drama’ stems from an overly opinionated commentator named “Do*ug’ Cot*ton” endlessly hounding Roy Spencer to the point of banning him.
‘D C’ without a character between them were forbidden too, and it seems that the blog’s antediluvian scanner will continue forbidding them ad nauseam, just like ‘absorp tion’ and a few other victims.
Thanks for reminding me of those days, Binny. I mostly hung out at WUWT back then (or was it Judy’s) but did check in on doings here now and again.
Grand solar minimum chart updated
https://i.postimg.cc/022yHdkH/Clipboard01.jpg
And here we have an interesting fact, because SSNs in the northern and southern hemispheres go in synchrony, unlike in the previous cycle.
https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
The extent of ice in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea is increasing again.
https://i.ibb.co/W3VN6fP/masie-all-r01-4km.png
The fastest growing ice extent now is in the Laptev Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/pQP0rR4/r04-Laptev-Sea-ts-4km.png
Grrrand Coooling Aheaddd
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
After a long slumber, the Antarctic sea ice seems to have awakened again.
Which was to be expected.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2022.png
It will be even better. The Western Pacific has already returned the heat to space.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2022.png
What are the temperature anomalies in the Southern Hemisphere relative to the 1979-2000 base?
https://i.ibb.co/FxvqSJx/gfs-nh-sat6-t2anom-1-day.png
A stable polar vortex in the lower stratosphere to the south.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/08/08/2300Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-336.68,-87.38,281
Your La Nina gone by April forecast got updated
https://i.postimg.cc/DZvB5MN1/mei-lifecycle-current.png
I know that already, babbling Edog.
But… what needed no update at all is the level of your stoopidity.
After Bindidong predicted La Nina gone by April , April is long gone and the La Nina dipped to the lowest point since it started, Bindidongs best Mega epic forecasting failure Yet.
Again you confirm: what needed no update at all is the level of your stoopidity.
Blinny just doubles down on the fact that his prediction was wrong.
Bindimoron is reduced to just name calling people stupid
Meiv2 from 1979
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Strange how El Nino of 1983 was bigger than the one for 1998 and both were bigger than 2016 isn’t it, according to Mei that is?
Is it so hard to accept that different groups come up with slightly different results from different methods and data, instead of implying that something is wrong? 1982/3 was a super el Nino, as was 1998 and 2016, and different groups have variations in the values given for them. That shouldn’t worry anyone.
Complicating 1982/3 was the volcanic eruption that dampened global temperatures. Of all the super el Ninos, this one is the most problematic to isolate.
MEI use 5 physical components for their analysis, instead of the usual one to three components typically dominated by equatorial Pacific SSTs.
Barry: Do you agree that meiv2 shows that, since 1979, the EL Nino peaks have been getting smaller and smaller with their 5 physical components instead of 2 or 3 analysis?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Yep.
Is it so hard to just accept that different groups come up with slightly different results from different methods and data, instead of implying that something is wrong? 1982/3 was a super el Nino, as was 1998 and 2016, and different groups have variations in the values given for them. That shouldn’t worry anyone.
Barry: Slightly won’t cut it. These are radically different answers from the same (or similar data)? One showing a rise, the other a fall.
Which should we accept as being closer to the ‘truth’, Meiv2 or ONI?
Neither.
Unless you’re autistic there is no compelling need to select a preference.
Even if it were possible to reduce the uncertainties in these estimates so expertly that doubt is removed, neither you nor I have the education, insight and experience with the subject matter to do so. Not even close.
I can live with not aligning with any of the numerous ENSO data sets.
Tell me, why can’t you do that?
Now Roy has updated the full dataset for this month
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-nh.jpeg
Northern Extropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-noext.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-nopol.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-sh.jpeg
Southern Extropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-soext-1.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-sopol.jpeg
Long term
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-long-term.jpeg
Residuals
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-residuals.jpeg
Month on month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah_lt.jpg
MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah_mt.jpg
TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah_tp.jpg
LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah_ls.jpg
And still the same, dumb, alleged ‘projection’s, which of course are, as we all know, no projections at all.
They are simply continuations of what a CTRM, like all running means, can’t show: namely its end window.
And yet the trickster Linsley Hood avoids showing us what the left part of the S-G output (before the CTRM) looks like, since CTRM can’t show its left window either.
Shall we start to suspect that the trickster NEEDS to hide it?
C’mon, trickster! Show us the entire S-G output, from begin to end.
We all want to see it!
Why? The S-G I use only for projections (not predictions) as I have said many times before. We shall have to see if the CTRMs actually follow that path in the future. Are you saying they won’t?
P.S. If you want a full S-G, try the LT graph (or is that too much trouble for you?).
Again you keep dodging, Linsley Hood.
Show us your low pass plot together with the full S-G plot
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-global.jpeg
Again, why. I only use S-G to show a projection for how the future might play out.
You said I didn’t use a full S-G on any of my plots. You were wrong. Get over it.
Here is MEIS’s current data, showing a further moving down of La Nina:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
*
1. This chart below tells us a tiny bit more than Linsley Hood’s school boy charts with their strange anonymous dots:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view
We might suspect Linsley Hood that he intentionally hides the lines linking the dots in order to let inexperienced readers gullibly believe that his low pass plots are the only way to understand what is behind the dots, n’est-ce pas, Trickstie?
*
2. Superposition of all double or triple La Nina events since 1871
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
This is really the La Nina event with the strongest negative slope ‘since evah’.
I’m afraid we’ll have to pay that with a corresponding El Nino in three years the latest.
*
By the way: don’t get kidded by the trickster’s claim that a single Savitzky-Golay filter output ‘shows way too much leakage’ or the like.
Simply ignore that. Climate time series aren’t heart beat records!
strange anonymous dots
As no-one actually knows what the values are between the dots, any line drawn is down to the imagination of those plotting the actual data. Of course it might be a straight line, but it is almost certain it isnt. Dont let Blinny confuse you on that. My old stats prof would be very offended as it was he who first pointed that out to me.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
is the data I actually plot, see the label for data source in the below
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
is what the data actually shows.
You might observe also that the Mei is trending downwards since 1979, but I refuse to put an OLS on that. I leave that to those who believe in such things.
“Climate time series aren’t heart beat records”
Time series are time series. You can use the same plots/statistics on them whatever their original source.
” You can use the same plots/statistics on them whatever their original source. ”
Completely dumb trash. Ignored.
Blinny thinks that ‘special’ plots and statistics are needed for climate. How droll.
“I’m afraid we’ll have to pay that with a corresponding El Nino in three years the latest”
I’ll put that down as one of Blinny’s predictions. But he got the last one SO right didn’t he? /sarc
Here we see the real idiot, who can’t stop his ridiculous polemic.
I never predicted anything, as you perfectly know.
I trusted a wrong prediction, what is a fundamentally different thing – except for stubborn, opinionated polemicists like you, Linsley Hood.
*
And only idiots permanently stalk others by insinuating what they never said:
” P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2 is NOT trending downwards since 1979? ”
How can you write such stupid insinuations all the time, like a 15 year old college boy?
Were you not born in 1948, Linsley Hood?
If well: your behavior on this blog doesn’t confirm it.
I take it from that polemic that you DO agree that since 1979 Mei HAS been trending downwards and that the peak EL Nino have been getting smaller and smaller since then as Meiv2 shows.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
“strange anonymous dots”
As no-one actually knows what the values are between the dots, any line drawn is down to the imagination of those plotting the actual data. Of course it might be a straight line, but it is almost certain it isn’t. Don’t let Blinny confuse you on that. My old stats prof would be very offended as it was he who first pointed that out to me.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
is the data I actually plot, see the label for data source in the below
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
is what the data actually shows.
You might observe also that the Mei is trending downwards since 1979, but I refuse to put an OLS on that. I leave that to those who believe in such things.
” As no-one actually knows what the values are between the dots, any line drawn is down to the imagination of those plotting the actual data. ”
What a dumb trial to hide what you in fact really do, Linsley Hood.
Why don’t you simply have enough courage to admit the real reason for your childish dot plots?
*
And what concerns
” … but I refuse to put an OLS on that. I leave that to those who believe in such things. ”
anyone who observes your permanent OLS discredit never forgets how much you credit them when it comes to look e.g. at UAH’s downtrend since 2016:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
*
I know, Linsley Hood: you think that we are all idiots here, and that you are the only one who is educated and knowledgeable.
“What a dumb trial to hide what you in fact really do”
I just plot what the data actually shows, not make up things in between that might or might not be the real data.
“Why don’t you simply have enough courage to admit the real reason for your childish dot plots?”
Because it was what my prof actually said and I cannot find any reason to doubt him. Can you?
“your permanent OLS discredit”
You do realize that it you continue the S-G to a long enough window (to infinity or at least the width of the data) you end up with an OLS don’t you? I don’t deal in infinities in practical science as they have no real meaning other than to propose a limit.
Large physical systems typically have low frequency resonances in them. That is what my plots attempt to show.
P.S. You are an idiot, as everybody on here knows.
P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2 is NOT trending downwards since 1979?
rlh…”I just plot what the data actually shows, not make up things in between that might or might not be the real data”.
***
Without the unknown in-betweens, Binny has no case. He has produced graphs in the past, comparing UAH to NOAA and GISS and shown a favourable comparison.
Binny refuses to let fact interfere with his fiction.
” He has produced graphs in the past, comparing UAH to NOAA … ”
Whether you like it or not, Robertson:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view
This graph was correct and still is. You never understood them, and you are not about to do.
Whether or not such comparisons are ‘favourable’ does not interest me.
Data is data.
And what everybody can see (except you of course) is that NOAA’s trend for CONUS’ surfaces during the sat era is way higher than UAH’s – no surprise!
“Data is data”
Indeed the data points we actually have are the data. The spaces in between are unknowns. i.e. ‘not the data’.
Despite his you want to use straight lines to plot this ‘not the data’ as though it was really there.
Just because ‘everybody does it’ does not make it correct.
….Despite this….
“no surprise”
What is surprising is that you do not consider the boundary layer of the atmosphere and what effects it has.
tim…”Does time (or distance or mass) only exist when humans are there to observe it…”
***
The point is, Tim, we can observe mass or a force in action. We can even observe a distance without it having a measure. We just can’t observe time other than observing internally as in thinking to oneself.
Time exists only as an illusion in the human mind. The human mind has created a past and a future but neither can exist mentally when that person is focused in the here and now.
Please…try going into this, it’s totally obvious. You cannot see it because you refuse to look.
Try it. Focus your mind in the here and now, even for a few seconds, and see if past and future exist during that moment of awareness. Your mind will naturally drift back into thought-mode, where thought is the basis of future and past. Therefore time is thought, and thought is time.
A major problem with we humans is living in a here and now world and trying to make our minds, with their futures and pasts, fit into that here and now. Conflicts arise and those conflicts are the basis of anxiety and neurotic thinking.
In psychology, neurotic thinking is the basis of much of the therapy. It’s mainly about people getting caught between memories stored as the past and trying to reconcile them with the actuality of the here and now.
Gordon, There is lots of metaphysical, philosophical discussion that is possible. We could discuss whether time in “real” or an “illusion” or an “invention”.
But that is not really the point. The actual point here is that in order to understand anything about how the universe operates, you need a concept of time — a concept of past and present and future and change. This transcends how individual humans experience. This transcends the rotation of one particular rock rotating around one particular star.
The point is that some processes happen at very predictable rates, allowing us to measure and record time. For much of history, the most constant, predictable motion was the earth. But then we made accurate clocks to show that the sun gets off from “high noon” by several minutes either way during the year (cf the analemma). Then clocks that showed the earth could vary in smaller ways (cf leap seconds).
And when you measure accurately, you do indeed see that time “slows down” in various circumstances (eg fast motion or strong gravity). This is the only consistent way to explain anything from particles in giant accelerator to the precession of Mercury’s perihelion to GPS signals. You NEED to ‘correct’ for time dilation to get correct answers for any of these and more.
tim…”There is lots of metaphysical, philosophical discussion that is possible. We could discuss whether time in real or an illusion or an invention.
But that is not really the point. The actual point here is that in order to understand anything about how the universe operates, you need a concept of time…”
***
Nothing metaphysical about it, there is no such thing as a physical phenomenon called time. I have nothing against time as a concept, I use it all the time (no pun intended). Time as a measuring device is required in our world, but it doesn’t exist.
This is not a notion peculiar to me, Planck talked about it in his book on heat. He mentioned in one chapter that we humans had invented basic measures like time, temperature, and density based on natural phenomena like the rotation of the Earth, the boiling point and freezing point of water, and the relative density of masses wrt that of water.
In a discussion between physicist David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti on time, at one point Bohm stated that most human don’t realize humans invented time.
You can easily turn a discussion on time into a discussion on metaphysics, or philosophy, but if you want to discuss it scientifically you cannot be vague as to what it is. There is simply no way to define it or observe it as a phenomenon.
************************
“And when you measure accurately, you do indeed see that time slows down in various circumstances ….”
***
What is slowing down? What is the entity or phenomenon that is slowing down? And how would you measure it?
I would think you’d need a clock of some kind but any clocks we have are synchronized to the rotation of the Earth which is essentially a regular, constant action. Also, if you measure something with a clock you are usually measuring something real, like the distance a real mass covers during a time interval based on the clock. So, you are measuring the property of a real object, not time.
Clocks don’t measure time, they generate time.
Einstein did not measure a change in time intervals, he hypothesized them using thought experiments. In fact, he arbitrarily introduced a multiplier based on a ratio between the velocity of a mass and the speed of light, to cause time to dilate. Not only that, it caused a distance, like a measuring stick, to change as well.
That’s why Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, objected to his theories.
Albert actually condoned the Twin Paradox. In that paradox (Chico Marx wondered, “why a pair o’ ducks why not a pair o’ chickens, or geese”?), one of a pair of twins leaves Earth on a spacecraft traveling at the speed of light. When he returns, he finds his brother has aged but he has not.
This alone illustrates that Einstein did not understand time. Humans age through biological changes in cells, not according to a clock. The clock is incidental. Without a clock, or reference to time, humans will age anyway. Therefore the twin in the spacecraft will age as well. Traveling at the speed of light is not a panacea for aging.
I don’t know why you so readily accept this nonsense? Is it simply because Einstein said so? Newton said things as well, like f = ma, and I have tested that in a physics lab and verified it. Newton also claimed time is absolute and I agree with Newton. I am sure he’ll be pleased to hear that.
Isaac will wonder who is the Scottish person who agrees with him?
“Time as a measuring device is required in our world, but it doesnt exist.
This is not a notion peculiar to me, Planck talked about it in his book on heat. He mentioned in one chapter that we humans had invented basic measures like time, temperature, and density based on natural phenomena like the rotation of the Earth, the boiling point and freezing point of water, and the relative density of masses wrt that of water.”
Humans invent units of measurement but the phenomena exist independent. The SI definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium 133 atom inside an atomic clock. If the atomic clock is working correctly this is accurate within one second every 20 million years.
Crystal oscillators are not as accurate but still provide a measurement of time. Some atomic and subatomic particles decay at a predictable half life. Under similar conditions bacteria divide at the same rate.
In short the passage of time is observable and can be measured.
Sorry about the double post. The server was hit and miss for awhile.
“Humans age through biological changes in cells, not according to a clock. ”
Everything moves forward in time. Whether your clock is a swinging pendulum or a vibrating quartz crystal or a burning candle or an aging cell, they all move forward through time at a rate of 1 second per second (relative to their own frame of reference).
“Therefore the twin in the spacecraft will age as well.”
Yes, they both age at one second per second in their own frame. But the clocks and cells ‘tick’ at different rates during different parts of their trip. Just like atomic clocks orbiting different directions around the earth ‘tick’ at different rates (as shown by actual experiments!). And one brother really will have aged less.
“Time as a measuring device is required in our world, but it doesnt exist.
This is not a notion peculiar to me, Planck talked about it in his book on heat. He mentioned in one chapter that we humans had invented basic measures like time, temperature, and density based on natural phenomena like the rotation of the Earth, the boiling point and freezing point of water, and the relative density of masses wrt that of water.”
Humans invent units of measurement but the phenomena exist independent. The SI definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium 133 atom inside an atomic clock. If the atomic clock is working correctly this is accurate within one second every 20 million years.
Crystal oscillators are not as accurate but still provide a measurement of time. Some atomic and subatomic particles decay at a predictable half life. Under similar conditions bacteria divide at the same rate.
In short the passage of time is observable and can be measured.
craig t …”In short the passage of time is observable and can be measured”.
***
In the human mind only. Time has become part of the human consciousness since we have a memory that can store events. Outside the human mind, there is no such thing as time. If you think so, please prove it, or at least demonstrate it.
“there is no such thing as a physical phenomenon called time. ”
You just as well argue there is no physical phenomenon called “energy” or “velocity”. If you start down that rabbit hole, I suspect you will never come out.
“Clocks dont measure time, they generate time.”
1) If time is not ‘real’, what would clocks be ‘generating’?
2) If people didn’t build clocks, there would be no time??
“In fact, he arbitrarily introduced a multiplier …”
No, he built a self-consistent theory. No arbitrary multiplier.
“Thats why Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, objected to his theories.”
First, I can find no credible confirmation for this. And even if true, this is simply an appeal to authority.
> Clocks don’t measure time, they generate time.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-defense-of-the-reality-of-time-20170516/
Denying AGW is one thing without any substantial argument is one thing, to deny the reality of time is quite another.
Gordon is wrong. Clocks measure time INTERVALS, not time itself.
No idea what time itself is, but I’m quite sure time existed before we could measure it.
Time intervals are purely a human invention.
#SkyNews #Ukraine #Russia
Ukraine War: Former President of Ukraine warns of Zaporizhzhia ‘catastrophe’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M1OCLjKAdU
Will Europa finally answer, Are we alone?
https://www.universetoday.com/157060/will-europa-finally-answer-are-we-alone/
“Scientists hypothesize that Europas icy outer shell is 15 to 25 kilometers (10 to 15 miles) thick that floats on an ocean 60 to 150 kilometers (40 to 100 miles) deep. While there is strong evidence that Saturns moon, Enceladus, also has a interior ocean, Europas ocean is believed to potentially house double the amount of water as all of Earths oceans combined, despite Europa being only a quarter of Earths diameter.”
So, guessing it’s sea ice is 15 to 26 km thick.
Now it would matter is the ocean was fresh water or like our sea water or if it was salty than our sea water.
I would tend to think it was freshwater. But it might froze to a thickness that would make it salter water.
Or it seems to me the ice would be fresher water than water beneath it.
But anyhow, if we assume the liquid ocean is close to freshwater, would a warmer surface ocean require the thickest [25 km] or thinner [15 Km] estimate of the thickness of sea ice.
Or if actually measured the thickness of sea ice, does it tell you what temperature the liquid ocean is?
I like Larry Niven’s ‘Known Space’.
Ceres gets hollowed out and used as a base for mining the asteroid belt.
Otherwise there is no point in going to any planet in the solar system except to gather scientific data.
Europa is just another gravity hole.
Well despite the Dawn spacecraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(spacecraft)
and various flybies of Europa, both are not explored, much.
I think both Ceres and Europa could be places to get a lot
water for Venus L-1 and L-2 orbits {high Venus orbits].
From any planets L-1/2 would getting energy from Gravity holes.
This is due to what is called the Oberth effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
“In astronautics, a powered flyby, or Oberth maneuver, is a maneuver in which a spacecraft falls into a gravitational well and then uses its engines to further accelerate as it is falling, thereby achieving additional speed.”
This is particularly the case if using high thrust rocket engines, such as any chemical rocket engine. An Ion engine would example of
a low thrust rocket engine {but it’s very efficient rocket engine.
In sci fiction, SS Enterpise used a very powerful [and efficient] rocket engine for non warp travel. But energy Enterprise had available was huge- like equal all power generated on Earth or maybe 10 times more. But though a “normal” ion Engine can’t capture much energy from Oberth maneuver, spacecraft with Ion engines parking in high earth orbit, don’t pay to cost, of climbing out of gravity hole.
Or at L-1 a ion engine doesn’t pay cost from being near or more in a gravity hole, such as being in low planet orbit. Though a low orbit
of our moon likewise has little cost for ion powered spacecraft. Nor would they be much cost for being in Geostationary orbit of Earth, though somehow arriving to GEO could be time consuming or use a fair amount of energy. Or L-1 is cheap to get to and cheap to leave with Ion engines or any kind rocket engine.
Anyhow not a big fan of nuclear rockets and I think chemical rockets work fine. Though if going to Europa or Ceres, nuclear rockets become dramatically more appealing. But something like Nuclear Orions could be better than what generally considered nuclear rockets. And if want to move a space rocks, the Nuclear Orion nuclear bombs for propulsion is the way to move rocks. So space rock miners probably want to use
Nuclear Orions spacecraft and use their “fuel” to move and/or part of mining space rocks.
Anyhow we don’t have nuclear rockets of any kind, but we have used nuclear reactors and has developing better ones [which could be used in Mars].
If going far from sun, using nuclear reactors makes a lot sense, and if not using nuclear rockets, which easier going to Europa or Ceres?
Well, surface Europa is hellish in terms radiation and quickly getting below surface is generally a good plan.
So, now wondering if Dawn brought any radiation detectors. Hmm:
“Here, we describe the overall design of the GR/NS and compare the expected performance of the neutron spectrometer subsystem to the
neutron spectrometer on Mars Odyssey. We also describe radiation damage studies carried out on CdZnTe detectors, which will
be components of the primary gamma-ray spectrometer on Dawn.”
file:///home/geoffrey/Downloads/article.pdf
Anyhow, read it later. I do recall various problems which could been related to GCR radiation.
Anyways fair to say problems of GRC with mars mission would much more problem going to Ceres, but around same just getting to Jupiter distance, which New Horizon did in 1 year and 1 month.
Both Jupiter and Ceres is significant faster from Venus, rather than from Earth [or even slower from Mars]. And more than 1 year in microgravity is also health problem.
Surprise, surprise: Subsurface water on Mars defy expectations
by Staff Writers
San Diego CA (SPX) Aug 11, 2022
https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Surprise_surprise_Subsurface_water_on_Mars_defy_expectations_999.html
“The first surprise: the top 300 meters of the subsurface beneath the landing site near the Martian equator contains little or no ice.”
[4.502N, 135.623E}
–“As scientists, we’re now confronted with the best data, the best observations. And our models predicted that there should still be frozen ground at that latitude with aquifers underneath,” said Manga, professor and chair of Earth and planetary science at UC Berkeley.–
Huh. I don’t know jack about this best data or model. But I thought is would nice to have lakes near the equator of Mars. And anything deeper than 300 meter doesn’t seem mineable.
But I was under impression there landform which looked ancient glaciers and there were once at the poles [not too long ago] and would thought such things could be explored, but anyhow need more information about this best data. Anyhow:
–“All my life growing up, I’ve heard the Earth may become uninhabitable,” said study co-author Jhardel Dasent, another graduate student in the lab Wright leads. “I’m at the age now where I can contribute to producing the knowledge of another planet that may get us there.”– Oh, dear.
And:
— Many planetary scientists, including Manga, have long suspected that the Martian subsurface would be full of ice. Their suspicions have melted away. Still, big ice sheets and frozen ground ice remain at the Martian poles.–
Well near poles is also nice, but kind of wanted lakes near equator.
Several days ago I was trying to explain something to Brandon. I was explaining that 100 15μ photons can’t increase the frequency higher than one 15μ photon. That means more photons of the same frequency can’t raise the temperature. It takes HIGHER frequency photons.
Brandon threw out a “red herring”, because he knew he was trapped by reality: “But any kid outside on sunny day with a magnifying glass can tell you what increasing the number of photons per unit area will do to a pile of dry leaves.”
I then asked Brandon if he knew why his “magnifying glass” was a red herring. Of course, he dodged the question.
So another question for cult idiots: Why is a magnifying glass a red herring when discussing adding 15μ photons?
(Skeptics, please refrain from answering the question. This is another example of how little the cult understands about the science.)
Clint R
That is some baffling BS that makes no sense. What is the frequency of a hot surface? How do you come up with this crap? All the time all your posts. One can only wonder why you think you need to post when you have no knowledge of physics!
> Why is a magnifying glass a red herring when discussing adding 15μ photons?
Follow up question: why are you still beating your wife.
> Why is a magnifying glass a red herring when discussing adding 15μ photons?
Follow up question: why is Clint begging the question.
Clint R,
How come 10 micron photons can melt steel?
Here’s a thought experiment: Clint holds his hand under a 10.6 micron CO2 laser. How many photons will his hand absorb before he admits the photons are burning his skin?
Clint is clearly a vampire … just one 5,778 K photon would incinerate him!
What is
Because you can’t add fluxes?
“So another question for cult idiots: Why is a magnifying glass a red herring when discussing adding 15 micron photons?”
Again Clint, if you’re going to call something a red herring you are responsible to explain why. The only problem I see is that you don’t like the results.
But here is something else you might consider a red herring. If so explain why:
A gas molecule absorbs a 15 micron photon. Before it emits a photon the energy is lost to a collision with another gas molecule. Is the combined kinetic energy of the two molecules higher than when the first molecule absorbed the photon?
craig…”A gas molecule absorbs a 15 micron photon. Before it emits a photon the energy is lost to a collision with another gas molecule. Is the combined kinetic energy of the two molecules higher than when the first molecule absorbed the photon?”
***
Why are you asking hypothetical questions for which there are no answers? Has anyone ever seen or measured the effect of an electron in a gas molecule absorbing a photon? And why should a collision between valence electrons in the atoms making up two gas molecules affect an electron in another energy level absorbing a photon?
Suppose a CO2 molecule collides with a nitrogen molecule. There are 3 atoms in the CO2 molecules with many electrons surrounding them. There are two nitrogen atoms in the N2 molecule with many electrons surrounding them.
How does this collision take place? The nucleii are surround by negative charges from the electrons and electrons repel each other. Will the molecules ever touch or will they be repelled at close range? If they collide, what does that mean? How is KE exchanged?
“Has anyone ever seen or measured the effect of an electron in a gas molecule absorbing a photon?”
IR light has too little energy per photon to move an electron to a higher energy level in an atom. It is absorbed by bonds within or between molecules. That has been measured.
“Several days ago I was trying to explain something to Brandon. I was explaining that 100 15μ photons cant increase the frequency higher than one 15μ photon. That means more photons of the same frequency cant raise the temperature. It takes HIGHER frequency photons.”
Sorry, but you are exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding. Molecules gain vibrational energy by increasing AMPLITUDE, not FREQUENCY.
A ground state CO2 molecule does not vibrate.
If it absorbs a 15 um photon, it starts to vibrate.
If it absorbs a 2nd 15 um photon, it vibrates with 2x the energy — more amplitude, not higher frequency.
If it absorbs a 3rd 15 um photon, it vibrates with 3x the energy.
This is what happens when the molecule gets hotter.
This should be intuitive to anyone who has worked with a mass on a spring (or a pendulum). A mass on a spring with more energy simply moves with greater amplitude, but the frequency is fixed at omega = (k/m)^0.5.
So Clint, you got it exactly backwards! 100 15 um photons CAN raise the energy of the molecule (ie make it hotter) by being absorbed in succession and successively raising the amplitude. But photons of other wavelengths simply pass through and don’t get absorbed at all!
Folkerts, you quoted me correctly. Thanks.
But then you apparently confused “photons” with “moiecules”, and then it was “off to the races” as you wrote another rambling, off-topic dissertation.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It’s so much fun Clint because you are unhindered by facts.
False accusations just make you a troll, Craig T.
Maybe that’s all you can handle….
I take it you’re suggesting I shouldn’t troll a troll. As Mark Twain said, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Yup, that’s all you can handle.
And now that I know you’re a troll, you will be here all day trying for the last word. You can have it. I no longer babysit trolls.
No, there is no confusion (other than on your part). Any decent 1st year physics undergrad knows oscillators gain energy by changing amplitude, not frequency. Any decent 1st year grad student know the same applies to quantum oscillators.
A more energetic CO2 molecule needs MORE photons at the right energy, not 1 photon at a higher, wrong energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
“Any decent 1st year physics undergrad knows oscillators gain energy by changing amplitude, not frequency”
Except for FM transmitters/receivers.
RLH, nope. No exception there!
FM transmitters use frequency to ENCODE the signal. But POWER is still related to AMPLITUDE. Whether a commercial station is transmitting kilowatts or a person station is transmitting microwatts, the difference is in the AMPLITUDE, not the FREQUENCY.
Folkerts, you’re STILL confusing molecules with photons. A photon only has ONE “amplitude”. And that amplitude is associated with its wavelength/frequency.
Did you ever find a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K?
Quit perverting physics!
‘
An FM transmitter moves energy between the various frequencies from high to low. You call that encoding. An individual oscillator/receiver will get more or less energy from the system as the modulated signal moves past it.
“Folkerts, you’re STILL confusing molecules with photons. A photon only has ONE ‘amplitude’. And that amplitude is associated with its wavelength/frequency.”
No, you are still confusing molecules and photons. I agree that all 15 um photons are identical in wavelength, frequency, energy, and amplitude. So this is simply a strawman.
The issue was “That means more photons of the same frequency cant raise the temperature. It takes HIGHER frequency photons.” The energy (ie temperature) of molecules is increased by absorbing energy. Energy is absorbed by absorbing photons of the appropriate energy. One photon of the appropriate energy gives the molecule one quantum of energy = h(omega). A second photon OF THE SAME FREQUENCY gives the molecule more energy. A third photon OF THE SAME FREQUENCY gives the molecule yet more more energy.
Now you’re using your worn-out deception that all photons are absorbed. You still haven’t moved past that nonsense. That’s what got you in trouble before, leading to ice cubes can boil water.
Did you ever find a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K?
Until you can produce that, or admit you were wrong, there’s no need to try to explain things to you.
tim…”Any decent 1st year physics undergrad knows oscillators gain energy by changing amplitude…”
***
Not really, Tim. An oscillator is based on positive feedback, which requires an amplifier. You can increase the energy in an oscillator by increasing the gain of the amplifier and/or increasing the amount of positive feedback.
Oscillators don’t gain amplitude by their own means unless you are talking about the rare case of natural resonance. If you have a guitar in which the box is resonant at a certain frequency, each time a note is struck that resonates with the box resonant frequency, the sound will be amplified.
Same in a room of any size. That is oscillation but not an oscillator. An oscillator maintains its amplitude and cannot increase it unless natural parameters like temperature change.
tim…”FM transmitters use frequency to ENCODE the signal. But POWER is still related to AMPLITUDE”.
***
It’s far more complicated than that, Tim. It’s actually the ‘instantaneous’ amplitude of the modulating signal that varies the frequency of the FM signal. What you have in essence is an amplitude to frequency converter. Therefore, the power in the modulating signal is translated to frequency change in FM carrier.
Ergo, power in the FM signal is measured by a variation in frequency. At the receiver end, the signal is demodulated and the varying frequencies are converted back to instantaneous amplitude variation.
Power may be important at the transmitter but we must be careful not to confuse transmitter power with the power of the modulating signal, say from a microphone through an amplifier. The idea of the exercise is to transmit a low power audio signal at a radio station to a distant receiver then recover the low power information, which can then be amplified and fed to a speaker.
The power required to transmit the signal is not the same as the power contained in the signal. After all, an FM carrier always has constant power, indicated by its constant amplitude. That won’t do you much good for carrying information if the frequency is not varied.
When you look at it more closely, with EM waves transmitted through space, the frequency is as important to power as the amplitude. There is far more power in gamma rays and UV waves than in lower frequency EM waves. I think it’s obvious that waveforms repeated many times a second at the same amplitude as a wave repeated fewer times per second, has more power. That’s because it has more energy under the curve than the other.
I agree that the transmission power in an AM signal is in the amplitude of the signal but the same is true for an FM wave. The difference is that the AM wave depends on amplitude variations from a pre-described amplitude whereas an FM wave has a constant amplitude.
I don’t think it’s right to claim FM transmitters use frequency to encode the signal if the frequency modulation is done by amplitude variations. It may be variations in FM frequencies that codes the information, but the variations in frequency represent a variation in modulating signal amplitude, hence power.
Therefore, the power of the information signal is contained in the frequency variations.
tim…” A second photon OF THE SAME FREQUENCY gives the molecule more energy. A third photon OF THE SAME FREQUENCY gives the molecule yet more more energy”.
***
Once an electron in an atom of a molecule is excited by a photon of a certain frequency, a second photon will do nothing till the electron drops back to an energy level conducive with the 2nd photon.
Secondly, if either photon lacks the frequency, hence the intensity, to excite an electron, it will be ignored. Photons from cooler masses lack the frequency and energy intensity to excite electrons at higher energy levels in hotter masses.
“If it absorbs a 2nd 15 micron photon, it vibrates with 2x the energy more amplitude, not higher frequency.”
I’m not sure but I think the molecule would have to release the energy before absorbing another 15 micron photon. If the molecule is below the tropopause that happens through a collision before the molecule has a chance to emit the energy as a photon.
“Im not sure but I think the molecule would have to release the energy before absorbing another 15 micron photon. ”
Nope. Read about quantum harmonic oscillators. They can theoretically absorb any number quanta of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
That being said, from a practical perspective, odds are good that a CO2 molecule would emit before absorbing again. As calculated above, even at ‘high’ temperatures like 400 K, about 90% of CO2 molecules are in the ground state, about 9% in the 1st excited state, and 0.9% in the the 2nd excited state.
So around 1% of the time, the quantum oscillator here has 2 quanta of energy.
tim…your quantum harmonic oscillator is nothing more than model theory. No one can build one to test it.
Bullshit Gordon,
I prefer to buy guitars, but somebody has to make them.
It models a harmonic oscillator quite well.
Because it is a harmonic oscillator.
Or are you being negative for negatives sake?
A CO2 molecule will emit an absorbed 15 micron photon in about 1.1 seconds. At an altitude of 3.5 km a CO2 molecule can absorb a photon, release the energy as kinetic energy in a collision with another molecule and absorb another photon in 420 microseconds. Below the tropopause most of the energy from absorbed IR warms the atmosphere instead of being re-emitted.
bob…we’re talking about QUANTUM harmonic oscillators.
Gordon,
Right, quantum harmonic oscillators.
Then we don’t have to build them, just use any electron or molecule that happens to be hanging around.
It works with a guitar as well.
If I pluck a G string, a G note sounds, no matter how hard I pluck, it’s still a G note.
If you can keep it in tune : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C85Im4xGqxg&t=318s
Sorry, Bob, you’re wrong. If you bend a G-string enough before plucking it, it will produce a G# or an A-note. If the G-string is out of tune, it won’t produce a G-note. Just loosen off the nut key and try it. Or, tighten the key too much.
Or, maybe you prefer playing out of tune and singing between the cracks on the piano.
Bullshit Gordon, that has nothing to do with what I said.
I specified that how hard you pluck the string you get the same note.
I was assuming the G string was in tune.
Oh, and another thing Gordon,
If you are bending the G string, you are not playing a G note, unless you are at the 12th fret.
Another thing you know nothing about.
bob d…my expertise has always been with female G-trings, not wearing them like you, but playing them on the female form.
If I am bending a G-string on a guitar, obviously I am bending it at the 12th fret. How else would I bend it to get an A?
However, if the G-string was detuned, where would I bend it to get an A or even a G? Come on Mozart, gimme an answer.
GOrdon,
I keep my guitar in tune.
You ask where I would bend a detuned G string to get a G note or even an A?
Obviously it depends on how much it was detuned.
My point was to demonstrate how little knowledge the cult has about physics. I got much better results than I expected. Not one even attempted to address the issue. They don’t know how. Instead of explaining why the magnifying glass was irrelevant, the got off on a laser!
That’s what “braindead” looks like.
What lasers and magnifying glasses have in common is that neither change the wavelength of the light just the concentration of photons.
And neither are about scattered light.
With light the only thing that matters on the molecular scale is the photons. The wavelength of a photon determines the energy it carries. That energy will only be passed to a molecule if it can absorb the wavelength.
Turn a CO2 laser emitting 10.6 micron photons on a block of ice and it will melt then boil. The peak wavelength of a black body at 0C is 10.6 microns but that is irrelevant to the temperature produced – only the number of photons absorbed per square inch matters.
You can’t magnify scattered light. And laser is about making more photons go in one direction, or it’s not scattered light.
With sunlight which goes thru enough atmosphere, you have direct sunlight and indirect sunlight.
When sun is at zenith, and you at sea level [with 10 tons of air per meter] and no clouds scattering the sunlight, you get about 1050 watts of direct sunlight and about 70 watts of indirect sunlight which give a total of 1120 watts of sunlight.
You won’t call the indirect sunlight scattered light, but you could say it’s more scattered than direct sunlight, but what it’s called is not scattered light rather it’s called indirect sunlight.
Or one might call a spot light as directed light, but indirect sunlight is more directed than a spot light.
In terms heating a blackbody surface, it’s the amount direct sunlight which creates the highest temperature.
Though our ocean absorbs the energy of both direct and indirect sunlight. Or ocean is not a surface rather it’s more of blackbody cavity. And blackbody captures scattered light- or any kind of light which enters doesn’t exit {or very little exits].
One could consider our atmosphere as blackbody cavity but it should be considered a very poor black body cavity compared to our ocean.
Clint R,
You don’t have enough physics knowledge to judge our level of skill.
You don’t know how to add vectors.
Among other things you get totally wrong.
You haven’t had anything constructive to add to the conversation since I started here.
Buzz off Clint.
Brandy Guts, bobdroege, Craig T, Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Please mind your own business, whoever-you-are.
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Let’s review:
1. Clint posed a question intended *only* for those not your Sky Dragon Slayers club.
2. He lulzed at the answers.
3. Everyone except you rejoiced.
4. You crashed the party and scolded Clint’s invitees.
#2 please get over yourself and mind your own business, whoever-you-are.
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
I’m often wondering about this fixation on the current sea ice extent status in the Arctic.
Indeed: when you look at the numbers, there is no reason at all to contradict sentences like
” Which shows that this year is mostly closer to the mean of 1980 to 2010 than the last 10 years or so are. ”
It would however be useful to put things in the right context, e.g. by mentioning not only what happens in the Arctic these days, but having at the same time a look at the other side of the planet, in the Antarctic.
Let us compare, for the period Jan 1 – Aug 5, all year averages since 2011, by sorting them
– in ascending mode for the Arctic, showing on top the year with the highest melting;
– in descending mode for the Antarctic, showing on top the year with the highest rebuild.
From the second position you can see their difference to the first.
1. Arctic
2019 12.14
2016 12.16 0.02
2018 12.17 0.03
2017 12.22 0.08
17-21 12.23 0.09
2020 12.30 0.16
2021 12.31 0.17
2011 12.36 0.22
2015 12.41 0.27
2014 12.52 0.38
2022 12.57 0.43
2012 12.64 0.50
2013 12.73 0.59
81-10 13.30 1.16
We see that indeed, 2022 is near to the 1981-2010 average.
2. Antarctic
2015 9.81
2014 9.80 -0.01
2013 9.39 -0.42
2012 8.96 -0.85
2021 8.77 -1.04
81-10 8.65 -1.16
2016 8.50 -1.31
2020 8.29 -1.52
17-21 8.04 -1.77
2018 7.99 -1.82
2011 7.93 -1.88
2019 7.65 -2.16
2022 7.55 -2.26
2017 7.54 -2.27
2022 shows for the last ten years together with 2017 the worst sea ice rebuild at the beginning of August.
We clearly can see that while manifestly interested people permanently insist on a melting deficit in the Arctic less than 0.5 Mkm^2, the same people keep silent about a growing deficit in the Antarctic greater than 2 Mkm^2.
This is all very one-sided.
*
P.S. One might think that due to the very cold Antarctica, the sea ice around it has a much greater surface than in the Arctic.
This is not the case: the yearly average for 1981-2010 is at both places about 11.6 Mkm^2.
*
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
or
https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4
Worth noting for Antarctica
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-sopol.jpeg
And to keep some balance, here is RSSs take on Antarctica
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/rss-southern-polar.jpeg
RLH, Please pay attention. RSS SoPol data only extends from 60S to 70S, thus excluding almost all of the Antarctic’s area. There’s no reason that the UAH and the RSS graphs should appear the same, not to mention the fact that you used different y-axis ranges.
My graphs auto-range, so the data is what the data is.
The point was that Antarctica is quite cold in both series.
RSS. The series built on the fact that a known inaccurate satellite is at least as good as a known good one?
” The series built on the fact that a known inaccurate satellite is at least as good as a known good one? ”
Oh look!
A 75 years old polemicist thinks he is able to decide which satellites are ‘known inaccurate’, just because he is a gullible follower of UAH’s discourse.
Why don’t you stop doing so as if you were knowledgeable in this NAAA14/15 discussion, Linsley Hood?
You know NOTHING about all that.
So you think that a satellite that has a known drift is as accurate as one that doesn’t? Even RSS said that they couldn’t decide, so they included both instead.
Try comparing UAH and RSS over all their published data and regions. There is no doubt that there is a significant difference between RSS and UAH between 2000 and 2008 in all their data. Got any reason for that other than RSS is inaccurate over that period other than using by NOAA-14?
I have shown that JCs theory is backed up by the data. What have you got?
RLH, All the NOAA satellites, except AQUA, lack station keeping and thus drifted in LECT, which requires correction. There’s a problem with NOAA 9 MSU, which had an issue with a error in the warm target. There were problems with the early MSU channel 3 data, so much so that RSS only begins their time series in 1986, whereas the UAH TP starts in 1978. The UAH LT depends on an accurate TP series, whereas the RSS does not.
Comparing the LT and TLT series does not explain the difference. As I showed, there’s a step change around 1999-2000 in the difference between the two for the North Polar, which would appear to be the point at which UAH began to use the AMSU instrument data on NOAA 15.
Linsley Hood
All what you write here is useless.
We aren’t talking about LT, we talk about sea ice extent.
It seems that the only reason for you to reply was to have once more an opportunity to post your charts, as if they were the only thing which matters on this blog.
binny…come on, Binny, rlh goes by the name of Richard informally.
It’s funny on Seinfeld when Seinfeld meets Newman and says, “Hello…Newman!!!”. But even Newman replies…”Hello, Jerry”.
So, do you want to be mean like Jerry, or polite like Newman?
As far as Blinny is concerned, the heat required to melt the ice just appears from below magically without showing itself anywhere before it does so.
Linsley Hood
We aren’t talking about LT, we talk about sea ice extent.
It seems that the only reason for you to reply was to have once more an ego-centered opportunity to post your charts, as if they were the only thing which matters on this blog.
Ice extent is governed by temperature, or so I thought.
Yes it is, but certainly not by the LT at the South Pole.
Ice melts from below, not from its surface.
You think it is ExTropics instead?
The heat has to come from somewhere.
How much cooling is occurring because of Tonga Hunga?
How much H2O got blasted into the higher atmosphere? Did that cool or warm?
–Ken says:
August 9, 2022 at 4:46 PM
How much cooling is occurring because of Tonga Hunga?
Reply
RLH says:
August 9, 2022 at 5:16 PM
How much H2O got blasted into the higher atmosphere? Did that cool or warm?–
Wouldn’t cause a lot of H20 to sublimate on atmospheric dust, and ice particles of clouds?
Do more high clouds cause cooling or warming?
Adapt 2030 Dubyne is saying temperatures NZ Australia and Zimbabwe are much colder than normal with record floods in Australia and record snow fall in NZ. He is attributing the phenomenon to Tonga Hunga.
So how much of the ice extent question can be attributed to the volcano?
There different clouds which are called high. The highest clouds, wiki:
“Noctilucent clouds, or night shining clouds, are tenuous cloud-like phenomena in the upper atmosphere of Earth. When viewed from space, they are called polar mesospheric clouds (PMCs), detectable as a diffuse scattering layer of water ice crystals near the summer polar mesopause. They consist of ice crystals and from the ground are only visible during astronomical twilight. Noctilucent roughly means “night shining” in Latin. They are most often observed during the summer months from latitudes between 50 and 70. Too faint to be seen in daylight, they are visible only when the observer and the lower layers of the atmosphere are in Earth’s shadow, but while these very high clouds are still in sunlight. Recent studies suggest that increased atmospheric methane emissions produce additional water vapor once the methane molecules reach the mesosphere creating, or reinforcing existing noctilucent clouds.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
Or big volcanic eruption [particularly underwater] could also add water.
rlh…”Ice extent is governed by temperature…”
***
Obviously. It extends in winter, especially when there is little or no Sun near the Poles. It recedes for a month in summer in the same locales. Unfortunately, cheating alarmists pounce on that one month when ice extent is low to spread their dastardly propaganda.
” It recedes for a month in summer in the same locales. ”
One hardly could behave dumber.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Being dumber than Blinny is quite a stretch.
Is this mic on,
What do you think?
Server’s been squirrely yesterday and today. There have been instances where it wouldn’t even display the site, and other times it delays posting comments.
test
I moved this down here because the thread was getting long and it was becoming hard to reply while keeping tract of answers. I have been accused several times of ignoring posts whereas the real problem is finding them and keeping tract of them.
rlh…”Gordon is wrong. Clocks measure time INTERVALS, not time itself”.
***
Where are these time intervals clocks are supposed to measure? and, how do they go about measuring them?
A clock generally measures the ‘period’ of rotation of the Earth, and its dial is sub-divided into hours, minutes, and seconds. You can call a period an interval but it still has nothing to do with time in this case. The period is related to Earth’s momentum.
A period does not need dimensions, it’s just a regular thingy. The Earth rotates regularly wrt to the Sun. You could call the period between the Sun in the East at first light and keep tract of the interval till next first light.
Suppose we build a machine that rotates once per period of rotation and we synchronize it so it rotates once per rotation period. We still have no time. However, we could divide the face into 24 gradations and call them hours. Now we have time. Does it have a physical reality?
Then we could gear it down so it rotates twice per period, Now we have the typical 1 -12 hour o’clock. We need minutes as well, so we add another hand geared to rotate 5 gradations per hour. Still not enough, so we add another hand to rotate once per minute.
But wait we already have 60 gradations for minutes so the third hand can count seconds.
What do we have? A machine that runs on its own power and measures the daily rotation of the Earth. Is the clock measuring intervals or generating them? The only interval we are measure is the rotation of the Earth but that has nothing to do with time. The Earth rotates because it has momentum, not time.
On the other hand, the Earth has no natural intervals indicated to measure. The intervals are generated by the clock using gears and hands. There are chips in digital electrons that do the same, sans gears and hands. The chips receive a clock signal from something like a 3.58 Mhz oscilator and divide it into the desired interval.
I think Craig made the point that the second is now defined based on the atomic clock. However, the second generated is essentially the same second created by the clock. Even though we use the AC as a very accurate time base, it is still synchronized to the second derived from the rotation of the Earth. If is wasn’t, we’d be in deep doo-doo with our time-bases.
No one can arbitrarily redefine the second, as did Einstein, without messing up our entire time-base on Earth. Fortunately, Einstein’s theories are ignored in our time-bases. Since it’s unlikely we will ever travel at speeds near the speed of light, we can’t test his theories in person.
Besides, atomic clock generate microscopic intervals that must be multiplied bazzilions of time to equal our second. Electron transitions in the Cesium atom that generate these intervals have nothing to do with time.
messed up a bit here…”We need minutes as well, so we add another hand geared to rotate 5 gradations per hour. Still not enough, so we add another hand to rotate once per minute”.
Clock-making is obviously not my forte. No comments from the peanut gallery, please.
The first hand measures 5 gradation/hour. The next hand rotates 60 gradations/hour. So we have 60 gradations marked on the face. the third hand rotates 60 times /minute hence 1 gradation/second.
So, how can we make use of these generated intervals? With a manual or digital clock it would be tough. You could set up contacts in a mechanical clock that are closed when a hand reaches a certain hour or portion thereof.
With the digital equivalent, the chips that produce intervals have an output that goes high when the interval is reached. That high is a voltage, usually around 3.3 or 5 volts and it can be used to operate a relay. The relay contacts can deliver a significant current to a device to activate it. Or a solid-state device could do the same.
None of this is related to time, it’s all about electrons flowing in a circuit, activated by triggers.
Time is a mental thingy that is of value only to the humans who invented it.
“Where are these time intervals clocks are supposed to measure? and, how do they go about measuring them?”
Each ‘tick’ of a clock is a time interval. There are many ways that that is determined.
“I think Craig made the point that the second is now defined based on the atomic clock. However, the second generated is essentially the same second created by the clock.”
Units are constructions. There is a precise temperature where pure water freezes and boils under one atmosphere of pressure. In the Celsius scale that range is defined as 100 degrees. The oscillations of a cesium atom under the conditions in an atomic clock have an incredibly accurate rhythm.
A second of time was originally a fraction of one rotation of the Earth. Currently the rhythm of a cesium atom’s oscillations is the most accurate way to measure time. Rather than calling those oscillation a new unit of time a conversion is made from the oscillations to seconds.
craig…”A second of time was originally a fraction of one rotation of the Earth. Currently the rhythm of a cesium atoms oscillations is the most accurate way to measure time. Rather than calling those oscillation a new unit of time a conversion is made from the oscillations to seconds”.
***
The second is still 1/86,400th of one Earth rotation. Always has been, always will be. The problem is, the angular velocity of the Earth is slowing down, so they found a more accurate way of maintaining the 1/86,400th of a rotational period in the atomic clock.
A slow increase in the strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field can be seen. Measuring the level of neutrons near Earth (secondary galactic radiation) is a very good indicator of magnetic activity on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/RcpwGvb/onlinequery.gif
The “red herring” magnifying glass was such a success, let’s go to another issue spawned by the magnifying glass.
Focusing a 3″ diameter magnifying glass to a 1/4″ dot provides a concentration of 144. It’s not hard to have a solar flux of 800 W/m^2, on a clear day. Focusing an inexpensive magnifying glass I was able to smoke a wood chip in about 3 seconds. 800 W/m^2 * 144 amounts to 115,200 W/m^2. That much flux would correspond to over 1600F.
Now in reality, the cheap glass probably has a high “albedo”, but I would estimate a max temperature of over 600F, easily. Let’s use 700F, to stay in the ballpark.
Monday, I measured overhead clear blue sky at a temperature of -27F. So if focusing Sun can burn wood, what will focusing clear blue sky do?
The problem is glass does not transmit infrared wavelengths. However, there are materials that DO transmit infrared. So, here’s another question the cult can’t answer correctly:
If a 3″ diameter IR focusing device can concentrate by a factor of 144, what max temperature could it provide by focusing infrared from a -27F sky? (Ballpark “guesses” are fine. I’m just looking for any semblance of understanding.)
(Again, asking Skeptics not to answer. Let’s see what kind of nonsense we get from the cult. Last time, many dodged the question, but Norman, bobdroege, Forkerts, Brandon, Craig T, and Ken entertained us well. Where’s barry, E. Swanson, and Ball4?)
Cult leader grammie pup insists on displaying his ignorance of physics again, writing:
1 – “Cheap” glass will transmit more than 90% of visible light. It would not exhibit a high albedo.
2 – The branch of physics called optics tells us that your concentration is for a high temperature point source focused on a surface, where an image of the original point source results. Focusing the energy from a low temperature, diffuse source won’t provide any concentration unless one uses an IR transmitting material for the lenses. One would need to use an IR detector to measure the increase in IR radiance, or any temperature increase, which you fail to mention.
3 – Your hand held IR thermometer’s reading of -27F (-48C) results from the fact that the thermometer’s wavelength range cuts off wavelengths longer than 14 microns, so it can not measure the emissions from CO2. Your implication that the concentrated IR would not increase the surface temperature is just another failed attempt at building a straw man.
1) Irrelevant to the issue.
2) You didn’t read/understand the conditions given.
3) No, wavelengths above 14μ are NOT excluded.
> wavelengths above 14μ are NOT excluded
https://www.sensortips.com/temperature/infrared-temperature-sensor/
Ignorance must be bliss.
It’s amazing the crap the cult throws against the wall. Now infrared from the sky can’t be measured. That’s why their 340 W/m^2 has to come from a microwave oven!
You just can’t make this stuff up.
> Now infrared from the sky cant be measured.
I explained how it can in my first response to you, Clint. Try actually reading it this time.
“It’s amazing the crap the cult throws against the wall. Now infrared from the sky can’t be measured.”
Yes downward longwave radiation can be measured, just not with the tools you used.
https://www.hukseflux.com/products/solar-radiation-sensors/pyrgeometers
Sorry Brandon, but you didn’t explain anything. You stated your incorrect believes including your misunderstanding of how infrared is measured.
Your “understanding” of the science here is exemplified by your microwave oven nonsense.
You don’t have a clue about any of this.
A lens can concentrate the sunlight and make it hotter. How?
What a lens does is make the source, the sun, appear larger. Suppose it made the sun 5x larger in diameter. Its area is 25 x larger. Its flux will be that of 25 suns summed.
The sky is a large diffuse source. Thus a lens making it larger will enlarge one portion of the sky excluding the rest from view. The sky source was already as large as it can get (the whole sky), so this will have no effect.
> Focusing a 3″ diameter magnifying glass to a 1/4″ dot provides a concentration of 144. Its not hard to have a solar flux of 800 W/m^2, on a clear day. Focusing an inexpensive magnifying glass I was able to smoke a wood chip in about 3 seconds. 800 W/m^2 * 144 amounts to 115,200 W/m^2. That much flux would correspond to over 1600F.
Finally you accept that increasing number of photons per unit area raises temperature without increasing the frequency of any photons. This is progress!
Now you should understand why concentrating a sufficient number of “cold” (low frequency) microwaves into a mug of coffee makes it hot.
> Monday, I measured overhead clear blue sky at a temperature of -27F.
IR thermometers are often designed to be sensitive only in the “window” regions of the IR spectrum i.e. where water vapor and CO2 don’t emit. To measure the effective temperature of the sky you need a broadband sensor like those found in the pygrometers used by e.g. the SURFRAD network:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2022-08-07&p5=dpir&p16=at
You can see that the peak back radiation is ~525 W/m2, corresponding to an effective temperature of 37 C or 99 F, while air temperature is about the same.
theory = reality
> So if focusing Sun can burn wood, what will focusing clear blue sky do?
Credit due for asking a very good question. The answer you’re looking for is 190 W/m2 * 144 = 27,360 W/m2 corresponding to a black body temperature of 1,040 F.
It doesn’t work in practice of course, which is your point, but not for the reasons you think. There is some fascinating literature on the topic, you should go read some of it.
Sorry Brandon, but that’s too much rambling nonsense to sort through. For example, you’re STILL confused about microwave ovens. They have NOTHING to do with this issue.
Clint: Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
Me: microwave ovens cannot warm up your leftovers!
Clint: Microwave ovens work just fine.
Me: Microwave emissions in nature are associated with very cold objects, Clint.
[Time passes]
Now Clint: [Microwave ovens] have NOTHING to do with this issue.
Never change, gorgeous one.
Brandy Guts, you left out this comment that Clint R posted at the time, from your re-imagining of the exchange:
"2LoT says “cold” can not warm “hot”, without the proper help. The “proper help” can take many forms, but it must be “proper”, or 2LoT is violated.
A microwave oven is a “designed” device, with the proper equipment and configuration. And it uses an external power source. So, 2LoT is NOT violated. (As an experiment, try using your microwave without connecting to an electrical outlet, or with some missing parts.)"
Did you leave it out because you are a wildly dishonest troll?
No DREMPTY,
The Second Law does not say cold can’t warm hot.
Second Law say heat transfer is always hot to cold, unless work is done on the system.
> without the proper help
In drama this is known as Deus ex Machina. In debate it’s called “bullsh!t”.
Clarke called it magic, but he’s nicer than me.
Even Maxwell could explain his own Daemon. Try harder.
Yeah, you left it out because you are a wildly dishonest troll.
I left it out because it’s irrelevant. Everything required to prove Clint’s error is in the text that I quoted verbatim.
Whether you’re too stupid to see it or to dishonest to admit it I leave others to judge.
"Second Law say heat transfer is always hot to cold, unless work is done on the system."
Exactly, bob. Thank you. Now try explaining that to Brandy Guts. If he’d understood that beforehand he would never have tried his nonsense with the microwave.
No DREMPYT,
I am explaining it to you in order that you understand that the Second Law does not preclude cold warming hot.
Seems you have difficulty accepting what is an easily observed phenomenon.
> If hed understood that beforehand he would never have tried his nonsense with the microwave.
The coffee doesn’t get hot because the magnetron does.
Try again.
Insulation is not "cold warming hot", bob.
> I left it out because it’s irrelevant
Graham likes his irrelevancies, BG.
Be kind to him.
Right DREMPTY,
That’s irrelevant.
The question is whether or not a heated object gets hotter if you add more insulation.
The answer is yes.
You never took a formal course in thermodynamics did you?
Little Willy slurps away…
"The question is whether or not a heated object gets hotter if you add more insulation."
No, bob, the question is whether or not "back-radiation" is insulation.
It isn’t.
Our drama continues from the top:
Clint: Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
Me: microwave ovens cannot warm up your leftovers!
Clint: Microwave ovens work just fine.
Me: Microwave emissions in nature are associated with very cold objects, Clint.
Clint: A microwave oven […] uses an external power source.
[Time passes]
WS/HI: [YOU LEFT OUT POWER SOURCE YOU DISHONEST TROLL!!!!111]
Me: [lulz]
Bob: work is done on the system
WS/HI: “Insulation”
And thus Dragon Crank trolling comes into full view.
DREMPTY,
Of course it isn’t insulation.
Insulation is hadrons.
Back radiation is bosons.
It’s the back radiation from the hadrons that warms the surface.
Or causes it to get hotter, even though the heat transfer is the other way.
Brandy Guts, there’s no need to continually prove you are a wildly dishonest troll by writing false summaries of discussions people can read in full for themselves.
[GRAHAM] the question is whether or not “back-radiation” is insulation.
[PUP, WHO KICKED OUT THAT THREAD] Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
"Of course it isn’t insulation."
Well, that’s that then. If it isn’t insulation, and you agree that heat only transfers from hot to cold unless work is done on the system, then back-radiation can’t warm the surface.
> writing false summaries
I added power back because you wanted it so much and Willard asked me to be kind.
It’s still irrelevant to *my* point, which you are attempting to dodge by simply reverting to your usual talking points, i.e. “insulation”.
And as Bob rightfully points out, now *you’re* the one leaving out the power source.
> back-radiation cant warm the surface
Actually the topic is how “cold” photons can boil water but all you know is your Dragon Crank script so we keep getting distracted by your irrelevancies.
Incorrect, Brandy Guts.
Firstly, whatever point you are trying to make re the microwave is no longer clear, given what has been discussed. So you might want to clarify what point you claim I’m dodging.
Secondly, it was bobdroege who steered the discussion back to insulation by mentioning the following:
"I am explaining it to you in order that you understand that the Second Law does not preclude cold warming hot.
Seems you have difficulty accepting what is an easily observed phenomenon."
The only thing he could possibly have been talking about (an "easily observed phenomenon" which some people on here mistake as an example of cold warming hot) was insulation. That’s why I said what I said in response to him.
Thirdly, I am not leaving out any power source.
DREPTY,
You keep stumbling
“Well, thats that then. If it isnt insulation, and you agree that heat only transfers from hot to cold unless work is done on the system, then back-radiation cant warm the surface.”
Back radiation warming and heat transfer are two different independent things.
By the way, do you mean back radiation as all down welling IR or just radiation emitted from CO2 or other greenhouse gases immediately after absorking radiaion?
DREMPTY,
“The only thing he could possibly have been talking about (an “easily observed phenomenon” which some people on here mistake as an example of cold warming hot) was insulation. Thats why I said what I said in response to him.”
If it’s possible in one case, insulation, then it is possible in other cases as well.
And remember, it’s not insulation acting on its own, it’s in conjunction with a heat source.
"Back radiation warming and heat transfer are two different independent things."
Sure, bob, that’s what you keep saying. And if the process of back-radiation reaching the surface isn’t a form of insulation, and it’s also a separate process from heat transfer, then it doesn’t warm the surface. People could potentially argue that back-radiation either:
1) Warms the surface directly (i.e. it’s a form of heat transfer to the surface). We know it can’t be that because heat only transfers from hot to cold.
2) Insulates the surface, thus in the presence of a heat source (the Sun) the surface gets warmer. I thought that’s what most of you people argue that back-radiation does, but you’ve just said that back-radiation isn’t insulation.
DREMPTY,
Insulation is matter
Back radiation is radiation
They are completely different things.
I couldn’t agree more. Thank you. So back-radiation does not directly heat, nor does it insulate, the surface. Therefore it cannot warm the surface.
> I thought thats what most of you people argue that back-radiation does
When dealing with pedants I usually argue that GHGs retard heat loss, analogous to what a real greenhouse does with convection, or the stuffing between your drywall and vinyl siding does for conduction.
Where you’re stuck is on the mythology that radiation can’t be absorbed by an object warmer than what emitted it, because reasons.
Clint’s bright idea is based on frequency.
Which is why the microwave analogy blows you both out of the water.
It’s really funny watching you flop around on the dock trying to swim away from it. Do continue.
DREMPTY,
Insulation works by reducing the heat transfer.
Which is how CO2 and other greenhouse gases work, except by increasing the DWIR, which reduces the heat transfer, in the presence of the heated surface, by the Sun, results in a warmer surface.
So it’s the CO2 that insulates, not the back radiation or the DWIR.
DREMPTY,
“I couldnt agree more. Thank you. So back-radiation does not directly heat, nor does it insulate, the surface. Therefore it cannot warm the surface.”
If you mean it doesn’t work by itself, yes, If there wasn’t a heat source, back radiation wouldn’t warm.
However, there is a heat source, so in conjunction with that heat source it does it’s part and helps warm the surface.
…and I think that the comment of Clint R’s that he posted at the time blows your microwave objection out of the water, Brandy Guts.
Just going to leave this here.
WS/HI: theres no need to continually prove you are a wildly dishonest troll by writing false summaries of discussions people can read in full for themselves.
Also WS/HI: whatever point you are trying to make re the microwave is no longer clear
The problem with all that bob is that radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.
> I think
That’s not actually apparent.
But since I’m trying to be nice, allow me to help:
Please take your time with this, the Internet has a loooong memory.
> radiative insulation works via reflectivity
Please stop, WYA, now you’ve got objects warming themselves up.
"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body."
DREMPTY,
Where did you get that definition.
It’s pretty bad, all things are not perfect mirrors or perfect black bodies.
It’s always a combination of the two.
Obviously, bob.
Thank you for clarifying.
"How does an object know whether an incident microwave photon is the natural emission of a very cold object, or the emission of “a ‘designed’ device, with the proper equipment and configuration [that] uses an external power source”?"
It doesn’t. However, the natural emission of a very cold object does not tend to be received as a very high number of photons per unit area. Which is why the microwave is a red herring if we’re talking about what happens naturally.
> It doesnt.
So how does the ground know that the 15 micron photons emitted by CO2 come from a mass of air colder than itself.
DREMPTY,
I was using the insulation to show that the cold can not war hot is not part of the second law of thermodynamics, because insulation is an example of cold warming hot.
Any way, you are back pedaling, we are already past that because we agree CO2 abzorkes IR, thus slowing the emission to space, remember how I countered the 5 millisecond argument up thread.
Thus CO2 insulates against cooling by emission of IR.
Looks like we need to use less water and pressure cook the Jello.
[BRANDY GUTS] > back-radiation cant warm the surface
Actually the topic is how “cold” photons can boil water but all you know is your Dragon Crank script so we keep getting distracted by your irrelevancies.
[ALSO BRANDY GUTS] So how does the ground know that the 15 micron photons emitted by CO2 come from a mass of air colder than itself.
—–
"…insulation is an example of cold warming hot."
Insulation is not "cold warming hot", bob.
"…remember how I countered the 5 millisecond argument up thread…"
You didn’t counter the 5 millisecond argument, bob. 5 milliseconds is a negligible delay in energy leaving the system compared to the amount of time the third pathway takes, which involves the O2 and N2 "holding onto the energy". It is the non-GHGs that insulate, not the GHGs.
> You didnt counter the 5 millisecond argument, bob.
You didn’t answer how the warm ground knows that a 15 micron photon came from the cold atmosphere, WYA.
I’ll just give the standard answer I always give:
I don’t claim to know about the fate of individual photons. I cannot “see” them directly to be able to tell you if the back-radiated energy is absorbed, or reflected, from the higher temperature body. All we know is, due to 2LoT, that back-radiated energy cannot raise the temperature of the warmer body.
… when the back-radiated energy is transmitted or reflected.
“So how does the ground know that the 15 micron photons emitted by CO2 come from a mass of air colder than itself.”
There it is. No physical explanation of the mechanics at the surface has ever been forthcoming from ABCers.
Sorry I’m not omniscient, barry.
So, anyway, microwave ovens are a red herring. That was the point of contention in this sub-thread, right?
“All we know is, due to 2LoT, that back-radiated energy cannot raise the temperature of the warmer body.”
While I was typing up the last comment I was going to say, “They instead devolve to repeating that cold can’t warm hot.”
Because AGW is a ‘scam’ contrarians are forced to base their premises on this conclusion. That’s why they fall apart when dragged to the pointy end of the physics.
> So, anyway, microwave ovens are a red herring. That was the point of contention in this sub-thread, right?
It was a thought experiment to challenge Clint’s frequency theory of temperature.
It ended with you throwing up your hands about what happens to 15 micron back radiation, so I’d say it was successful.
YMMV
…and to think, barry was complaining about rhetoric earlier.
If shrugging is your best argument, you’re gonna get dunked on, Kiddo. Don’t know what else to tell you.
DREMPTY,
“You didnt counter the 5 millisecond argument, bob. 5 milliseconds is a negligible delay in energy leaving the system compared to the amount of time the third pathway takes, which involves the O2 and N2 “holding onto the energy”. It is the non-GHGs that insulate, not the GHGs.”
Yeah, I did counter. 5 milliseconds is rather long compared to 3 microseconds, which is how long IR would take to leave the atmosphere if it wasn’t held up by CO2.
Nitrogen and Oxygen don’t have the necessary properties to insulate against IR, they only borrow the energy from the CO2 molecules, they give it back so CO2 can radiate.
IR goes straight through Nitrogen and Oxygen, just ignore the physics you don’t like and make up shit like Nitrogen and Oxygen insulate the surface from space.
That’s too funny.
Sorry, Brandy Guts, I won the argument at 3:46 PM. That’s when I explained why microwave ovens are a red herring.
—–
It’s still a negligible delay compared to the third pathway, bob:
"3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere."
The GHGs facilitate the O2 and N2 gaining some of the energy but they also facilitate energy being lost to space. Ultimately it is the non-GHGs that are "holding onto" the energy in the third pathway, and are the cause of the biggest delay in energy leaving the Earth system. Thus the non-GHGs are the planetary insulators.
DREMPTY,
“All we know is, due to 2LoT, that back-radiated energy cannot raise the temperature of the warmer body.”
This is what is known as a non-sequitur.
It does not warm by itself, it has help in the way of other heat sources such as the Sun, clouds etc.
And it is also a false statement of the second law, keep repeating it and we will keep reminding you why is is wrong.
DREMPTY,
handwaving aside
“”3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases which radiate in all directions in addition to a minor fraction at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.”
Fixed that for you
It’s not a statement of the Second Law, bob. It’s a statement that back-radiation cannot increase the temperature of the surface (even with the Sun present) because of the Second Law.
DREMPTY,
“It doesnt. However, the natural emission of a very cold object does not tend to be received as a very high number of photons per unit area. Which is why the microwave is a red herring if were talking about what happens naturally.”
If we are talking about CO2 in the atmosphere, then the only place the CO2 is very cold is at the top of the atmosphere, so what you are saying is CO2 doesn’t do a very good job of cooling the atmosphere.
But most of the CO2 is pretty warm, like the rest of the atmosphere.
The surface emits IR radiation of wavelengths CO2 can abzork, then it can abzork radiation of the wavelengths CO2 can emit.
your 3:46 win is overturned by the refs, and now counts as a loss.
DREMPTY,
“Its not a statement of the Second Law, bob. Its a statement that back-radiation cannot increase the temperature of the surface (even with the Sun present) because of the Second Law.”
No, that is wrong, as we have told you numerous times.
As long as heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere then back radiation can increase the temperature of the surface in conjunction with warming from other sources.
Please provide a cite for you interpretation of the second law.
So do you enjoy being wrong so very very much?
Your "fixed it for you" is simply reiterating, and wrongly bringing into the third pathway, that which is already covered by the second pathway, bob:
"2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible."
As for your comment on my 3:46 PM post, I was simply explaining why a microwave oven is a red herring. None of what you’ve said follows logically from my comment. That is what is known as a non-sequitur.
"As long as heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere then back radiation can increase the temperature of the surface in conjunction with warming from other sources."
That would make the back-radiation effect akin to insulation, bob. As already explained, radiative insulation works via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.
> I won the argument at 3:46 PM.
Let’s review a different conversation for variety:
Tyndall: the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.
Clint: Photon accumulation does NOT result in the type of heating needed to warm Earths surface. Billions of 15μ photons cant increase the frequency above the frequency of ONE 15μ photon. Adding more photons with the same frequency just results in the same frequency. The frequency is NOT increased by adding photons with the same frequency.
Me: any kid outside on sunny day with a magnifying glass can tell you what increasing the number of photons per unit area will do to a pile of dry leaves.
Clint: RED HERRING!!!!1111
[Time passes]
August 10, 2022 at 3:46 PM: the natural emission of a very cold object does not tend to be received as a very high number of photons per unit area.
Which is actually the right answer, well done.
It also torpedoes Clint’s frequency theory of temperature. If you wanna call that a win, I won’t argue.
> back-radiation cannot increase the temperature of the surface (even with the Sun present) because of the Second Law
Oh look you remembered the power supply this time.
[applesauce]
Why, where has Clint R argued that adding more photons per unit area does not increase temperature?
> where has Clint R argued that adding more photons per unit area does not increase temperature?
JFC, just read his first line of quoted dialog.
"Photon accumulation…"
You assume that means more photons received per unit area?
Where on earth else are they going to go.
Oh that’s right, you don’t know. How convenient.
> Its still irrelevant to *my* point, which you are attempting to dodge by simply reverting to your usual talking points, i.e. insulation.
Graham does that all the time, BG.
I’ve noticed.
Seems like you’ve made an assumption about what Clint R means, and despite him telling you that examples involving more photons per unit area are red herrings, you’ve continued to assume your assumption is correct. Whereas I would have just asked Clint R to clarify…
> Seems like youve made an assumption about what Clint R means
And *now* the wriggling begins.
You’ve been great, don’t stay up too late, it’s not worth it.
Until anon.
No, really. I would have just asked Clint R to clarify.
Clint R, could you clarify?
“where has Clint R argued that adding more photons per unit area does not increase temperature?”
Every single time he has told us “fluxes don’t add.”
Which is an interesting position to hold when he has focussed the collimated light of the sun with a lens to increase the flux density on a given area and make a wood chip burn.
Yes, Clint. Please do clarify.
WS/HI: I dont claim to know about the fate of individual photons.
Also WS/HI: I am a bit of a fan of this comment, not written by me: [describes the origins and fate of IR photons in three separate processes, one of which is the greenhouse effect]
Delightful.
"I don’t claim to know about the fate of individual photons."
…and by that I meant specifically whether individual photons are absorbed or reflected by a higher temperature body, Brandy Guts, as you know. You leave out details from your quotes that make all the difference, and you do it deliberately (I think it’s because you’re a wildly dishonest troll).
"one of which is the greenhouse effect"
Brandy Guts is still confused about the comment from R Clutz that provides a clear explanation of why the non-GHGs are the planetary insulators, and not GHGs.
> non-GHGs are the planetary insulators
It’s time to remind you that the 2nd law applies to all forms of energy transfer. This time I’ll spell out the implication:
If photons from the sky colliding with the surface cannot retard energy loss from the ground, neither can the kinetic energy of air molecules doing the same.
The non-GHGs are holding onto the energy, Brandy Guts. They are not anything like as able to radiate energy as the GHGs. Thus they cause the longest delay in energy getting out of the system, so they’re the planetary insulators. It’s really simple. I’m not saying that the non-GHGs warm the surface via back-conduction.
> Im not saying that the non-GHGs warm the surface via back-conduction.
Perfectly elastic collisions don’t exist in nature.
OK, Brandy Guts.
Scratch my last comment, it’s not relevant to the point. Brain fart.
Every time a collision occurs there is an energy transfer. That includes the molecules of a cold object colliding with a warm one, which is called sensible energy transfer.
The *net* energy transfer is heat, and by 2LOT that always flows from hot to cold.
The reason sensible insulation doesn’t violate 2LOT is the same reason that the back radiation description of the GHE doesn’t, net energy transfer is always hot to cold.
I’m happy that R Clutz’s comment explains perfectly clearly that the non-GHGs are the planetary insulators.
I’ll take that as acknowledgement that a warmer insulator is more effective than a cooler one. You should know this from the common experience of getting into a cold bed in winter.
I’m a bit of a fan of this part of Clutz:
That’s the beginning of greenhouse effect! Without those IR active species, step 1 would be the dominant mode of heat loss, step 2 would be irrelevant, and the O2/N2 really would be “the” (only) insulators.
With the GHGs, the temperature of “the” insulators increases, thereby further impeding heat loss from the surface.
Sadly, in his efforts to minimize the warming role of GHGs, Clutz has actually completely upended Dragon Crank mythology.
Brandy Guts, you’re only ever focusing on one side of the story. Here’s the other side, courtesy of Clint R:
"As I indicated Brandon, I’m perfectly happy with you accepting that the atmosphere acts as insulation. That’s science.
But radiative gases emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing its efficacy. Emission back to the surface can’t warm something at 288K."
Remember when I was telling you about implicatures, Graham?
Now is such a time.
When Pup says that efficacy is reduced, that implies there *is* efficacy.
Just like if I said that your inconsistencies reduce the efficacy of your trolling.
I am not suggesting that you are trolling, on the contrary.
> on the contrary.
Damn fat thumb. On the contrary – I am implying that you are trolling.
"When Pup says that efficacy is reduced, that implies there *is* efficacy."
Yes, indeed Little Willy. The non-GHGs efficacy in insulating the planet is reduced by the GHGs, is what he was saying.
People were asking me for clarification yesterday, but I was gone. I was busy drinking lake water and margaritas. Both were trying to drown me. Summer happens.
I’ve organized why the need for clarification arises:
1) Brandon threw out the “red herring” of a magnifying glass. I asked him to explain why that was a red herring. He couldn’t do it. So now he has to confuse the issue.
2) barry tried to further the confusion by mentioning my continual teaching that radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. Like Brandon, he must attempt to confuse reality to justify his false beliefs.
That’s why some clarification is needed.
A magnifying glass does NOT “simply add” fluxes. It focuses photons that were “spread out” due to the inverse square law. More energy is NOT being created. The existing energy from Sun is just being concentrated in a much smaller area with the designed double convex lenses, restoring order. Nothing in nature does that. Nature does not contain magnifying glasses, microwave ovens, or lasers. That’s why Brandon’s mention of any of these items is a “red herring”.
The bogus belief that fluxes simply add is identified by Folkert’s ridiculous claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes (an ice cube emits 315W/m^2) can raise a surface to 325K. That would lead to ice cubes boiling water. barry didn’t understand that, so, in his uneducated, confused system of beliefs, he called me a “lying dog”.
Now barrry and Brandon will try to re-spin my un-spinning. They reject reality.
Here is the sentence you put in bold, Graham:
> But radiative gases emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing its efficacy.
Radiative gases do not exclude greenhouse gases.
Second implicature fail.
DREMPTY,
“As already explained, radiative insulation works via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.”
Nope, it can work either way.
Your explanations are wrong as always.
The surface absorks radiation based on the properties of the surface, not the temperature of the radiation source.
And the 15 um radiation from CO2 comes from CO2 regardless of the temperature.
The cold can’t warm hot is wrong on so many levels.
In fairness, Bob, the idea that insulation would be ever more efficient without greenhouse gases is much much wronger.
No, Little Willy. To properly understand what people are saying, you need more context, not less.
Here is what Clint R said, again:
"As I indicated Brandon, I’m perfectly happy with you accepting that the atmosphere acts as insulation. That’s science.
But radiative gases emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing its efficacy. Emission back to the surface can’t warm something at 288K."
…and here is a quote from a comment he wrote before that one:
"If Brandon now wants to leave the CO2 nonsense and realize that the non-radiative gases act to insulate Earth, I’ll certainly accept that."
Now, taking all that into account, here is a clearer version of what Clint R is saying:
"As I indicated Brandon, I’m perfectly happy with you accepting that the [non-GHGs in the] atmosphere act as insulation. That’s science.
But radiative gases [GHGs] emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing its [the non-GHG insulation’s] efficacy. Emission back to the surface can’t warm something at 288K."
Clint 9:22 am writes “fluxes simply add” is “bogus” then bogus Clint simply adds fluxes per Clint’s comment:
“Absorbed flux = 200 W/m^2 (one side)
Emitted flux = 100 W/m^2 (each side)
OUT – 200 J/s reflected + 100 J/s emitted from each (m^2) side = 400 J/s”
Bogus Clint R doesn’t understand the radiative physics Clint R is writing about; it is Clint R that rejects reality.
DREMT, added emission back to the surface can warm something at 255K up to 288K as is known from measurements.
"Nope, it can work either way."
Not according to:
"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body."
My interpretation is fine, Graham. Thank you for showing your learned nothing from what Eli said over the years. Pup simply inverted what happens in reality.
Here is my third lesson in implicature – contradiction only looks like argumentation. But to really argue Pup would need to put arguments on the table. Not naked assertions.
As usual, Little Willy can’t admit that he made any mistake in interpreting what Clint R said. Then he ignores the fact that I’ve already posted a comment, by R Clutz, that explains why its the non-GHGs that are the planetary insulators in enough detail that even he should be able to understand.
As usual, Graham cannot bring himself to realize that the counterpoint he roots for goes against what happens in reality, which is that without greenhouse gases, what he calls non-radiative gases would intercept almost nothing.
And as usual he fails to realize that implicature is not reference. Context helps clarify reference, seldom implicature.
R Clutz explains why it is the non-GHGs that are mostly the planetary insulation from deep space. The radiatively dominant GHGs though provide most of DREMT’s back-radiation reduction in OLR.
Willard, pay attention to Brandy Guts:
"Without those IR active species, step 1 would be the dominant mode of heat loss, step 2 would be irrelevant, and the O2/N2 really would be “the” (only) insulators."
The only thing he’s missing is that with the GHGs, they emit thermal energy to space, thus decreasing the efficacy of the non-GHG insulation.
Ball4, “Joules/second” ain’t “flux”.
You don’t understand any of this.
"reduction in OLR."
There has been no observed reduction in total OLR, Ball4. Instead it has tracked with temperatures.
Pay attention to his o5er implicature fail, Graham.
> almost nothing
implies more than nothing,
The best way to reduce the radiative properties of an atmosphere is to remove radiative gases.
I hope you know why radiative properties matter for insulation.
Sure, Little Willy. Radiative properties matter for insulation where reflection is involved, and not absorp.tion/emission.
I am glad you agree that you got your implicature wrong, Graham.
Your deflection is intriguing, for I thought that:
> That is the whole point about radiation – if nothing [A-word] it, it keeps on going.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/05/the-hoover-incident/
No implicatures wrong here, Little Willy.
> But radiative gases emit thermal energy to space […]
No kidding. Now let’s review again what Clutz actually wrote:
Now to the rest of your thought:
> […] thus decreasing its efficacy.
Where the GHGs emit to space is relevant; your summary omits that very important detail and thus your conclusion that cooling efficiency is increased by GHGs is wrong.
It’s actually the other way around: in the cooler air at the top of the troposphere, GHGs emit less than they do at the surface. Less emission means less cooling.
There’s more to discuss about water vapor’s role in all this, but here’s a good stopping place for now.
It was actually Clint R’s comment, Brandy Guts, so I’ll give him the pleasure of a pointless interaction with you.
Have you noticed how hot the Earth became in the thought experiment produced by SoD with a non-radiative atmosphere, Graham?
I hope you like Latvian saunas!
Bye, Little Willy. Have a nice day.
Thanks for the win, Graham.
In return:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/05/the-hoover-incident/
Please come again. Twas fun.
You haven’t won anything, Little Willy. I’m just going out for a few hours. Is that allowed?
C’mon, Graham.
It is imperative that you get the last word, for otherwise something something.
Bring your phone with you. Then we’ll discuss why your conclusion that cooling efficiency is increased by greenhouse gases is not what Pup said or implied, and (b) is wrong.
Willard,
It’s hard to keep up with the wrongness.
“In fairness, Bob, the idea that insulation would be ever more efficient without greenhouse gases is much much wronger.”
Lots of different wrong things being presented by DREMPTY and the ABC team.
Fuck it, lets just start using the cheapest energy available now.
Clint R writes: “Absorbed flux = 200 W/m^2 (one side)”
then humorously blog laughing stock Clint R writes 10:41 am that “ain’t “flux.””
Lol, Clint R is so funny when Clint R is so confused.
Here’s my comment, Ball4.
Clint R says:
August 11, 2022 at 10:41 AM
Ball4, Joules/second aint flux.
You dont understand any of this.
You can’t pervert reality.
Reality wins again.
Humorously DREMT wrongly writes 10:42 am: “There has been no observed reduction in total OLR, Ball4.”
As usual, DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT writes about since observations since mid-2005 by: “satellite yield…a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor” since then.
That joule/sec is per your m^2 one side Clint, so I’m still laughing, thx. And adding an end tag to the other blog laughing stock’s wrong comment, worth writing again:
Humorously DREMT wrongly writes 10:42 am: “There has been no observed reduction in total OLR, Ball4.”
As usual, DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT writes about. Observations since mid-2005 by: “satellite yield…a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor.”
"In this paper, decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analysed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature."
– DeWitte 2018
Graham, you left out the second author of that paper, and you omitted to mention that it was published in Remote Sensing, a paper with an intriguing history of pal review:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
Did you leave these details out because you are a wildly dishonest troll?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/olr-1.jpeg
is the anomaly OLR since 1979 (the back line is the reference period).
The OLR has been rising since 1985 to 2018 and OLR measured decreasing mid-2005 to past 2018 due to rising trace gases and water vapor in the period.
Better to stay current on the latest OLR observations DREMT so as not to so embarrassed.
Thanks, RLH (I’ll just ignore the trolls).
“my continual teaching that radiative fluxes do NOT simply add””
Yes, Clint. Here is your opus on the topic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/
DREMT wanted you to confirm this:
“where has Clint R argued that adding more photons per unit area does not increase temperature?”
The answer is – every single time you say fluxes don’t add.
When Tim Folkerts said adding a second lamp of the same intensity as the first would increase flux on an area lit by both, you disagreed:
“a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!”
DREMT, you have your answer, clear as crystal.
“A magnifying glass does NOT ‘simply add’ fluxes. It focuses photons that were ‘spread out’ due to the inverse square law. More energy is NOT being created. The existing energy from Sun is just being concentrated in a much smaller area…”
You can increase flux by adding another source of energy incident on the area or by concentrating collimated EMR. Same result – more photon density per unit area.
Clints view: 2 Suns in the sky would make us no warmer than one.
"DREMT, you have your answer, clear as crystal."
Maybe, barry. Unless there’s something more to this "fluxes don’t simply add" argument than meets the eye…we shall see. I watch the discussion further down-thread with interest.
Make sure to answer the question about the two suns, Graham.
You might need to wait for Pup to choreograph your understanding properly.
Little Willy felt obliged to comment, again. Of course it was derogatory.
Will you answer the question if I ask it, or will you again find some lame excuse to dodge?
Nothing to do with me, Brandon. All I get is grief if I stick my nose into other people’s arguments. So I’ll leave it to Clint R.
Does this mean you’re going to stop PSTing too?
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Thanks, I was beginning to worry.
#2
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Still no answer to the two suns question. It’s not that difficult. Even you should be able to figure it out.
#3
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
“”Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Looks like you are ignoring an or there.
I’m not ignoring anything, bob.
I’m not ignoring anything, bob.
Clint R,
Since you admitted to observing the greenhouse effect, even though you are too stubborn to admit it, here is my answer to your question about focusing IR from the sky.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys851#:~:text=Scattering%20makes%20it%20impossible%20to,evident%20on%20an%20overcast%20day.
That’s a good one, Bob. Here’s another:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964088/
If only contrarians were actually curious about the mysteries which surround them.
If only the cult idiots could understand 2LoT.
“One such flow is from the warm surface of Earth to cold outer space,”
Keep linking to things you don’t understand, Brandon. That’s why this is so much fun.
C’mon Clint, everyone should understand by now that hot objects warm the cold insulator. Even you.
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
The cult never ceases to amaze.
But, they did stumble unto “diffuse”. They just didn’t realize it was more proof their nonsense is nonsense. If a focused “diffuse” sky can’t heat the surface, then for sure a non-focused “diffuse” sky can’t heat the surface.
> focused diffuse
You’re too much, Clint.
That’s just your own slop coming back in your face, Brandon.
When you invent a device that can focus diffuse light let me know so I can patent it for you.
As “focused diffuse” cannot heat Earth’s surface, “un-focused diffuse” cannot either.
That’s why a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.
> “focused diffuse”
Clint. Pay attention. You can’t focus diffuse light.
That is all.
That’s correct Brandon; it’s so much fun laughing at Clint’s continuous science mistakes like “focused diffuse”. Clint R is easily confused since sunshine is collimated enough at Earth’s solar distance thus can be focused even through an icy lens.
Brandy Guts, Ball4, please stop trolling.
“If a 3″ diameter IR focusing device can concentrate by a factor of 144, what max temperature could it provide by focusing infrared from a -27F sky?”
A -27F black body radiates 2.9 watts of 15 micron IR. If that was magnified by a factor of 144 that would be 42 watts.
But we should talk about the infrared light coming from the surface. A black body at 80F gives off 6.7 watts at 15 micron. The surface is the source of the IR that warms the atmosphere.
Before anyone quotes the 2LOT remember that temperature is an average of the kinetic energy of the molecules that make up an object. A -27F black body gives off some radiation as energetic as 5 micron. When dealing with individual molecules there is no such thing as temperature – only kinetic energy. All 15 micron photons have the same energy and any molecule that can absorb that photon will receive the energy when struck.
So there’s not enough information here to set a max temperature.
Craig, you’re really good at repeating facts that have been confirmed here many times. But, you’re unable to assemble the facts into a correct answer. The facts merely confuse you.
The max temperature a -27F source can create is -27F.
“The max temperature a -27F source can create is -27F.”
So does that work the other way as well? Can an object emit a light that is warmer than the object?
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Clint R
First thing is that the IR from the atmosphere is coming from much warmer air. The hand held IR thermometers are not designed to measure diffuse IR emission. They focus on a more dense surface. Another point is atmospheric IR is diffuse vs solar rays which are parallel. You can’t focus diffuse light. Try your magnifying glass in fog and see if you can focus the scattered solar light.
If that were true, Norman (which it mostly is) then you’re saying the -27F clear blue sky can NOT warm the surface!
Reality always wins.
Do you want to change your answer before your cult ejects you?
Clint R
I will repeat. The temperature of the air emitting IR to the surface is much warmer than minus 27 F. What State do you live in. The radiating temperature of the air would be around the air temperature. As bobderoge informed you. It is a combination of both solar input an DWIR that maintain the surface about 33 C warmer than solar alone would achieve.
Great recover, Norman. You momentarily got confused by reality but went running back to your cult nonsense. I especially liked the mention of 33C. That refers of course to your bogus “real 255K surface”, that you can’t find.
Another thing you can’t find is any valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can warm a surface to 325K.
A lot of things missing, huh?
Clint R
Since you do not accept valid experimental evidence and you require a highly specific case, then do your own experiment. Use a sphere with a one square meter surface area. Have the sphere in a good vacuum. Get two sources of IR, one for each hemisphere of your sphere. Get each source so each alone adds 315 watts of IR to the illuminated surface. Turn just one heat source on to get a temperature. After a steady state is reached turn on the other heat source and get a new steady state temperature reading. Note paint the sphere with a high emissivity paint. If you are correct the temperature will not rise to the point of emitting out the same amount that is reaching its surface. I guess you believe the second Flux will reflect off and not raise the temperature. Also Roy did an experiment that clearly shows IR from a colder source indeed is absorbed by a hotter object and raises the temperature of a heated object.
Norman says:
”Also Roy did an experiment that clearly shows IR from a colder source indeed is absorbed by a hotter object and raises the temperature of a heated object.”
One should be careful about such conclusions. We know that if a radiated object loses heat it can’t reach equilibrium. If it reaches equilibrium it can’t warm more than that.
This is why the 3rd grader radiation model and the brick in a 290k room are what creates skepticism.
This common sense conclusion is twisted all over the place to deceive people (whether that is the intent or not it misdirects efforts to the favor of pursuing a direction beneficial to those advocating it)
So why the cover up? The answer is that the science is not settled on the CO2 question and its advocates continue to fleece the public for as long as its not simply by saying it is.
G&T wrote a good paper on this that still has not been responded to in substance. Instead chicanery and special interests need for it to be handwaved away.
> This common sense conclusion is twisted all over the place to deceive people
I thought you said we should be careful about such conclusions, Bill.
Norman, if you were honest you would admit that there is no valid technical reference for your nonsense.
But you can’t because you’re not.
Willard what is the address of the rock you are living under?
Clint R
I have already told you there probably is not a technical reference to your specific problem. Textbooks give general ideas and equations and assume the reader is intelligent enough and competent enough in math to determine a specific situation. Then a textbook will give so many problems covering the topic. In a energy transfer textbook you might have 50 examples at the end of Chapter covering the topic and helping you deal with the subject matter and work on the equations to practice.
You have enough information from both Roy’s experiment and E. Swanson’s to verify you are ignorant of physics and have no logical thinking to evaluate concepts. Not much can help an idiot like you. Babble about and state stupid points. You are not smart enough to understand physics at all.
Bill Hunter
Sorry I am not able to follow your post.
YOU: “This is why the 3rd grader radiation model and the brick in a 290k room are what creates skepticism.”
Do not know the reference or why this produces skepticism.
OR THIS: “One should be careful about such conclusions. We know that if a radiated object loses heat it cant reach equilibrium. If it reaches equilibrium it cant warm more than that.”
In Roy’s experiment he is heating an object, continuous addition of energy. It will reach a Steady State temperature with its surroundings. In his experiment the only thing being varied was the top of an ice chest. When he removed the warmer cover the temperature of the heated object went down to a lower steady state temperature because it received less energy from the colder ice. When he put the lid back on the temperature rose as the heated object received more energy from the warmer lid surface.
He did this a few times to show that indeed it was the variation of energy from ice or warmer lid that caused a direct variation of temperture of the heated object.
Bill,
Sorry but G&T has been blown out of the air
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S021797921005555X
No mention of the reply to that comment, bob?
Wouldn’t that rhetorical question explain your PSTing, Graham?
G & T wrote a reply to the comment by Halpern that bob just linked to, Little Willy, but bob didn’t mention that. I just wondered why.
All you never wanted to know about G&T is here, Graham:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
You really don’t need to know any of this.
All you need is to know who replied last.
Not unlike your PSTing.
Norman, Bob, and Willard. Don’t any of you understand that the 3rd grader radiation model endorsed by Nate at the link below is a physical impossibility?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
It is flat impossible for a 400watt radiation field to warm an object to 321k. To do so is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Halpern simply creates a strawman and pretends he refuted G&T. But he failed in any way shape or fashion to address any claims by G&T and that was noted by G&T in their response.
It is unbelievable how ignorant large sectors of the public have remained in a world where science is so accessible.
Hunter
” G&T wrote a good paper on this that still has not been responded to in substance. ”
Wrong.
G&T’s absolutely superficial paper was written by 2 Germans specialized in theoretical, mathematical physics, what would of course have led them to be discredited by all Skeptics if they had written an article with the opposite conclusions.
But they wrote something the Skeptics expected and were therefore glorified ad nauseam instead.
*
The paper was perfectly contradicted by A.P. Smith
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (2008)
Gerlich (and later on, Kramm) tried to contradict Smith’s paper, but with no success from the point of view of all people having understood Smith’s paper.
*
But, like for Moon’s spin, you will prefer your own thoughts – of course without being able to scientifically prove their correctness, let alone would you ever be able to disprove the correctness of all the scientific you discredit as ‘academic exercises’.
Why do you link to a comment where you get the same numbers as Nate but not the same numbers as Graham, Bill?
DREMPTY,
You mean the “We are physicists response?”
It’s trash.
You don’t have the chops to understand their response as the drivel it was.
Norman, you keep dodging, diverting, denying, and distorting.
If you were honest you would admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two identical fluxes arriving a surface can heat it so it will emit the sum of the two fluxes.
That’s the generic statement of the example “two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2”.
But, you’re NOT an honest person. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
They pointed out that Halpern et al were attacking a straw man, for one thing, bob. Funny how false accusations and misrepresentations can even be made in the scientific literature by these people. It’s not just restricted to their activity on blogs.
To whom it may concern
“The effect is a combination of solar radiative heating and the fact that the greenhouse gases block a portion of the long wavelength radiation to space and return it to the surface.
This is in the nature of an insulation, just as your coat (you know, the one you are wearing in Barrow) blocks a portion of the heat radiating from your body and returns it to your skin. The coat is colder than your body.”
Eli
My comment, is this is what I have been saying, it’s the back radiation and solar radiation that heats the surface, not just the back radiation.
A short course in thermodynamics might be of some use to some here, but your mileage may vary.
Some just won’t learn.
DREMPTY,
“They pointed out that Halpern et al were attacking a straw man, for one thing,”
Perhaps you could elaborate on how the response by Halpern was a straw man.
But since you don’t understand thermodynamics, I doubt it.
"Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere"."
Bindidon says:
”The paper was perfectly contradicted by A.P. Smith
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf”
—————————-
Not hardly Bindidon. Facts and arguments made by Smith are not in dispute.
The only effort he made in establishing how GHG are responsible for the GHE was this:
”the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for
infrared radiation” leads to ”a warming of the Earths surface”
”Leads to” is a not a physics word.
It is well established that light absorbing molecules in the atmosphere are necessary condition for a GHE. But that does not detail the physics of how the GHE is actually created.
G&T ran through various possibilities and found them to not be adequate.
All the responses returned were of the nature of Smith’s stomping his foot an stating GHG ‘leads’ to warming without explaining how it leads to warming. A non-response.
I accept light absorbing molecules are a necessary condition for a GHE but dispute they are sufficient.
You claim to understand Smith’s paper. That seems completely implausible. Seems more like your daddy told you Smith made a relevant response.
So here comes: The brick (earth) in the middle of the room (the atmosphere) model where the brick warms the room!!
For Nate it is the 5 plate model here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
No science to support it just his religious belief that 290k objects are capable of warming objects to 321K. . . .all in violation of 2LOT.
> Facts and arguments made by Smith are not in dispute.
What is the title of the paper again, Bill?
Willard’s most recent attempt to make what ”Daddy Says” an absolute truth that should never, ever be questioned.
DREMPTY,
“”Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earths surface and atmosphere”.”
Perhaps you can elaborate how that is a scientific rebuttal rather than an insult?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Quoting G&T: Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are ”trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earths surface and atmosphere”.
Here Halpern acknowledges that the 3rd grader radiation model is bunk. Here his claim is G&T are ignoring most non-radiative heat flows! Of course that isn’t true because G&T had addressed established science in those areas. The G&T challenged Halpern to produce an accurate blueprint of the process he was claiming to produce the GHE. Halpern never responded.
So we were left with a claim of a CO2 induced GHE, an admission that the 3rd grader radiation model was insufficient and required non-radiative heat flows, and no description of how that would work.
I think I am done here on the topic of the 3rd grader radiation model.
Perhaps you can explain how it’s an insult to point out when somebody is not communicating your arguments correctly, bob.
The title is Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, Bill, and you aid that the facts and the arguments were not in dispute.
When Graham quotes G&T, does he play Daddy Says?
Perhaps someone could quote where Gin and Tonic actually refuted the Greenhouse Effect.
I just waded through that dreck again and couldn’t find it.
Was there data in that paper showing downwelling IR doesn’t exist?
There wouldn’t need to be, bob.
Willard says:
”The title is Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, Bill, and you aid that the facts and the arguments were not in dispute.
When Graham quotes G&T, does he play Daddy Says?”
—————————
Daddy says only applies when you don’t understand the science behind the statement.
G&T stated that Halpern did correctly state G&T’s position. Thats true. Halpern was defending the 3rd grader radiation model that was touted by Nate here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Nate is backing away from defending this by now claiming a lapse rate is also necessary. But how does the warming occur within the lapse rate? The 3rd grader radiation model? LMAO!
Bill please stop being the truest Scotsman.
Willard come back when you actually find an argument.
“No science to support it just his religious belief that 290k objects are capable of warming objects to 321K. . . .all in violation of 2LOT.”
Bill just can’t stop baiting and trolling and being completely clueless.
Nate is always getting upset when somebody points out that he is supporting a 290k object warming to 321k simply by surrounding the object with 290k plates.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Invariably rather than supporting the nonsense he bursts out in a fit with a stream of ad hominems.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1349800
Nate it is defined as fixed. in the example it is defined as fixed at 400w/m2
Stop man-splaining and misrepresenting stuff that is well beyond your knowledge.
Nate says:
Stop man-splaining
—————————-
Gee Nate I had no idea you were a female. So how could I have been condensating to your gender if I was unaware of it?
Actually, Bill:
> [The portmanteau] has come to be used more broadly, often applied when a man takes a condescending tone in an explanation to anyone, regardless of the age or gender of the intended recipients: a “man ‘splaining” can be delivered to any audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
Willard I wasn’t aware it had been expanded to wimps and pussies.
Clint R posts evidence of the greenhouse effect for the win.
Can’t grok the difference between heat and heat transfer?
My, my, you physics training was woefully inadequate.
Must have skipped all your classes.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I’m winning
Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Graham, please stop playing Hamlet.
Macbeth!
The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, Graham.
You know Betteridge Law, right?
Trousers have hats. Understand?
Only as green ideas, and then they sleep furiously.
Kwat.
https://youtu.be/cW9CdKQQTq8
Thromp.
Macbeth hits on a very Hamletian theme, and it isn’t about fools.
The true meaning, if any can be applied here, is that our interactions are futile.
Exactly, barry.
Considering the general absurdity of life that defeated character emphasizes, being here is as meaningful as life can get.
We need to imagine Sisyphus happy.
It’s a long way to that April end of La Nina
https://i.postimg.cc/F1t5Gr52/nino34-NASA.png
Which year?
The so called back radiation from colder atmosphere being absorbed again by the warmer ground is impossible.
This can be easily proven by kindergarten lever scenario of a small ball inside a big hollow sphere, and applying the inverse square law of the small ball radiating into the outer sphere where the amount of energy per surface unit decreases and inverse square law in reverse of the hollow sphere radiating into the small ball where the amount of energy per surface unit increases .
According to the claim that totality of watts of energy hitting the surfaces adding up, the inner ball would have to be at much higher temperature at the steady state than the outer sphere because of the watts per square meter difference hitting their surfaces.
This is clearly not happening in real scenario , it’s because the warmer surface does not absorb any radiation energy from the cooler object , none whatsoever, and hat’s why both the sphere and the ball inside of it will end up at the same temperature.
The back radiation adding up to the sun light radiation is invented by mathemagicians who play around with numbers but don’t understand even basic fizzix.
“The so called back radiation from colder atmosphere being absorbed again by the warmer ground is impossible.”
Eben 3:02 pm: your described process is itself impossible because universe entropy is not increased.
Try again. Using possible basic “fizzix”.
Eben
Actually it is quite accepted physics. Your example given is quite illogical and incorrect so you form an invalid conclusion using a flawed thought process.
The amount of energy the small ball inside a larger sphere is the same regardless of the size of larger outer sphere. The view factor is always one in this case. The energy from the larger ball does not concentrate to the smaller ball. The only energy from the large sphere reaching the small ball is equivalent to the surface area of the small ball. Most the radiant energy misses it. You should maybe draw radiant lines on a piece of paper and see that most straight lines you draw from the larger sphere will completely miss the small ball and hit the opposing side.
I think you might wish to reevaluate this stupid post. It does not help your posts when you demonstrate a total lack of physics knowledge and do not possess logical thinking to see how flawed your example is.
Please give us better skeptics. The current ones, Swenson, Gordon Robertson, Clint R, DREMT are quite illiterate on physics or science. They think their opinions or their common sense are correct but reject rational experimentally verified physics in favor of their misguided and ignorant opinions. I wait for more intelligent skeptics that have some rational thought and grasp of science. So far the skeptics seem most lame.
> You should maybe draw radiant lines on a piece of paper and see that most straight lines you draw from the larger sphere will completely miss the small ball and hit the opposing side.
Elegant, thank you.
If the ‘small ball’ is the Earth and the ‘large ball’ is TOA, the differences between are not that great.
Brandon,
You got sucked in, when you thought the following was “elegant”.
“You should maybe draw radiant lines on a piece of paper and see that most straight lines you draw from the larger sphere will completely miss the small ball and hit the opposing side.”
Where they have absolutely no effect, as the opposing side is just as hot as the other. Even more ridiculous is claiming that the radiation from the outer sphere (unable to heat the opposing side at the same temperature), can heat the inner body – which is even hotter!
Not elegant, just stupid.
You are a pack of fools, in complete denial of reality.
Carry on.
> You are a pack of fools
Brandon is not even a six pack of fools, Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Here is the best kindergarten lever scenario, eboy:
https://youtu.be/-N_RZJUAQY4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
brandon…”Clint: Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
Me: microwave ovens cannot warm up your leftovers!
Clint: Microwave ovens work just fine.
Me: Microwave emissions in nature are associated with very cold objects, Clint”.
***
Brandon…your analogy parallels the analogy of putting a trace amount of ink in water and noting how it tends to block light. In other words, it is a red-herring argument in response to CO2 at 0.04& being able to warm the atmosphere.
Microwaves in an oven are not intended to supply heat. They are designed to cause water molecules to become agitated and the agitation/vibration produces heat. Remember, EM contains no heat and that applies to microwaves. EM can cause atoms to heat up due to the activity of electrons absorbing it.
I don’t know where you got the idea that microwave radiation in nature is associated with cold objects? Can you provide some evidence? I do know that microwave radiation produced in magnetron and klystron tubes is produced by electrons being accelerated in cavities by relatively high voltages.
I cannot imagine how activity of electrons in cold objects could produce microwave radiation.
Come on, Gordo.
The ink argument is far from being a red herring. It shows that traces of stuff can be critical for things to happen. CO2 is a trace gas that is critical for life on Earth and prolly elsewhere.
Not red-herring. Red herring. Squirrel is shorter.
“I don’t know where you got the idea that microwave radiation in nature is associated with cold objects?”
Cosmic background radiation (microwave) = 3K.
Microwaves are of lower frequency than infrared, and lower frequencies are associated with cooler objects.
“Microwaves in an oven are not intended to supply heat. They are designed to cause water molecules to become agitated and the agitation/vibration produces heat.”
Infrared light is given off by the heated surface of the Earth. It causes water, CO2 and a host of other molecules to vibrate and rotate producing heat. Collisions with other atmospheric molecules spreads the heat through the atmosphere.
Gordon
Pay attention to Willard, he knows of what he speaks about red herrings. After catching them in his local polluted river, he fries them and has them for dinner along with beets, red cabbage, red peppers, radicchio, red leaf lettuce and tomato with pomegranate, rhubarb, raspberries and strawberries for dessert.
bob d …you are competing with Binny for the idiot in the blog.
******************
“The Second Law does not say cold cant warm hot.
Second Law say heat transfer is always hot to cold, unless work is done on the system”.
***
I have read Clausius on the 2nd law and there is nothing in the law about work being done on the system. He stated it basically as follows: Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
That’s it…no work required, no mysterious balance of energies. Clausius accompanied the definition with an explanation of ‘by its own means’. That’s where the work comes in, even though it is not stated.
In an air conditioner, work is supplied by a compressor, which works on a gas to compress it to a liquid. The low pressure gas comes from a cold area where it has absorbed heat from the room. After compression to liquid, it is run through a radiator exposed to a warmer region (the atmosphere) where the heat in the compressed gas can escape. Obviously, the compressed gas is hotter than the atmospheric air to which it is exposed by the radiator.
That’s your transfer of heat from a colder region to a warmer region. The point made by Clausius is the gas cannot do that by its own means. It requires compensation by the compression. After passing through the radiator, the HP liquid goes through an aerator nozzle to a spray then it is allowed to expand back to a LP gas in another radiator. As it does, it absorbs heat from the colder region.
The atmosphere has no such mechanism.
******************************
“Sorry but G&T has been blown out of the air
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S021797921005555X ”
***
Equally sorry, but that crap by Halpern et al was debunked by G&T in a subsequent rebuttal. To demonstrate the stupidity of Halpern et al, when G&T quoted the 2nd law, about heat transfer being required to move only from hot to cold, Halpern and the boys offered a Homer Simpson Doh!!! moment.
Halpern, aka Eli Rabbett, reasoned that with two bodies radiating at different temperatures the 2nd law would mean one body was not radiating.
Doh!!! and Duh!!!
No Eli, it means radiation from a cooler body is not absorbed by a hotter body.
**********************
“As long as heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere then back radiation can increase the temperature of the surface in conjunction with warming from other sources”.
***
Doh!!! The other source is the Sun. It is at a mean temperature of about 5500C. The atmosphere is recorded in the sub-zero range by FLIRs. How can heat be transferred cold to hot and add to a heat transfer from very hot source to a source that is cooler than that source but hotter than the atmosphere?
It’s obvious that the atmosphere, with the exception of inversions, must be colder than or have an equal temperature to the surface.
Besides all that physics stuff, Bob, the Sun has already heated the surface. The surface converts SW solar to LW IR and that IR allegedly heats GHGs in the cooler atmosphere. So, you are claiming, the GHGs can back-radiate the same heat provided by the Sun and have it added to later incoming solar SW to heat the surface more.
That kind of reasoning convinces me you are a utility man at nuclear plants. You would be a danger working in physics at such a plant.
Come on, Gordo.
Rabett.
That kind of reasoning convinces everyone but Sky Drsgon cranks like you.
Gordon,
Take a course in thermodynamics and get back to me.
Until then shut up, you know nothing.
Gordon,
I no longer work in a Nuclear Power Plant, but when I did my title was General Repairman Nuclear.
Now I work in Nuclear Medicine, making drugs to be injected into peoples brains so doctors can see inside.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“In an air conditioner, work is supplied by a compressor, which works on a gas to compress it to a liquid.”
Nope, this is incorrect. The compressor compresses the gas and then pushes it through a heat exchanger which cools the gas allowing it to condense.
Read more Clausius, particularly the quote Bindindon provided.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
OLR anomaly for Jul 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/olr.jpeg
PDO for Jul 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/pdo.jpeg
AMO for Jul 2022
Forgot the graphs
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-trended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-detrended.jpeg
“All we know is, due to 2LoT, that back-radiated energy cannot raise the temperature of the warmer body.”
That is correct. Radiation from the atmosphere will never warm the surface. Radiation from the surface will never warm the atmosphere to a temperature higher than the surface.
But the question is about the impact of radiation from the surface on various layers of the atmosphere. Radiation leaving the Earth corresponds to the temperature of the tropopause. That outgoing radiation is only a third of the radiation from the surface. The other 2/3 warmed the troposphere.
At the tropopause half of the photons emitted by molecules go upward while the other half go down. So in that context back radiation is important. Using the 2LOT to dismiss any greenhouse effect is an infrared herring.
Craig believes: Radiation leaving the Earth corresponds to the temperature of the tropopause.
Craig do you have ANY facts to support that false belief?
For example:
What is the temperature of the tropopause?
What is the emitted flux from the tropopause?
What is the emissivity of the tropopause?
Beliefs ain’t science. Bless your little heart….
I checked some papers and it is an oversimplification to say outgoing longwave radiation corresponds to the temperature of the tropopause or that half of the emitted radiation at the tropopause travels downward. Those two things are also not relevant to my point.
The troposphere is warmed by radiation coming from the surface of the Earth. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere. The 2LOT is not violated.
If you don’t know it, the below citation is worth reading:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y
It defines the concept of a “equivalent bulk emission level” giving it an altitude of 72192m at a temperature of 254 K, increasing at a rate of 232m/decade due to increasing GHG concentration.
254 K is of course the effective temperature of the planet assuming 236 W/m2 average LW emission to space.
This is the “imaginary 255 K sphere” Clint is always howling about not existing; didactic utility always upsets the willfully ignorant.
7,219+/-2m and 23+/-2m/decade are the correct values.
That is a good article about the problems of simplifying science to reach a general audience.
Craig T, Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
That too, Craig. And our pseudo-moderator demonstrates the problem of reaching some audience members with *anything*.
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Only on planet Graham is citing on-topic peer-reviewed literature considered trolling. No wonder he can’t learn anything.
"didactic utility always upsets the willfully ignorant".
"That is a good article about the problems of simplifying science to reach a general audience" [Craig T implying he’s above the level of a "general audience"]
"And our pseudo-moderator demonstrates the problem of reaching some audience members with *anything*."
"No wonder he can’t learn anything."
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Clint gets as good as he gives, WYA. A real moderator you ain’t.
#2
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
The difference between an earth without atmosphere and an earth with atmosphere is not 33C.
I mean by that, that Earths atmosphere doesnt warm Earths surface by 33C.
The Earths theoretical blackbody effective temperature Te =255K is a mathematical abstraction. It doesnt have any physical analogue on the actual Earths surface temperature.
By claiming Earths atmosphere being capable to warm Earths surface 24 hours on average 33C, please explain how much Earths atmosphere warms Earths surface at midday hours.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
How long will you endlessly repeat that same stuff on this blog?
You are clearly abusing our inability to scientifically disagree with you.
Repeating it while carefully avoiding scientific contradictions by really experienced persons doesn’t make it more believable, quite the opposite.
Bin,
How long will you endlessly repeat that same stuff on this blog?
You are clearly abusing our inability to scientifically disagree with you.
Repeating it while carefully avoiding scientific contradictions by really experienced persons doesn’t make it more believable, quite the opposite.
Where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/olr
” Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) data at the top of the atmosphere are observed from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument aboard the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft.
Data are centered across equatorial areas from 160E to 160W longitude.
The raw data are converted into a standardized anomaly index.
Negative (Positive) OLR are indicative of enhanced (suppressed) convection and hence more (less) cloud coverage typical of El Niño (La Niña) episodes.
More (Less) convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies higher (lower), colder (warmer) cloud tops, which emit much less (more) infrared radiation into space.
*
Data
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr
*
A look at the emphasized text let me think of superposing the MEI and the OLR (standardized anomalies) with MEI of course inverted:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hg9nHGdptJsy7-6LnENhxp0Vyw4bIHLB/view
Interesting, to say the least.
From the MEI page I knew since a while about
” Key features of composite positive MEI events (warm, El Niño) include
(1) anomalously warm SSTs across the east-central equatorial Pacific,
(2) anomalously high SLP over Indonesia and the western tropical Pacific and low SLP over the eastern tropical Pacific,
(3) reduction or reversal of tropical Pacific easterly winds (trade winds),
(4) suppressed tropical convection (positive OLR) over Indonesia and Western Pacific and enhanced convection (negative OLR) over the central Pacific.
Key features of composite negative MEI events (cold, La Niña) are of mostly opposite phase.
For any single El Niño or La Niña situation, the atmospheric articulations may depart from this canonical view. ”
*
But I ‘d never imagined how strong this OLR vs MEI^-1 correlation would be.
Strange how Blinny posts about things I have graphed recently on here, but does not mention any of that when he does so.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/olr-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
It’s almost as though he has an obsession of some sort.
Still I notice that Blinny will insist on posting lines in his graphs for which he has no evidence at all. Only the points at the ends of his lines are the actual data (with no actual error notification added to them), the rest is pure imagination.
Linsley Hood
A. ” Strange how Blinny posts about things I have graphed recently on here, but does not mention any of that when he does so. ”
The only obsessed person here, that’s you.
1. Why the heck shall I mention your stoopid, uninteresting graphs?
2. Why aren’t you able to immediately understand that I posted something completely different than your stoopid, uninteresting graphs?
*
B. ” Still I notice that Blinny will insist on posting lines in his graphs for which he has no evidence at all. ”
Why aren’t you even able to exactly describe what you mean, Linsley Hood?
Why aren’t you even able to clearly, technically contradict me, Linsley Hood?
You’re nothing but an old bad-mouthed polemicist who acts like a 15-year-old kid.
“Why aren’t you even able to exactly describe what you mean”
The points have a size (which I fix at 3 pixels, centered) but in fact they have a size that is determined by the error range that they should cover. This means that any line drawn between those points could have numerous values, not just one. That assumes that the transition between the points is a simple line whereas it could have any values that just end up there. Consider a Z shaped line for instance. That has a similar likelihood as does a straight line. So, in fact, a very blurred line exists between 2 vaguely described points, not a simple one as you like to draw. Hence you are using nave simplistic assumptions that have no real value.
My points alone are a much closer to the truth plot. To be accurate they should include a size reflecting their accuracy rather than a fixed one, but visually they will be very similar.
….using naive simplistic assumptions that have no real value….
“Why the heck shall I mention your stoopid, uninteresting graphs”
But I only use VPs CTRMs and known data in those graphs. You cannot be claiming that VP or the publishers of the data are stupid can you?
P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2, which has a definite downtrend since 1979, and apparently can be directly compared to inverted OLR, is valid? More valid that ONI over the same period?
” My points alone are a much closer to the truth plot. ”
Complete idiocy: anybody showing the lines between the dots shows
– the lines
AND
– the dots.
You only hide the lines between the dots to give the wrong impression that
– the dot sets in autocorrelated weather time series are of the same arbitrary kind as those originating from simple electronic measurements;
– without your alleged 12 month resp. 5 year ‘low pass’ plots, the user is left alone, without any idea about how the dots correlate.
This is so ugly!
***
And then, again and again and again, this absolutely morbid
” Are you saying that… ”
Why don’t you post a chart superposing the two times series proving me wrong, Linsley Hood?
My answer since I saw you physically overlaying two pictures of your your single plots, instead of posting a single chart combini9ng them: you are NOT able to correctly superpose time series like I do all the time.
*
And manifestly, you did not understand why I had to invert one of the two time series!
*
Linsley Hood, you are and keep an incompetent stalking liar and trickster.
So tell me, oh knowledgeable one, what do the lines actually show?
“You only hide the lines between the dots”
because my old stats professor said that they were not real.
“And manifestly, you did not understand why I had to invert one of the two time series!”
Because one series shows up in El Nino and the other down (and vice versa).
P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2, which has a definite downtrend since 1979, and apparently can be directly compared to inverted OLR, is valid? More valid that ONI over the same period?
“Are you saying that..”
No, he’s clearly not saying any of that. You are projecting you obsessions and hoping he’ll be drawn into them.
Barry: So which do you consider is closer to the ‘truth’? A series which trends downwards in its data points and their ‘averages’ and which can be compared to long wave IR by a different instrument or one that trend upwards and can’t?
State a position that is testable. Answering your endless questions that never get to a point is boring.
Bin, you must have missed the last cult meeting. Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they don’t cover 15μ
It’s hard to stay up with the cult’s shifting perversions, huh?
Keep away from things you can’t grasp.
That would keep you away from a lot of things.
Oh I do, Bin. I do.
That’s why I don’t join cults. I stay away from things I can’t grasp.
I can’t grasp why people would want to be associated with perversions of science and reality.
> Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they dont cover 15μ
No. As I told you before, your retail handheld IR thermometer is probably specifically designed to not operate in that band. From the manufacturer of such devices:
https://www.sensortips.com/temperature/infrared-temperature-sensor/
Just because one IR type of sensor doesn’t measure broadband IR doesn’t mean all of them don’t.
Try to lay off the sauce tonight, it seems to have damaged your brain.
Braindead Brandon, since you have so much time, find the wavelengths tracked by AVHRR.
I predict you won’t admit your confusion.
Craig T. already referred you to the proper devices for measuring downwelling IR from the sky in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347404
If you follow his link you can easily look up the specifications for the various devices they offer.
I’ll Goggle more for you for $200/hr, payable in advance.
My prediction was right, again.
Let me translate for those that don’t speak troll.
AVHRR sensors detect radiation from 0.58 micron to 12.5 micron. The data from the satellite will tell you nothing about IR in the 15 micron range.
So Clint R was right, and Brandy Guts was wrong.
Clint is only right about 15 micron radiation not being measured by AVHRR. Bindidon is right that AVHRR measures thermal radiation coming from the surface. Here are the relevant bandwidths.
——-
AVHRR spectral bands and specifications:
Band 3B Thermal 3.55-3.93
Surface temperature, wildfire detection, nighttime clouds, volcanic eruptions
Band 4 Thermal 10.30-11.30
Surface temperature, wildfire detection, nighttime clouds, volcanic eruptions
Band 5 Thermal 11.5-12.50
Sea surface temperature, water vapor path radiance
——–
https://gisgeography.com/avhrr-advanced-very-high-resolution-radiometer/
So AVHRR does have data on outgoing longwave radiation. The Greenhouse Effect is about a range of wavelengths not just 15 micron.
Time for another review.
Hint: satellite-bourne AVHRR != ground-based pyrgeometers
HTH
No, this is what I was commenting on:
Clint R: Bin, you must have missed the last cult meeting. Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they don’t cover 15 microns. It’s hard to stay up with the cult’s shifting perversions, huh?
Bindidon: You’re an idiot and wrong and I despise your soul.
Brandy Guts: No (even though Clint R is right). As I told you before, your retail handheld IR thermometer is probably specifically designed to not operate in that band. Just because one IR type of sensor doesn’t measure broadband IR doesn’t mean all of them don’t (and yet the AVHRR doesn’t cover 15 microns, so Clint R is right). Try to lay off the sauce tonight, it seems to have damaged your brain. I’m a condescending prick.
Clint R: Braindead Brandon, since you have so much time, find the wavelengths tracked by AVHRR. I predict you won’t admit your confusion.
Brandy Guts: Anything but admit I was wrong about AVHRR.
Clint R: My prediction was right, again.
Craig T: Even though Clint R was correct about AVHRR, let’s call him the troll. AVHRR sensors detect radiation from 0.58 micron to 12.5 micron. The data from the satellite will tell you nothing about IR in the 15 micron range.
DREMT: Correctly states that Brandon was wrong, and Clint R was right, about AVHRR.
Craig T and Brandy Guts: But but but but but but but but but
> Brandy Guts: Anything but admit I was wrong about AVHRR.
I made no claims about AVHRR, nor was I the one who brought it up.
You’re another one that can never admit to even the tiniest mistake.
What’s the point?
I don’t admit to mistakes I didn’t make, Graham. My statements were limited to handheld IR thermometers and ground based pyrgeometers. That’s it. If you can quote me discussing what frequency bands AVHRR does or does not observe, now would be the time to do it.
Hint: you won’t find any.
Please stop trolling.
It’s clear from context, Brandy Guts. I already went through it. The most immediately obvious clue is your quoting Clint R as saying:
"Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they don’t cover 15 microns"
And responding:
"No…"
at 12:50 PM. You then went on, in the same comment, to say:
"Just because one IR type of sensor doesn’t measure broadband IR doesn’t mean all of them don’t."
Yet that’s not what Clint R was saying. Clint R was not saying that all IR sensors don’t measure broadband IR. He in fact said:
"Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they don’t cover 15 microns".
So, if nothing else, that was a mistake on your part. Which you won’t admit to either.
> Clint R was not saying that all IR sensors dont measure broadband IR.
Let’s review. Again.
Truly a dizzying leap of logic. No wonder you’re confused.
If you can quote Clint R as saying that all IR sensors dont measure broadband IR, now would be the time to do it.
Hint: you wont find any.
Please stop trolling.
Graham.
You need broadband IR sensors to accurately measure *all* of the downwelling IR from the atmosphere.
Saying that downwelling IR can’t be measured *implies* that no such sensor exists.
Clint was the one who brought up AVHRR, which isn’t a broadband instrument. I wonder why.
Use your brain for something other than PSTing.
"Clint was the one who brought up AVHRR…"
No, Bindidon was the one who brought up AVHRR, in his original comment at 8:37 AM, which is what prompted Clint R to respond to him. Can you at least admit you are wrong about that?
"You need broadband IR sensors to accurately measure *all* of the downwelling IR from the atmosphere.
Saying that downwelling IR can’t be measured *implies* that no such sensor exists."
Sorry Brandon, "implications" and interpretations from context aren’t allowed. That’s your rule, which follows from your 5:42 PM comment. If you can’t find the quote of him directly saying it, then that’s that.
> Can you at least admit you are wrong about that?
My mistake, thanks for the correction.
> “implications” and interpretations from context arent allowed.
Actually they’re an essential aspect of communicating using language.
> Thats your rule, which follows from your 5:42 PM comment.
I didn’t say anything about implication in that comment. I asked for a quote. The closest you got was my August 11, 2022 at 12:50 PM:
“No” means that my “cult” does not disavow any measurements from non-broadband instruments, insofar as I know. If you can find a quote to the contrary in this subthread let me know.
Everything that follows refers back to my original points about handheld IR thermometers being unsuitable for measuring the effective temperature of the atmosphere looking skyward from the ground.
I express no opinion about what AVHRR does or does not measure in that comment.
Can you at least admit you were wrong about that?
"My mistake, thanks for the correction."
Wow, we got there eventually.
"Can you at least admit you were wrong about that?"
Well that depends, Brandy Guts. Can you quote me specifically saying that you express an opinion about what AVHRR does or does not measure in that comment? Because according to the rule you established with your 5:42 PM comment, only direct quotes will do.
Are you enjoying having someone waste your time by nit-picking your every word? Believe me, "I know how it is".
> eventually
That was the first and only thing I was wrong about in this subthread, and I accepted it immediately after having it pointed out. Gosh you’re impatient.
> Can you quote me specifically saying that you express an opinion about what AVHRR does or does not measure in that comment?
If you were referring to something other than my opinions about the immediate context, now is the chance to clarify.
> Well that depends
It shouldn’t.
> Are you enjoying having someone waste your time
I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t enjoy it Graham. Why are you here.
No, seriously.
***
You were right about one other thing; I am a condescending pr!ck. Thank you for noticing.
“Craig T: Even though Clint R was correct about AVHRR, let’s call him the troll. AVHRR sensors detect radiation from 0.58 micron to 12.5 micron. The data from the satellite will tell you nothing about IR in the 15 micron range.”
I don’t believe being right makes you less of a troll and so little of what Clint wrote was true.
“Bin, you must have missed the last cult meeting. Your cult now disavows any measurements from instruments such as the AVHRR, because they dont cover 15 micron”
Even ignoring the insults, climate scientists don’t “disavow” any of the AVHRR data. And 0.58 to 12.5 micron radiation is still infrared. If you feel cheated by not measuring the OLR up to 15 micron then look at HIRS OLR data. That sensor measures from 0.7 – 15 micron. You’ll find little differences between the two data sets.
https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01325/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-10-01325-g002.png
Now back to the proper use of 2LOT. Upward longwave radiation is emitted by the surface of the Earth. The surface is warmer than the troposphere. We’re talking about radiation from a warmer object warming a cooler object.
Brandon, you’re not really following your own rules. Are "implications" and interpretations allowed? If so, then I still think my 4:03 PM interpretation is the correct one. It certainly reads to me like you were unaware that the AVHRR doesn’t measure 15 micron radiation.
Or does everything have to be confirmed by direct quotes, as your 5:42 PM comments seemed to suggest? If so the you’re out of luck as you have been unable to find the two quotes I asked you for.
I wasn’t even aware AVHRR existed until I read Clint’s first comment about it, so it is obviously correct that I wasn’t aware of any of its capabilities.
Clint is wrong that downwelling IR can’t be measured from the ground; see pyrgeometers.
Clint is wrong that members of my “cult” disavow any instrument which doesn’t observe in the 15 micron band; different sensors exist for different applications, it’s almost certain that no single type of sensor will be suitable for all applications.
Clint is probably wrong that his handheld IR thermometer sees the 15 micron band as such devices are intentionally designed to see in the 7 to 14 micron “window” band to avoid attenuation by water vapor and CO2. We can’t know this for certain unless he shares its make and model with us.
Clint is almost certainly wrong that his IR thermometer gives a correct effective temperature of the clear sky atmosphere if only because all such devices have a narrow field of view by design, unlike broadband pyrgeometers which have an effectively hemispheric view angle.
"Even ignoring the insults, climate scientists don’t “disavow” any of the AVHRR data."
You’re taking a tongue-in-cheek comment from Clint R way too literally and seriously. He was simply referring to the way he was treated up-thread.
"And 0.58 to 12.5 micron radiation is still infrared."
Sure. I haven’t said otherwise.
"If you feel cheated by not measuring the OLR up to 15 micron then look at HIRS OLR data. That sensor measures from 0.7 – 15 micron. You’ll find little differences between the two data sets."
I don’t feel cheated, Craig…and it’s good to know it was all a big fuss about nothing. It usually is.
Pups trolling is not nothing, Graham.
Its NOTHING.
Was Pup right or tongue-in-cheek?
I missed out on all the fun again.
Brandon is confused about inexpensive hand-held IR thermometers being able to measure sky temperature. If your model thermometer can read below -50F, then you can read most sky temperatures. (There are currently two levels of “inexpensive”. The higher quality, around $45-60, can measure as low as minus 60F. The cheaper “inexpensive” ($15-35) only measures to about -20F.
And poor Craig T is still trying to catch up: “Now back to the proper use of 2LOT. Upward longwave radiation is emitted by the surface of the Earth. The surface is warmer than the troposphere. We’re talking about radiation from a warmer object warming a cooler object.”
Very good Craig. That’s what we’ve been saying for years. Sun heats the surface and the surface heats the troposphere. No violation of 2LoT. The violation occurs when cult idiots claim the sky can warm the surface. That’s like claiming ice cubes can boil water.
> sun heats
How about two suns, Pup?
The issue here isn’t the rated temperature of the device so much as it is the frequency bands such devices see in. Handheld devices are specifically designed to NOT see in the frequency bands where water vapor, CO2 and other GHGs emit so that the atmosphere does not block the IR being emitted by the object of interest from reaching the sensor.
To see the difference using proper pyrgeometers make, here is a plot showing downwelling IR for a sunny day in Colorado:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62fab74767ec2.pdf
Peak 2m air temperature that day was 31 C or 88 F. Peak DWIR was 380 W/m2 or an effective temperature of 13 C or 55 F. Not so chilly as your ill-suited to purpose instrument implies.
This has been explained to you several times now, Clint. Why are you not getting it.
As usual Brandon, you mix in some truth with your false beliefs, then you twist, spin, and distort until the truth is obscured.
And your “one-shot” data collection from Surfrad just shows how you do it.
* Sky temperatures vary considerably.
* Tropopause temperature is about -60F, but can be as cold as -100F.
* Water vapor emits wavelengths below 14μ.
Now, let’s see you make up some more nonsense.
> Water vapor emits wavelengths below 14μ.
Spectral range IR20 4.5 to 40 x 10^-6 m (nominal)
https://www.hukseflux.com/products/solar-radiation-sensors/pyrgeometers/ir20-ir20ws-pyrgeometer
You just shot yourself in your foot again, Brandon.
That device would definitely “see” the “frequency bands where water vapor, CO2 and other GHGs emit”.
Got any more bullets left?
The point is that yours probably doesn’t see wv and CO2 emissions (as I’ve linked before), while this one does, making it an appropriate instrument for measuring the effective temperature of the sky.
Brandon, you’re moving the goalposts while throwing crap against the wall!
First you didn’t want 15μ in the mix, then you wanted it in the mix!
My IR thermometer works just fine for reading sky temps.
Question for you: If IR thermometer “A” only used wavelengths 14μ and shorter, but IR thermometer “B” included 15μ wavelengths, would A typically read lower, higher, or the same as than B?
> youre moving the goalposts
No, Clint. There are different devices suitable for different applications, and I’ve been consistent about which device is better suited for a given application and why.
> My IR thermometer works just fine for reading sky temps.
It gives you a reading easily enough, but for the nth time it is almost certainly spuriously low due to the fact that it’s most likely only sensitive to wavelengths where CO2 and wv emissions are relatively very low.
> If IR thermometer A only used wavelengths 14μ and shorter, but IR thermometer B included 15μ wavelengths, would A typically read lower, higher, or the same as than B?
Very interesting question that isn’t so easy to answer as it may appear. Sensor A would certainly report less flux than B but that doesn’t *necessarily* translate to A reading a lower temperature than B.
The reason why has to do with how the temperature calculation is done, which is the temperature of a perfect black body given total flux received over the frequency range of the sensor. In other words, it doesn’t take the measured flux and plug that directly into the S/B equation to give a temperature.
For example, a 288 K blackbody radiates a total of 164 W/m2 between 8 and 14 microns, which is I assume is equivalent to your handheld device. Using the US Standard Atmosphere, MODTRAN tells me a clear sky on a 288 K day radiates 53 W/m2 toward the ground over the same frequency band, equivalent to a 232 K blackbody or -42 F — cooler than, but within striking distance of, your -27 F actual result.
We can now do something similar for your hypothetical sensors A and B.
Sensor A: Assuming the sensor reads 4 to 14 microns, the flux received is 91 W/m2, corresponding to a blackbody at 250 K, or 4.2 F.
Sensor B: Assuming the sensor reads 4 to 18 microns, the flux received is 149 W/m2, corresponding to a blackbody at 257 K, or 7.4 F.
So using the assumptions of the US Standard Atmosphere I would say the “typical” result is that B would read higher than A.
However, the results are sensitive to absolute humidity, and on a very humid day it’s quite possible that sensor A would read higher than B.
Sorry Brandon, but that is all wrong.
You’re mixing a lot of meaningless numbers in with your blah-blah, going for maximum confusion. Let’s kept it simple, instead.
An IR thermometer absorbs two photons — one with wavelength 13μ, and one with wavelength 14μ. (Call this reading 1.)
Next, the same IR thermometer absorbs two more photons — one with wavelength 14&m;, and one with wavelength 15μ. (Call this reading 2.)
Which thermometer reading will be higher?
Correction…
Next, the same IR thermometer absorbs two more photons — one with wavelength 14μ, and one with wavelength 15μ. (Call this reading 2.)
> a lot of meaningless numbers
I can’t help that you’re easily confused, Clint.
> Which thermometer reading will be higher?
Since the 13 micron photon has more energy than the 15 micron photon, reading 1 would be higher.
However, in reality the sensor will receive about half as much energy in the 13 micron band from the clear sky as it does in the 15 micron band:
https://imgur.com/gallery/xQeMEE2
Thus with a realistic number of photons hitting the sensor per second in each band, reading 1 would actually be higher.
Your “simple” scenario doesn’t reflect reality and is wrong.
Erratum: in the realistic scenario reading 1 would actually be *lower*.
Correct Brandon, Reading 1 would be higher. The 13 and 14 micron photons would have a higher absorbed temperature than the 14 and 15 micron photons.
You should have stopped right there. You rambled yourself into nonsense, again.
As a simple example, consider this:
Which would raise temperature more when absorbed — One 14μ photon or three 15μ photons?
> You rambled yourself into nonsense, again.
No, Clint, you have evident “difficulty” understanding when you’re wrong. I’m beginning to think this is a feature rather than a bug.
> The 13 and 14 micron photons would have a higher absorbed temperature than the 14 and 15 micron photons.
You mean higher absorbed *energy* of course.
> Which would raise temperature more when absorbed One 14μ photon or three 15μ photons?
A single 15 micron photon has an energy of 82.65647 meV * 3 = 247.96940 meV. A single 14 micron photon has an energy of 88.5605 meV. Therefore the receiving object gets more energy from the three 15 micron photons.
Whether the temperature of the receiving object would increase, decrease, or stay the same in either scenario depends on what it emits at the same instant.
Pondering that question will lead you dangerously close to reality indeed.
Brandon, there’s no need for all that rambling nonsense. You could have just admitted you don’t know the answer.
But, that would require being honest, huh?
Apparently you need things to be dumbed down, Clint. Fine.
Three 15 micron photons carry more energy than one 14 micron photon does.
Do you consider that answer correct or incorrect, or is it still not simple enough for you to understand.
Your answer is incorrect, Brandon. The simple question was about raising the temperature, not which would have the most energy:
“Which would raise temperature more when absorbed — One 14μ photon or three 15μ photons?”
You don’t understand any of this.
Just to be absolutely clear, you’re saying:
1) the object which absorbs more energy will gain less temperature
OR
2) three 15 micron photons have less energy than one 14 micron photons
OR
3) something else entirely
Which?
I’m not saying any of those yet, Brandon. I’m only asking the simple question which you keep trying to evade:
“Which would raise temperature more when absorbed — One 14%mu; photon or three 15μ photons?”
> Im only asking the simple question which you keep trying to evade:
No, Clint. I’m pointing out that your question lacks enough information to know whether temperature will go up, down, or stay the same in either scenario.
In real physics, the answer depends on how much the object emits at the same instant. So *if* the object emits nothing, then temperature would rise in both cases, and the three 15 micron photons would raise its temperature more than the single 14 micron photon because the three 15 micron photons carry more energy than a single 14 micron photon.
In your fizzicks, photons have “temperature” and IIRC the temperature of a body is set by the *average* wavelength of the photons it receives. So *assuming* I understand you correctly, and the initial temperature is below whatever “temperature” a 15 micron photon is, the single 14 micron photon would raise the object to a higher temperature than the three 15 micron photons would.
Which is absurd, but there it is.
The correct answer is in bold above. Now there should be nothing to hinder you from answering my question on August 17, 2022 at 2:37 PM.
See Brandon, all that rambling and you STILL get the answer wrong. Rambling doesn’t help. (Just ask Norman.)
Adding energy does NOT guarantee a temperature rise. Go back and study the bricks-in-a-box analogy. Adding more bricks to the box with the same temperature does not raise the temperature. There are more photons flying in the box, but the temperature does not increase. The photon energy added has to be a higher frequency, i.e., less entropy.
That’s why fluxes do not simply add — photons do not simply add. And that’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes, even adding as many ice cubes as you can find. More ice cubes means more energy, but that energy can never raise something above the temperature of the ice.
You will have to reject this reality because it’s just one more nail in your cult’s coffin.
So, what will you try next?
> Adding energy does NOT guarantee a temperature rise.
Indeed not, Clint, and I already told you why.
Irrespective of whether you think my answer to your question is right or wrong, I *did* answer it. Now you owe me an answer to mine on August 17, 2022 at 2:37 PM.
3) something else entirely
Ooooh it’s a mystery!
Riddle me this. If fluxes don’t “simply” add and temperature is based solely on frequency, why doesn’t the first “high temperature” solar photon that hits you in the morning completely vaporize you.
Or the first “high temperature” photon from an incandescent light bulb.
Or a candle.
Or any “high temperature” UV, or visible light photon for that matter.
Brandon, you’re trying to vaporize people with a candle?
Get back to me when you have some science.
You apparently haven’t thought this through, Clint.
If fluxes don’t “simply” add, then you should feel as much heat from a candle as you do the sun since both emit in the “hot” visible spectrum.
Brandon, this is a perfect example of when I say “you don’t understand ANY of this”.
You can look things up on the internet, like photon energies. But, when it is necessary to put things together, you can’t do it. None of you can. None of your cult understands basic physics. You understand keyboarding.
That’s why none of you were able to solve the simple problems. The only one that even tried was barry. I hope you saw his pathetic and futile attempt. He even had a hard time understanding the answer!
Your bogus claim is a REAL “keeper”. It’s what “braindead” looks like:
Brandon believes: If fluxes don’t “simply” add, then you should feel as much heat from a candle as you do the sun since both emit in the “hot” visible spectrum.
(I won’t respond here. This sub-thread is too long.)
Bringing this down here due to length of the original subthread:
Let’s review some more of Clint:
A magnifying glass doesn’t change the frequency of the photons it concentrates into a smaller area. Therefore, concentrating solar energy with one shouldn’t be able to start a fire — the frequency hasn’t been changed, therefore there can be no change in temperature.
Moar Clint:
If this were the case then bombarding a coffee mug with 1,000 W of microwaves should freeze it solid because microwaves come from very cold objects OR the “cold” photons will simply be rejected by the warmer coffee thus not raising the latter’s temperature. This is simply priceless.
***
Now. Clint complains that magnifying glasses and microwave ovens don’t occur in nature, so my two examples are a “red herring”.
Ok, whatever. What does occur in nature is that Mercury is closer to the Sun than Earth. The frequency of incident solar radiation is the same on both planets yet one planet is hotter than the other. Thus the inverse square law Clint gives lip service to should not actually work according to his mantra that adding more photons of the same frequency doesn’t increase temperature.
I simply could not ever in a million lifetimes make this up.
Brandon R. Gates
Thank you, all that stuff was simply delicious.
My pleasure!
Yes Bin, Brandon’s effort is called “re-spinning”. It is as fascinating as it is futile.
He can’t change reality.
Psst, Pup –
Did you know that the SI unit of radiant flux is the watt (W), one joule per second (J/s)?
Next time, try to clarify what you mean by flux, and don’t pretend that flux ain’t that.
Emitted flux is the topic, worthless willard. Emitted flux has units of W/m^2, or J*s^-1*m^-2.
I understand how confused your cult can get.
Your responding is as fascinating as it is futile, Pup.
Heat flux is related to radiative flux. Heat flux is radiative flux in the infrared spectrum.
Irradiance is radiant flux incident on a surface.
Flux emitted from a surface is radiant exitance. You can call it intensity if you please. It would be as confusing as using flux, but it would make your trolling more obvious.
Whatever the word games you try, it still can add, otherwise solar panels would not work.
You know nOtHInG about this.
Solar panels mean flux adds?
You are as useless as you are worthless.
Easy to check, Pup:
One solar panel plus one solar panel equals two solar panels.
Rarely is the question asked – is our Sky Dragon cranks learning.
Worthless willard, Brandon would call that a “keeper”.
But, for adults, such nonsense isn’t worth keeping. It’s worthless.
Oh it’s a keeper alright, just a different part of the collection.
What do adult cranks say how two mirrors instead of one, Pup?
Brandy Guts, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Brandon, I’m happy to see you waste your time trying to find something wrong with what I’ve stated. It’s even more enjoyable when you repeatedly display your inability to learn. Your example of a microwave oven freezing a cup of coffee was priceless.
You don’t understand any of this.
> Your example of a microwave oven freezing a cup of coffee was priceless.
That’s the logical conclusion of your Dragon Crank fizzicks, Clint:
Perhaps you’d care to take that one back.
You’re mixing things up, Brandon. That would be another example of braindead, unless you know better. Then it would be dishonesty.
My quote is taken out of the climate discussion. You are taking my words, out of context, and trying to mix them with a manmade device.
Are you braindead or dishonest? Or, like Norman, both?
Your words are worse in context, Pup:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.06826.pdf
> manmade device
Now would be your chance to explain how your mug of coffee knows the difference between a microwave photon from the CMB vs. one that came out of the magnetron.
Even Graham finally managed to get the right answer.
All photons with the same wavelength have the same wavelength, Brandon.
Now would be your chance to explain why you can’t understand that microwave ovens have NOTHING to do with Earth’s atmosphere.
(I’ve had enough of your braindead nonsense. Any comment to me that contains your cult antics will be ignored.)
> All photons with the same wavelength have the same wavelength
That’s a keeper.
“All photons with the same wavelength have the same wavelength”
But only if the receiving station is at rest wrt the transmitter.
“A magnifying glass doesnt change the frequency of the photons it concentrates into a smaller area. Therefore, concentrating solar energy with one shouldnt be able to start a fire the frequency hasnt been changed, therefore there can be no change in temperature.”
The Sun is a 5700 K object and frequency of photons almost all Shortwave. Or Earth is warmed by sun’s shortwave and earth emits longwave.
The light from lava, could be magnified to start a fire, but light from a sheet iron heated to 100 C can not be magnified to start a fire.
A sheet of iron at 100 C is emitting Longwave IR.
If sheet is at 500 C, it’s emitting Shortwave IR and a lot more Longwave IR than compared to sheet iron at 100 C.
The Sun is likewise emitting a lot Longwave IR, but it’s insignificant at 1 AU distance from it. So, the power of sunlight is
mostly in Shortwave spectrum [including IR shortwave which about 1/2 of the energy of sunlight].
Can You Start a Fire With Moonlight and a Giant Magnifying Glass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SXM_9MnJ5k
He couldn’t do it.
I thought he could.
Because you see the moon because of it’s shortwave light.
You aren’t seeing Moon because it’s surface is 120 C.
And one say that Moonlight is reflected scatter sunlight.
But in a sense it is directed light. Or similar to indirect sunlight.
But question for me, is how scattered is it and I would guess with
enough magification should heat something.
Another thing you try is heating something which is quite cold.
Anyhow going to see if anyone else has done it.
…
This looks like a no:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736700
Another:
“Here’s the real answer: You can’t start a fire with moonlight[1] no matter how big your magnifying glass is. The reason is kind of subtle. It involves a lot of arguments that sound wrong but aren’t, and generally takes you down a rabbit hole of optics.”
https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/
Some say yes and some no:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/140927/is-it-possible-to-start-fire-using-moonlight
This guy sort of agree with my guess:
Keep in mind that the majority of the light we see from the moon is reflected light, and not emitted light from the intrinsic heat of the moon (we don’t see the IR bands).
…
I would think you could get some empirical results from a large solar collector.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=41679.20
And endless arguing follows.
But no one seems to point to someone who has done it.
Oh yeah telescopes:
Is it safe to look at the full moon through a telescope?
“As others have said, yes. But when I look at the Full Moon through my 28 telescope I get hit with this massive burst of light. When I come away from the telescope there is an afterglow in my eyes which takes a long time to disappear. Hence I use a very strong filter which cuts out over 90% of the Moons light.”
Hubble doesn’t have a filter, and know Hubble must be careful
about it. Or bigger expensive telescope probably don’t to play with it.
Well, anyways one could start fires with starlight with big eneugh Magnification.
Can start fire with starlight?
This guy agree about starlight:
It is easily experimentally demonstrated that a focussed image of the Sun can be used to start a fire. Furthermore, by thermodynamic considerations or the conservation of tendue, it can be shown that moonlight cannot be focussed such that a fire can be created. However, it is theoretically possible to magnify starlight enough to create a fire, as the surface temperature of a distant star is still above the ignition temperature of tinder.
But I would add maybe not thru Earth atmosphere.
> Can You Start a Fire With Moonlight and a Giant Magnifying Glass
Now you bring up something interesting, gb. I will read your links and do my own research. Thanks for bringing it up.
Initial guess is that you can’t, even with a celestial-scale lens. The reflected solar radiation is diffused by the moon’s surface, and uncollimated light can’t be focussed to produce a sharp image of the source.
If lunar light could be concentrated by a lens it couldn’t be any warmer than the source – the lunar surface in this case, which is barely 100C averaged over the lunar surface (120C / 400K at the lunar equator). Not enough to start a fire.
barry,
Thanks for your response. I initially leaned toward it being possible. If it’s not possible I do not think it’s for the reasons you give.
It’s true the moon is not a polished mirror (but what if it were?) and thus scatters solar photons every which way. However the sun also emits diffuse light. In each case the photons beamed directly toward us by chance have traveled to us in a roughly parallel path, enough to be considered collimated for practical purposes. The fact that we can image either of them with a system of lenses and mirrors should be sufficient proof.
The warmer than the source argument certainly applies to the Sun itself. There are various proofs online which I won’t repeat here.
However, the light we’re talking about concentrating is not the Moon’s thermal emission but rather reflected solar radiation which for our purposes is unaffected by the Moon’s surface temperature. So I think this argument also fails.
When we consider that the Moon’s albedo of 0.12 multiplied by 1,380 W/m2 = 166 W/m2 we can perhaps say that the “effective temperature” of the reflected solar radiation is 233 K or -40 C. Then by 2LOT we can’t concentrate those photons with lenses and mirrors to produce a higher temperature than that. A lot of things “feel” wrong to me about this argument though.
Totally out on a limb, but having fun. I hope you keep thinking about this and discussing, it’s a very interesting problem.
Cheers.
Yes, upon reflection (ba-doom-tshhh) lunar light is collimated. Should have known that from seeing my own shadow in moonlight. I assumed the distance was not great enough for moonlight to be near parallel like sunlight when it hits the Earth.
I looked up the albedo of the Moon. 0.12. Glass lens will only be able to concentrate visible light, so infrared can be ignored. I guess optimal conditions would be full moon over the equator.
Dunno how to work the math from solar constant –> albedo/reflection –> distance moon to Earth to get the W/m2 arriving from the moon at Earth’s surface on a clear night.
Move the experiment to space we can put the lens nearer the moon and concentrated a more intense field of light. But how much distance must be allowed for the light to be collimated?
I may have an answer.
According to NASA, “Moonlight is about 400,000 times fainter than direct sunlight.” or 3.4 mW/m2.
We can start a fire in sunlight with a 3″ or 0.08 m diameter glass, which is 0.005 m2 in area. Multiply by 400 k gives 2,000 m2 for 50 m in diameter.
“Moonlight is about 400,000 times fainter than direct sunlight.” or 3.4 mW/m2.
Not sure that ‘faintness’ can be translated thus. There isn’t, as far as I’m aware, a way of converting lux to W/m2, for example, and ‘faintness’ would seem to be a property of lux/lumens/candles units.
Accepting that the critical radiation is that which is reflected by the moon, and assuming the solar constant applies at the Lunar surface, we still have to account for 0.12 albedo, a curved surface that spreads the reflection, the distance that the reflection travels from moon to Earth, and how close we can get to the moon to still get collimated light. Our celestial lens doesn’t need to be any bigger than the area necessary to capture all collimated Earthbound Lunar beams.
Way above my paygrade for the math, but it’s still interesting enough to unpack the applicable factors.
> There isnt, as far as Im aware, a way of converting lux to W/m2, for example, and faintness would seem to be a property of lux/lumens/candles units.
There is a way to do the conversion but as far as I understand it (which isn’t very well) you have to integrate across wavelengths to do it … and that was too much brain damage for me to do.
I’ve seen published values from 2 to 9 mW/m2 on Quora, Stack Exchange, etc. My 3.4 falls in that range so I feel pretty good about it.
This paper, “Moonlight concentration experiments of
Badaling solar tower power plant in Beijing”, got me excited but they report their results in lux:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0028526
I’ve seen values of 0.1 – 0.3 W/m2 hitting the Earth’s surface at similar websites.
Annoying isn’t it. But in that case it would seem even easier to build an optical system using moonlight to start a fire …
The microwave example covers your objection, gb; very low frequency photons which in sufficient numbers per unit area and time can and have started fires:
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/why-microwaves-catch-on-fire/
It is true that high frequency photons can do things low frequency ones can’t, but in the pressure and temperature regime of the atmosphere relevant to Earth’s GHE those effects are beyond the scope of the discussion.
brandon…”very low frequency photons which in sufficient numbers per unit area and time can and have started fires:”
***
Surely you gest. You are insinuating that the microwaves themselves cause fire, when in fact, it’s not possible for EM to carry heat.
It’s the material absorbing the microwave energy that produces the fires. Water boils in a microwave oven because the microwave energy agitates the water molecules causing them to heat. The heat comes from the molecule, not the microwaves.
If the product being heated is combustible, it could heat to a level where it catches fire. I have burned a cookie in a microwave to the point it burned a deep brown. It’s the water molecules in the cookie heating it, not the microwaves per se.
Many people fail to understand that no heat as a physical entity is transferred from the Sun to the Earth. Heat requires mass to enable transfer. When EM is produced at the Sun’s surface, the Sun cools a tad and when that EM is converted back to heat at the Earth’s surface, the Earth warms a tad. All the heating is locally produced.
EM carries no heat, microwave or otherwise.
> You are insinuating
lol you make it sound like I’m putting them on trial.
> its not possible for EM to carry heat
The food wouldn’t have caught fire had not the microwaves been pumped into it, Gordo. Your distinction that energy isn’t heat until it has done work is noted, but my lapse of pedantry doesn’t diminish from my point.
Also occurring in nature is morning, midday and afternoon.
Also occurring in nature is the 4 seasons.
The main reason for the temperature differences is the amount of solar power radiated on a given area of the sphere.
The frequency of solar radiation is the same, the difference is the number of photons per unit area.
Moving my responses upthread to here:
The very estimable Clint R: “A magnifying glass does NOT ‘simply add’ fluxes. It focuses photons that were ‘spread out’ due to the inverse square law. More energy is NOT being created. The existing energy from Sun is just being concentrated in a much smaller area…”
You can increase flux by adding another source of energy incident on the area or by concentrating collimated EMR. Same result more photon density per unit area.
Clints view: 2 Suns in the sky would make us no warmer than one.
Somewhat correct barry, but still somewhat confused.
If you were able to add all of the flux emitted by Sun, you could heat something to solar temperature. That’s NOT the “fluxes don’t simply add” being discussed.
What’s being discussed is two 315 W/m^2 fluxes heating a surface to 325K. That’s the issue. And everything else you conjure up is just a distraction from that issue.
Let’s quote you direct:
“…a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!”
This means that putting another sun in our sky would make us no warmer at the surface.
This is what I put to you then and you still seem inclined to try to shift to another topic rather than answer directly.
Care to explain why adding a second sun to the sky wouldn’t make us feel warmer at the surface?
(I predict a change of topic)
No it deesh’t mean that at all, barry. That’s just your effort to pervert my words.
I quote you just below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348004
Thanks barry.
The cult hates it when people quote me correctly. That’s why the cult idiots have to try to distort my words.
It may be worth reading Clint’s detailed explanation for why “fluxes don’t add.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
Wherein we understand that a 2nd Sun in the sky would have all of its radiation reflected by the Earth system.
You’ve done some commendable work, barry.
[tips cap]
I had forgotten I wrote that, barry. Thanks for the reminder.
It looks like you weren’t able to understand it all. Have you considered memorizing it? Memorizing is a great learning tool.
No need to memorise, I saved it for a useful occasion.
“…a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
…Well then, what happens to the flux from the second source, if it is not absorbed? If the photons haven’t enough energy to get absorbed, they get reflected.”
But memorizing will help you understand. Try it. Maybe repeat my comment 100 times a day.
Don’t forget the part about you failing to honor your commitment:
As predicted, Folkerts and barry will not suspend their commenting, as they agreed. Instead they will find infinite ways to squirm out of their agreements.
Do you hold that a 2nd Sun in the sky would not make the surface any warmer? Please confirm.
See barry, that’s why you need to memorize my comment. I never mentioned anything about two suns.
Memorize it so you can understand it.
Your comment infers that a 2nd Sun would not make the surface of the Earth any warmer because, you say, flux from a source of equal frequency to the first will be reflected.
Could you confirm that you hold this to be the case or not? I have a follow-up when you clarify.
barry, if you’re honest, you’ll admit that you’re trying to pervert my comment. I was perfectly clear. You don’t like reality, so you have to pervert it. You know that two suns and Earth confuses the situation to the point you hope to negate it. I stick with my comment. You stick with your twisting, distorting, denying, and perverting.
The question to you is why do you believe you need to pervert science and reality? Why can’t you be honest about it? Norman can’t find ANY valid technical reference to support his nonsense, so he keeps trying to pervert the situation. Why can’t you idiots accept reality? Why is it so hard for you to be honest?
I bring up the 2 suns query now, as I did when we had this conversation back then, because it is intuitive to pretty much everyone that a 2nd Sun would make the surface warmer, even though it precisely fits the explanation you give for why this would not happen. I want to test your explanation in a fair way that is easy to understand, and that seems to put a lot of stress on the validity of the explanation.
If there is some difference between your explanation for why a 2nd source of identical flux would not warm a surface further, and the logical inference that this would apply to a 2nd Sun re the Earth, it would be helpful for you to explain what that difference is.
You didn’t answer my questions, barry.
Your questions beg the question, Clint. It is up to you to answer them.
Your questions are rhetorical, Clint.
Could you please just answer straightforwardly, with no game-playing or avoiding the issue?
You say that adding a second source of flux identical to the first does make the receiving surface any warmer.
Why does this explanation not apply to a scenario where a 2nd Sun of identical flux to our own adds its radiation to the surface of the Earth?
What’s the difference?
Typo: You say that adding a second source of flux identical to the first does * not* make the receiving surface any warmer.
Why is this not the case with the identical flux of another Sun illuminating the Earth’s surface?
You didn’t answer my questions, barry.
The question to you is, why do you believe you need to pervert science and reality? Why can’t you be honest about it? Norman can’t find ANY valid technical reference to support his nonsense, so he keeps trying to pervert the situation. Why can’t you idiots accept reality? Why is it so hard for you to be honest?
I don’t mind answering your questions. I enjoy teaching. But for every answer, your cult tries to twist, distort, pervert the information. Do you want some examples?
As you’re refusing to answer I’ll just put out the yea and the nay.
a) Adding a 2nd Sun to our sky would warm the Earth’s surface further.
This contradicts your explanation above that adding a 2nd flux identical to the first would not further warm a surface.
b) Adding a 2nd Sun to our sky would not warm the Earth’s surface further.
This is in keeping with your explanation, but any reasonable person would see that outcome as preposterous.
I asked the question because it stresses your explanation. Either you will contradict yourself or you will be forced to state a position that anyone would see is preposterous.
I think this is why you are avoiding the answer.
barry, as you’re refusing to answer I’ll just put out the yea and the nay.
a) Adding a 2nd Sun to our sky has NOTHING to do with the issue.
Yea or Nay?
I think this is why you are avoiding the answer.
Adding a 2nd Sun precisely fits the explanation you described.
“…a second source [eg, Sun] is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface [eg, Earth]. The surface is now impacted by F from one source [our Sun], and also F from a second source [2nd Sun]. Will the surface temperature [of Earth] increase?
NO!”
Solar radiation provides flux (F) to the Earth. It fits perfectly with what you say here. We could speak of 2 lamps or 2 heaters or any energy source and a surface. Same thing.
Adding an identical flux F does not increase temperature at the surface. You have stated that clearly.
A 2nd Sun would add an identical flux F to the Earth.
Would that increase temperature at the Earth’s surface or not?
barry, you seem to be dodging the questions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348685
Why?
It’s remarkable that you won’t simply answer the question (4 times in a row now).
Clearly, you can’t say a 2nd Sun would provide no further warmth, because that is patent nonsense. And you can’t say that it would provide extra warming because that contradicts “fluxes don’t add.”
The paucity of your position is exposed by a simple question, and you are trying to deflect and distract and do anything but answer. And every time you do that it only becomes more apparent that you are deflecting and distracting and have no answer.
Would a 2nd Sun warm the surface or not? If so, then this contradicts your view that fluxes don’t add. I’ll wait for one more post and an explanation from you and then give up. Anyone reading this thread can see what’s going on and that’ll suit me.
barry, once again you’re dodging the questions. You can’t face reality, so you have to pervert it. I NEVER said anything about “two suns”. You’re avoiding that reality. YOUR “two suns” is an effort to pervert the issue. The issue is Folkert’s nonsense that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface would add so that the surface would be emitting 630 W/m^2. You don’t want to deal with that reality, so you have to make stuff up.
Why do you pervert reality? Why can’t you answer my questions. You clearly like to make comments, so why avoid my questions?
What are you trying to hide?
Of course you never said anything about two sins instead of one, Pup.
It would undermine your pet line.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wherein we understand that a 2nd Sun in the sky would have all of its radiation reflected by the Earth system.
“With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!”
Anybody who said that is quite ignorant and confused. No doubt about it.
Nate, do you understand that taking something out-of-context is essentially perverting reality?
Nope. We all know the context, its all there. Your statement shows you have no clue.
Yes, you know the context. And you don’t like it. That’s why you strive to pervert it.
You never were much for honesty, huh troll Nate?
Nate believes adding additional walls of the same temperature will cause the brick in the middle to warm.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
He alternately claims it does and does not. If the brick is warmed by walls it doesn’t. If the brick is warmed by something that avoids the walls it does.
Then he admits a lapse rate is required. But he can’t explain why it warms with a lapse rate and doesn’t warm without a lapse rate.
This retreat by mainstream science is why there is no debate on the topic between scientists. Offers of a debate are met with disdain about the intentions of the sponsors. They don’t want their ignorance exposed. But Nate to his credit he soldiers on and clearly demonstrates for the public to see the disconnect.
“The bogus belief that fluxes simply add is identified by Folkerts ridiculous claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes (an ice cube emits 315W/m^2) can raise a surface to 325K”
It is fascinating that no matter how often Clint gets called on this strawman, he circles back to it again and again.
Once again ….
Fluxes ARRIVING AT a surface (irradiances) add. So for example, if two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (say from two lightbulbs) arrive at a surface on my desk, they add to 630 W/m^2
Or if two fluxes of 157.5 W/m^2 (from say two dimmer bulbs or from two sheets of 273K ice) arrive at a surface on my desk, they add to 315 W/m^2.
Anyone with an ounce of understanding of radiative physics gets this. A flux of 315 W/m^2 LEAVING the surface (radiant exitance) of ice can result in a flux of anything between 0 – 315 W/m^@ ARRIVING at my desk. No matter how much ice you have emitting 315 W/m^2, it can never PROVIDE more than 315 W/m^2 arriving at some other surface.
And now I predict Clint will circle back to his favorite cop-out: ‘you wrote more that 1 paragraph and used actually physics terms that I don’t understand, so I will ignore all this.’
Folkerts offers another example of how the cult twists, distorts, perverts reality.
Folkerts rambles on, but offers NO valid technical reference for his bogus, made-up nonsense.
Easy to find references, Pup:
https://thecoalhub.com/wp-content/uploads/attach_217.pdf
Check footnote 5.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says:
August 11, 2022 at 9:28 AM
“Vournas
How long will you endlessly repeat that same stuff on this blog?
You are clearly abusing our inability to scientifically disagree with you.
Repeating it while carefully avoiding scientific contradictions by really experienced persons doesnt make it more believable, quite the opposite.”
Bindidon, you seem to me a very experienced person.
It is only August 11, you already have posted here 102 times.
One may detect your very much active presence in Dr. Spencer’s blog since its very early times.
Thus you are a very experienced on various scientific matters discussed here…
Well, maybe you are not “really experienced”…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” It is only August 11, you already have posted here 102 times. ”
Wrong: I’m at 89 plus this one making then 90.
In comparison with some all-time-better-knowers with far over 150, I feel quite silent.
*
” Well, maybe you are not ‘really experienced’… ”
Exactly, Vournas. Manifestly, unlike you.
Bindidon, it is my third post in this thread…
Please, would you like to give a definition of a really experienced person.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” Bindidon, it is my third post in this thread … ”
It doesn’t matter how much comments you posted here: the sum of all your posts in all previous threads counts.
” … would you like to give a definition of a really experienced person. ”
This is not MY job.
YOU have to look for such persons able to scientifically scrutinize your Φ claims which you endlessly post but never were able to give any acknowledged, scientific confirmation for.
The Φ – solar irradiation accepting factor – how it “works”.
It is not a planet specular reflection coefficient itself. There is a need to focus on the Φ factor explanation. Φ factor emerges from the realization that a sphere reflects differently than a flat surface perpendicular to the Solar rays.
Φ is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor.
“Φ” is an important factor in the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
It is very important the understanding what is really going on with by planets the solar irradiation reflection. There is the specular reflection and there is the diffuse reflection. The planet’s surface Albedo “a” accounts only for the planet’s surface diffuse reflection.
………………………………….
The importance of the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor Φ.
For smooth surface planets (like Earth) the Φ =0,47
So = 1362 W/m – is the solar flux on the TOA (the top of atmosphere). It is also called the Solar Constant.
a = 0,306 – is the Earth’s average surface Albedo.
Thus the incident on Earth solar energy not reflected from the planetary cross-section disk is:
1362 W/m *Φ(1 – a) = 1362 W/m *0,47(1 – 0,306) = 444 W/m
This not reflected energy doesnt get distributed over the hemisphere or over the sphere.
The not reflected portion of 444 W/m is INTERACTING with planets surface matter on the very instant of incidence.
………………………………….
In short, the Φ -Factor is not the planet specular reflection portion itself. The Φ -Factor is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (in other words, Φ is the planet surface spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient).
The Φ -Factor’s importance is explained in every detail in next pages in this site.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559911
Bindidon, it is a one click away – please visit and read.
Christos’ phi Φ is really the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting fudge factor to get a correct answer when Christos wrongly ignores the physics of Earth’s atm. opacity.
Vournas
Stop dodging around all the time.
All of us who are interested we have visited your corner
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559911
I repeat:
YOU have to look for such persons able to scientifically scrutinize your Φ claims which you endlessly post but never were able to give any acknowledged, scientific confirmation for.
*
I think you will never present your ‘work’ because you perfectly know that your allegations won’t survive any really scientific check.
Well, my work is very much different from what you have knew till now. To accep,t my findings is difficult, it needs people who already have understood the plus 150 ppm (parts per million) CO2 content rise, since preindustrial period, in Earth’s atmosphere cannot be associated with the, actually observed, the planetary global warming trend.
I deeply appreciate your, Bindidon, genuine concern, but what I claim is true and the things are exactly as I say.
There are people who understand that.
A year ago (2021/07/21) Ron Clutz devoted three posts in his blog making a good synopsis of my work.
Link:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Ron Clutz:
“On a recent comment thread at Climate Etc. Christos Vournas provided a link to his blog. After spending time reading his articles I made this post to introduce aspects of his studies and thinking that I find persuasive. His home page sets the theme The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. Below are just a few excerp,ts from Vournas blog in italics with my bolds.
Note: I have added two additional posts on Vournas findings Earthshine and Moonshine: Big Difference and Beware Energy Balance Cartoons”
Links:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/23/earthshine-and-moonshine-big-difference/
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/25/beware-energy-balance-cartoons/
And now, Vournas comes along with posts by climate change superdenier Ron Clutz, glorifying… Vournas.
And that is a review? Never heard of circular reasoning?
By the way, Vournas: what about looking at Clutz’s lies concerning Arctic sea ice some years ago?
Blinny thinks that ‘mastery’ of Excel is all that is required.
I’m sure the pathologically wayward, incompetent stalker, liar, and con-artist Linsley Hood aka RLH is thinking that
‘mastery’ of Excel is all that is required
to compute, out of all available CONUS stations showing data since 1895 in the GHCN daily dataset
https://tinyurl.com/as5v4m5t
– the top 10 of a descending sort of the absolute monthly temperature averages
1936 7 32.86 (C)
1934 7 32.75
1980 7 32.68
1901 7 32.61
1931 7 32.53
1930 7 32.40
1937 8 32.23
1917 7 32.13
1910 7 32.11
1954 7 32.10
and
– the top 10 of a descending sort of the monthly temperature anomaly averages wrt the mean of 1981-2010
1910 3 4.36 (C)
1954 2 3.56
2012 3 3.43
2006 1 3.36
2021 12 3.34
1939 12 3.25
1930 2 3.02
1999 11 2.88
2017 2 2.82
1963 10 2.80
Believe me, people: I’m AT LEAST over 100 % sure :- )
Blinny often resorts to taunts, lies and misrepresentations.
He somehow thinks that having large amounts of data amounts to something. Without thought and understanding (of which he has little) nothing is achieved.
And, yes, Excel can be used to store vast amounts of data as well.
P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2, which has a definite downtrend since 1979, and apparently can be directly compared to inverted OLR, is valid? More valid that ONI over the same period?
Manifestly, the pathologically wayward, incompetent stalker, liar, and con-artist Linsley Hood aka RLH can’t stop his discrediting and denigrating nonsense.
*
” He somehow thinks that having large amounts of data amounts to something. ”
Why then did the little stalker start processing HadISST1 SST (in, let us state it clearly, an incredibly trivial manner) ?
*
” And, yes, Excel can be used to store vast amounts of data as well. ”
Oh yes! GHCN daily, even if strictly limited to temperatures, amounts to over 40,000 stations with a total data size of around 10 GB.
As you all know: the ideal dataset for Excel processing, of course.
*
” P.S. Are you saying that Meiv2, which has a definite downtrend since 1979, and apparently can be directly compared to inverted OLR, is valid? More valid that ONI over the same period? ”
” Are you saying that… ”
” Are you saying that… ”
” Are you saying that… ”
” Are you saying that… ”
Why is this guy stalking all people all the time with things they never intended to say, instead of posting contradictions to what they made?
Why does he endlessly insinuate such nonsense, beginning with the fact that until now he did not manage to understand that I did not invert OLR in the chart I posted?
Did I refer to ONI in my chart?
Does he understand the basic difference between ONI and MEI?
*
” Without thought and understanding (of which he has little) nothing is achieved. ”
Hmmmmh. Sounds very, very good.
“Does he understand the basic difference between ONI and MEI?”
Well as both indicate different directions since 1979, one trending upwards and the other one down, which is it that you believe is closer to reality?
The most basic of all questions to answer, is the 1982 El Nino larger than the 2016 one?
Look at ONI and Meiv2 and you tell me.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/oni.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
” Blinny often resorts to taunts, lies and misrepresentations. ”
Says the pathologically wayward, incompetent stalker, liar, and con-artist Linsley Hood aka RLH, who manifestly still did not understand what I was doing.
Maybe this helps him to get out of the blind-alley?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCgQwTb_5GJVWXsQV_qHzfIM6-pKo9q8/view
Why are such people so overly opinionated?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1347899
Blinny still draws lines where the data doesn’t exist.
1. ” Blinny still draws lines where the data doesnt exist. ”
Again, again and again these woeful insinuations…
Why does the pathologically wayward, incompetent stalker, liar, and con-artist Linsley Hood aka RLH not tell us which lines and which data he means?
*
2. ” The most basic of all questions to answer, is the 1982 El Nino larger than the 2016 one? ”
Why do such people ask all the time, instead of searching themselves for answers to their questions?
Months ago, I posted the difference between
– NCEP’s and ONI’s data evaluation area versus MEI’s;
– NCEP Nino3+4 and NCEP Nino1+2 time series since 1982.
Now, I’m sad of being stalked all the time.
“Again, again and again these woeful insinuations”
Show me the data that actually lies on these lines. Not the ends of the lines which are just the data points.
“tell us which lines and which data he means”
The lines that join the data points of course.
” Show me the data that actually lies on these lines. Not the ends of the lines which are just the data points. ”
Jesus, show me the exact graph you mean, and try to explain as an adult.
It’s 2 am now, and I’m sad of your insinuations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCgQwTb_5GJVWXsQV_qHzfIM6-pKo9q8/view
like all of your graphs contains lines between the data points along which no data actually exists, say at the half way point as an example.
If only Sky Dragon cranks could be on the same wavelength, that’d be great. That they emit in every direction allows them never to lose:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
Enjoy your summer, y’all, even you, Graham.
willard…you’re the Sky Dragon crank. Sky Dragon is a reference to CO2 breathing fire in the atmosphere. Only alarmists twits fit that description.
Come on, Gordo.
You are the crank here. Only you and a few boneheads disbelieve that greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm.
The rest of the world ignores cranks like you.
As long as you keep your mythomanie here, all is well.
Ask me again , where is the superdeveloping La Nina
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/august-2022-enso-update-summer-nights
” If it happens, this will be only the third time with three La Niña winters in a row in our 73-year record. ”
2022 minus 1871 plus one gives a 152-year record, doesn’t it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
And I see, 2020-2022 of course inevitably included, eleven triple winter La Niña in a row.
Blinny disagrees with climate.gov now.
P.S. The record that climate.gov refers to goes back to 1950.
And the record that NOAA manages still goes back to 1871:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
The ONI.ext data you’ve cited previously only has one ‘triple-dip’ Winter la Nina after 1950, RLH. The one beginning late 1998.
As you know, there are slight differences between data sets, but the general picture is the same. Timing and type of ENSO events correlate fairly well across datasets, but their relative magnitudes are more variable.
Barry: A ‘slight’ difference which means that in one series we trend downwards and the other upwards when looking at individual data points or ‘averages’ of them.
Climtae.gov have stated (when asked) that although there are series about ENSO which go back to the 1870s, they do not consider their accuracy to be sufficient to base their findings on. They prefer to use data that dates from 1950, so anything they quote is based on that.
The trends, like the differences in magnitudes, are not statistically significant.
Your ‘trends’ appear to be based on drawing a line through 3 data points, yes? 3 super-el Ninos? The uncertainty in those ‘trends’ would be off the charts.
You are treating the issue as one that can be determinate. It isn’t. These are all estimates, all uncertain, all different.
The ONI.ext data has 1998 el Nino slightly less amplitude than 1982 and 2016. Yet you cite this data to buttress a point you’re making.
The kind of exactitude you seem to think should be there simply isn’t.
You have cited ONI.ext for the 1878 el Nino – specifically referring to l’Heureux’s paper.
You keep casting doubt on data you have previously used without question.
You do this because you obsess about something and forget what you’ve said previously. You contradict yourself. I recommend loosening your grip and being more inquisitive than suspicious.
A maximum is a maximum. Trends in maximums (and minimums) are just as valid as those of ‘averages’. How else would you be able to claim that is month was a record or not?
….that this month….
“How else would you be able to claim that this month was a record or not?”
Those are rankings. The values have uncertainties attached to them. Here’s an example from 2015:
https://i.imgur.com/xtANQCS.png
Those are the ranked warmest years for two different data sets with uncertainties included, as comparative percentage likelihood.
In the papers you have referred to, including l’Heureux’s paper on 1878 el Nino, the uncertainties are discussed.
In that paper they give the peak values for 4 el Ninos, but do not determine which is definitely the most powerful el Nino.
They can rank them, and they do, but the uncertainties preclude a definitive answer on which was strongest.
From the conclusions:
“Our initial analysis of the 1000-member ensemble shows that the ensemble averaged Niño-3 over 1877/78 is lower (1.8°C) than the value from ERSSTv5 standard run while the uncertainty is large (2.8°C). In contrast, the uncertainty range in the Niño-3 and Niño-3.4 indices during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16 is much smaller (0.1°–0.2°C)…
In conclusion, the strength (2.8°–3.5°C) and uncertainty (0.5°C) of the 1877/78 El Niño event are quantified by evaluating the selection of certain parameters in the ERSSTv5 ensemble. The strength of the 1877/78 El Niño appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
This study was done using one SST dataset (ERSSTv5, not HadISST, which they made brief comparisons with). Adding more SST datasets to the mix and including methodologies from other groups would widen the uncertainties even further. So these are the best results from one group and their methods.
“In that paper they give the peak values for 4 el Ninos, but do not determine which is definitely the most powerful el Nino”
All I observe is that individual El Nino, like years, have a maximum temperature associated or found within them.
Apparently it is OK to say that a year has a maximum measured temperature but not an El Nino.
An uncertainty as to if the maximum actually represents a true value for the whole world or even a narrower area is not the question. It is if it was measured at all. Are you saying the measurements are faulty or that they do not accurately represent a wider area?
Do you agree that meiv2 and OLR (inverted) plots (as noted by Blinny) show a good relationship and that both show a decline in the maximum El Nino measured values since 1979?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/olr-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
rlh…”They prefer to use data that dates from 1950, so anything they quote is based on that”.
***
That gets around the nasty problem of the 1930s being the hottest decade on record with the most heat waves by far.
Alarmists claim that was only in North America, but I think it was likely global. Global records were pretty shoddy at the time with no one concerned about global warming even though the decade was super-hot relatively speaking.
“Are you saying the measurements are faulty or that they do not accurately represent a wider area?”
The uncertainty analysis is described in the paper. Read it.
“That gets around the nasty problem of the 1930s being the hottest decade on record with the most heat waves by far.”
You are talking about Summertime peak temperatures in the USA.
We are talking about el Nino values in the equatorial Pacific.
“The uncertainty analysis is described in the paper”
So they say that the peak temperatures that are measured are not accurately representative of the temperatures in the area covered, but are only a close approximation.
Care to say why any of the USCRN paired stations are unable to come up with the same temperature readings despite them being very accurate and only a few km apart?
Barry: Do you agree that meiv2 and OLR (inverted) plots (as noted by Blinny) show a good relationship and that both show a decline in the maximum El Nino measured values since 1979?
“So they say that the peak temperatures that are measured are not accurately representative of the temperatures in the area covered, but are only a close approximation.”
You want to understand the uncertainties? Read the paper. From your remark here, clearly you haven’t.
You might like to quote all the remarks on uncertainty in the paper to buttress your points. There is a LOT of material for you to cover.
“Care to say why any of the USCRN paired stations are unable to come up with the same temperature readings despite them being very accurate and only a few km apart?”
Hell no. I lost interest when you asked me a question about a study I’d just given you the link to, where you could get the answer yourself and then didn’t. I’m hardly going to take up a new topic when you can’t be bothered informing yourself about the first.
“Barry: Do you agree that meiv2 and OLR”
I looked at the graph. That was the full extent of my interest. If you want me to be interested, leading me down a boring path of interminable questions that never get to your point is not the way. I’m done with that game.
When you clearly state a position that is testable, then I might be interested. I’m not bored enough to play 20 questions.
This is not just the third year in a row of La Nina, it is the the third year of La Nina that Bindidong clown could not see coming and argued against,
the most epic forecasting failure ever.
Aaaah, the babbling Edog stalks me again with his forecasting lies.
Blinny is just an idiot who does not understand what a triple dip La Nina means.
” Blinny is just an idiot who does not understand what a triple dip La Nina means. ”
Again and again and again, the pathologically wayward, incompetent stalker, liar, and con-artist Linsley Hood aka RLH needs to discredit and denigrate others, instead of proving them wrong.
Bindidork has been ankle biting on all my La Nina predictions for years now, Now when he is decisively proven wrong I am stalking him and he runs crying to his mama.
This La Nina has still ways to go and he will keep hearing about it,
And we didn’t even get to the Solar Cycle yet, I saved his ankle biting posts on that also.
Blinny calls people names because he does not understand the subtleties of the data he posts.
” Clim[at]e.gov have stated (when asked) that although there are series about ENSO which go back to the 1870s, they do not consider their accuracy to be sufficient to base their findings on. ”
Who asked, and where is the ‘stating’ answer?
*
Interestingly, by the way, some here have no problem at all to acknowledge, when necessary, the accuracy of the NCEP data for… 1877/78 which then – oh surprise – is good enough for a comparison to 2016!
I personally acknowledge all ENSO data since record begin, be it from MEI, NCEP, ONI, SOI etc etc.
I (amongst others) asked. This was one of the replies
“There is no doubt that more triple La Nina’s have happened in the past. Though due to the lack of observations in the Pacific prior to 1950, there are bound to be larger error bars on any attempt to determine sea surface temperature anomalies in the Nino3.4 region.
That’s why we only go back to 1950 with confidence.”
and another
“Others may extend the record to times before 1950, but we feel comfortable making those comparisons only in records post 1950. There is likely a good amount of uncertainty that go along with sst measurements in the Pacific prior to 1950.”
“I personally acknowledge all ENSO data since record begin, be it from MEI, NCEP, ONI, SOI etc etc.”
But not, apparently with enough diligence to notice that they do not all produce the same identical outcomes. Some have earlier records that are higher than later ones, others have it in reverse.
Blinny goes quite when what I say actually turns out to be true.
richard…allow me to rephrase that for you…
‘Binny becomes ‘quite’ the idiot when….’.
It gets boring to be stalked all the time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCgQwTb_5GJVWXsQV_qHzfIM6-pKo9q8/view
The chart’s plots went only till April, extended today till June (ONI’s current end, MEI has till July).
Here is the original data for this chart:
1. ONI
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/oni.data
2. MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
And here is exactly the same ONI-MEI comparison chart, but using… dots, OMG:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L9eAUjWCjU-ZWvk58qeM1u_KkqmvhooT/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCgQwTb_5GJVWXsQV_qHzfIM6-pKo9q8/view
still with lines between the points which have no data supporting them. Where is the data that supports the idea that exactly half way between the points (which we do have the data for) there exists a point on the line that is drawn between them? Nowhere.
If you did some LP plots of what the data actually shows in that final plot, say at 12 month and 5 or 15 year intervals, then you might be closer to what I plot.
What made you decide that OLS linear estimates are useful? More useful that non-infinity based aggregates?
RLH, Connecting the dots is useful to aid visualization of the data. If you don’t like that, try using a bar graph with the width of the bars being the sample interval.
Connecting the dots with a line gives a visual weight which the data does not support.
swannie…you can’t even spell your name right, what would you know about connecting the dots?
ONI for Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/oni.jpeg
OLR for Jul 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/olr-1.jpeg
Meiv2 for Jul 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Note the data sources in the above.
P.S. Please note that the thicker lines on the plots are CTRMs (with VPs approval).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348407
Bindidon says:
August 11, 2022 at 3:21 PM
“Vournas
Stop dodging around all the time.
All of us who are interested we have visited your corner
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559911
I repeat:
YOU have to look for such persons able to scientifically scrutinize your Φ claims which you endlessly post but never were able to give any acknowledged, scientific confirmation for.
*
I think you will never present your work because you perfectly know that your allegations wont survive any really scientific check.”
Well, my work is very much different from what you have knew till now. To accep,t my findings is difficult, it needs people who already have understood the plus 150 ppm (parts per million) CO2 content rise, since preindustrial period, in Earths atmosphere cannot be associated with the, actually observed, the planetary global warming trend.
I deeply appreciate your, Bindidon, genuine concern, but what I claim is true and the things are exactly as I say.
There are people who understand that.
A year ago (2021/07/21) Ron Clutz devoted three posts in his blog making a good synopsis of my work.
Link:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Ron Clutz:
On a recent comment thread at Climate Etc. Christos Vournas provided a link to his blog. After spending time reading his articles I made this post to introduce aspects of his studies and thinking that I find persuasive. His home page sets the theme The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. Below are just a few excerp,ts from Vournas blog in italics with my bolds.
Note: I have added two additional posts on Vournas findings Earthshine and Moonshine: Big Difference and Beware Energy Balance Cartoons
Links:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/23/earthshine-and-moonshine-big-difference/
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/25/beware-energy-balance-cartoons/
Bindidon says:
August 12, 2022 at 6:18 AM
“And now, Vournas comes along with posts by climate change superdenier Ron Clutz, glorifying Vournas.
And that is a review? Never heard of circular reasoning?
By the way, Vournas: what about looking at Clutzs lies concerning Arctic sea ice some years ago?”
–
–
Bindidon says:
August 11, 2022 at 3:21 PM
Vournas
Stop dodging around all the time.
All of us who are interested we have visited your corner
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559911
I repeat:
YOU have to look for such persons able to scientifically scrutinize your Φ claims which you endlessly post but never were able to give any acknowledged, scientific confirmation for.
*
I think you will never present your work because you perfectly know that your allegations wont survive any really scientific check.
–
–
“I repeat:
YOU have to look for such persons able to scientifically scrutinize your Φ claims which you endlessly post but never were able to give any acknowledged, scientific confirmation for.”
–
–
“And now, Vournas comes along with posts by climate change superdenier Ron Clutz, glorifying Vournas.”
Bindidon, please decide, what would you like me to do?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How can you ask such a simple question?
You are a GHE denier.
Thus, the challenge for you is to present your stuff to scientists who, as opposed to you, do NOT deny GHE.
Bindidon, but I am not a GHE denier.
There is a very small, a very insignificant GHE – it is so small you cannot measure it, but it is there anyway…
BTW, Bindidon, what are you yourself? Are you a denier, or are you a not denier?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have always explained that I keep away from the CO2 discussion because it is far too complex.
All what I understand about H2O’s and CO2’s effects I have read in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/link/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/download
Blindidon says:
August 12, 2022 at 12:14 PM
“I have always explained that I keep away from the CO2 discussion because it is far too complex.”
I didn’t know that.
Is the Φ -factor too complex for you too?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
1. ” Bindidon, but I am not a GHE denier. ”
Of course you are a GHE denier. Otherwise, you would agree to A. P. Smith’s work
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
I often referred to on this blog, and was repeatedly denigrated using a few, vague sentences, e.g. by ‘Bill Hunter’ on this thread.
*
2. ” Is the Φ-factor too complex for you too? ”
Of course it is not! This factor is absolutely triviaL.
But… what is not trivial at all is to formally prove its correctness in the Ein = Eout formula, what none of us on this blog is able to do, you of course included.
Thus, I repeat:
” … the challenge for you is to present your stuff to scientists who, as opposed to you, do NOT deny GHE. “
binny…Smith proved nothing. He simply regurgitated the age-old propaganda based on artificially theorized temperature based on Stefan-Boltzmann.
Smith has a degree in physics but last time I looked he was working as a librarian. His response at the link was to G&T’s paper falsifying the GHE. He cherry-picked one part of the G&T paper and ignored the rest. That’s why he works with clowns like Eli Rabbett.
Bindidon says:
”I often referred to on this blog, and was repeatedly denigrated using a few, vague sentences, e.g. by Bill Hunter on this thread.”
LOL! I said there is nothing in ‘Smith’ that is in dispute and thus there is no proof of co2 being sufficient to produce a greenhouse effect.
And Bindidon can’t think of a single thing in Smith to challenge that claim.
Bindidon:
” 2. Is the Φ-factor too complex for you too?
Of course it is not! This factor is absolutely triviaL.
But what is not trivial at all is to formally prove its correctness in the Ein = Eout formula, what none of us on this blog is able to do, you of course included.
Thus, I repeat:
the challenge for you is to present your stuff to scientists who, as opposed to you, do NOT deny GHE.
–
WHAT FACTOR IS NOT PART OF THE EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE FORMULA?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so DRAMATICALLY affects the actual temperature of the moon?
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature? NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts? What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon =
[ 2.510.168.871,25 ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet….Te…Te.corrected…Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…440K….364K……340K…0,00568
Moon……270K….224K……220K…0,0339
Earth…..255K….210K……288K….1
Mars……210K….174K……210K….0,9747
Europa…..95,2K..78,8K…..102K….0,2816
Ganymede..107,1K..88,6K…..110K….0,1398
Notice:
The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon:
2. Is the Φ-factor too complex for you too?
Of course it is not! This factor is absolutely triviaL.
But what is not trivial at all is to formally prove its correctness in the Ein = Eout formula, what none of us on this blog is able to do, you of course included.
Thus, I repeat:
the challenge for you is to present your stuff to scientists who, as opposed to you, do NOT deny GHE.”
Bindidon, thank you, a very important suggestion you make here:
“to formally prove its correctness in the Ein = Eout formula”
The Ein = (1-a)S W\m2 used in the blackbody planet effective temperature Te is an empirical assertion, which is not based on any theoretical research, not to say, its correctness has not been demonstrated, quite the opposite…
–
The Ein = Φ(1-a)S W\m2 is based on measurements (the Drag Coefficient for smooth spheres in a parallel fluid flow Cd = 0,47), and it is demonstrated to be the correct one.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos writes at lunar equator: “The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.”
Christos then wrongly writes for entire moon surface: “Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ”
Christos proves his own lunar theory wrong because Te entire moon surface can’t be higher than mean T of the lunar equator.
Christos ignores the physics of the opacity from Earth’s atm. in Christos’ Tsat 288K and inserts a fudge factor instead. Christos should refer to Bindidon’s 1:59 pm link Eqn.s 38,39 to understand with proper physics earthen surface effective radiative temperature Teff.
—-
Bill Hunter writes: “nothing in ‘Smith’ that is in dispute and thus there is no proof of co2 being sufficient to produce a greenhouse effect.”
Bill is also wrong like Christos by ignoring the ‘Smith’ factor f proving CO2 being sufficient to produce a greenhouse effect along with wv.
Ball4, thank you for your interest in my work.
–
Now, please comment this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Moon gives Surface temp.
min mean max Equator 100 K[12] 250 K 390 K[1
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry, Ball4, here it is
the right Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp. min mean max
Equator 100 K[12] 250 K 390 K[12]
85N 150 K 230 K[13]
Also visit:
Planetary Fact Sheet – Metric:
Moon’s mean temperature -20C.
Christos, you have much yet to learn, the NASA moon fact sheet states blackbody temperature. This assumes the lunar surface material is a black body or emissivity at about 0.95, rounded to 1 roughly the same as Earth’s L&O surface emissivity. That lunar surface assumption has been proven very wrong by actual lunar surface material emissivity measurements so the 270.4K BB result NASA shows is not for the real lunar surface.
A reason, among many, being much (~25%) of the lunar surface is powder so diffraction is present thus Planck’s law does not apply to that portion of the surface. Also, Apollo surface thermometer measurements result in a lunar equatorial equilibrium temperature of around 240K.
Christos remains wrong writing lunar equatorial mean temperatures are colder than the total lunar surface mean temperature. I’ve told Christos all this several times before so Christos is not capable of making progress in learning about the subject.
Ball4 says:
”Bill Hunter writes: ”nothing in ‘Smith’ that is in dispute and thus there is no proof of co2 being sufficient to produce a greenhouse effect.”
Bill is also wrong like Christos by ignoring the Smith factor f proving CO2 being sufficient to produce a greenhouse effect along with wv.
—————————–
Ball4, like Smith and Nate, clings desperately to the long debunked 3rd grader radiation model pretending that the factor f represents ‘heat loss’ in two directions.
That can occur within limits with the GPE inside of the atmosphere, where the heated plate has multiple avenues of heat loss. But it cannot occur if the heated object only has one significant direction remaining for heat loss. That fact has been known for well over a hundred years and the only reason it has been revived is due to mass inculcation within our Universities.
The 3rd grader radiation model is nothing more than a brick in the middle of room model whereby you use Smith’s mathematics to prove the brick will warm the room. Go ahead Ball4. Use Smith’s mathematics on the brick in the room and no doubt you will find yourself in agreement with Nate here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
And of course you will find yourself there when you apply Smith’s final twisted logic that claims that the math ‘leads to’ warming of the room. LMAO!!!
And you will be wrong. Of course Nate kind of realizes that and is scrambling toward the ‘lapse rate’ exit without admitting his model is wrong and unacceptable.
The only reason the ‘lapse rate’ becomes the refuge is because one cannot artificially create a lapse rate and thus it cannot be proven experimentally wrong like Woods did to Arrhenius and why Arrhenius never replied to Woods. . . .like Halpern ending the his back and forth with G&T.
This debate can only be driven into absurdity before one begins to realize that indeed there is no settled science on this.
The lapse rate refuge of the 3rd grader model still rests on the 3rd grader model. All M&W did is divide it up into tiny little increments with hot spot theory arriving out of it. . . .a fictiticous zone in the atmosphere whereby the 3rd grader model operates more robustly.
It just doesn’t work anywhere in the real world except in the lapse rate world is the unspoken claim. But the real truth is it doesn’t exist there either and it is even questionable if there is any lapse rate as at least most of it, if not all, has been built on a fiction of the abuse of the S&B emissivity factor. S&B Law is a fiction without it as the S&B law itself only deals with a fictictious surface.
“… pretending that the factor f represents ‘heat loss’ in two directions.”
No Bill, you are wrong.
It would help Bill Hunter to understand by actually reading Bindidon’s link and using the author words not Bill’s incorrect non-physical words. As can be readily seen, f represents the fraction of the outgoing surface LW absorbed within a thin layer of our partially IR opaque ~1bar atm.
After getting the basic physics wrong from the get go, the rest of Bill’s 12:04 pm comment falls apart accordingly.
Ball4 obfuscates by claiming skeptics fail to recognize that the surface warms the atmosphere.
The Ball4 completely fails to even mention that what the 3rd grader radiation model does is then warm the surface to higher than the equilibrium value.
Which is what Nate does here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Sorry Ball4 your strawman doesn’t hold water. Heat is captured by surface radiation in the atmosphere. I don’t know who claims it doesn’t. The 3rd grader radiation model then has that captured heat warm the surface further using backradiation. So you are either completely stupid or you are obfuscatiing your arse off.
“Heat is captured by surface radiation in the atmosphere.”
Wrong basic physics again, Bill. Electromagnetic radiation is not heat. Your comment falls apart accordingly.
To get even the basic physics correct on IR absorbed in the atm. for Eabsorbed minus Eemitted, align your comments with the article Bindidon linked 1:59 pm.
Ball4 says:
Wrong basic physics again, Bill. Electromagnetic radiation is not heat. Your comment falls apart accordingly.
—————–
I accept the criticism on the terminology but it doesn’t change the physics. So just substitute in: ”Energy is captured from surface radiation in the atmosphere.” And we are good on that.
——————-
——————-
——————-
——————-
Ball4 says:
To get even the basic physics correct on IR absorbed in the atm. for Eabsorbed minus Eemitted, align your comments with the article Bindidon linked 1:59 pm.
————-
I said there was nothing in the math to dispute about Smith’s paper.
However, there are assumptions not based on science and math within the paper. To Smith’s credit he clearly labels them as assumptions.
Here is one:
”This layer will have its own temperature but for simplicity we make the assumption that the heat capacity of the atmospheric layer is low so that it remains essentially radiatively balanced through the day, and the specific temperature becomes irrelevant”
How can the temperature of the atmosphere be irrelevant to emissions by the atmosphere?
If I accept this assumption of the atmosphere always emitting
only what it receives from surface radiation equally in two directions as the only energy transfer process within the atmosphere all I have done is ‘accept’ the first false step toward the 3rd grader radiation model. Accepting this assumption implies that the air temperature would be about 214K with GHG and at 0K without GHG. Neither assumption is plausible.
The assumption simply ignores non-radiative processes that influence the atmosphere to build a fictitious foundation for the 3rd grader radiation model?
Why build a fictitious foundation? Well its because it is a very effective foundation of convincing readers to adopt the belief that leads to just assuming the 3rd grader radiation model must actually work. As you will have a lot of under informed people rubber necking around and seeing nothing else is possible.
“How can the temperature of the atmosphere be irrelevant to emissions by the atmosphere?”
The paper does not assume the temperature of the atmosphere is irrelevant to emissions by the atmosphere so there never was a need for Bill to accept that assumption. The rest of Bill’s comment fails because it is based on accepting an assumption not made in the paper – see Bill’s 4:34 pm clip for the correct paper assumption.
Bill should never build a fictitious foundation as Bill does at 4:34 pm.
Ball4 read the Smith paper BEFORE commenting on it the assumption I quoted was cut and paste right out of the paper.
Figure it out! If the surface is 290K and emitting 400wm2 energy into a 290k atmosphere that absorbs those surface emissions, the atmospheres two surfaces will ‘each’ be emitting 400w/m2. . . . go figure that out genius!
It is Bill that should read before commenting. I already wrote 5:20 pm: see Bill’s 4:34 pm clip for the correct paper assumption.
Even at global mean temperature equilibrium, the atmosphere is not all at 290K; multi-annual global mean one atm. surface is measured at brightness Tse ~290K and the TOA other surface at brightness Te ~255K.
Yes, figure it out, Bill, & use the linked Smith paper as a guide in increasing Bill’s learning about the basic physics of terrestrial IR being absorbed in our atm.
Ball4 the assumption is a premise of Smith’s argument. You can’t deny that without lying.
The assumption is “for simplicity” in the words of the author so does not change the author’s premise or results.
Bill is free to disregard the simplifying assumptions and work through the more complicated methodology arriving at the same results as in the paper (as others have already done). I recommend doing so as Bill Hunter could learn a lot about our IR absorbing atm. actually doing the work.
Ball4 says:
The assumption is for simplicity in the words of the author so does not change the authors premise or results.
——————-
Thats hilarious Ball4. Uh for simplicity we are going to disregard the Stefan Boltzmann Law. ROTLMAO!!
The Smith paper does not disregard Stefan-Boltzmann, it is Bill just doesn’t comprehend or read the paper since Bill missed eqn. 6, ref. 3 for Eemitted.
Bill should never build a fictitious foundation as Bill does at 4:34 pm and 10:49 am.
Ball4 you are either stupid or you are lying.
Smith says and I quote: ”This layer (the layer absorbing surface emissions) will have its own temperature but for simplicity we make the assumption that the heat capacity of the atmospheric layer is low so that it remains essentially radiatively balanced through the day, and the specific temperature becomes irrelevant.
That means that this atmospheric layer continuously emits an amount f Eemitted equal to what it absorbs from the
ground.”
He freaking makes this assumption like one line before he calculates the emissions. Fuk the SB Law is just tossed out. Its nowhere in his calculations.
Bill, the SB law is not tossed out at all in the Smith paper.
The SB law is even included in your clip in f * Eemitted because, as I wrote, Bill missed eqn. 6, ref. 3 for Eemitted. Bill should never build a fictitious foundation as Bill does at 4:34 pm, 10:49 am, and now 11:15 pm.
Ball4 thinks my quote of A.P. Smith is me building a fictitious foundation and not Smith building it.
One always gets called out by the sycophants when noting the King has no clothes.
IMHO this is the best [early] description of the earth atmosphere’s GHE:
Any other nominations?
Prof. Tyndall’s earlier 1861 publication does mention previous work on the subject:
“the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.
DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPKINS regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”
Yes, Fourier muddles the waters by supposing that the oceans have a greenhouse effect.
Tyndall did not anticipate a catastrophic warming, he claimed the warming would be beneficial. Same with Arrhenius. Modern scientists have stolen their work and not told the full story.
None of it proved scientifically.
Dimwit.
Tyndall points out, quite rightly, that the surface temperature, at elevation, is greater than that lower down. Quite different to air temperatures, but the distinction is lost on CAGW supporters!
In his various publications, even the one to which you refer, he reinforces this type of observation, and provides well reasoned explanations, supported by his own meticulous experiments.
Delusional GHE believers obviously know less about physics than Prof Tyndall did.
Even worse, climate cultists rattle on about air temperatures, in spite of Tyndall pointing out –
“To determine the true temperature of the air is, it may be remarked, a task of some difficulty : a glass thermometer, suspended in air, will not give the temperature of the air ; its own power as a radiant or an absorbent comes into play.”
In other words, trying to derive surface temperatures from liquid in glass thermometers is fruitless. Read the words of John Tyndall and weep, TYSON MCGUFFIN.
Time for some Climate shystering update
A major controversy in marine biology took a new twist last week when the University of Delaware (UD) found one of its star scientists guilty of research misconduct. The university has confirmed to Science that it has accepted an investigative panels conclusion that marine ecologist Danielle Dixson committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is seeking the retraction of three of Dixsons papers and has notified the appropriate federal agencies, a spokesperson says.
https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says#.YvKM57NC73Y.twitter
“The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor recordkeeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols,” wrote the panel, made up of three UD researchers.
——
You may see “Climate shystering” but to me it looks like scientists challenging each other the way science is intended to work. The scientists that could not repeat Danielle Dixson’s work were not Sceptics (as in Denialists) yet they published their findings in Nature magazine.
Oh look
” But not, apparently with enough diligence to notice that they do not all produce the same identical outcomes. Some have earlier records that are higher than later ones, others have it in reverse. ”
1. BoM’s SOI is AFAIK the only one ENSO record with La Nina values above zero and El Nino values below.
(OLR works inverted like SOI, but is no ENSO record: it is a so-called teleconnection to ENSO.)
I’m happy to be teached the contrary, should I be wrong.
*
2. I have posted a while ago a comparison of MEI, NCEP and HadISST1 SST, showing their similarities:
https://tinyurl.com/2ccwpdvk
Why does MEI differ from NCEP? One of the major reasons is that its observation range encompasses a much greater area than NCEP (30N-30S — 70W-100E versus 5N-5S — 170W-120W).
This means that, as opposed to ONI and NCEP, MEI’s observation encompasses the NINO1+2 area
https://tinyurl.com/ycky5723
what might explain why in MEI, the 1982 ENSO surpasses 1998 and the latter 2016:
https://tinyurl.com/4cbjphxb
*
And finally I now hope that this chart below is definitely understood:
https://tinyurl.com/udd6t27r
Your own charts show what I have claimed. It is just that you do not see it because you have lines (which have no real meaning or weight) to confuse you.
So the wider area coverage of Meiv2 (which matches nicely with OLR also) is the one you prefer. Even though it shows that the various El Nino have been decreasing since 1979?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
1983 > 1998 > 2016
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348407
Part 1
For the umpteenth time, we read, this time in the context of a discussion about OLR vs. MEI:
1. ” What made you decide that OLS linear estimates are useful? More useful that non-infinity based aggregates? ”
But surprisingly, he always acknowledges OLS when it shows cooling, like in
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
I couldn’t continue due to ‘Internal server errors’ and gave up.
I hope that at least, the chart
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hg9nHGdptJsy7-6LnENhxp0Vyw4bIHLB/view
is now definitely understood, and no longer subject to discredit.
You’re understood, Binny, and Richard’s chicanery is evident.
Thank you.
You’re welcome, I know how it is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348369
So you now accept that meiv2 which shows a decreasing El Nino values from 1979 is correct.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Either that or you are disputing the CTRMs at 12 month and 5 years or the original data from
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
My objection to OLS is well known. Infinity (which is what OLS straight lines use as a bandwidth) is a very poor way of determining anything. How would you use it on a quasi-sinusoidal input for instance?
> My objection to OLS is well known.
Yet you do use them.
Only to show the futility of using them. Long term CTRMs are much more informative and allow series to series comparisons.
How would you use it on a quasi-sinusoidal input for instance?
Judiciously.
Could you use a quasi-sinusoidal input analyzer?
GR: That is what the 5 year LP filter does.
“Judiciously.”
i.e. not possible without first knowing the cycle!
Consideration that an unknown cycle may exist is sufficient. The same consideration applies to choice and interpretation of smoothing filters.
So what are the peaks and troughs of this unknown quasi-cyclic period and how long is it? This matters for any OLS ‘trend’ to have a useful value.
#2, the same limitation applies when trying to project past either end of the data by fitting periodic functions to a filtered time series. So either OLS and your CTRMs are both useful with judicious application or they both completely unsuitable. Choose.
“My objection to OLS is well known.”
It is far far better than picking 2 or 3 maxima, and drawing a line between them, and trying to draw significance from that.
Anybody doing that is clueless about statistics.
Maxima are statistics too. Often quoted as ‘records’ for a particular month or year.
Peak to peak analysis is all too often ignored in climate in favor of ‘averages’ though which of the many ‘averages’ is then appropriate is often not considered.
Mind you, when you find a CTRM ‘average’ of a dataset which shows a declining series, such as Meiv2, that is not considered ‘good form’ apparently.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Nate
You are absolutely right.
An incredible amount of people looking at e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2022_v6.jpg
pick an anomaly in 1980, and one with the same value in 2021, draw a straight line between the two, and proudly tell us:
No warming!
In my native tongue we use to say: ‘Plus bête tu meurs’, something like ‘Be more stupid, and you’ll die’.
*
When you look at the Multivariate ENSO index for the whole period
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view
you need no more than eye-balling to understand why its trend since 1979 (-0.21 / decade) can only be negative: the sub-period starts with the strongest El Nino since 1878, and ends with two strong La Ninas!
But… just like clever people tell you that the Globe is cooling since 2016 (all trends since then negative of course), the next clever guy could say ‘Yes but if you would start MEI in 2007 the trend is +0.11’.
Immediately topped by the the next but one, who wants to start in 2016 and obtains as trend -2.74!
No doubt you would also claim that the peak temperature for UAH in 2016 was a record.
No PEAK warming (or nearly so) in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2022_v6.jpg
when comparing Apr 1998 to Feb 2020 (unless the actual data points lie)
Year Month Global
1998 4 0.62
and
2020 2 0.59
what’s 0.03 between friends?
The 2016 peak was
2016 2 0.70
or a whole 0.08 higher.
Better forecast model
https://youtu.be/5pzp4BVjLb4
It seems we could get solar power satellites, faster than I considered was reasonable expectation.
A reason is one could call providing less than 1% {or .01%} of total global electrical power use, as being provided by solar power satellites.
“In 2019, world total electricity final consumption reached 22 848 TWh, up 1.7% from 2018.”
Or wiki: 2018 AD 23,398,000 GW-hour/year
7,800,000,000 people, per capita: 3,081 KW per year or 350 watts constant power per person.
If in constant sunlight 1 square meter at .15 efficiency:
1360 times .15 = 204 watts and 1.5 square is 306 watts
So, having 1.5 square meter per person 7,800,000,000 people is
11,700,000,000 square meter is close to 100% and around 1% is
around: 117,000,000 square meters or 117 square km.
Though not including transmission cost/loss.
And 30,000 satellites with 7.2 square meter each {starlink sattelite} totals 216,000 square meter- to help with the scale of it.
Now one reason for not including transmission is if have global internet which is in orbit is one could have data storage and processing in orbit and the need a lot electrical power and don’t have to have transmission cost of beaming to earth surface
Ie: Space-Based Storage Prepares for Launch
https://www.datanami.com/2021/02/23/space-based-storage-prepares-for-launch/
Or: Nebula, an Innovative In-Orbit Cloud Computing and Storage Platform, is Successfully Demonstrated in Space
https://tinyurl.com/3z6tbn95
Are are roughly what I mean.
And another reason is one might be beaming from space low amount of electrical power.
Or general idea with SPS is beaming MW of power to area which square kms in area. And it seems to me one could send power which tens of watts per square meter. So person can get internet connection and say 1 watt of electrical power. But in terms of what roughly costs low power it could be as much as 100 watts of power. And such low power is quite portable, say what you need to get it, could fit in briefcase. But up to 100 watt could be up the receiving end of it.
Or takes what fit in briefcase to get 1 watt, need 100 briefcases
to get 100 watts. Or paying say 10 cents per hour for 100 watts and
for residential electrical you might now paying 15 cent for 1000 watts. But you get this power anywhere.
Also get the power to your house and it’s not portable- it’s like putting solar panels on your roof. And low power to house could be
500 watts of power plus internet connection and cost 20 cents per hour which is more expensive to most residential power {4O cents per Kw hour- but it also get internet which might be much better internet you have now. And it also works as back up generator.
Also if getting residential power one paid more for peak hour periods. And you decide when want the power and internet connection.
But say use it whole month: 30 times 24 times .2 = $144
Or can the 100 watt version receive at house: 30 times 24 times .1 = $72. And you get internet without any power and which say is $25 to $50 per per month.
So house doesn’t move, and you get really good internet which 4 people could use worth +$50 so power costing 144 – 50 = $94 per month 24 hours a day. Which could reduce to 12 hours per day: $72 per month and 12 hours of internet, might still worth $50 per month, so $22 per month for the 12 hours per day of power.
For SPS part, beaming power to big ground station, might make them
1 cent per kw hour- or selling at electrical wholesale prices.
Or one could say it’s worth the extra cost to beam low power directly to customers.
And they are mostly selling an internet connection.
Anyhow this level or kind SPS seems possible within 10 to 20 years and from this starting, ramping up to level 30% of electrical power Earth needs, could be another 10 years. And within this extra 10 year
the costs of electrical power from space, could, 1/2 the cost to consumers. And seems it would continue to be mostly paying for internet connection.
Of course this works pretty good for ocean settlements and living on Mars.
New study of moon rocks finds they contain gases from Earth
“Aug. 11 (UPI) — A new study of six moon rocks has discovered proof that the moon includes chemical elements from Earth’s interior — a finding that supports the theory that the moon was created when something smashed into Earth.”
https://tinyurl.com/4vue939k
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
” My objection to OLS is well known. ”
This is a pure lie, written by a person who never has any problem to use OLS when the goal is to show… recent cooling.
*
To show the futility of such objections, you just need to look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
and to compare the linear estimates of
– the original data (red/blue, thin straights)
and of its HQLP filter outputs:
– 60 month Savitzky-Golay (red/blue, thick straights)
– 60/50/39 month CTRM (purple/indigo, thick straights).
Their difference is amazingly small. For the innermost CTRM period (465 months) we have, in C/decade:
– UAH
orig: 0.192; S-G: 0.194; CTRM: 0.191
– RSS
orig: 0.272; S-G: 0.278; CTRM: 0.272
(CI orig +- 0.001; CI HQLP +- 0.003)
*
Thus, if the OLS differences between original data and HQLP filter output are always less than 0.01 C / decade, there is NO REASON AT ALL to discredit OLS.
What is bad is not OLS itself: it is its inappropriate (mis)use, especially for very small parts of time series.
OLS should not be used as the only tool to observe overall behavior of time series; it should always be accompanied by an appropriate smoothing allowing for a better differentiation of periods within the time series.
But to say that e.g. a CTRM tells a completely different picture than OLS with regard to the trend estimation of time series: that is a simple-minded, ugly lie, as the example above shows.
“This is a pure lie”
Wrong. I have long said that I regard OLS as a poor statistical choice for quasi-sinusoidal records.
Again a pure lie.
Have some bit of courage, Linsley Hood, and look at ALL your comments related to OLS in all Spencer threads, and how you permanently discredited it.
I have persistently claimed that OLS is of little use in climate statistics.
e.g.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/gistemp/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/gistemp/mean:180/mean:149/mean:116/plot/gistemp/trend
OLS is about as accurate and useful before the 1800s as it is after 2022.
You cannot quote a CTRM as a single figure. By definition a Cascaded Triple Running Mean requires not only a window but a period over which it operates.
” For the innermost CTRM period (465 months) we have, in C/decade … “
So despite my saying that OLS is of little use in climate statistics, you resort to it anyway.
For a correct UAH to RSS comparison see
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
which shows that it is only during the period 2000 to 2008 that the 2 really differ, not over the whole period 1979 to present which Blinny likes to show.
Wrong again.
The author of this utterly tricky chart has been often enough explained that we can’t simply compare two anomaly series constructed out of the mean of different reference periods, and shift the series’ plots using arbitrarily chosen values incrementally modified until the plots reach by miracle the intended positions.
There is only one way to compare time series based on different reference periods:
– to chose a major period, e.g. UAH’s (1991-2020);
– to compute the mean of all other series’ anomalies for this major period;
and
– to displace the other series’ plots by their major period’s mean.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.613
I have been teached that over ten years ago by knowledgeable Skeptics at WUWT.
*
But Linsley Hood aka RLH is opinionated and incorrigible, and never admits being wrong.
I won’t comment this anymore: it is waste of time.
“Wrong again”
How can displaying wft be wrong?
Balancing things around the center just makes it difficult to see that before 2000 and after 2008 there are very little differences between the 2 series.
The alignment before 2000 and after 2008 is as shown above in
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
If you want it in 2 separate graphs that show the 2 separate periods you can do it that way also.
Try this
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.613
or this
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-.52
” How can displaying wft be wrong? ”
Typical answer of a deceitful and fraudulent polemicist.
Not ‘displaying wft’ is wrong, Linsley Hood.
Don’t try to divert as you always do, by keeping you own mistakes behind the authorities like WFT, Vaughan Pratt, etc etc.
What is WRONG is how you intentionally misuse the perfectly correct WFT in order to display incorrect things.
*
If Paul Clark had from begin decided to represent anomalies by internally computing and displacing the mean of reference periods (instead of providing the offset Pandora Box), tricksters like you never would ever have been able to misuse his tool, by the way misrepresenting the reality and misinforming uninformed readers.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348754
“misuse the perfectly correct WFT in order to display incorrect things”
Now it is offsets that are wrong. Poor Blinny.
No again: not the offsets in general are wrong, Linsley Hood.
YOUR misuse of offsets is more than wrong: it is a dumb manipulation.
So creating offsets that nearly align 2 series over a given period (like 1979 to 2000) is somehow wrong now.
Doing it a second time (like 2008 to present) must be wrong also.
As to combining them both together onto one graph. That is heresy.
” So creating offsets that nearly align 2 series over a given period (like 1979 to 2000) is somehow wrong now. ”
NO.
Taking again UAH 6.0 LT and RSS 4.0 LT as example, we can easily see that while the displacement of RSS’s time series wrt UAH’s reference period (1991-2020) is +0.356 K
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365
the displacement of UAH’s time series wrt RSS’s reference period (1979-1998) is -0.218 K, leading to the following, again correct comparison:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.218/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
By accident, your hand made displacement of RSS nearly matches the inverse of the computed displacement of UAH for 1979-1998.
But the differences between the two series remain:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cw0zlNI20d4SjhaUNiyK2h4XAW1rlpR0/view
*
You are and will keep unable to accept such evidence, just like Clint R, Robertson, Flynnson, Hunter & alii keep unable to accept the evidence of the lunar spin about its polar axis.
Feel free to keep opinionated! I enjoy.
Aligning 2 series so that they match over a given time period does not require any notice to be taken of their respective reference periods. Idiot.
“By accident”
The choice of -0.23 was no accident, though I am happy to make it -0.218 if that makes you happy.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.218/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
You can shift the baseline however you want. But when you make absolute determinations from doing so you better have something more than curve-fitting to back it up.
There are already scientific analyses of the differences between RSS and UAH. If you’re going to ignore them ell in favour of a woodfortrees ‘analysis’ you are not going to be taken seriously.
Look ma! I made my graphs match! You can see it so it must be true!
Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should acquaint themselves with the methods papers for each dataset, and preferably be familiar with peer-reviewed studies examining the issue. And these analyses should inform their understanding, not just simply be read and forgotten, or tortured into a semblance of your outlook.
That is the bare minimum requirement. Otherwise you’re just ignorant and tooling with graphs.
Don’t try to kid us here with your eternal lies, Linsley Hood.
Your choice of the ‘-0.23’ offset, as well as that of the ‘-0.45’ clearly were the result of a lot of hand made trials to get the RSS plot best fitting UAH’s:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23
It had NOTHING to do with any computation like those out of which the mean of the anomalies for a given reference period is obtained.
And above all, you name me an idiot, thank you, but how shall I name a person born in 1948 but who is unable to discern how meaningless and scienceless such kindergarten stuff is?
You are and will keep unable to accept such evidence, just like Clint R, Robertson, Flynnson, Hunter & alii keep unable to accept the evidence of the lunar spin about its polar axis.
Feel free to keep opinionated! I enjoy.
The point is, do you disagree that the 2 series can be brought into close alignment before 2000 and after 2008? Does not matter what the exact values are. The results are what matters.
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
Does this then support what John Christy says about the use of NOAA-14 during that period? Yes. Again regardless of what the exact figures are.
So there we are. Data simply supporting a theory.
P.S. This is the difference between the -0.23 and -0.218 offsets in RSS.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.218
Pardon me if I failed to notice that small ‘error’. It has little effect on the overall picture.
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
“There are already scientific analyses of the differences between RSS and UAH.”
Yup, there are. I accept that John Christy’s version is closer to the truth and others out there.
….the truth than others out there….
Non experts on this quite technical subject cannot judge whether Christy’s method is scientifically superior. I am certain that you are not an expert, RLH.
Thus your judgement that Christy’s method is closer to the truth is is actually just a judgement that its results are closer to your beliefs.
This is the type of judgement of science applied by all climate deniers here.
“Does this then support what John Christy says about the use of NOAA-14 during that period? Yes.”
No.
It says that RSS and UAH do different analysis during that period. It doesnt say WHICH ONE is superior.
RSS is in alignment with two surface data sets during the period, while UAH is an extreme outlier.
https://tinyurl.com/3yw4n6nw
While RSS, UAH, and the two surface sets are in alignment after.
https://tinyurl.com/2h58a5fa
” The point is, do you disagree that the 2 series can be brought into close alignment before 2000 and after 2008? ”
How is it possible that persons aged over 70 can’t manage to understand, let alone to accept that
– shifting a time series twice such that each shift indeed shows how near parts of it are to another time series
BUT that
– this creates an artificial situation out of which nothing else valuable can be concluded?
*
” Does not matter what the exact values are. The results are what matters. ”
The results are no more than arbitrary nonsense.
*
Linsley Hood, you not only don’t understand what anomalies really are.
Like many opinionated people whose discourse is dominated by ego more than anything else, you no longer sense where the logic ends and the illogical begins.
I’m losing my time here, and stop. Do what you want with your nonsense.
“I accept that John Christy’s version is closer to the truth and others out there.”
You don’t know the other analyses. This remark about preference is simply unquestioning belief and jimmying a graph.
Somewhere above, I read, manifestly related to one of my charts posted upthread, the amazing sentence:
” Your own charts show what I have claimed. It is just that you do not see it because you have lines (which have no real meaning or weight) to confuse you. ”
Aha.
So let us look at a chart displayed by the spreadsheet tool in the ‘lines only’ mode:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpvW8M4hhBPcIaFWNqlIlwSMA4-sfk6o/view
and compare it to a chart made out of exactly the same data, but displayed in ‘dots only’ mode:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XXEKAq_x7jYUDT9zT92PvI3zuL_N5HmB/view
*
To be honest: in my whole life I never experienced a person being brazen enough to claim that a dot-based chart would be ‘less confusing’ than a line-based chart.
The contrary is evident: the data shown as dots is a sequence of monthly values, and the lines connecting the dots show you which dot precedes / succeeds other dots near it.
This is exactly the information you miss when only dots are shown!
**
But this was not enough.
More upthread, I had to read, also related to charts I posted, the even more strange opinion:
” … still with lines between the points which have no data supporting them.
Where is the data that supports the idea that exactly half way between the points (which we do have the data for) there exists a point on the line that is drawn between them? Nowhere. ”
This is not brazen: it is both dishonest and ignorant.
It is evident that the author of such a sentence
– definitely ignores how a spreadsheet calculator handles the data it displays
and moreover
– attempts to discredit charts published by others solely based on his own ignorance.
*
Spreadsheet calculators only work with the data, and not with their representation.
Lines are like dots one of many display modes, and do not represent any data added to the dots they connect.
This to show is so easy: you just need to look at the trend information displayed by the spreadsheet calculator in the two charts above when you have them in two browser tabs: it is exactly the same in both.
(I intentionally used internal trend info computed by the spreadsheet calculator itself – running means and polys together with their equations – because HQLPs like Savitzky-Golay or CTRM are themselves data represented as either dots or… lines.)
*
Linsley Hood aka RLH is such an ignorant boaster and liar.
*
Data source (nino12 resp. nino34)
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/
“to claim that a dot-based chart would be ‘less confusing’ than a line-based chart”
Less visually confusing as it does not include lines for which there is no data support.
But Blinny does not think, purely reacts.
“Lines are like dots one of many display modes, and do not represent any data added to the dots they connect”
There is no data that is on the lines that join data points except at their ends.
This too I wont comment this anymore: it is waste of time.
Because what I say is correct. There is no data along the lines that connect the dots, only at the ends.
Feel free to keep stubborn and opinionated, Linsley Hood!
That’s the best way for you to help some of us in making your persistent failures more visible.
Blinny still resorts to name calling. Not facts.
Because what I say is correct. There is no data along the lines that connect the dots, only at the ends.
The line-based chart is better because it makes the temporal evolution of the values clearer.
If the interval between the dots is tiny and the Y axis spread is large then it can become difficult to see which dot comes before or after another. Running lines between improves the view for that, and takes no information away.
No one in their right mind anywhere (well, maybe someone with Asperger’s?) would believe that the straight lines between dots represented actual data. The first time I ever saw a graph like that I immediately understood that the breaks were the data and the lines between a visual aid.
This is a stupid quibble if ever there was one. RLH, stop being wastefully argumentative.
“The line-based chart is better”
My old stats professor would disagree and so would I. There are no data values along those lines except at the ends of them. They just add visual weight (not aid) without any other supporting reason.
In fact the points themselves should be vertical rectangles not squares, with their height actually representing the (in)accuracy with which they inherently have, centered on the ‘value’ they represent. Their width is open to question as well, should we cover the whole period that they represent or just the center of it?
Yes, uncertainties would be great to see graphed. I look forward to you doing that.
You should definitely do that for the el Nino values, and see if the uncertainty of the different peaks for the various ENSO data sets overlap.
Temperatures rose above 40C in the middle of the night in the province of Alicante in SE Spain.
Today the temperatures can reach locally 45C again in SE Spain.
Past Weather in Alicante, Spain
Temperature is more that simple sunshine.
Yes, and these temperatures you mention are not even the major point in Southern Europe: it is drought, due to
– increasing lack of precipitation,
– decreasing water reserves in the Alps, the Sierra Nevada, etc etc
and
– extensive use of water for industry and agriculture.
Even Germany misses currently 2.5 Gt water per year since at least ten years.
*
If there was such data for the last 50 years, I would collect, for all available stations, precipitation and wind in addition to the temperature records I have already on disk.
I would be interesting to post for Europe a grid of the somehow (!) weighted product of the three parameters.
The same of course would be interesting as well for the Dust Bowl area (in time and space).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Map_of_states_and_counties_affected_by_the_Dust_Bowl%2C_sourced_from_US_federal_government_dept._%28NRCS_SSRA-RAD%29.svg
Droughts apparently never happened in the USA before
https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-dust-storms-part-two-1861-1880/13031
Triple Dipper Superdeveloping La Nina weather Outlook
https://youtu.be/r326mBTGH6I
PS; If you believed those Bindiwrong no La Nina predictions now it’s time to ask for your money back
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
For the umpteenth time, babbling Edog: you never predicted anything, nor did I.
You were believing in NOAA’s predictions: that was right.
I was believing in JMA’s predictions: that was wrong.
Babble, babble, babble.
And you claim to be a pilot, and having been active in aircraft design?
Who could believe that when looking at the mental level of your posts?
“nor did I”
You just repeated what others concluded without observing that JMA has quite different measurements of what ENSO is compared to NOAA.
No wonder that with you as last director, Perch Ltd experienced a harsh shutdown.
Blinny does go on about things that are nothing to do with climate. No surprise there.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1348754
That’s when hen he gets triggered , starts gyrating throwing zshit in every direction hoping some of it will stick to something
He just hides behind the nickname ‘Bindidon’.
Just as almost everything you share here has far less to do with climate than your persistent behavior-induced failure reveal.
Because what I say is correct. There is no data along the lines that connect the dots, only at the ends.
Bindidonk couldn’t figure out which way the wind blows let alone what ENSO is
Babbling Edog
You are, like is Clint R wrt the ball-on-a-string, at least 101 % right.
AT LEAST!
Now Blinny says that Clint R is 101% correct about a ball-on-a-string.
.. and the dumb, stubborn, opinionated Linsley Hood doesn’t even .realize I’m making fun of both Clint R and the babbling Edog all together.
No wonder.
Even the arrogant Blinny thinks I take nothing he says at face value.
Is this what the argument is about? Someone backed one forecast group and someone else backed another and one of those was right?
Jesus. The arrogance to think that you are a scientific genius because your horse came first, or that the ‘loser’ is a dunce because their horse came last.
All the ENSO forecast groups have made successful and unsuccessful forecasts over the years. All of them.
We who have zero expertise in this matter should have the humility to recognize that we are onlookers only.
Speak for yourself and your own failed forecasting, you play a sidekick to Bindidong who is the worst scum on this board
I know I am not speaking for you when talking about having the humility to know you’re not an expert. You take the credit for the work done by experts. It’s hilarious.
I’ve never made an ENSO forecast. I don’t have an inflated view of my own ability.
Barry: So which of ONI or Meiv2 is closer to the ‘truth’?
No one can say
By your own posting My predictions were opposite against your so called experts. so they must have been my own.
And tell me again about your humility of calling people fuckwits
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
Not people, Eboy.
You.
Yes, you really do think you know more than the experts, Eben. A classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
https://youtu.be/dIl5EgDgRMI
He is a bigger fan of nuclear energy than I am.
He also quite a fan of burning waste.
Burning waste and nuclear energy are similar,
I am not against it but not a fan of it, either.
I think focusing using natural gas is generally better
global solution. But the longer solution is probably
related to human becoming spacefaring civilization.
By using space environment we can get access to unlimited
amount of very cheap energy. And can use less energy if we
can use the space environment, more than we are now.
Using nuclear energy in space is a lot different than using
on earth surface and further from the sun, using nuclear energy
is more needed.
But I think a lot things can done in Venus orbit, and you don’t need
nuclear energy, there.
Grand Solar Minimum Update
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26796527/who-is-patrick-moore/
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
–
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
–
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K….340 K
Earth…..287,74 K….288 K
Moon……223,35 K….220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K….210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
The (W\m) should be read as (W\m^2)
Christos, the global Tse 288 K Te 255 K = 33K difference has been observed in the real world. Your work is faulty until your work agrees with the measured data & includes the measured natural IR opacity of the earthen atm. which Christos ignores.
Worth writing again with the minus sign placed in blog language:
Christos, the global Tse 288 K – Te 255 K = 33K difference has been observed in the real world. Your work is faulty until your work agrees with the measured data & includes the natural IR opacity of the earthen atm. which Christos ignores.
Ball4:
“Christos, the global Tse 288 K Te 255 K = 33K difference has been observed in the real world.”
Ball4, there is not Te 255 K …
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith∗
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
“A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorp,tion by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earths surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”
–
“A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature.”
“is mathematically constrained”
Ball4, what does it mean “is mathematically constrained”?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Ball4, what does it mean is mathematically constrained?”
Well if planet is not spinning “pretty fast” and it’s not absorbing
much sunlight, it will cold like Mercury is.
With Earth the ocean absorbs most of the energy from the sunlight.
A greenhouse effect is the shortwave light of sun is absorbed and the longwave IR light is “trapped”. Or the shortwave light is absorbed and doesn’t immediately radiate back in space.
Our ocean stores heat from sunlight and heat from geothermal energy for thousands of years. Our ocean “traps heat”.
Or atmosphere also “traps heat” but it traps it for short time period. But this short time period is days, and Earth rotates in faster time, than time atmosphere can “trap heat”.
But Venus rotates very slowly but our ocean can trap heat longer than it’s rate of spin. But Venus lacks our ocean. Or Venus is mathematically constrained from being as warm at Earth distance as Earth is.
But with planet Mercury, it depends on what you are measuring.
In terms of it’s top layer of dust [which very similar our Moon’s dusty top layer].
If measuring temperature of Mercury’s dust, most of Mercury surface is a lot colder than 15 C.
If you in cave say 500 meters under ground, Mercury can have higher
average temperature at 500 meter depth than 15 C.
We don’t know, as Mercury is least explored inner planet of our sun.
But our Moon has explored and under the dust on the Moon it “could” have average temperature of around -40 C [233 K].
But we can only guess about Mercury’s surface.
{we imagine it could have a lot sulfur- a lot more than Moon has, and Moon is not like a planet, as it’s thought have formed by large impactor hitting Earth- and Mercury is planet with a high density.]
Christos 9:35 am, earthen planetary Te = 255K is (& has been for climate timeframes) measured by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project and is now monitored continually around the clock for any long term changes.
Christos 9:56 am, the math constraint is explained in the conclusions.
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith∗
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorp,tion by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earths surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
–
Ball4 says:
August 14, 2022 at 8:38 AM
“Worth writing again with the minus sign placed in blog language:
Christos, the global Tse 288 K Te 255 K = 33K difference has been observed in the real world.”
–
Now, Ball4, please explain, why the difference has been observed as 33K on the real world? Why the exact number 33K?
The above mentioned article by Arthur P. Smith∗
clearly says:
“Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorp,tion by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earths surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
At least 33 K lower does not mean exactly 33K lower.
Why not 40K lower then, or, why not 70K lower then?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The numbers vary a bit Christos, but not by the amount you write, depending on the time period observed. I don’t always use the tilda:
The global Tse ~288K – Te ~255 K = ~33K difference which has been observed in the real world depending on the time period.
Ball4, please explain, why do you think Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t warm planet surface by 70C?
Moon doesn’t have atmosphere
Moon’s measured by Diviner:
“Figure 5 depicts the average diurnal course of surface temperature at the lunar Equator simulated by the revised TWO model. As illustrated in Figure nine of Vasavada et al. (2012), this temperature curve agrees quite well with hundreds of thousands of Diviner measurements. The curve yields a mean equatorial temperature of 213 K (−60.15 C). In accordance with Hlders inequality, the warmest latitude on the Moon is on average 57.1 K cooler than the lunar effective emission temperature (≈270 K) computed from Eq. (3).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
Some quick reasons & not all inclusive:
The earthen global Tse ~288K – Te ~255 K = ~33K difference is with a 1 bar atm in place, thus not Tna used in the linked paper for ~70C delta.
“The curve yields a mean equatorial temperature of 213 K (-60.15 C)” is an avg. of a varying diurnal brightness temperature whereas the reported lunar 240K equatorial equilibrium Apollo thermometer based temperature does not vary diurnally so there is no diurnal averaging. As Smith explains, that is mathematically constrained to be a lower result for equatorial Tse (213K on avg.) than the lunar natural equatorial Apollo thermometer equilibrium Ts (240K).
The paper’s authors use a calculated global Te (formula 3) vs. the measured global Te from CERES data thus do discuss Holders inequality.
Den and Lark (ha) use “thermal emissivity of regolith was assumed to be spatially invariant and equal to 0.98” when measurements of Apollo regolith samples, & also including particle size for regolith powder diffraction, show that is not reasonably the case.
The lunar effective emission temperature NASA computed at Tse 270K uses an assumption for regolith emissivity and albedo that is different than in situ measurements & way too high vs. Apollo reults.
No one using Diviner results can be naturally correct for lunar Tse & Te until a reasonable lunar thermometer field is installed and the reasonably measured spatial & temporal regolith emissivity, diffraction, albedo obtained.
“As Smith explains, that is mathematically constrained to be a lower result for equatorial Tse (213K on avg.) than the lunar natural equatorial Apollo thermometer equilibrium Ts (240K).”
Please explain more
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity – – a look at Ian Plimer’s claim.
Is he ignorant or is he deliberately trying to mislead people? And if it’s the latter, what does he hope to gain by selling misleading books to a huge market of credulous readers at $21.34 a copy on kindle, and why do people believe him when the figures clearly contradict him.
It is known since longer time that volcanoes contribute to at best 3 % of the human emissions.
Even Willis Eschenbach, WUWT’s Skeptic muse, wouldn’t contradict!
But yes: when such people publish their lies, their audience is way higher than that of the other side.
RSS is in alignment with two surface data sets during the period, while UAH is an extreme outlier.
https://tinyurl.com/3yw4n6nw
While RSS, UAH, and the two surface sets are all in alignment after.
https://tinyurl.com/2h58a5fa
Better from 2008 which shows that RSS is indeed an outlier after then.
Forgot the tiny url
https://tinyurl.com/35me4wbp
The trends on those lines are
RSS: 0.357 C/dec
The other 3 are oddly identical to 3 decimal places: 0.325 C/dec.
These differences are well within the statistical error.
If you define the error bars sufficiently wide, everything is within those.
The facts are that it is only during the period 2001 to 2005 that RSS uses NOAA-14 whereas UAH does not.
“If you define the error bars sufficiently wide, everything is within those.”
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
This well regarded trend calculator shows the 2 sigma error on RSS or UAH trends for that period to be 0.26 C/decade.
The 1 sigma error would be 0.13 C.
Either one is much larger than the trend difference of 0.03.
Please do show us your error calculation, one that ‘defines’ errors to be much smaller.
I suspect you will have nothing to show.
What are the error bars on the next throw of a dice being 1?
Trend calculators based on OLS and that have less prediction of ‘true’ values for current temperatures than they do about temperatures half the known time ago do not show anything of real interest. They are nothing more than a statistical game.
What is your prediction for the next 5, 10 and 15 years of AMO and PDO?
What error bars would you add to this data?
https://imgur.com/a/2MCzRLa
“They are nothing more than a statistical game.”
As expected you have no idea how to find the error and just dismiss someone who does.
If you don’t understand statistical error, then your claims of significance are vacuous.
I notice your first plot goes to 2014 not 2008 as I originally supplied.
Let us concentrate instead on the 2001 to 2005 central portion
https://tinyurl.com/bdd6nr48
The error bar on trend for a 4 year span of this data will be enormous.
Trying to draw significance from comparison of trends from 2001- 2005 shows that you have no appreciation for statistical error, RLH.
You can see from here
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
that the trend for 2001-2005 is
UAH -0.164 C/dec
RSS 0.177 C/dec
But the error bar on these is 1.1 C/dec.
The error on trend is ~ 7 times larger than the trend!
But it is only in those 4 years between 2001 to 2005 that NOAA-14 is used exclusively by RSS. So how can anything longer than that be of interest?
Your interest cannot overcome statistical limitations.
Welcome to science!
Indeed welcome to the world of institutional science where anything is worthy of sending up red flags in attempts to squeeze more out of the public.
So using a known bad satellite trumps real data from known good ones. Welcome to how to distort science.
“trumps real data from known good ones.”
In your non-expert opinion, for what that’s worth.
All the data from both RSS and UAH is processed with assumptions that are subject to debate.
By starting in 1979 AND using offsets representing the different means of three different reference periods (RSS: 1979-1998; UAH: 1991-2020; GISS, BEST: 1951-1980), you obtain this graph:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/to:2014/offset:-0.356/mean:12/plot/best/from:1979/to:2014/mean:12/offset:-0.574/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2014/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2014/mean:12/offset:-0.613
And only when looking at how UAH starts you really understand why it is the outlier: not only are the anomalies after 2003 a lot lower, those before 2003 are a lot too high as well.
That makes everything clearer – NOT.
We are NOT talking about the whole period from 1979 to present, but only those areas where the various thing differ. For UAH and RSS that means sometime between 2000 and 2008.
Blinny, of course, doesn’t think that this matters but it is of note that it is during this period that RSS includes NOAA-14 unchanged where as UAH doesn’t included it at all. John Christy himself confirmed this but as Blinny does not like UAH he just ignores what they say.
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
Or to go with Blinny’s preferred offsets
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.218/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/offset:-0.45
“For UAH and RSS that means sometime between 2000 and 2008.”
Month to month there can be differences between the surface data and the LT, but it makes no sense for them to diverge from each other for that period, but not the rest.
Yet it is only during that period that UAH departs significantly from the surface data, while RSS does not.
Always the same overly opinionated, egomaniac nonsense, spiced with
” Blinny, of course, doesnt think that this matters but it is of note that it is during this period that RSS includes NOAA-14 unchanged where as UAH doesnt included it at all.
John Christy himself confirmed this but as Blinny does not like UAH he just ignores what they say. ”
*
But as an unconditional supporter of UAH, Linsley Hood deliberately ignores that John Christy/Roy Spencer is only half the truth.
Carl Mears/Frank Wentz is the other half.
If I were as dumb and opinionated as Linsley Hood, I would say:
” but as Robertson LH does not like RSS he just ignores what they say. ”
I am not.
*
By the way, where is UAH’s modern uncertainty analysis, based – like do RSS and Hadley/CRU since 2012 – on 100 ensemble means and Monte-Carlo distributions?
By how much would UAH’s time series differ if they finally started to use that 10 year old time series analysis technology?
“deliberately ignores that John Christy/Roy Spencer is only half the truth”
But one that fits the facts and the data, so more likely to be the whole truth.
Which fits better to Meiv2 and OLR (inverted)? RSS or UAH?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/rss-tropics.jpeg
MEI is ENSO, not the trend.
OLR doesnt need to have the same trend as T, given that there is a GHE.
Show us OLR and RSS and UAH.
RLH says: Which fits better to Meiv2 . . .? RSS or UAH?
Correlation with MEI is one of the metrics from the Foster/Rahmstorf 2011 multiple regression analysis. RSS was slightly, but not significantly a better fit than UAH, so there’s that.
To be fair (imagine that!) all three datasets are now on newer algorithm revisions.
John Christy/Roy Spencer are the authors on this blog who publish each month their analysis of the data they retrieve from satellites.
But Blinny does not think their work is of any merit but prefers instead that of Carl Mears/Frank Wentz (who incidentally do not publish a blog of their own work).
Blinny must be right of course /sarc.
“Blinny does not think their work is of any merit”
Rubbish. You keep fantasising about binary issues and single-position people when the truth is far more nuanced than you seem to be capable of appreciating.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F Scott Fitzgerald
Children see the world as black and white. With maturity comes the understanding that reality is more grey than either.
Grow up.
So do you believe that NOAA-15 and NOAA-15 should be continued to be both used regardless of the fact that NOAA-14 had observable drift problems after about 2000 as JC observed?
That is a simple binary question for you.
RTFR.
So no answer from Barry when a sensible question is asked. No surprise there then.
“(who incidentally do not publish a blog of their own work}”
RSS algorithms and results are published in science journals and data reported monthly just as UAH.
FYI, A blog is not science, it is infotainment and political advocacy, for the general public, who are often (like yourself) science novices.
Certainly a blog is not evidence of better science. Science is published in science journals.
“So no answer from Barry when a sensible question is asked.”
RTFR.
There is zero point talking to you about this stuff if you refuse to read the source material that you have been given many times. Why waste time with someone who is not interested in understanding but only asking “So you think” questions.
Read. The. Fucking. Report.
Or continue to be a dunce.
Or you can continue to be argumentative.
JC writes in scientific journals, but you do not consider that enough.
The data, as I have shown, supports JC’s arguments. But again that is not enough.
Why is it that RSS and UAH mostly only globally differ during approx 2000 to 2008 during the exact time that NOAA-14 is used by one and not the other? Could it be that JC is correct in his analysis. Of course.
All we have from the other side is the intriguing claim that NOAA-14 could be as bad as NOAA-15, with no real evidence to support it.
“JC writes in scientific journals, but you do not consider that enough.”
Mears writes in scientific journals, and gives a scientific rationale for their choices. But you dont consider that enough.
Because you dont understand the rationale because you are not expert.
RLH,
I read JC and Mears. And more.
In your twisted imagination I’ve signed up to the RSS dataset and rejected UAH.
This is simply you projecting your own confirmation bias on everyone else. I don’t operate like you do. I favour neither.
Thanks barry, much appreciated.
Though aged 74, Linsley Hood aka RLH permanently behaves like a 15 year old school boy.
I just go with the facts and the data rather than the assumptions that others make.
Which of the 2 satellite series is closer to Meiv2 and OLR and why?
RLH,
You are the one constantly making assumptions – particularly about what people think.
For you every discussion is a battle. Even when people agree with you, you must contradict them.
You make mountains out of molehills. Uncertain datasets became forces to be categorised into 2 bins – valid/not valid. Differences in ENSO peaks become a stick with which to beat the air.
You’re constantly, endlessly, ceaselessly titling at windmills.
The cure for your ills is to embrace genuine curiosity. There may not be a cure for a lack of curiosity.
Curiosity is what I was born with. There is not lack of it with me. I just want to know why different series show different outcomes. Unless you believe that everything is fully driven by CO2 in which case everything will always get hotter. No curiosity needed there.
Decided yet what the immediate future will bring to the AMO and PDO?
No U would have been shorter, Richard.
“I just want to know why different series show different outcomes.”
Oh bullshit, Richard. I mean, come on.
If that were true you would read the methods papers that describe how the datasets are made. With a click on the links to this source material that you have been given many times you could have informed yourself.
Your remark here has been given the lie multiple times over, when you simply scrolled past the source material that’s been laid at the foot of your mouse many times over. Your comments on them give that away immediately, every time.
You are not curious. You’re argumentative.
“You are not curious. Youre argumentative”
IYHO of course.
Oh bullshit, Richard. We mean, come on.
Bindidon says:
And only when looking at how UAH starts you really understand why it is the outlier: not only are the anomalies after 2003 a lot lower, those before 2003 are a lot too high as well.
——————————–
‘a lot’????? RSS has the biggest outliers on the entire chart Bindidon. But I am not going to make a big deal of a outliers between .1 and .2C.
Its hard for me to get excited when I hear the weather is going to change 3c between today and tomorrow. Its like so what? The only thing I am excited about is folks living in temperature controlled environments telling me I should do something about the weather changing. A bunch of softy wimps whining about how their air conditioning is going to have compensate for it.
These softy wimps should get off your lawns, Bill:
> The frequency of extreme weather events, including floods, storms, droughts, extreme temperatures, and wildfires, has intensified globally over recent decades due to climate change, affecting human society profoundly. Among all the impacts of these extreme weather events, the consequences to our reliable water supply have gained increasing attention as they exacerbate the inequities in health and education, especially in marginalized populations. In this perspective, we emphasize that extreme weather events are able to undermine a stable supply of drinking water through a number of approaches, and conventional centralized water treatment is insufficient at addressing these challenges. We urge that greater recognition, increased public awareness, and more efforts on technological innovation on decentralized, especially point-of-use (POU), water treatment should be prioritized to better help tackle the challenges faced by increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00182-1
You may get more watering restrictions in a near enough future.
While there are natural variation in precipitation such as La Nina (cool water on the west coast) bringing more drought that reverses direction during El Ninos. Everything points to more water from warming.
Of course the problem in California isn’t so much at all a lack of water its almost entirely a relentless march toward more demand for water. Thus the press measures drought by levels in reservoirs since almost all lakes in California are manmade or enlarged by the building of dams. . . .most built in the last 100 years.
Update on this historic heat wave in Spain:
Hottest day on record in multiple mainland stations, the most important ones:
Alicante 42.0C (Tmin 29.0C!)
Almeria AP 42.0C
Murcia San Javier AP 41.9C
Javea 40.8C
Palma Port 39.1C
Cartagena 41.5C
But we are continuously told that peak records are not that important. Except when they are.
What’s not important is vague, wafty remarks.
Are those not peak temperature records that were being quoted?
I wasn’t referring to the vacuous comment that followed.
So peak temperature records are only important if they show rises and not important if they don’t?
Barry: So what is your projection for the AMO and PDO for the next 5, 10, 15 years?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-detrended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-trended.jpeg
if you only do trended figures.
RLH, From your “amo-trended” plot, one would expect the modern trend line to continue, since it’s the result of warming in the North Atlantic basin (0N-65N, 80W-0E), absent some large volcanic event.
Overlayed on that is a significant cyclic portion. Are you saying that will stop or continue?
E. Swanson: What is your prediction of the AMO for the next 5, 10 and 15 years?
RLH, You asked Barry based on de-trended data, a red herring, so I gave my reply for the trended data. What is your prediction for the THC, given the latest information on the temperature changes over the Arctic Ocean?
Trended or detrended, underlying both is some cyclic behavior. Is that going to continue or not?
ES: As to the Arctic, I rather suspect that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-nopol.jpeg
will continue forward.
RLH, Your reply with the Arctic/NoPol UAH data says nothing about the THC. And, the referenced news item is based on surface temperature data, not satellite data, which exhibits a lower trend, especially so over the Arctic Ocean. As usual, you continue to ignore the RSS data, which has a greater trend for the region.
ES: It would be magic indeed if the surface temperature data did not rely on satellite data and vice versa.
As to RSS data for the North Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/rss-northern-polar.jpeg
it matches quite well what UAH says.
ES: I ask again. What is your prediction of the AMO (and PDO) for the next 5, 10 and 15 years?
ES: Do you think that the Thermohaline circulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
is under threat? If so, when?
RLH, When are you going to learn to finish your thinking before you post?
I would not guess a certain date for the shutdown of the THC (AMOC), but others have considered the prospect. Last I heard, long term GCM experiments have pointed toward a shutdown and there’s some newer research which supports this conclusion. HERE’s a reference from NATURE behind a paywall, found on THIS Wikipedia article. HERE’s another one from NATURE.
ES: So doom and gloom is your “raison d’etre”. There have been many studies about it shutting down. If any of them are correct has not yet been demonstrated.
ES: I ask yet again. What is your prediction of the AMO (and PDO) for the next 5, 10 and 15 years?
Re: peak temperatures.
The point is that average summer temperatures in Europe are now higher than when we were young, by ~ 3 F.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/europe/land/2/6/1960-2022
Do you doubt, RLH, that higher averages will result in record high peaks more often?
Ones that can affect humans, like with fires in France and heat-related deaths in UK?
Intended to show this one, which is June-July
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/europe/land/2/7/1960-2022
Were they as high as during the 1870s?
“So peak temperature records are only important if they show rises and not important if they don’t?”
WTF are you talking about?
RLH, keeps asking dumb questions. There are 97 references on that Wiki page, the last one being: Stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: A Review and Synthesis. Don’t expect me to do your homework for you.
“Barry: So what is your projection for the AMO and PDO for the next 5, 10, 15 years?”
The AMO is going to drop out of high school and start working in a burger joint. She will make manager but won’t keep the position long as she can’t help gambling.
The PDO will be the bookie that saps AMO’s income.
Barry plays the idiot as usual. No prediction that can be checked for validity.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-detrended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-trended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/pdo.jpeg
Do you expect those to continue as there respective S-G shows or do you expect something else? If so, what?
….as their respective….
ES: The Northern starting point of the Thermohaline circulation is based on 2 main ocean basins/sill lines. The first is the Artic Ocean itself with the sills that surround it, Fram Straight, Barents Sea, Pacific Ocean and Greenland. The second is basin formed to the south of that in the North Atlantic with a sill line running between Greenland and Norway through the Faeroe Islands.
Both of these sills have currents flowing both ways, northwards warmer at the surface, southwards colder at the bottoms. There is also significant ice flows at the surface that moves energy across them.
What governs those balances determines how much cold bottom water is formed and where and determines the northern start of the THC. Remember too that cold brine formed by freezing of ice at the bottom is balanced by pure water from melting ice at the surface some few months later usually at a different place.
Until you have a study that measures that total balance over a few hundred years and accounts for all the driving forces (like air pressure, current, wind, etc.) you have nothing but speculation.
RLH, You’ve gotten it wrong. There is no sill in the Fram Strait, as you claim. To be sure, water flows thru the Fram Strait in both directions, both on the surface and at depth. However, the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland sills are shallower than the Fram, but deeper than the Bering Strait, so the deep water flows via that route when exiting the Arctic Mediterranean into the North Atlantic. The term Arctic Mediterranean describes the single interconnected basin with depths below the Drake and the Faroe-Shetland sills.
You wrote:
The deep waters are formed via sinking of salty water near the freezing point, the result of brine addition as the sea-ice forms during the freeze season. During the melt season, the Arctic ocean is capped with a low salt layer as fresh water is added from the melt. The surface layer is not directly connected to the deep layer, indeed, an increase in surface fresh water would reduce the rate of THC sinking.
ES: Bathymetry of the Fram Straight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram_Strait#/media/File:Location_of_Fram_Strait_with_surrounding_geographical_places.jpg
It has lighter blue portions between Svalbard and Greenland.
Where the deep water is formed is labeled in here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#/media/File:Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png
See also
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-the-bathymetry-around-the-Fram-Strait-sill-from-IBCAO-version-30-Jakobsson-et_fig3_278161456
“Based on this topographic data set, the sill is 2545m deep and located just east of 0E and south of 79N”
https://xshore.com/news/the-earths-largest-waterfall-is-underwater
“The Denmark Strait Cataract is located in the little slice of ocean between Greenland and Iceland, and is the largest waterfall on Earth. It is 160 kilometers wide and its formed by the difference in temperature of the waters at both sides of the strait. Cold water coming from the East hits warmer water coming from the West, making it plunge underneath the warm water with a 3,500 meter drop, from the Greenland Sea into Irminger Sea. The waterfall’s flow rate is 5 million cubic meters per second (surpassing that of the Niagara falls by 50,000 times).”
https://cdn.sanity.io/images/qih6a9z9/production/3ce4dd45468ecf03848220aebf3587b872089df2-960×578.jpg?fm=png&auto=format
RLH, I should have said “Denmark” instead of “Drake” in my last post. But your 5 replies aren’t very scientific and miss the reason that the lower waters of the Greenland, Iceland and Norwegian Seas are so dense. It’s the combination of the near freezing water on the surface with the salt from the formation and growth of sea-ice. The Arctic Ocean receives fresh water from the rivers which feed into it, as well as that from the annual melting of the sea-ice, so sinking is less likely there. The sill depth of the Fram Strait is much below that of the Denmark Strait’s ~650 meter depth.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have spent some time reading some of the literature. Have you finished that survey paper I last linked to? I’m still reading it and have no way to see the other two papers in Nature. But, with a little searching, HERE’s a report detailing the flows and it’s open source.
This long lasting La Niña is having dramatic effects, seemingly all over the globe. Heat waves in Europe, yet it won’t stop snowing on the Greenland ice sheet.
Fascinating.
Trump broke the weather
https://climateimpactcompany.com/daily-feature-dramatic-regional-ssta-having-impact-on-global-climate-2/
But I thought that the world was continuously getting warmer, even in the central Pacific.
Oh? You thought AGW theory required continuous and uniform warming since 1870s?
You thought wrong.
And if a strong El Nino in the 1870s was somehow not allowed by AGW theory, you thought wrong.
Oh well!
“You thought AGW theory required continuous and uniform warming since 1870s?”
Strawman. I never said that. Indeed I have long been saying that El Nino has a pattern which shows anything but that.
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
What is needed is an explanation of why the 1878 El Nino was as large as it was given that CO2 was not in contention back then.
What you said was,
“But I thought that the world was continuously getting warmer, even in the central Pacific.”
Continuous everywhere on the planet, including the central Pacific.
Is what you said.
“What is needed is an explanation of why the 1878 El Nino was as large as it was given that CO2 was not in contention back then.”
You’ve been asking the same question and ignored every answer for about 3 months now.
You keep thinking NINO3.4 region is a proxy for global, and become completely befuddled when it is pointed out that it isn’t. That this region has not warmed to statistical significance, while the globe has.
It is your inability to differentiate between datasets, and between regional and global temperature evolution that causes your confusion.
You’ve been educated numerously by people here. No one can patch the leak in your mind that causes all that information to dribble out of it.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
I’m wondering a bit about your numbers.
Here is the top 10 of a descending sort of GHCN daily’s report for all stations in Alicante, Almeria, Murcia.
SPE00120332 37.9578 -1.2294 85.0 MURCIA/ALCANTARILLA
SPE00120323 38.0028 -1.1692 61.0 MURCIA
SPE00120332 2021 8 15 47.0
SPE00120323 2021 8 15 46.2
SPE00120332 1994 7 4 46.1
SPE00120323 1994 7 4 45.7
SPE00120332 1951 7 22 45.2
SPE00120332 2022 7 25 45.1
SPE00120323 2022 7 25 45.1
SPE00120332 2021 7 12 45.0
SPE00120332 2009 7 23 45.0
SPE00120323 2009 7 23 45.0
The data for August 12-14 2022 isn’t available yet.
Note that all worldwide GHCN daily data is communicated to NOAA by the local instances after verification.
La Nina called – Asking how is that Nino3+4 forecast going
https://i.postimg.cc/R0L2nX5r/nino34.png
From Bindidong climate fails folder
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
From 110 years ago…
Can’t say we weren’t warned.
Thanks for that cult history, TM. It explains a lot of the nonsense we see today.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”Cant say we werent warned.”
———————-
Warned that the weather was going to improve? In case you haven’t noticed. . . .it has.
What are you talking about? The first half of the year was incredibly rainy and for four hours today the sun went behind a cloud and it got really chilly.
Weather is not climate.
Oh I totally agree. But I was replying to Bill Hunter, if you want to understand why I’m talking about whether.
I know. You aren’t interested in understanding what’s going on around you.
On the contrary, I look at everything with a skeptical eye. It is you who says that maxima are not that important when they are El Nino (especially from the 1870s) but important when they are daily temperatures in the last few days.
Yes, as I said, you’re not interested in what I’m saying to Bill.
Instead you are completely fabricating my point of view, as usual, about a different topic.
Your comment about weather has no relevance to climate. Regardless of who it is addressed to.
Oh I totally agree. But I was replying to Bill Hunter, if you want to understand why I’m talking about whether.
I know. You arent interested in understanding whats going on around you.
Berkeley Earth blew it when they did it. Roy actually has the data that shows they blew it.
You don’t find UHI by comparing rural areas to developed areas. You get UHI when the population and development around the station increases over time. That change is well established as UHI and the question at hand is which weather stations went through a change in character.
Roy did a study here a couple years ago that identified that issue. Berkeley Earth blew their study because they did their study they way you did it.
Thats because its not the case that rural areas warm more slowly than the city areas. They warm at the same rate and that is what you found.
They only warm faster when they are undergoing increases in population, construction, and development. Thus you picked the wrong sample like Berkeley Earth did. In fact Roy found the densest cities don’t show UHI because they are already fully developed, have been for some time, and are not undergoing development.
Airports don’t warm faster so eliminating them from your record does nothing at all. The warming occurs when they build an airport around a weather station or move the weather station to it after its built.
Same deal for a weather station on the roof of fire station. The roof doesn’t warm faster. UHI occurs when the weather station at the edge of town gets so developed the best place to relocate it is to the roof of the weather station. So that is what I was saying there were zero weather stations at airports in 1870 and today there is an official weather station at nearly every airport.
So when you measured the rural warming rate against the full record you had zero chance of detecting UHI. One would think those Professors over at Berkeley Earth would be skilled enough to have avoided that error. But they obviously weren’t. That is a big problem with academia. They are very skilled at using tools they just have a really difficult time identifying a nail.
Its like Trenberth complaining how he has been a failure in communicating climate change risks to the public. Its because he does it like a 2-bit carny hawker and he so so naive, lacking in street smarts so much he is totally unaware that he sounds exactly like one. All you get from him is ‘bad’ news. He never admits to good news. A high school drop out earns street smarts and can easily see through it.
Where is that famous smoking gun about about Berkeley Earth, Bill?
Whats this?
The guy who is always complaining about somebody asking for a reference (make a sammich) now wants somebody to make one for him?
The trends on those lines are
RSS: 0.357 C/dec
The 3 others are oddly identical: 0.325 C/dec.
These differences are well within the statistical error.
Do you consider these OLS values will continue on forever or, of not, which is the most likely to change and to what?
Plus the same question as I asked Barry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1349355
“Do you consider these OLS values will continue on forever”
Given that no one has claimed that, that is a pointless question.
So you are saying that OLS on its own is not a useful guide as to the future. We agree.
People have been telling you t5hat for months and you act like it’s the first time you’ve heard it.
But don’t worry, in a couple of days you’ll be complaining about people predicting the future from regression lines. Again.
I’m not the one using OLS to try and predict the future. You are.
barry
From the Linsley Hood trickster (aka RLH) we hear:
” Im not the one using OLS to try and predict the future. You are. ”
Could you show me where you were using OLS to predict the future?
I ask you because it is known to me since over one year that Linsley Hood is ready to any lie and will invent something fitting his narrative.
“Could you show me where you were using OLS to predict the future?”
Anything that says ‘there has been n degrees/decade rise in the past and that will continue forward into the future’ (or implies it) is using OLS as I described.
But none of the regulars here say that. We tell you the opposite.
Which Nate has pointed out above, I’ve reconfirmed, and Bindidon has called you a liar.
Even after you have been told this many times, you do exactly what I predicted a few hours ago.
“But dont worry, in a couple of days youll be complaining about people predicting the future from regression lines. Again.”
And like clockwork, you did.
I’ll predict something else. You will, once again, fail to provide any quote from anyone here supporting your demented notion that anyone here predicts future temps from linear regressions of observations.
The two predictions go hand in hand. You will again tell us that we predict the future based on OLS, and you will provide zero evidence that we do so.
So do you agree that you use there has been n degrees/decade rise in the past and that will continue forward into the future as an argument often on here. Mostly saying that CO2 causes what you have shown to be the reason?
“So do you agree that you use there has been n degrees/decade rise in the past and that will continue forward into the future as an argument often on here.”
No. I’ve never done that.
Do you agree that you have never seen an example of this, and that this is why you are unable to quote anyone here doing so?
If you disagree, do you then agree that you have been too lazy to look for an example to quote one of the regulars here doing what you say?
I’d be curious to know why you have never pointed to a concrete example of this claim.
Is it not you who says that more and more CO2 will cause temperatures to rise continuously then?
(I accept that you have agreed that El Nino does not get that much larger if at all since 1878 of course).
“Is it not you who says that more and more CO2 will cause temperatures to rise continuously then?”
Continuously? Like every single year will be warmer than the last?
No.
Over the long-term, yes.
I learned in high school that greenhouse gases keep the surface warm. Seemed reasonable to accept the scientific consensus that emerged in the late 80s and beyond that more greenhouse gases would make the surface warmer.
In the late 2000s a ‘skeptic’ on a long dead chat board said the upcoming (2007) IPCC report would not mention sulphur dioxide or water vapour because the science was biased.
So I waited for the report to come out and counted how many times water vapour and sulphur dioxide got mentioned. I got several hundred hits for each in the WG1 state of the science section.
Then I counted how many hits in the previous (2001) report. Same story.
I became acquainted with ‘skeptic’ talking points and the mainstream rebuttals and decided to read source material on a range of issues, from Milankovitch cycles to spectroscopy to carbon cycle to temperature record, to see who was closer to the science as it stood.
I learned that the ‘skeptic’ canon was self-contradictory. One ‘skeptic’ would argue that temperatures were warmer 1000 yeats ago. Another ‘skeptic’ would argue that proxies that far back are completely unreliable. One ‘skeptic’ would argue the greenhouse effect isn’t real, another would argue that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is saturated.
Sometimes the contradictory points were made by the same ‘skeptic’.
Nothing I’ve ever read against the notion that more GHGs would cause more surface warming, all else being equal, has been remotely convincing.
And I’ve rarely come across a ‘skeptic’ who doesn’t shortly reveal that they have an agenda, and that there is nothing neutral about their take.
For some it’s about politics. For others it’s about economy. That’s their starting point and they work backwards to justify their non-scientific position with sciencey sounding argument.
So, RLH, I do not and have never based predictions about future warming on linear trends. It’s always been based on the physics of greenhouse gases.
I can’t even say if the warming to come will be a little or a lot, if it will be a crisis or mildly unpleasant.
All I know is that there is a risk, and that uncertainty cuts both ways.
Specifically to your views, which you hardly ever state clearly and upfront…
Natural, multidecadal cycles may have an influence, but in the long run GHG warming will continue, sometimes accelerated in the warming phase of natural cycles, sometimes mitigated by the cooling phase – IF these multidecadal cycles are real, and if they have a real impact on global temperatures.
Different ENSO regimes, if such a thing is real and not just the coincidence of random variation, will not have much impact at all. A la nina-heavy period may slightly damp or offset the underlying warming, but that period will end, and we may get a period of stably variable ENSO, or a preponderance of el Ninos for a time, which will slightly increase or offset the underlying warming.
In short, natural cycles might mitigate or amplify warming for a period, but they will not stop it.
Clear enough?
Or can I expect you to erroneously scold me in a few days or weeks or hours, for believing that the globe will warm based on linear regression of observed global temperatures?
“Over the long-term, yes”
So you are of the belief that CO2 will override all other natural factors in the long run.
We shall see won’t we.
Care to predict what the 5, 10 and 15 year figures will be for AMO and PDO (to name but 2) or is that not long enough for you?
“Care to predict what the 5, 10 and 15 year figures will be for AMO and PDO”
It’s a pointless exercise.
What will the weather be like on the 27th of September in Darwin in 3 years time?
What will be the exact global temperature in 2025?
Will we have a la Nina, el Nino or neutral in 2030?
Too hard to tell, and it doesn’t really matter.
It’s a dumb question, RLH.
“So you are saying that OLS on its own is not a useful guide as to the future.”
Future = Forever according to some idiots.
Some people only make vague predictions about the future so they can never be wrong.
Care to predict what the AMO and PDO figures will be 5, 10 and 15 years into the future?
Why do you try to misrepresent a difference that is well within statistical error as significant? Are you really that ignorant of statistics, RLH?
All statistics will eventually rise above the noise at some point. The question really is, does a distance from the ‘center’ as measured now mean that it is more or less likely to occur in the future.
Climate is a very large and complex natural machine, unlikely to be driven solely by simple mechanisms.
There are indicators that show that all is not as simple as ‘more CO2 means higher and higher temperatures’. Eventually that will come to be much clearer as to what that means and what the other driving functions really are.
So what are you predictions for AMO and PDO (as examples) for the next 5, 10, and 15 years?
No, what you think is statistics is actually still just noise except on a different time scale
Large physical systems have more than just noise as their drivers, over many different timescales.
To just reduce it to ‘more CO2 will make things hotter continuously’ is very simplistic IMHO.
Is it simplistic to say that Summer will be warmer than Winter?
No more than to say that El Nino is warmer than La Nina.
And Daytime mostly warmer than Nighttime.
CO2 causes more warming seems nearly as simple to me. The only difficulty in seeing it is the length of time it takes, allowing opportunistic contrarians to point at every monthly downturn, every la Nina, and every Winter that is cold, to make it seem more complicated.
“CO2 causes more warming seems nearly as simple to me”
Ah but does it overrule all natural factors or is it just one facet to bring to the mix?
My comment already answered that.
So you read the first sentence and started typing. Too hard to read the second of the 2 sentences in my post?
“The only difficulty in seeing it is the length of time it takes”
No change in peak El Nino since 1878 though.
Why is it that Meiv2 shows El Nino to be declining during its whole period, but RSS in the tropics shows that they have not?
Why is it you are incapable of reading the source material for yourself to inform your own opinion, instead of asking people who are less expert and whom you won’t believe anyway?
RLH: “No change in peak El Nino since 1878 though.”
Also RLH: “there have been six Super El Ninos (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”
The general point RLH is the models project CO2 to cause long-term warming but in between there will be many peaks and troughs due to short or mid-term variables. Short and mid-term variables are largely irrelevant to the overall long-term warming.
Roys satellite data from 1979 shows an upward trend with many peaks and troughs in between.
Barry: So what part of
“No change in peak El Nino since 1878 though”
and
“there have been six Super El Ninos (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”
are in conflict?
“the models project CO2 to cause long-term warming”
But the models are well acknowledged to be running way too hot.
“Short and mid-term variables are largely irrelevant to the overall long-term warming”
What evidence do you have that short and mid-term variables have less variability and importance than do long-term ones?
RLH,
Did you not notice that there are 2 super el Ninos in the period 1870 – 1890, and 4 super el Ninos between 1970 and 2020?
That’s a 90-year gap between with no super el Ninos.
And you know that because you have regularly posted this graph:
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
To explain that el Nino peaks have changed over the period from 1870.
In fact, you contradicted yourself in the space of a few posts when I said that ENSO variability hadn’t changed.
So which is it? El Ninos peaks have not changed, or is the truth held in that curved graph of el Ninos above value +1 that you’ve posted many times, saying the opposite?
Have you decided which position to take yet?
Barry: Indeed I posted about
(https://imgur.com/CauL1SE – https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.7535)
which shows exactly what the distribution of El Nino was since the 1870s?
Do you expect that to repeat or continue ever upwards into the future?
“Have you decided which position to take yet?”
Both are true. The peaks of the 1870s have not been exceeded in the modern era and there was a lull in the time period in between.
RLH: “No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
RLH: “there was a lull in the time period in between.”
Both of these statements cannot be true. The first one says no change, the second says there was change.
Barry: If the El Nino in 1878 was the same (or similar) as the one in 2016 then the first is true.
If there was a lull in the period in between the 1870s and the 1900s the second is true also.
“If the El Nino in 1878 was the same (or similar) as the one in 2016 then the first is true.”
Oh cool! Then I can say that the globe has not stopped warming since 1850, because it is warmer now than in 1850.
I can also say there was a period when it didn’t warm mid 20th century.
And I haven’t contradicted myself because both are true!
Thank you for helping me come to grips with 21st century logic.
“Oh cool! Then I can say that the globe has not stopped warming since 1850, because it is warmer now than in 1850.”
Barry being an idiot again, as there was no El Nino in 1850 (unless he makes one up).
The maxima in 1878 was not exceeded (statistically speaking) by 2016 and the evidence is that 1998 was about the same also.
Not that RSS, GISS, Had5 or any of the other ‘warmitsa’ sites agree even just that far back.
And I don’t yet think that the drought around 1876-1878 which killed millions around the globe has been seen in the data so far in this century.
c.f.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03127-8
“El Nino may trigger the circumglobal teleconnection of the Northern Hemisphere. And, the meridional disturbance of the eastward Rossby wave train at mid-latitudes may change the intensity of the troughs and ridges and further block water vapor transport from ocean to land”
I guess analogizing your logic using global warming as a replacement for el Nino peaks was completely lost on you.
You said there was a lull in the middle but el Nino peaks have been the same since 1878 – a clear contradiction. Which you tried to explain by saying 1878 el Nino was the same as 2016.
So I said global warming has continued without paus since 1850 but it stopped in the mid 20th century. Also a clear contradiction, which I try to explain using your fuzzy logic by saying that the 2010s are warmer than the 1870s.
You say – the ends are the same, so nothing has changed, even though things changed in the middle.
I say the warming never stopped because one end is higher than the other, even though it didn’t warm in the middle.
Point is, you’re talking rubbish and I’m trying to show you why.
barry says:
”If the El Nino in 1878 was the same (or similar) as the one in 2016 then the first is true.”
Oh cool! Then I can say that the globe has not stopped warming since 1850, because it is warmer now than in 1850.
——————————-
well we should expect it to be a bit warmer than 1878. After all how many airport tarmac weather stations did we add since then?
I computed temperature anomalies without using any airport stations. I did it using only rural stations and no airports. I compared rural to suburban to urban.
The results in all cases were not statistically different from using all stations.
Aye, Brandon. Many people have isolated rural, airport, urban data over the years and come up with the same results. While ‘skeptics’ waffle on about it without doing the analysis.
Contrarians – 99% messaging, 1% work.
“Since covers a period, in this case 1878 to 2016”
Correct.
“I did not say ALL El Nino between 1878 and 2016, only those 2 specific examples at the ends of the range.”
You actually said:
“…the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged SINCE 1878 to 2016”
And you’ve clarified that when you say “peak” you are referring to the highest value of any el Nino.
Nothing in you said in that sentence isolated the 2 el Ninos. Using the word ‘since” includes the period between the 2 years mentioned – because that is what the word “since” means, and using the word “peak” refers to any el nino, as you clarified upthread.
RLH, I parse text for a living. I promise you that your language is unclear. Do better, please. your short sentences are often vague. You need to take more care crafting your meaning.
> I parse text for a living.
It shows.
You should write a post at AT’s based on this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1350220
Could also be an interview.
IOW, you do not understand statistics and continually ignore it.
Ok then.
I understand statistics quite well thank you. I also understand that it is quite difficult in statistics about large physical systems with many different timescales and resonances being part of them. to decide which of those resonances are to be considered important.
El Ninos have some variation in amplitude that can be described with a statistical probability distribution.
Obviously the 1878 El Nino happened, so it must lie within that normal range of amplitude.
This happened well before AGW was significant.
When it comes to AGW this event is neither here nor there. It is a red herring.
Nate says:
El Ninos have some variation in amplitude that can be described with a statistical probability distribution.
Obviously the 1878 El Nino happened, so it must lie within that normal range of amplitude.
———————
Obviously?
One has to laugh at the math guys who like so many undertrained accountants tend toward a unilateral focus.
Now we have ocean oscillations being characterized as a single El Nino. Fact is we leave on a multi-variant planet and even our monitoring systems are inadequate to properly characterize what the current mean global temperature is giving rise to significant variations in the rate of warming. We have RSS on a whim switching from colder to UAH to significantly warmer tha UAH. We have surface analysis that can’t even decide on a single trend in warming and has to keep revising historical data.
Fact is for ENSO when it was first prepared it was felt the data was only good enough to go back to 1950. And gee it is widely recognized that Pacific Ocean SSTs were inadequate until the US dedicated a naval fleet to the Pacific Ocean around 1920. So obviously the idea of an 1878 El Nino arises from another statistical analysis of some proxies.
Ben Santers so-called seminal fingerprinting study that guided the IPCC AR3 has since fallen flat on its face and can’t even be updated.
Its like NAS member Lonnie Thompson who in 2007 released an expedition report on Peruvian Qori Kalis Glacier and predicting it may vanish in 5 years. This paper was the culmination of several trips to the Glacier and several predecessor reports. Thompson never filed another report after 2007. Why? Well it stopped melting is why.
Its an endless array of arctic ice predictions, polar bear starvation predictions, westside highways disappearing underwater, etc. Here is a list of 50 such failed predictions:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
All these cubicle denizen mathematicians look like a huge mob of guys running around with divining rods. A totally undisciplined herd of cats. Its actually quite amazing that our universities can actually field disciplined football teams. But lets face it there are only so many positions available all only granted each game after an intense competition for the spots.
Nate: So Fig 3 is an illusion then.
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
Just as the cycle in the AMO is just one too.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/amo-trended.jpeg
What happens if both your beliefs turn out to be an illusion?
“When it comes to AGW this event is neither here nor there. It is a red herring”
So a known and well documented maxima is a red herring is it? That is not true for daily temperatures is it? Especially so if they are quite recent.
“El Ninos have some variation in amplitude that can be described with a statistical probability distribution.”
Or an underlying natural cycle which is much more likely. Random events present very rarely as an orderly pattern.
“We have RSS on a whim switching from colder to UAH to significantly warmer tha UAH.”
On a whim, huh? Don’t think there’s much credibility to your science reporting.
Their whim was the continued use of NOAA-14 when it was obviously drifting.
I know, right. How can you trust UAH when they still use NOAA14 satellite?
In other news, the idea that it was a ‘whim’ is what they call “alternative facts.” That was my point.
Just like your “alternative fact” is that RSS are the only group to use NOAA14, and that they think it’s perfect.
Barry: So either you lie or deliberately dissemble. JC said they discontinued the use of NOAA-14 when its drift became too great. RSS did not. The data shows this quite clearly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
“From late 1998 through 2004, there were two satellites operating: NOAA-14 with the last of the old MSU series of instruments on it, and NOAA-15 with the first new AMSU instrument on it. In the latter half of this overlap period there was considerable disagreement that developed between the two satellites. Since the older MSU was known to have a substantial measurement dependence on the physical temperature of the instrument (a problem fixed on the AMSU), and the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. (Engineer James Shiue at NASA/Goddard once described the new AMSU as the Cadillac of well-calibrated microwave temperature sounders).”
RSS versa UAH comparison in the period in question.
https://imgur.com/a/2MCzRLa
“So a known and well documented maxima is a red herring is it”
When it comes to climate change, yes it is.
Just as any singular weather event is.
Again, the large 1878 El Nino happened, obviously independently of AGW which had not begun.
So your attempts to connect the two makes absolutely no sense.
“ate: So Fig 3 is an illusion then.”
No. Does it make a point? What?
“Does it make a point?”
It shows quite clearly that during the middle of the last century El Nino were conspicuously absent.
“Again, the large 1878 El Nino happened, obviously independently of AGW which had not begun”
So AWG has no influence on the size of El Nino then, with 1878 and 2016 being statistically similar, therefore CO2 is not causing those maxima.
So now we have the claim made that CO2 operates on something other than the maximal peaks of El Nino and somewhere other than the central Pacific. If so, how?
….So AGW has no influence….
“So AWG has no influence on the size of El Nino then, with 1878 and 2016 being statistically similar, therefore CO2 is not causing those maxima”
The globe overall has warmed since the 1870s.
If you understand statistics, as you claim, you should understand that a one-off weather event is not a robust measure of climate.
The jury is out on how AGW should influence ENSO in theory.
So its amplitude in winter of 1878, does nothing to falsify AGW.
RLH,
You’ve contradicted yourself yet again. This is the problem with relying on blog posts for your understanding of the science.
You say:
“So either you lie or deliberately dissemble. JC said they discontinued the use of NOAA-14 when its drift became too great.”
But upthread I told you that UAH use NOAA14 from July 1995 to July 2001, and you said:
“I know.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1343747
The fact is that both groups use NOAA14, and make different choices about how much of it to use and how to adjust for it.
You really need to RTFR. If you did you would know that NOAA14 had always drifted, as has NOAA15 satellite, and that both groups cross-calibrate the two satellites but in different ways.
Once again the truth is far more nuanced than your blog-level understanding.
I know it’s a waste of time, but here yet again are the links to the methods papers for both datasets.
Spencer, Christy and Braswell (2016)
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
Mears and Wentz (2017)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/19/jcli-d-16-0768.1.xml
“The globe overall has warmed since the 1870s”
But not the El Nino it seems. Why is that?
Barry: Did you not read
“From late 1998 through 2004, there were two satellites operating: NOAA-14 with the last of the old MSU series of instruments on it, and NOAA-15 with the first new AMSU instrument on it. In the latter half of this overlap period there was considerable disagreement that developed between the two satellites. Since the older MSU was known to have a substantial measurement dependence on the physical temperature of the instrument (a problem fixed on the AMSU), and the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. (Engineer James Shiue at NASA/Goddard once described the new AMSU as the Cadillac of well-calibrated microwave temperature sounders).”
RLH: “It shows quite clearly that during the middle of the last century El Nino were conspicuously absent.”
Also RLH: “No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
Barry: For UAH I presume you mean
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
UAH Version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results
Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy & William D. Braswell
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences volume 53, pages121130 (2017)
Your link produces
“Hmmm can’t reach this page”
RLH,
“Barry: Did you not read..”
I read the paper that describes the UAH methodology in detail. The one written by Spencer, Christy and Braswell, peer-reviewed and published.
The one that is linked for you in my previous comment and which you clearly haven’t read, even after months of waffling about this issue.
In it they tell you which satellites they used and what time period they are used for.
But because you misread a blogpost you think they don’t use NOAA14 satellite data. What a joke.
Here’s an alternate link to the UAHv6 methods paper (pre-print).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
Are you actually going to read it now?
“No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
I thought we had agreed that 1878 and 2016 were not statistically different in their values.
“Are you actually going to read it now?”
I have long since both had it and read it. Along with Roy’s blog posts about it too.
Are you going to refute what Roy said when he commented about which satellite series should be believed and why or are you just going to suggest that he got it all wrong.
“But because you misread a blogpost you think they dont use NOAA14 satellite data. What a joke.”
You are the joke as they clearly stated (and I quoted) that they only used NOAA-14 up to the point where its drift meant that it differed wildly from NOAA-15 when they then stopped using it. RSS (and others) continued to use it despite all that obvious knowledge.
But you don’t want to read what I say, just try and poke holes in it, regardless.
Like you won’t admit that 1878 and 2016 are statistically similar and that the period in-between shows a lack of ENSO events (i.e. Fig 3). They have been rising quite nicely since 1960 according to that, just it time for the rising global temperatures which you seek to blame solely on the rise of CO2.
barry: “The globe overall has warmed since the 1870s”
RLH: “But not the El Nino it seems. Why is that?”
Richard, please read through the following carefully. I’ve put time into it for you.
Your language is imprecise, so it’s hard to tell when you are talking about the strength of el Ninos being affected by global temperature (or not), or whether you are referring to the peaks of el Ninos changing per the global temperature record over time.
Those are two separate issues. You seem to mash them together.
So let’s tease it all out.
ENSO is defined as a semi-regular variability of SSTs and other components in the equatorial Pacific. It is that variability, the quasi-periodic oscillation that determines ENSO indices. That’s why they detrend the data, to remove any other influence.
If you use non-detrended data, you’re doing it wrong. No group does this. Because they are not examining SST variability, they are examining ENSO variability. Not the same thing, though they are strongly related.
Confusing the issue is that HadISST shows little to no long-term trend, so a casual observer might think it is a good dataset for ENSO with no further analysis.
A casual observer might note that el Ninos peaks, as they appear in the HadISST dataset, haven’t changed much over the long-term – 1878 is as high as 2016, for example.
But there is a slight warming trend in HadISST NINO3.4 data, despite it being statistically non-significant. This slight positive OLS is the reason the value of the 1878 peak temp is lower than 2016 in HadISST NINO3.4, but higher in long-term ENSO datasets. 1878 appears to be the strongest el Nino of all.
The casual observer might then get a bit fuzzy about NINO3.4 region representing how el Nino should look in global temperature records.
That would be a mistake.
Unlike the NINO3.4 region the globe has warmed significantly. There are a few regions where the globe has not warmed, or warmed as much as the global average, and there are other regions where it has warmed more than the average. Rates of warming are not uniform, nor are they expected to be.
NINO3.4 is one of the regions with little to no warming.
So, when el Nino peaks appear in the global record, they appear against a backdrop of rising global temperatures. You still see the peaks, but they get higher over time. This is normal and expected.
Your ultimate question through these conversations has been about whether global warming has changed the strength, prevalence or duration of el Ninos. You read in the AP article (and possibly elsewhere) that scientists expect more el Ninos under global warming and you’ve been trying to show that it hasn’t happened.
To finally respond to your question:
The relative strength of el Ninos hasn’t changed over the long term, apart from the mid-century reduction in intensity. We define this parameter as the quasi-periodic variability in SSTs and other components in the equatorial Pacific. There is no compelling evidence that global warming has affected ENSO.
The scientific community has no consensus on how global warming should change ENSO, though if you only read the news media on this you would get the impression that more intense el Ninos are expected.
Anyone who thinks that the press is accurate with the science has no business commenting on science.
As long as the globe keeps warming, el Nino peaks will continue to get higher as expressed in the global record, even if their relative strength remains the same. We will still get la Ninas and cold weather, we will probably get periods of more el Ninos than la Ninas and vise versa, as we have in the past, but these transient changes in variability will have little impact on long-term global warming.
To answer older questions – yes, ENSO impacts global temperatures, most clearly seen in those super el-Nino peaks. But these effects are transient.
Whether or not global warming changes the distribution of la Ninas/el Ninos, or changes their intensity remains to be seen.
If it does change, it won’t be the A in AGW that does it. If ENSO changes it will in response to global temps, not a direct response to CO2 levels.
“Are you going to refute what Roy said when he commented about which satellite series should be believed and why or are you just going to suggest that he got it all wrong.”
I’m not going to refute Dr Spencer, but neither am I going to fawningly swallow his take when there are other expert views who say different.
As I said, I am aware of the different treatments of the problem and favour neither.
“I thought we had agreed that 1878 and 2016 were not statistically different in their values.”
We have. But that is a different sentence than:
“No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
There have been changes in el Nino peaks over that time. You said so yourself.
Your expression is imprecise, hence apparent contradictions.
“Your language is imprecise”
No it is your understanding of simple language that is at fault.
The PEAK temperatures are just that, peaks. So we have 1878 and 2016. These are both peaks. They are similar. But they are NOT driven to these peak values by CO2 as you have acknowledged.
So, at least at these peaks, CO2 is NOT driving their values to their heights.
Detrended data CANNOT be used to compare something that has different reference periods, especially if they are centuries apart, without first removing those differences. Then trended data is much simpler, there just the simple numbers can be directly compared.
“There have been changes in el Nino peaks over that time”
The PEAK value of 1878 and the PEAK value of 2016 are ‘the same’. How can that be challengeable? Only be you re-writing English to mean something different or deliberately trying to find a way to claim something is different because it means that rising CO2 is NOT causing rising El Nino peak values.
“Like you wont admit that 1878 and 2016 are statistically similar”
I’ve agreed with that dozens of times. Are you senile or is it just the argumentativeness causing you to forget over and over and over again?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333181
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333563
How many times must I repeat a thing before it penetrates your skull?
“But there is a slight warming trend in HadISST NINO3.4 data, despite it being statistically non-significant.”
Liar (at least to the nearest 0.1c)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg
Look at the 27.1 line. It is touched from below in 1928 and again in 1994. We are coming up to it again from below presently. If you want that in anomaly form try
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
P.S. The thicker black line is the reference period which I think you will agree is to all intents and purposes the 27.1 line above (or something very close to it).
No, your language is imprecise.
People here read the published papers on ENSO, and use the datasets and language that the experts use.
You use datasets and language that are not used by the experts, and it causes confusion.
For example:
“The PEAK temperatures are just that, peaks.”
I have no idea if by ‘peak’ you mean
1) the highest value of any el Nino
2) those el Ninos with the highest peak values (ie, only super el Ninos)
If 1), then el Nino ‘peaks’ have changed over time.
If 2), then “peak el Nino” is not changed over time.
As with your strange usage of ‘maximums’ to refer to el
Ninos, this usage is fuzzy. You need to be clearer.
“How many times must I repeat a thing before it penetrates your skull?”
How many times do I have to point out that the PEAK measured anomaly temperature values of +2.5c are the same in
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
across the centuries between 1878 and 2016?
“You use datasets and language that are not used by the experts”
A PEAK is a PEAK. Regardless if you are an expert or a layman.
Are you now trying to claim that NOAA who publishes the 3.4 data I use in
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
are not experts?
But there is a slight warming trend in HadISST NINO3.4 data, despite it being statistically non-significant.
“Liar (at least to the nearest 0.1c)”
No, I did the regression months ago and showed you the result. HadISST NINO3.4 OLS is slightly positive and not statistically significant, as I said then and down, and it is the reason why 1878 is slightly lower than 2016 in the HadISST record, but slightly higher than 2016 in any of the extended ENSO indices, which show a very slight downward trend, also not statistically significant.
Yes, the difference between el Ninos is not statistically significant, but the change in ranking is due to the slight warming trend in HadISST.
Let’s just go with
“1) the highest value of any el Nino”
which I am sure everybody but you understands what the word PEAK means.
RLH,
Just please clarify:
By “peak” do you mean
1) the highest value of any el Nino
2) those el Ninos with the highest peak values (ie, only super el Ninos)
You have used the phrase “peak el Nino” many times, which suggests you mean only the strongest ones, rather than “el Nino peaks” which would be all of them.
It’s your phrasing that causes confusion. Why not just right now clarify?
Let’s just go with
1) the highest value of any el Nino
Excellent!
Then clearly “No change in peak El Nino since 1878” is wrong, because el Nino peaks dipped in the mid 20th century.
“No, I did the regression months ago and showed you the result. HadISST NINO3.4 OLS is slightly positive ”
With how many decimal points above 0?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
Please note the +2.5c line.
You always seem to resort to ‘average’ values rather than ‘peaks’. It is as though ‘records’ are of no interest to you.
“No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
Does the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 1878 match the +2.5c the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 2016?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
….Does the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 1878 match the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 2016?….
Sorry. Too much cut and paste.
and 1983 and 1998 for that matter.
“With how many decimal points above 0?”
OLS result was 0.016 C/decade.
Over the full time period that amounts to an overall increase of 0.2C.
Not statistically significant, but it changes the rankings for the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
“Does the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 1878 match the +2.5c the peak value of +2.5c anomaly in 2016?”
Yep, but when you say “no change since 1878,” you are including all the time, all the el Ninos from 1878 onwards. That’s what that sentence means. That’s what “since” means. That’s how English works.
Your language is imprecise.
What you mean to say is:
The values of the strongest el Ninos are not statistically distinguishable from 1878 to 2016.
THAT is precise.
And if you want to be more precise you could add – “this is also the case in the undetrended HadISST NINO3.4 record,” which hasn’t been analysed by anyone for this purpose, but I think it’s pretty obvious that would be the result.
“Yep, but when you say ‘no change {IN PEAK VALUES} since 1878,’ you are including all the time, all the el Ninos from 1878 onwards.”
No I am not as you are missing the crucial words that I have inserted for you. You deliberately use words to try and change the meanings when the actual claims are irrefutable.
“OLS result was 0.016 C/decade”
To all intents (assuming you make a reasonable assumption about measurement accuracy), 0.0.
“The values of the strongest el Ninos are not statistically distinguishable from 1878 to 2016.”
But the PEAK values for 1878 and 2016 are ‘the same’ when using Nino 3.4 non-trended temperatures.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
You just don’t want to acknowledge that as it makes the claim that CO2 causes rising temperatures impossible to support, at least at the PEAKS.
And there is no known mechanism that PEAK values alone are unchanged but the rest below them is.
“No I am not as you are missing the crucial words that I have inserted for you.”
And those words are:
“PEAK VALUES”
When I asked you what you meant by “peak” earlier you said:
“Let’s just go with
1) the highest value of any el Nino”
So when you say:
“No change in peak El Nino since 1878”
You are saying that the peak values of el Ninos have not changed since 1878.
Is that not correct, RLH? When I asked yo to clarify whether peak el Nino meant the highest value of every el Nino or only the strongest peaks, you said all el Ninos.
To repeat your answer to me on the clarification:
“Let’s just go with
1) the highest value of any el Nino”
Are you now saying that this is not what you mean by “peak”?
The globe overall has warmed since the 1870s
“But not the El Nino it seems. Why is that?”
How is that relevant to climate change?
You conclude that from a single El Nino?
Then you REALLY REALLLY don’t understand statistics.
What science would be interested to know, is how the El Nino strength distribution has changed over time.
Was it weighted toward stronger events a century ago?
A single event is useless for that.
This is akin to looking at a single Hurricane season, 1950, which had the most major hurricanes, and concluding that AGW is making hurricanes weaker.
“You conclude that from a single El Nino?”
If the rise in CO2 since 1878 has not increased the PEAK temperatures since then right up to 2016, I do not know how you are able to conclude that it is only the PEAKS that are unaltered but the rest of the temperatures are.
Got an actual mechanism for that (other than pure dogma)?
P.S. A record is a record is it not?
“To all intents (assuming you make a reasonable assumption about measurement accuracy), 0.0.”
The OLS result means temps are 0.2C higher in the 2010s than the 1870s.
I also calculates 10, 20 and 30 year averages for the HadISST values from 1870, and the same up to 2022, which corroborates the result from OLS. The average temps at the end of the record are greater than 0.2C warmer than the beginning, whether you average over 10, 20 or 30 years.
The point is that this produces a slightly different result from the detrended data, where 1878 more clearly clearly stands out as a stronger el Nino than all others. You wouldn’t know that using HadISST, which is a sea surface temperature data set, not an ENSO data set.
“how the El Nino strength distribution has changed over time”
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
shows that quite well I think. Much larger towards both ends than in the middle.
Barry: An OLS trend of non-trended Nino 3.4 is not +0.2c. Nowhere near it.
The values of the strongest el Ninos are not statistically distinguishable from 1878 to 2016.
“But the PEAK values for 1878 and 2016 are ‘the same’ when using Nino 3.4 non-trended temperatures.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
“You just dont want to acknowledge that”
My God.
You really ARE senile.
Not only have I in this thread quoted and linked to myself agreeing that they are statistically indistinct, which I’ve affirmed multiple times, you’ve just quoted me saying that and then tried to contradict me.
This is NUTS, RLH. We are in agreement and yet you simply must find a stupid pretext to contradict me – when you’re not even contradicting me. It’s apparently not enough for me to have agreed with you every time you’ve said that the values are statistically indistinguishable, you now need me to say they are exactly the same. Which is meaningless if they are statistically indistinguishable.
You’re purely argumentative. Crazy.
“You wouldn’t know that using HadISST, which is a sea surface temperature data set, not an ENSO data set.”
Now Barry wants a derived series (ENSO) to not show what the series it is based on (HadISST) does.
“You just dont want to acknowledge that as it makes the claim that CO2 causes rising temperatures impossible to support, at least at the PEAKS.”
Are you REALLY claiming that AGW theory has predicted that global temperature would rise UNIFORMLY and MONOTONICALLY??
Then you are ignorant, or a liar, or both, RLH.
Barry: It is you who are completely nuts. Unable to acknowledge that the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged since 1878 to 2016.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg
You are also unable to see that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
shows that the general trend in the tropics is downwards since 1983.
“the PEAK values for 1878 and 2016 are ‘the same’ when using Nino 3.4 non-trended temperatures.
You just don’t want to acknowledge that as it makes the claim that CO2 causes rising temperatures impossible to support, at least at the PEAKS.”
No it doesn’t.
The NINO3.4 region has barely warmed, if at all, over the period. So it’s not surprising that 2 super el Ninos 140 are statistically indistinguishable. They even have the same high value, though the average of values for the duration of each el Nino is slightly different.
The fact that the NINO3.4 region has hardly warm doesn’t put even a tiny dent in AGW theory. The rest of the globe has warmed. Some places more than the global average, some less.
“And there is no known mechanism that PEAK values alone are unchanged”
Sure there is – just pick a region of the world that has hardly warmed, unlike the global average and your warm peaks will look similar.
The dumb thing to imagine is that just because one part of the world hasn’t warmed much, that this mean the rest of the world hasn’t either.
NINO3.4 region is not a proxy for global.
This would be about the 10th time I have explained this to you, and you’ve never moved on to pick up the point, always gone back to repeating the same argument as if you haven’t heard what I’ve said, or constantly forgot it 2 minutes after reading.
Because you keep doubling back and not dealing with the replies, we go around in circles.
“Are you REALLY claiming that AGW theory has predicted that global temperature would rise UNIFORMLY and MONOTONICALLY??”
Strawman. I never said that. You just made it up.
AGW theory says that all temperatures rise broadly in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations. This does NOT apply to the peak temperatures as recorded by El Nino in the central Pacific as has been demonstrated.
“The NINO3.4 region has barely warmed, if at all, over the period”
Why? AGW theory says that ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations. Are you now making an exception for El Nino only?
“Barry: An OLS trend of non-trended Nino 3.4 is not +0.2c. Nowhere near it.”
I did the regression. 0.16 C/decade.
From 1870 to 2022 that works out to a total rise of 0.2C
Do a linear regression of all the HadISST NINO3.4 data and see for yourself.
Or, just do the 10, 20, or 30 year averages of HadISST NINO3.4 data at the beginning and end of the record. Same story. The average temps are (more than) 0.2C warmer at the end of the record than at the beginning.
If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Michelle l’Heureux:
“…the NOAA Climate Prediction Center adopted multiple, overlapping 30-yr base periods to define ENSO events on monthly and seasonal time scales This change was implemented because observational datasets used to monitor ENSO exhibit long-term warming trends in tropical Pacific SSTA
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“So it’s not surprising that 2 super el Ninos …. are statistically indistinguishable”
So the increase in CO2 between those 2 events has had no affect on their PEAK values?
Barry: Show me the +0.2c trend in
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg
“AGW theory says that ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.”
No it doesn’t. It only says global average temperatures will rise, and the IPCC has pointed out for years that there are and will be regional differences.
“Are you now making an exception for El Nino only?”
As I said, the NINO3.4 region is one of the few regions that exhibits little to no warming. Other well-known areas are a blob in the North Atlantic, and certain parts of Antarctica.
This idea of yours that everywhere should warm all the same time all at once is daft.
You also told Nate that you don’t hold that view.
Nate: “You thought AGW theory required continuous and uniform warming since 1870s?”
RLH: “Strawman. I never said that.”
So once again you’ve contradicted yourself.
“only the PEAKS that are unaltered but the rest of the temperatures are.
Got an actual mechanism for that (other than pure dogma)?”
El Nino strength is KNOWN to be highly variable. Your notion that strong El Ninos cannot have happened in the past before AGW, is a strawman you have made up, RLH.
Just as many other natural phenomena, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, floods, solar flares, there are, occasionally, very strong ones.
There are so-called 500 year floods.
Like hurricane strength, El Nino strength and timing likely depends on many ocean and atmospheric variables in a given season.
“‘Are you REALLY claiming that AGW theory has predicted that global temperature would rise UNIFORMLY and MONOTONICALLY??’
Strawman. I never said that. You just made it up.”
” AGW theory says that ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.”
Looks like you did!
What a dimwit.
“Barry: Show me the +0.2c trend”
Ok.
https://i.imgur.com/8zZsTtJ.png
But you’ve not understood. The trend is 0.016 C/decade.
The record goes from 1870 to 2022, which is 14 decades.
14 X 0.016 = 0.224
Total rise over the period is 0.2C
Confirmed by comparing 10, 20 and 30 year averages at each end of the record.
Fact of warming confirmed by Michelle l’Heureux in her paper on the 1878 el Nino.
If you don’t believe me or l’Heureux, are you able to confirm for yourself by doing a linear regression? Or just comparing the average temps at the beginning and the end of the record?
“Barry: It is you who are completely nuts. Unable to acknowledge that the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged since 1878 to 2016.”
What do you mean by “peak” again?
Oh yeah, you clarified:
“the highest value of any el Nino”
So you are in this post saying that the highest value of all the el Ninos since 1870 have essentially been the same.
Once again, contradicting yourself. You also said that there has been a lull in el Nino peaks in the middle of the record. You show this graph to demonstrate it.
https://i.imgur.com/CauL1SE.png
Are you sure you’re not using the word “peak” in two different ways?
Barry:
I have done an OLS trend (and equation) of the absolute Nino 3.4 data as you suggested
https://imgur.com/nkLRkIC
Do you need me to take it to 5 or more figures?
Barry:
“Once again, contradicting yourself. You also said that there has been a lull in el Nino peaks in the middle of the record. ”
Are you having trouble comprehending? I did not say ALL El Nino between 1878 and 2016, only those 2 specific examples at the ends of the range.
What trend did you get?
“Are you having trouble comprehending? I did not say ALL El Nino between 1878 and 2016, only those 2 specific examples at the ends of the range.”
You bet I’m having trouble comprehending.
What you just said was:
“…the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged since 1878 to 2016.”
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “since.”
Here’s a dictionary definition.
since
– in the intervening period between
– from a time in the past until the time under consideration
– between then and now
Is English your first language RLH?
Remember, you clarified what you mean by “peak”.
“the highest value of any el Nino”
So your sentence includes all el Ninos “SINCE” 1878.
“If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.”
The Last Emperor
“What trend did you get?”
Can you not read?
+0.0001 over the whole period.
I did not say ALL El Nino between 1878 and 2016, only those 2 specific examples at the ends of the range.
Since covers a period, in this case 1878 to 2016. ALL would mean what you want me to have said but I did not say that. You just invented it in your own mind to make things work out to your needs.
“Can you not read?”
The font is so small I didn’t even see it.
“+0.0001 over the whole period.”
I don’t believe you. You can clearly see the dotted line is around 0.2C higher at the end of the record than at the beginning. You’ve made an error or made it up.
Furthermore, Michelle l’Heureux says that there is sufficient warming in the NINO3.4 region to warrant detrending the data to isolate the ENSO signal.
“…the NOAA Climate Prediction Center adopted multiple, overlapping 30-yr base periods to define ENSO events on monthly and seasonal time scales. This change was implemented because observational datasets used to monitor ENSO exhibit long-term warming trends in tropical Pacific SSTA”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“Since covers a period, in this case 1878 to 2016”
That is correct.
“I did not say ALL El Nino between 1878 and 2016, only those 2 specific examples at the ends of the range.”
This is what you said:
“…the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged SINCE 1878 to 2016”
And you’ve clarified that when you say “peak” you are referring to the highest value of any el Nino.
Nothing in you said in that sentence isolated the 2 el Ninos. Using the word ‘since” includes the period between the 2 years mentioned – because that is what the word “since” means, and using the word “peak” refers to any el Nino, as you clarified upthread.
RLH, I parse text for a living. I promise you that your language is unclear. Do better, please. Your remarks are short and often vague. You need to take more care crafting your meaning.
“I don’t believe you.”
Now you are saying that either NOAA/Had are wrong or Excel is.
“the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged SINCE 1878 to 2016”
Do you see ALL anywhere in that sentence? No, because it is not there. The 2 peaks in 1878 and 2016 are in the range covered. Get over it.
I’ve done the regression. I know the result.
I can see the linear trend line in your graph. That is definitely NOT a total rise of 0.0001 over the whole period. It looks closer to 0.2 C.
l’Heureux confirms there is enough warming in the region to warrant detrending to isolate the ENSO signal.
Are you saying l’Heureux is incompetent?
A larger font and more precision for the trend line. Does not alter the actual facts.
https://imgur.com/C3OZZ09
149 x 0.000143 = 0.021307
Wait a minute…
I believe that the coefficient given is the regression in C/month.
Calculating:
0.000143 x 12 (months) x 140 (years) = 0.24C
Yep, your result confirms mine. 0.2C rise over the whole period.
You can check if you like by averaging 10, 20 and 30 year periods at the beginning and end of the record and comparing.
Sorry. That should have been
152 x 0.000143 = 0.021736
For gaussian like 15 year periods see
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34.jpeg
and the 15 year LP trace.
Yeah, it’s 152 (I always go conservative when rounding).
So my result, which is based on annual averages, is:
152 x 0.00163 C/yr = 0.24776
Your result, which is based on monthly values is:
152 x 12 x 0.000143 = 0.26083
Average it out to 0.25C for the whole period.
P.S. Please notice the relatively UNCHANGING PEAK values.
You’ve just confirmed my results for the OLS. Please have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that, after rubbishing my results to begin with.
I’ve already multiple times said the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos are statistically indistinguishable in both the HadISST and ONI ext data sets.
Please return the courtesy I give to you in agreeing when appropriate.
“I’ve already multiple times said the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos are statistically indistinguishable in both the HadISST and ONI ext data sets”
But you fail to explain how peak values are unchanged but that AGW does not say that. It says that ALL temperatures (peaks and others) will rise with rising CO2.
“But you fail to explain how peak values are unchanged but that AGW does not say that.”
RLH, I have explained it on numerous occasions, including twice in this subthread alone. Eg,
Here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1351095
and
Here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1351369
And that’s just this subthread.
For 3 months you’ve kept saying I don’t acknowledge that the 2 el Ninos are statistically indistinguishable, when I have done so in reply to you about 30 times now. You reply to these remarks, so I know you’ve read them.
For 3 months you’ve said “but you do not explain” why this is so under AGW, tacitly accepting whenever you say this that I have acknowledged their similarity.
But I have also explained this on numerous occasions, including twice in this subthread.
You keep forgetting. Round and round you repeat the same arguments I have answered multiple times as if I haven’t answered them.
There is only one possible conclusion I can draw from this. You are getting senile, and your mind simply forgets the conversations we have had.
It’s pointless trying to have a conversation with you. You don’t remember it. We just go around in circles because you forget everything I’ve said.
Tired of repeating myself to someone with early onset dementia. Good bye.
“I don’t acknowledge that the 2 el Ninos are statistically indistinguishable”
You won’t acknowledge that even though the 2 events are statistically similar that this then means that AGW does not apply to the peak El Nino temperatures that you have agreed are seen in those events.
Somehow AGW only applies to those temperatures that are not peak ones, though how that is achieved is not made clear. Ever.
“Somehow AGW only applies to those temperatures that are not peak ones”
Weird. Again, you cant make such a conclusion based on a one-off regional weather event.
That region being the largest ocean that we have on Earth comprising a large portion of the Earth’s surface. Meiv2 says that it has indeed been cooling gradually since 1979, 30N to 30S by 100E to 70W.
But don’t let actual facts get in the way of your delusions.
Don’t let a question about how AGW works get in the way of the ‘CO2 always drives ALL temperatures higher’ mantra either.
Which is the ‘one off’, 1878 or 2016?
This puts the end to ‘CO2 causes massif EL Nino’ arguments.
“CO2 always drives ALL temperatures higher”
Who has claimed that as a mantra? Only you AFAIK.
And only you are trying to knock that one down. Good job!
But pointless, since it is certainly not a claim made by actual climate science. It is your strawman.
1878 appears to have been the largest El Nino during modern T record.
That is the one-off event.
The whole point of measurement statistics is that a single instance does not make the rule. More so in a large, complex system with lots of natural variation.
But you are trying, rather desperately, to make a rule from this single instance.
“Somehow AGW only applies to those temperatures that are not peak ones, though how that is achieved is not made clear. Ever”
AGW theory is a ‘rule’ that says there will be, globally, on average, gradual warming.
You don’t understand how it is possible that there could have a single instance of a warmer peak in the one region in the past, given this ‘rule’.
Yes?
The AGW ‘rule here is akin to the ‘rule’ that between winter and summer there is gradual warming.
But there are, occasionally, peak warm days in February, in my town, that are comparable to average days in June.
Would you then say something like the Seasonal warming only applies to temperatures that are not peak ones in February?
Would you not understand how this can happen given the seasonal warming ‘rule’?
Do you not see the folly of this logic?
“That region being the largest ocean that we have on Earth comprising a large portion of the Earths surface. ”
I thought we were discussing the Nino 3.4 region?
“The coordinates of the Nino 3.4 region are: 5N-5S, 120W-170W.”
That region is 1100 km x 5600 Km = 6.2 Million km2 in area.
“The total surface area of Earth is about 510 million km2”
Thus the region is a fraction 6.2/510 = 1.2 % of the global area.
“Who has claimed that as a mantra?”
You. Every time you try and match rising global temperatures to rising CO2 concentrations.
And the co-ordinates for meiv2 coverage are?
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W).”
“That is the one-off event”
That was repeated (at least) in 2016.
“More so in a large, complex system with lots of natural variation”
Natural variation, which the IPCC claims is insignificant, being at least as large as the rise in CO2 concentrations since 1878.
“Do you not see the folly of this logic?”
Do you not see the folly of of claiming that natural factors are both ‘insignificant’ and that at the same time they are as effective as the extra CO2 in the atmosphere when operating on El Nino?
RLH says: Meiv2 says that it has indeed been cooling gradually since 1979, 30N to 30S by 100E to 70W.
But dont let actual facts get in the way of your delusions.
An actual fact is that MEIv2 isn’t a temperature index, so using it to infer a temperature trend in the region is silly.
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W)”
I know. I should have said PARTIALLY a temperature index but none the less headed towards its colder aspect.
That does make the assumption that ‘La Nina like’ is colder than ‘El Nino like’ conditions. A fair assumption I think.
P.S. I should have included OLR in the temperature measurements.
RLH says: I know. I should have said PARTIALLY a temperature index but none the less headed towards its colder aspect.
No, you should have said, “Thank you for pointing this out, I won’t repeat this mistake going forward.”
The raw SST temperature in that region has a significant positive trend since 1979 (about 0.08 C/decade (0.05 C/decade 2 sigma) for HadISST).
Also, if you were worried about consistency, claiming a natural cooling trend component since 1979 following from this metric would seem contrary to your stated belief that the observed global warming signal contains a significant “natural warming” component.
Meiv2 is none the less headed towards its colder aspect.
See
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
“CO2 always drives ALL temperatures higher”
‘Who has claimed that as a mantra? Only you AFAIK.’
“You. Every time you try and match rising global temperatures to rising CO2 concentrations.”
Liar. Troll.
I never said that. Never would have said that.
As Barry and I have noted in this very thread, AGW does not produce UNIFORM or MONOTONIC warming.
This is how strawmen are built. Pretending everyone is saying something that in fact no one has said.
“Natural variation, which the IPCC claims is insignificant, being at least as large as the rise in CO2 concentrations since 1878.”
Another myth.
This discussion is about natural variation in one part of the equatorial Pacific, ENSO. No one on the IPCC denies ENSO variation exists.
In general, regional T variation is larger than global T variation , and natural variation due to ENSO is the dominant variation on 1-3 year time scales.
“AGW does not produce UNIFORM or MONOTONIC warming”
No-one, especially me, ever said that it did. So another strawman created by you.
A GENERAL warming because of CO2 concentration is all that is required to be claimed and that is all that was claimed and that is most obviously NOT true for El Nino in the central Pacific.
So we have AGW NOT affecting El Nino, as 1878 proves to be statistically the same as 2016, long before CO2 was of any import. But somehow natural factors, which might have caused that, are considered by the IPCC to be insignificant.
Apparently though AGW affected all other temperatures other than El Nino to make global temperatures rise. How?
Then it can be noticed that as short a time ago as 1998 meiv2 says that there was an El Nino
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
yet global temperatures (or even tropical ones) do not show it. Why?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
does show 1998 being larger than 2016 which other series (RSS, GISS, Had5, etc.) do not. Why?
“This discussion is about natural variation in one part of the equatorial Pacific, ENSO.”
Wrong. Meiv2 covers the WHOLE pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W).
Sorry. Make that the MAJORITY rather than the WHOLE, but you get the point that this is not just about the very narrow Nino 3.4 area.
The IPCCs view on natural forcing is
https://imgur.com/uwwVLT6
where AWG is considered to be the only/major factor.
….where AGW is considered….
“This discussion is about natural variation in one part of the equatorial Pacific, ENSO.’
Wrong. Meiv2 covers the WHOLE pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W).”
“This is what you said:
‘the PEAK absolute temperatures as shown by Nino 3.4 are effectively unchanged SINCE 1878 to 2016′”
Now you are obviously moving the goal posts to a greatly expand the region.
Was the peak 1878 T discussed all this time MEASURED in your newly expanded region?
Nope.
Meiv2 represents
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W)”
“Apparently though AGW affected all other temperatures other than El Nino to make global temperatures rise. How?”
Do you REALLY not understand what a space-time average does to data that has spatio temporal variation?
You clearly want to make demands of AGWs uniformity and monotonicity that it just doesn’t have.
Then when called out on this, you backslide.
Are you REALLY claiming that AGW theory has predicted that global temperature would rise UNIFORMLY and MONOTONICALLY??
Strawman. I never said that. You just made it up.
AGW theory says that ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.
Looks like you did!”
Regardless what you say you believe, your ongoing claims are not consistent with it.
So now your defense now is that as meiv2 doesn’t go back to 1878, then the El Nino back then wouldn’t have shown up in that series.
“AGW theory says that ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.”
OK I’ll modify my words slightly (though not their meaning)
AGW theory says that generally ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.
Except El Nino, where it obviously does not.
“OK Ill modify my words slightly (though not their meaning)
AGW theory says that generally ALL temperatures rise in line with the increase in CO2 concentrations.”
“Except El Nino, where it obviously does not.}
Tee Hee hee.
The meaning remains clear.
RLH now tries to sneakily assign UNIFORMITY and MONOTICITY to AGW theory that just isn’t in it!
And RLH fails to understand statistics, averaging, and filtering, when convenient to his narrative.
And RLH insists on building and knocking down strawmen.
“So now your defense now is that as meiv2 doesnt go back to 1878”
Yes, I would rather not assume what we do not know, as you do, and move goal posts…
It is simply unclear from the data how the peak in T would extend outside of the 3.4 region back in 1878.
Note: MEI DOES NOT use SST in the huge region you have expanded to. It uses OLR.
So lets look at data we have for nino 4 region , which extends slightly beyond nino 3.4.
“Nio 4 (5N-5S, 160E-150W): The Nio 4 index captures SST anomalies in the central equatorial Pacific. This region tends to have less variance than the other Nio regions.”
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino4a_rel.png
Not much special in 1878.
Nate says:
”It is simply unclear from the data how the peak in T would extend outside of the 3.4 region back in 1878.”
——————–
Perhaps you should consider spending a little reading time on why Nate. Why wouldn’t it? Every SST I have seen for an ENSO anomaly has a heat signature over areas far more than an order of magnitude greater than the size of 3.4 Enso area.
Temperature data for historic ENSO area are taken from HadSST2 which has SST data back to 1850 on a global basis. Prior to 1920 and the establishment of a US Naval fleet in the Pacific data explicitly in the 3.4 area was too sparse when the ENSO index was orginally developed in 1980 so it only went back to 1950. But do to strong proxies developed over the years with pressure differentials and wind patterns compiled by ships at sea a proxy has been developed.
So if you want to complain review the methodology used and come back with something intelligent rather than your typical knee jerk reaction.
It does appear that we could be entering a new climate regime not seen for decades. https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
As usual, my stalker Bill, feels the need to add his 2 cents plus ad-hom nonsense. Which is worth less than 2 cents.
Go troll someone else, Bill, Im not going to respond to you.
Nate is determined to remain ignorant.
Some summer reading for our cranks:
https://coquitlamwx.wordpress.com/2018/09/19/atsc-201-2-electromagnetic-radiation-from-the-sun-to-the-earth/
Somebody ought to send that to A.P. Smith as Read uses Stefan Boltzmann to calculate emissions (take note Ball4)
Good find Willard, basic enough for cranks without being too condescending. Here’s one that explains a lot about “our cranks”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299547/pdf/sciadv.abo0038.pdf
TM finds some more garbage.
The funny thing is he believes that garbage is “science”. Here are the listed credentials of the authors:
1 School of Business, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.
2 Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
3 The Policy Lab, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
4 William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
5 Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Not one of them could explain why fluxes don’t simple add, or why you can’t boil water with ice cubes. Like TM, they’d believe ANYTHING their cult preached.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Ah, you think a sociology study should be done by physicists. Of course. Of course.
Well, I hadn’t thought of that, but it might make sense.
793, Pup. 793:
https://xkcd.com/793/
The subjective knowledge part is most intriguing.
The blue collar worker and the year round outdoorsman operates efficiently in environments that seasonally and diurnally change by up to 50c.
But the typical University scientist operates in an air conditioned environment. When working with such individuals at say a large conference one should listen to the whining that arises when somebody changes the thermostat by 1c.
After many moons this finally began to sink in and the ‘institutional’ narrative changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’.
Now its about starving polar bears and swimming seals and fish, continuing sea level rise, too much precipitation and too little precipitation, increasing hurricanes and tornadoes, dogs having fleas. . . .
Meanwhile the US reduced its emissions by 10% since 2000 and China has more than doubled its emissions over the same period.
Seem the best action to take is stop buying stuff made in China. Of course you hear nothing about that from the mainstream media as by far the largest growth in their revenues have been coming from China.
Its pretty clear how we should change our buying and listening habits if we have concerns about climate change.
Spoken like the accountant that you are, Bill Hunter!
Spoken like the accountant that you are, Bill Hunter! Part deux…
There once was a business owner who was interviewing people for a division manager position. He decided to select the individual that could best answer the question “how much is 2+2?”
The engineer pulled out his slide rule and shuffled it back and forth, and finally announced, “It lies between 3.98 and 4.02.”
The mathematician said, “In two hours I can demonstrate it equals 4 with the following short proof.”
The physicist declared, “It’s in the magnitude of 110^1.”
The logicianpaused for a long while and then said, “This problem is solvable.”
The accountant looked at the business owner, then got out of his chair, went to see if anyone was listening at the door and pulled the drapes. Then he returned to the business owner, leaned across the desk and said in a low voice, “What would you like it to be?”
Willard needs a commendation. Hes gone upscale on his reading list from Argosy Magazine
I like how alarmistas support each other in their little pact
I doubt basic astrophysics is that alarming, Eboy.
Less basic than to find that Patrick Moore did not really found Greenpeace.
Superdeveloping triple dipper La Nina sinking ships
https://youtu.be/Hc4i4n0rJ6w
Australians starting to notice La Nina didn’t end
https://youtu.be/dwI8me0DXE4
https://youtu.be/jERNtGsf8nM
https://youtu.be/bj1iB-Endtw
https://youtu.be/94T8aLILjAg
Winter heat wave in Northern Argentina and Paraguay.
Today 15 August had a warm night with a Tmin of 29.5C at Coronel Rivarola, Paraguay. Daytime temp rose as high as 39.7C at Nueve Lunas, which is the highest temperature so far this winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Cooler from tomorrow.
Yes TM, this super La Niña is amazing.
“Paraguay straddles the Tropic of Capricorn and experiences both subtropical and tropical climates”
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Here is less babble and more info:
https://tinyurl.com/3ckj9wz2
There is no superdeveloping La Nina – sez Bindiclown
https://youtu.be/mRJa_SQhJ4A
There is currently one clown here on this thread, babbling Edog – and that is definitely YOU.
Here is my way to show the current La Nina, using the stronger MEI instead of the weaker NCEP:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
You are much too dumb to do such a job, aren’t you?
You are too dumb to see three La Ninas in a row coming , nobody can fail worse than that.
You are and keep a liar, babbling Edog: you saw NOTHING coming other than what was predicted by NOAA.
Don’t try to kid anyone here.
And I thought you said that your (wrong) prediction was just based on someone elses data too.
Well yes. Eben thinks he is an expert forecaster who knows more than the experts, and Bindidon doesn’t think that way.
“Bindidon doesn’t think”
I agree.
So do you think that RSS is closer to Meiv2 than UAH in the Pacific?
Can’t say we weren’t warned.
It has more to do with your indoctrination, TM. Properly indoctrinated you’re afraid of everything, so you sheepishly follow whatever your “leaders” claim.
With some understanding of science, and a brain, you would know that more CO2 means more emission to space. A radiative gas is NOT an insulator. It causes “leaks” in the atmosphere.
Don’t worry, there are may others as needlessly afraid as you. Misery loves company, as they say.
Couldn’t see any ‘leaders’ named in that 1912 news article. It comes under the heading “Science Notes and News.”
Well dang barry. Maybe you should ask for your money back.
A brainwashed ideology follower who wishes for the weather to do something will newer predict anything other than by a pure accident.
That’s why Bindiclown missed three La Nina in a row, one after the other, despite having the correct forecast clearly placed right in front of his face.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294434
You are and keep a liar, babbling Edog: you saw NOTHING coming other than what was predicted by NOAA.
Dont try to kid anyone here.
And I thought you said that your (wrong) prediction was just based on someone else’s data too.
https://i.postimg.cc/SsWMB98p/Baghdadidon.jpg
In my August 16, 2022 at 5:17 PM response to Clint about measuring effective temperature of the sky with a handheld IR thermometer, there are two errors I’d like to correct.
The first is that typical handheld IR thermometers don’t compare received flux to a perfect black body, but rather to a gray body of a set emissivity. Many if not all such devices allow the user to change the emissivity setting to an appropriate value for the material being measured. I knew this when I posted but didn’t want to confuse Clint with even more detail, which is a poor excuse on my part.
The second error has to do with my MODTRAN-based temperature calculations. MODTRAN only outputs intensities up to wavenumber 2,200 (inverse centimeters or cm-1), which translates to 4.55 microns wavelength. At the time I did my calcs, my spreadsheet was set to compute blackbody curves out to wavenumber 2,500, or 4.00 microns, and it interpolated (wrongly) the MODTRAN data out to the same wavenumber. The result was that from 2,200 to 2,500 the MODTRAN flux was spuriously high, enough so that an emissivity > 1 was implied, which is clearly unphysical.
I’m sure nobody really cares — least of all Clint — but I do, so I corrected the spreadsheet and recomputed (note that same as before for simplicity these calculations assume the instrument is set to an emissivity of 1, i.e. a perfect blackbody):
Sensor A: Assuming the sensor reads 5 to 14 microns, the flux received is 85.0 W/m2, corresponding to a blackbody at 247.3 K, or -14.5 F (previously 4.2 F).
Sensor B: Assuming the sensor reads 5 to 18 microns, the flux received is 143.8 W/m2, corresponding to a blackbody at 255.3 K, or 0.1 F (previously 7.4 F).
Sensor A still reads lower than B so that part of my conclusion doesn’t change. FWIW however, the difference between the readings is greater.
There is perhaps a third error. I ended that post saying, “However, the results are sensitive to absolute humidity, and on a very humid day its quite possible that sensor A would read higher than B.” To test this, I progressively doubled absolute humidity in the model and recomputed temperature for each sensor, then noted that they got progressively closer to each other. By the time I got to 16x water vapor each frequency band was effectively saturated, i.e., emissivity at each frequency = ~1 and therefore each sensor returned essentially the same temperature.
Conversely when I progressively halved water vapor, the difference between A and B progressively increased until I hit zero, at which point the difference was 24 F compared to 14 F at the normal level. This makes sense because CO2 takes up wv’s slack near 15 microns but there’s nothing to replace it below 15, and especially below 8.
Alright, this note is quite a bit longer than I expected, or expect anyone to be interested in, but I did have fun writing it, and again wanted to correct the known errors in my original post.
Anyone can make mistakes, Brandon. But few own up to them. So thanks for that.
The important thing about making mistakes is to learn from them.
Brandon R. Gates
Thanks for this interesting clarification.
Interesting as well:
” The important thing about making mistakes is to learn from them. ”
I never have seen people like Clint R admitting they would have made anything wrong, let alone would they have learned from that.
People like Clint R are always ‘right’.
I’m glad you found it interesting, Binny, thanks for reading it.
I know people like Clint will never admit to being wrong, contradicting themselves, etc., but sometimes they ask interesting questions that prompt me to do interesting readings and problem-solving. This is really the only good reason I can think of to engage with such.
Keep on keeping on, cheers.
Brandon, you can’t produce even one time where I’ve been wrong. And, you sure can’t do it without your endless rambling.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Bindidon, you sure talk big for someone that doesn’t even understand simple orbital motion. You must be really braindead to not understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
You would believe that RLH, since you don’t understand orbital mechanics.
(And, I won’t respond. Get Bindidon to babysit you. You two make a good pair anyway. Your constant bickering and blabbering is easy to ignore. You’re like two old women with nothing to do except bicker.)
I understand all too well that a ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
It certainly is different. But the effect of gravity on each and every particle of the moon can be somewhat analogized to the effect of a string which does nothing but create a constant acceleration toward the axis at the other end of the string.
A ball-on-a-string creates a circle which is statistically unlikely to be an orbit. It also uses physical attachment which is completely unlike gravity.
I said they were different.
They just both have an axis external to object being spun.
A ball on a string spun will take on a non-perfect ellipse from the differences in gravitational pull on it. No way to get away from gravity. Strings break gravity doesn’t.
“They just both have an axis external to object being spun”
There is no such thing as an external axis of the whole thing.
RLH says:
”There is no such thing as an external axis of the whole thing”
———————-
Do you have a source for that or are you just making it up on the fly?
Here is a source that thinks there is such a thing:
https://tinyurl.com/475jyeyy
https://tinyurl.com/4u8ph63n
Your characterization seems contrived as the ball that rotates around an external axis due to a string doesn’t have any particles on the axis and so rotates around an external axis as defined above.
Clint R
I’ve stopped responding to your nonsense, but today an exception seems reasonable, although as always I assume you’ll ignore it.
You write once more:
” … for someone that doesnt even understand simple orbital motion.
You must be really braindead to not understand the simple ball-on-a-string. ”
*
We seem to live on two different planets, Clint R.
While you live on a planet where only simple-minded thoughts exist which at best can describe what is visible, I live on another planet on which what is immediately visible often is an optical illusion, and that what we can’t see immediately in most cases can only be observed and deduced through long, tedious, complex work.
And so is Moon’s motion: a highly complex mixture of orbiting and spin, a spin all celestial bodies have in common exactly as they all have elliptical orbits in common.
*
If you were a specialist in spherical trigonometry, you would be able, even if his treatise is written in German, to follow how Tobias Mayer observed the Moon, and how he mathematically prove step by step, out of his numerous observations, Moon’s spin and the inclination of its polar spin axis with respect to the Ecliptic.
No specialist in spherical trigonometry needs to understand the German text: equations and tables containing numbers computed out of these equations are enough.
You then would be able to detect, if any, the flaws in his work.
But… like all those who doubt here about Moon’s spin, you lack the scientific education and the technical skills allowing you to contradict scientific work.
*
I am no specialist in spherical trigonometry, but I perfectly understand German, and could follow, by reading Mayer’s 130 page long treatise, how he did the job (by the way, probably exactly the same job as was done 70 years earlier by Cassini, however with much more primitive observation instruments).
All what you are able to do, Clint R, is to superficially discredit and denigrate these scientists as ‘astrologists’.
How poor!
Bindidon, there is no need for spherical trigonometry or differential equations. You’re obsessed with defending centuries-old astrologers who made a mistake. Moon’s motion is as simple as a ball-on-a-string. One side ALWAYS faces the inside of its orbit. That’s reality.
Now your cult always points out that Moon’s orbit is not a perfect circle. True, but irrelevant. Moon’s one side always faces the inside of its orbit. And one side is always facing in the direction of its motion. One side is always facing in the direction is just moved from. There is NO axial rotation.
Again, it’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. You reject that simple model because it ruins your cult beliefs. Yet, you have NO model to replace it. You reject reality only because of your beliefs. You have NO science.
You don’t understand vectors but if you did you would realize both Moon and the ball have motions due to the resultant of two vectors. The two vectors do NOT provide axial rotation. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
… as viewed from Earth.
Many thanks Clint R for such a perfect confirmation of what I wrote above.
No further comment needed – except that it is always so amazing to read
” … centuries-old astrologers who made a mistake. ”
Amazing, really! Dozens of ‘astrologers’
– making, between the XVIIth and the XXth century, completely different observations
– processing their observations’ data with completely different methods
– and obtaining the same results
BUT
– making the same mistake.
Your little world is perfect, Clint R.
That’s correct Bin, your astrologers got it wrong. They believed Moon was rotating in sync with its orbit. A basic understanding of orbital motion tells us that is wrong. But, they also believed that Moon was actually oscillating! Moon appears to be rocking back and forth in its orbit. They believed that was a real motion, as you do now.
Can you admit that lunar libration is NOT an actual motion? (Careful now, admitting the truth might be “discrediting and denigrating centuries-old astrology”.)
Pup, I think we covered that point multiple times.
Go back where I mention physical libration, which is indeed a motion.
Bin, it’s been over an hour. You and your cult believe lunar libration is a real motion. I have explained it several times. Are you holding to your cult beliefs, or are you ready to accept reality?
Can you admit that lunar libration is NOT an actual motion?
Oh, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1170683
One instance among many, this time from more than six months ago.
Bindidon got scared off when he had to face some science.
It’s just like shooing flies away.
Here is some science, Pup:
> Physical libration is the oscillation of orientation in space about uniform rotation and precession. There are physical librations about all 3 axes. The sizes are roughly 100 seconds of arc. As seen from the Earth, this amounts to less than 1 second of arc. Forced physical librations can be predicted given the orbit and shape of the Moon. The periods of free physical librations can also be predicted, but their amplitudes and phases cannot be predicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
All you got is a load of NOTHING.
Worthless willard has been busy finding links he can’t understand. This one will confuse him even more. It is a composite of photos over a month. The photos are then imaged together to make it appear as if Moon actually has those motions. Of course Moon is not really making such motions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
But you have to read the “fine print” to get the truth. Worthless willard won’t be able to understand:
(Bold, my emphasis)
The Moon always keeps the same face to us, but not exactly the same face. Because of the tilt and shape of its orbit, we see the Moon from slightly different angles over the course of a month. When a month is compressed into 12 seconds, as it is in this animation, our changing view of the Moon makes it look like it’s wobbling. This wobble is called libration.
You’re conflating two kinds of libration, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration
You will never be able to recruit Moon Dragon cranks if you display such a weak mastery of the basic concepts.
Clint R
” … You and your cult believe lunar libration is a real motion. ”
Not anyone of all these scientists you woefully denigrate and insult as astrologers did ever claim such a nonsense, let alone did I myself.
Lagrange won a prize at the French Academy of Sciences BECAUSE he explained that the optical, apparent libration in longitude is due to Moon’s spin.
*
Once more, you show us that you not only believe in riiculous, simple-minded pseudotheories like your ‘ball-on-a-string’.
You also show us that you are willing to endlessly repeat lies despite having been shown many times that all scientists know that there are two kinds of lunar libration:
– optical, apparent: in longitude, latitude and diurnal, that can all be observed by humans, partly only with a telescope;
– physical, real: forced (exerted by solar and terrestrial gravitational effects), and free (probably due to huge asteroid impacts), which are so tiny that they all can NOT be observed by humans, and are the result of complex computations.
*
The ‘braindead cult idiot’, Clint R, that is YOU.
Bindidon claims no one in his cult ever claimed libration was real, then he describes “two kinds of lunar libration” — apparent and real!
That is what “braindead” looks like.
If the cult idiots had a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” that works, they would bring it forth. But, they don’t have one.
They’ve got NOTHING.
And Clint R continues with his lies and intentional misrepresentations.
He now writes:
” Bindidon claims no one in his cult ever claimed libration was real, then he describes ‘two kinds of lunar libration’ apparent and real! ”
But I wrote
” … two kinds of lunar libration:
optical, apparent: in longitude, latitude and diurnal, that can all be observed by humans, partly only with a telescope;
physical, real: forced (exerted by solar and terrestrial gravitational effects), and free (probably due to huge asteroid impacts), which are so tiny that they all can NOT be observed by humans, and are the result of complex computations.
*
Clint R intentionally mixes
– the visible, optical librations, known by Humanity since millenaries, due to Moon’s spin
and
– the invisible, physical librations which, with the incoming of more and more exact observations and deeper computations, became perceptible as extremely small irregularities WITHIN Moon’s spin.
*
I stop the discussion now, this makes no sense.
That’s correct, Bindidon. You’re not making any sense.
Lunar libration is NOT a real movement. It is only an apparent motion due to viewing Moon from Earth and it’s elliptical/slanted orbit. Even NASA knows that.
Got a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet?
It is only a flesh wound, Pup.
You will get over it.
Is Clint R’s native tongue really English?
If so, then something is going wrong somewhere in a more and more dangerously battered brain.
Because sometimes he responds to comments in such a strange way, as if he didn’t understand exactly what we mean.
We laboriously explain again to him, as if he were a poorly programmed robot, the difference between (1) optical, apparent and (2) physical, real librations and what does he answer?
” Lunar libration is NOT a real movement. It is only an apparent motion due to viewing Moon from Earth and it’s elliptical/slanted orbit. “
I understand you have trouble with language, Bin. Let me reduce my comment to one word:
Your “physical, real: forced (exerted by solar and terrestrial gravitational effects), and free (probably due to huge asteroid impacts), which are so tiny that they all can NOT be observed by humans, and are the result of complex computations.” is NONSENSE.
One word — NONSENSE.
Does that help?
Two things, Pup.
First, it’s not notsense.
Second, it’s not Binny’s:
Take it with the authors of the *Encyclopedia of the Solar System*.
Love.
Silly willy, you can’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
This has all been discussed, several times. Gravity can NOT produce torque on Moon.
Now, clean off the wall and take your nap.
Clint R
” I understand you have trouble with language, Bin. ”
No.
*
” One word NONSENSE.
Does that help? ”
Yes, of course!
It helps us all in unveiling the degree of your vanity and of your lack of scientific education.
You are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict all the people you discredit and denigrate, and it shows.
Though it’s useless (and hopeless), I’ll be collecting links to all the articles where scientists have worked on those physical librations of the Moon that you so pathetically deny without even knowing why.
Maybe some people having a working brain will be interested in looking at the stuff. That you won’t is evident, but irrelevant, Clint R.
*
Incidentally, I read a few years ago that Newton, because of his intense study of gravity, was convinced that the Moon’s rotation would exhibit irregularities caused by gravitational effects arising from the Sun and Earth.
But for hypergenius Clint R, this means NOTHING, of course.
You’re NOT learning, Bin. You’re braindead.
All the “studies” you can find on libration won’t help you. It’s NOT a real motion. Astrologers that spent years trying to measure it were wasting their time.
If you want a quick way to debunk the “lunar spinning” nonsense, use the simple ball-on-a-string. That works every time, with people that aren’t braindead.
Did you know that even NASA now acknowledges libration is NOT a real motion?
Your cult is collapsing right before your eyes. If you’re the last one to leave, make sure you turn off the lights.
Hunga Tonga Volcano Update; This Eruption will Warm the Planet, Not Cool It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgsNYGkkIAE
“Hunga Ha’apai might truly be the first recorded VEI 5+ explosive eruption to actually warm rather than cool the planet.”
What do you think of the reasons for the warming due to the volcano, RLH?
If you bothered to watch the video you would see that it was said it was because of all the extra water vapor that was deposited high in the stratosphere. This was fairly unique for ‘normal’ volcanic eruptions.
I’m just glad you agree that greenhouse warming is a thing. Or did you not watch to the end of the video?
So you agree that H2O is much more important than CO2. What CO2 increase caused that H2O increase?
P.S. I have never said that AGW did not involve various ‘greenhouse’ gases. Just that I do not hold them totally responsible for the temperature movements we have seen.
So do you agree that the Hunga Haapai eruption is likely to warm or cool the planet?
I don’t know enough about WV in the stratosphere to say. In the troposphere that injection of WV would rain out in a matter of hours or days. But it doesn’t rain in the stratosphere, so maybe the WV would take 10 years to come out. I’m also not sure if 10 million tonnes is a significant amount. There is 5ppm WV molecules in the stratosphere. How much is the greenhouse effect enhanced by an addition of that much WV?
For comparison, annual addition of CO2 was 36 billion tonnes in 2021. That’s 3600 times more GHG, molecule for molecule, injected into the stratosphere. But CO2 is at 414ppm.
Of course, WV is a stronger greenhouse gas and adding more to the WV-thin stratosphere may have a significant impact.
But apparently in 10 years this ‘pulse’ will be done, so I probably won’t investigate the issue much more than the casual googling I undertook.
I tracked down the paper these news stories are based on (H/T NPR), and quote it below to answer some of your questions.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381
> maybe the WV would take 10 years to come out.
The timescale for complete dissipation of the plume may be 510 years (Hall & Waugh, 1997).
> Im also not sure if 10 million tonnes is a significant amount. There is 5ppm WV molecules in the stratosphere.
The unprecedented HT-HH enhancement would correspond to ∼1.5 ppmv (at 31 hPa) if averaged over 60S60N. […] We estimate that the magnitude of the injection constituted at least 10% of the total stratospheric H2O burden.
> How much is the greenhouse effect enhanced by an addition of that much WV?
Preliminary climate model simulations (see Supporting Information S1 for details) suggest an effective radiative forcing (e.g., Forster et al., 2001; Myhre et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2017) at the tropopause of +0.15 Wm−2 due to the stratospheric H2O enhancement (Figure S3b in Supporting Information S1). For comparison, the radiative forcing increase due to the CO2 growth from 1996 to 2005 was about +0.26 Wm−2 (Solomon et al., 2010).
Erratum: The timescale for complete dissipation of the plume may be *5-10* years (Hall & Waugh, 1997).
Very kind of you to go to the trouble, Brandon.
I’d seen estimates of 4-10ppm, and I guess it’s thicker towards the tropics, like the troposphere. I’ll read the paper you linked.
You’re welcome, Barry. It was no trouble, I was curious myself. Happy reading.
“Following the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption, the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder measured enhancements of stratospheric H2O, SO2, and HCl
The mass of SO2 and HCl injected is comparable to that from prior eruptions, whereas the magnitude of the H2O injection is unprecedented
Excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming”
RLH posted a quote:
They also wrote:
Thus, we may be now experiencing AGW warming similar to that a couple of decades hence. Those heat waves, droughts and fires this year are only the beginning.
We shall see won’t we.
Well, “WE” (humanity) will experience whatever comes along. I doubt that I will be around another 10 years to say “I Told You So” (or ?).
No, I don’t believe you should feel as much heat from the sun as you do a candle, Clint. That’s the *implication* of your argument that fluxes don’t “simply” add, no better illustrated by your scenario of a single 14 micron photon warming an object more than three 15 micron photons.
Or maybe you want to rethink that example.
Brandon, it appears you are trying to misrepresent my words. That’s because you have NOTHING. And your incompetent attempt to misrepresent me reveals your ignorance of the subject.
By all means, please continue….
Does one 14 micron photon warm an object more than three 15 micron photons, Clint?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
With all of the necessary qualifications, like being absorbed, then “yes”. A higher frequency photon has more “order” than three lower frequency photons.
I asked about temperature change, not “order”, Clint. So again, yes or no: Does one 14 micron photon warm an object more than three 15 micron photons?
I answered your question, braindead.
I can’t understand it for you.
(Do you just start abusing your keyboard with absolutely no idea what you’re going to spew?)
Your “answer” contained the word “order”, not “temperature”, Clint.
Here’s your original question, verbatim: Which would raise temperature more when absorbed One 14μ photon or three 15μ photons?
Will you tells us the correct answer to your own question, or will you evade again.
Braindead Brandon, I gave you my answer:
With all of the necessary qualifications, like being absorbed, then “yes”.
I can’t understand it for you.
(Do you just start abusing your keyboard with absolutely no idea what you’re going to spew?)
I apologize Clint, it was the sentence following about “order” which threw me.
We have two objects 1 and 2, both identical to the one in your previous example.
A single 14 micron photon collides with object 1 and is absorbed, raising its temperature.
Two 14 micron photons simultaneously collide with object 2.
How many photons does object 2 absorb, and how does that affect object 2’s temperature relative to object 1?
There are two steps. The first is absorp.tion. To keep it simple, let’s assume that happens.
The second step is will the absorbed photon raise the temperature. If the absorbed photon does not raise the average kinetic energy of the molecules, then it will not raise the temperature.
So if one photon is unable to raise the temperature, an equal photon wouldn’t help. Photons don’t simply add. That’s why fluxes don’t simply add.
> So if one photon is unable to raise the temperature, an equal photon wouldnt help.
In this scenario one 14 micron photon *was* able to raise the temperature of object 1, Clint. Since object 2 is identical, why *wouldn’t* the second 14 micron photon “help”?
Brandon, I think I covered this already. Go back where I used the different “levels” of photons.
I don’t see how your energy levels scenario applies in this situation, Clint. There we were dealing with two bodies dissimilar in temperature emitting over a range of different frequencies which you represented as arbitrary energy levels.
In this discussion we are dealing with two identical bodies of the same temperature absorbing photon(s) of the same frequency. Since object 1 absorbs a photon and increases its temperature, at least one of the photons absorbed by object 2 should also raise its temperature.
So the question is, why *wouldn’t* the second photon raise object 2’s temperature even more?
Brandon, at some point you need to realize that you don’t understand ANY of this. When I explain it, you just wander off in a new direction.
You need to face up to the reality that you don’t want to learn. You want to remain in the comfort of your cult beliefs. You’re afraid to face reality. You’re afraid to go outside.
Here’s some more reality for you to ignore; Morning clear blue sky reading was -44.3F.
Here’s what I understand, Clint. If two absorbed photons of the same wavelength cause the same temperature rise of only one photon, then the first high energy solar photon you absorb on a clear morning is enough to raise you to its surface temperature, and you will vaporize in short order.
Yes Brandon, that’s how you “understand” it.
It’s not reality, or science, or related to anything I’ve said. You just want to “understand” it your way.
Will the second photon raise the temperature of object 2 even more or not.
It’s a simple yes or no question, Clint. Even you should be able to answer it.
Brandon, your “understanding” is that the first photon would have vaporized the object. So no, the second photon can’t raise the temperature of an object that has been vaporized.
According to you, my understanding is wrong, Clint.
I’m asking according to *your* understanding whether the second photon increases temperature even more than the first one did.
Will you dodge the question again, I wonder. My bet is that you will.
My “understanding” is boring science, Brandon. Let’s go with your “understanding”. It’s a lot more fun.
What can we vaporize next?
You wriggled again, Clint, just as I predicted. The reason is obvious — you can’t admit that the second photon causes additional warming because that would violate your rule that fluxes do not “simply” add.
Of course it’s absurd to say that a single solar photon will vaporize you, or that the light of a burning candle will just as surely set you on fire.
But you can’t reconcile that obvious reality with your fizzicks because you are, to put it politely, completely full of sh!t.
I hate to see you back away from your “understanding”, Brandon. I thought that was fun. You learned you were full of shit.
A single photon can’t vaporize an object. Photons don’t simply add. Ice cubes can not boil water. And a cold sky can not warm a warmer surface.
Keep learning.
> A single photon cant vaporize an object.
Yes, it would take multiple photons, Clint, but:
> Photons dont simply add.
I wish I were making this up.
Very good, Brandon. Quoting me is always a good learning technique.
Here’s the rest:
A single photon can’t vaporize an object. Photons don’t simply add. Ice cubes can not boil water. And a cold sky can not warm a warmer surface.
Memorization works well also.
Trolling is not science, Pup.
Yes worthless willard, that’s what I said.
Keep repeating it until you have it memorized. Even if you’re just parroting me, people might think you’re smart. Unlike now….
At least you admit not doing science, Pup.
Here is science:
https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2204.06826/
Dr Roy Spencer’s Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments that don’t hold water, from April 25th, 2014.
Given that human’s scientific and technological knowledge is currently doubling every 8-10 years, if you still hold these ideas, you’re now another 20 years behind the times.
I suspect Dr Spencer would like to revise that now, with all of the science learned in 8 years. I hope he does.
But in his very first item, he refers to measuring sky temperature with a handheld IR thermometer. The cult idiots here claim that can’t be done! (Of course it can.)
No Clint, the “cult idiots” have explained to you that the temperature reading would be spuriously low with a typical handheld IR thermometer, and why.
Learn how to read.
-27 is higher than -42, Brandon.
The -42 F calculation is based on a ground temperature of 58.73 F, Clint. I don’t know where you live or what time you took your observations, but here in Ohio highs have been mid 80s all week, down from low 90s the week before and much higher humidity than the annual average as well; all of those values higher than the assumptions of the US Standard Atmosphere.
I also don’t know the exact frequency sensitivity of your thermometer’s sensor; if it’s broader than 8 to 14 microns then my calculations would tend to be biased low.
Now I know relevant details are confusing to you so here’s the bottom line apples to apples comparison in simple terms: 12.7 F is higher than -42 F.
https://imgur.com/VBzAGJr
HTH
Brandon, you need to buy an IR thermometer that can read temperatures down to -50F. Maybe that will help you learn.
As I’ve already taught you, the tropopause can be as low as -80F.
As it happens I used to have one, but I don’t need to own a device to read about how they work and thus understand why they return a sky temperature on the order of 50 F lower than they should. If you weren’t so demonstrably averse to relevant detail you could rent a clue.
Brandon, here’s some reality for you: You don’t have a clue how a handheld IR thermometer works.
Hope that helps.
So you say, Clint, so you say.
yup
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases. These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor. (Water vapor, which responds physically or chemically to changes in temperature, is called a “feedback.”) Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
Does greenhouse effect mean that without C02 in earth atmosphere that average global surface would be 33 C colder
Btw, what is obvious is that gravity holds gases close to Earth surface.
And it seems the mass of atmosphere which is about 99.04 % not CO2
matters as does the amount gravity a planet has.
What is obvious is that we in ice house global climate and that in ice house global climates one has cold ocean.
A cold ocean is ocean with a average ocean temperature of less than 10 C.
The ice house climate we are in is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age [also called Antarctic Glaciation]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
“…began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.”
And over this 33.9 million years the ocean has been getting colder and at present, average temperature of our current ocean is about 3.5 C.
If our ocean was 10 C rather than 3.5 C this make a difference in our global air temperature.
And seems a 10 C ocean would cause more global water vapor.
And it claimed elsewhere that higher CO2 levels cause more water vapor also.
But, increasing CO2 levels have not increased global water vapor by a significant amount.
What has happened is humans have selectively added water to land areas for farming purposes. Somewhere around 1 trillion ton per year.
Such modern farming activity would be adding to global vapor. It’s also feeding over 7 billion people.
But if Greenhouse effect is CO2 causing 33 C increase on global temperature, is CO2 causing 33 C on global temperature a fact or does it not exist.
If one claims it is fact, if Earth had 100 ppm of CO2 what does this
add. And it increase by 100 so it is 200 ppm, how much does it warm,
and if 300 ppm? And if 400 ppm?
It seems a problem is that Roy may have different opinion of what is a greenhouse effect than, NASA apparently does.
Missed it by one order of magnitude, and six hundred and sixty six years! https://ibb.co/rm1zsHx
Nevertheless, can’t say we weren’t warned.
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. We are all doomed to extinction. Never mind that the plants will welcome the increase in food.
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/#doom
https://climateball.net/but-life/#plant-food
Sorry. Forgot to add /sarc at the end
There was no need, Richard.
Climateball /sarc
Concerning the Honga Tonga eruption, we probably will have to wait for a while until something of it comparable to El Chichon, Pinatubo or at least to the 2020 LS peak, becomes visible within the LS and LT layers of the atmosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qC_cbNrs_qI6qBujpJ-nuxRAokaNIVri/view
Changes in surface temperatures will anyway be discredited as usual as due to UHI or similar effects.
I mean this point of course:
The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán & al.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381
” Excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming “
Here below is a comparison of the UAH 2.5 degree grid arrays for
– the peak in November 1991, which occurred 5 month after the Pinatubo eruption
and
– July 2022, 6 months after the Hunga Tonga eruption (June was even less apparent).
Nov 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
Jul 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JN5EmZsLnl98qbqdKzK7I83eT16nVcTJ/view
In analogy to surface and LT cooling as a consequence of LS warming: if H2O injection into the LS and above is supposed to result in surface warming, then should the LS not conversely experience cooling at the same time?
If so, and if the Honga Tonga eruption had a VEI 5 power not very far from to that of Pinatubo (VEI 6): should the resulting LS cooling not be as visible as is LS the warming in 1991?
Did you compensate for the long term cooling trend in the Stratospheric (LS) data or did you simply plot the LS data for 6 months out of the series as presented by UAH? I think you need to “adjust” the base period somehow to present the data on an equal footing.
E. Swanson
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what you exactly ask.
After all, I wrote:
” Here below is a comparison of the UAH 2.5 degree grid arrays … ”
Means that the data I display is directly extracted, without any change, out of the 9,504 cells for
– month 11 in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/tlsmonamg.1991_6.0
– month 7 in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/tlsmonamg.2022_6.0
” I think you need to ‘adjust’ the base period somehow to present the data on an equal footing. ”
They are already ‘on an equal footing’, as the entire grid is in anomaly form for all four atmospheric levels (LT, MT, TP, LS).
*
No absolute data is accessible directly; you have to construct it artificially by adding, to each single monthly cell, the corresponding climatology cell of the same month out of
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/tlsmonacg_6.0
Bindidon, The data, such as the global LS data after converted to zonal averages, exhibits a negative trend. I think that a proper comparison would require first detrending the gridded data, instead of simply presenting the results of just plotting 2 different 6 month periods. I’m not suggesting re-calculating a new basis of some sort. You might subtract the zonal averages for your Jul 2022 period from the zonal averages for the earlier Nov 1991 data, then adding those zonal results to the corresponding zonal grid boxes of the grided July 2022 data. I hope I’m being clear with this.
E. Swanson
” … instead of simply presenting the results of just plotting 2 different 6 month periods. ”
I still don’t understand what you exactly mean: I indeed present two different periods – but… each being exactly one month long.
*
What do you want to detrend here and why?
All data I show for the two months is (nearly) what you see within UAH’s monthly report for LS:
https://tinyurl.com/26wyepxz
which of course shows a negative trend (-0.27 +- 0.01 C / decade):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qC_cbNrs_qI6qBujpJ-nuxRAokaNIVri/view
The difference between the monthly grid plots and the monthly report is that the former ones are not latitude weighted (UAH’s grid outputs for monthly anomalies and trends aren’t too): the average of all cells does not match the value in UAH’s monthly report.
I hope you can explain better what you mean.
I updated a chart showing for UAH LS the difference between their original monthly output and what I obtained out of their grid data.
1. Original vs. grid with latitude weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O5ExuIyvDUx_kwRn67g6os0JXKpk67uC/view
{ The grid plot is dashed because otherwise you can’t see the original below it. }
2. Original vs. grid without latitude weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rDXU_m5IYslQEft45Vp4OldV2HAhjkN0/view
I hope you can explain better what you mean.
I think what Eric is asking for is that you detrend the anomaly before generating your plots.
What you show above is the anomaly caused by the two volcanic events plus the long term cooling trend. That is, anomaly = anthropogenic + volcanic + other_stuff.
If you detrend first to nominally remove the long term anthropogenic signal you’d be showing a picture more representative of the volcanic event alone. That is, anthropogenic – estimated_anthropogenic + volcanic + other_stuff
Bindidon, When I first read your comment, I thought that you had used an average over several months, but then figured out that you were only using one month’s data. I didn’t remove the section of the comment about “6 month periods” when I posted.
Mark B reply was what I had in mind, which would take some computation, which would likely be more trouble than it’s worth. Month-to-month data is usually very noisy, especially at polar latitudes.
Mark B
Thanks for intervening, I now better understand what E. Swanson means.
If I understand you and him well, this would mean in turn to detrend the grid series cell by cell from Dec 1978 till Jul 2022, and then to display, for Nov 1991 and Jul 2022, the updated grids.
Correct?
E. Swanson
” Month-to-month data is usually very noisy, especially at polar latitudes. ”
Correct! We clearly can see that when comparing global time series to those in the boreal and austral corners.
It is even visible when comparing, for the global LS, weighted and non-weighted variants in the chart I posted above (August 20, 2022 at 2:04 PM).
A solution would be to have a running window of say 3 months – indeed a bit costly to implement.
The global RSS TLS time series shows very distinct spikes in TLS consistent with the El Chichon eruption (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991). Thus far there doesn’t seem to be anything notable following from Honga Tonga.
That, I think, is consistent with not seeing an obvious cooling effect at the surface level.
Mark B
” That, I think, is consistent with not seeing an obvious cooling effect at the surface level. ”
Oops?!
I thought we all would agree that, as indicated in the article linked above, H2O injection in LS would result in the effect opposite to SO2’s.
Thus, I thought that if we notice anything, then rather a cooling of LS combined with a warming in LT and at the surface.
Bindidon, I plotted the TLS data after filtering it. The filter I use required shifting the series back 3 months to keep the output synchronized with the data, so there’s little to see wrt the eruption so far.
https://app.box.com/s/ou8mtneeceekeek5an2263k3osrclyws
TOA at Judith’s
The average global net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is defined as the difference between the energy absorbed and emitted by the planet.
In an equilibrium climate state, the global net radiation at the TOA is zero.
In the presence of an increasing climate forcing, an imbalance between the energy absorbed and emitted occurs,
and in response the climate system must react to restore the balance (e.g., by changing temperature).
The rate at which the earth reacts is modulated by its capacity to store energy.
Given that oceans are 10 times more efficient at storing heat than other components of the climate system (e.g., land, ice, atmosphere; Levitus et al. 2001),
the global net radiation at the TOA should be in phase with and of similar magnitude as the global ocean heat storage.
At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), the Earths energy budget involves a balance between how
much solar energy Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.
Since only radiative energy is involved, this is also referred to as Earths radiation budget (ERB). NG Loeb, W Su et al 2016
A natural balance exists in the Earth system between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation that is emitted back to space as either light (direct reflection of sunlight)
or heat (infrared emission from surfaces).
This balance, referred to as Earths radiation budget (ERB), determines the climate of the Earth and makes our planet hospitable for life.
Chemical Sciences Laboratory NOAA
Earths Energy Budget
The TOA ERB describes the balance between how much solar energy the Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation it emits.
N.G. Loeb, W.F. Miller, in Comprehensive Remote Sensing, 2018
Conclusion
TOA has two literal meanings.
Top of the actual atmosphere.
Or the boundary where the ERB exists =TOA as a radiative TOA.
This can be 5-10 KM high or 100 km high.
Javier refuses to specify which TOA definition he uses [and of course it follows what height he would guesstimate].
Despite the definition of ERB hence TOA being where the in going and outgoing radiation balance [Loeb no less] exists.
Even Loeb makes the mistake of thinking there is an actual storage possible of external energy when SB says this is impossible.
The contortions made to accommodate this mistaken view include the missing heat [Trenbath]
The positive out going [negative imbalances observed in earlier years
and an insistence that energy must be stored.
There is 8 minutes only of energy from the sun keeping the whole earth where it is in its current surface temperature and atmosphere.
Turn off the sun completely and after 8 minutes the surface would freeze.
The massive innate energy of the earth with its own energy producing core will still keep the under surface warm.
EM radiation takes a long time to travel through rock to the surface to radiate away.
The 100 million atomic bombs of energy or whatever the earth receives a day from the sun, diffused over 24 hours into our atmosphere and ocean surface and top of earth surface does its best every 8 minutes to keep a temperature and atmosphere on the earth surface.
Pull the plug and all that atmospheric science becomes an atmosphere less, ice covered ocean planet at the earths innate temperature.
molecules in motion no longer have an energy or a motion to stay in the sky.
angech
Interesting comment. What exactly is your conclusion from all of these facts you’ve lined up?
“Turn off the sun completely and after 8 minutes the surface would freeze.”
I wouldn’t bring my dwarf lemon inside, unless sun turned off for at least 12 hours.
If Sun was turn off for 24 hours, I would bring in my lemon tree.
And after 2 days of Sun being turned on, I would put it outside again, until it becomes winter and have bring in on cold days.
24 hours without sun, might kill more than 1/2 of crops. But it might kill less than 1/2 of crops. But after a week, the difference would be small. Or doesn’t affect global climate, much.
The least effected would be tropical islands- the plants would probably not die, most likely,
What would large effects would be with deserts {I live in a desert} if lived near beach, I wouldn’t need to bring my lemon tree inside.
Of course predicting the weather effects would seem to me to difficult- and something not expected, could happen. Could have very strong winds, no winds, winds going in opposite direction. Could get freakishly dry or wet air. Tends think very dry but also foggy conditions if near ocean. Weather within 24 hrs should not be considered, predictable- as general rule. And when sun turns back on, also unpredictable for couple of days, But after week, should be “back to normal”.
How about something slightly different, say Earth is moved to Mars like orbit and Earth gets 1/2 much sunlight for one month.
1360 / 2 = 680 watts during a month [30 days] of time and it back to Earth orbit,
Or maybe longer like 6 months.
A month would be sort of similar to sun disappearing for 15 days.
Also part each earth day would have Mars level sunlight.
But with TOA 1360 watts, at zenith the sun gives 1120 watts and it’s 70 watts of indirect and 1050 of direct sunlight at sea level with clear skies.
And each day on earth the sun is at 30 degrees, and must go thru twice as much atmosphere and sunlight strike a level surface at angle
and warms each square meter of level surface, less.
And tropics has 4 hours per 12 hour of daylight with this level of sunlight striking the surface. And outside the tropic has more then 4 hours of this less sunlight striking the surface.
And if Earth is move to Mars like distance orbit, for the people living in tropics it would similar to moving to Europe.
The only detail would it be like moving to Europe during winter or summer or somewhere in between.
Of course if Europe and getting Mars sun, it going less sunlight if one in winter and at Mars distance it likewise in winter.
Or Mars sun in a Europe winter is very cold {and very dim sunlight}
But a Mars sun in a Europe summer, is not colder than Europe winter with our distant sun.
So, matters what the season is.
But ignoring the season. The Mars distance sun will dimmer at noon, and a lot dimmer before 10 am and after 2 pm, and each hour either way gets a lot more dimmer. But considering we have clouds, everyone has seen such days. But if cloudy and you have mars sun, that would not something you experience unless from volcanic activity or forest fires or dust storms.
Anyways what the big things?
Tropical heat engine is greatly reduced and depends on the season.
And greater the time, like 6 months the bigger the effect.
There are obviously many people who believe that “photons” (or the energy associated with them) somehow “add”.
Here’s something to be considered (or dismissed out of hand, if you prefer) –
The exclusion principle does not apply to photons, therefore a potentially infinite number of photons can occupy a specified volume. Given a volume of 1 cc, how many photons are occupying it? If their individual energies “add”, why can’t the energy of all these photons be measured?
If the 1cc is 1cc of nothing at all (a vacuum), what happens to the photon energy within that space? Can a vacuum have a temperature? Surely, with the almost infinite number of photons in 1cc of vacuum, the vacuum should be positively glowing if photons can add energy to each other.
Climate cultists have no clue, obviously. They try and sound intelligent, talking about photons and suchlike, but they don’t understand what they are talking about. Nor do many physics lecturers, if it comes to it. They just repeat what they have been told. Sad but true.
But hypergenius Flynnson obviously knows everything about photons.
He knows so much about them that he even doesn’t need to add anything scientific supporting his childish claim.
Mon Dieu, quel génie!
Binny,
Thank you so much for your kind encomium.
In all modesty, I have to dispute your claim that I know everything about photons. No one does, as far I know.
However, I accept that you know that I know far more about quantum electrodynamics than you, and likely more than any of your madly capering ilk.
Maybe you might like to substantively challenge something I said? No?
Why am I not surprised?
As to your exclamation “My God! What a genius!”, of course I accept your praise and admiration with all due humility. Might I enquire which particular facet of my coruscating intellect impresses you most?
I accept flattery from anybody, you see.
“If the 1cc is 1cc of nothing at all (a vacuum), what happens to the photon energy within that space? ”
Science deniers say the darndest things these days.
Seems trolls need to fill the vacuum with SOMETHING…
Nate,
So you can’t actually say, can you?
I don’t blame you for playing the pointless “science denier” card, when you can’t even define what a “science denier” is!
I speculate that you cannot measure the amount of energy in 1 cc of vacuum. You might be stupid enough to assert you can. Go for it. How hard can it be?
Just about as stupid as “climate scientists” claiming that the can measure the amount of energy impinging upon the Earth system from external sources. Wishful thinking is not fact, you know.
Thermodynamix – not to be mistaken with Aerodynamix
https://youtu.be/FP0VjeRap04
great
Tim and others: If one electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms your cheek to 315K then 16 such radiators will not cook you at 630K – I’d stake my life on it.
You CANNOT add solar and atmospheric radiative fluxes and use the sum (less non-radiative cooling flux) in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to quantify Earth’s surface temperature as climatologists do in their computer models.
The solar flux to the Venus surface is less than 20w/m^2. The flux from the troposphere of Venus cannot and does not cause the surface temperature to rise about 5 degrees over the course of 4 months on the sunlit side as it would have to be well over 16,500 w/m^2 – non-radiative “heat creep” is what does that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
“Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature. The shift of that peak is a direct consequence of the Planck radiation law, which describes the spectral brightness of black-body radiation as a function of wavelength at any given temperature. However, it had been discovered by Wilhelm Wien several years before Max Planck developed that more general equation, and describes the entire shift of the spectrum of black-body radiation toward shorter wavelengths as temperature increases.” *
So, adding the Planck functions of 16 identical radiators does NOT shift the peak and does not produce a Planck function the same as a single source yielding 16 times the flux which, by S-B, would produce double the K temperature because 2^4 = 16.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but good topic.
I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more.
Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this information for
my mission.
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
hello , i really liked your article , i just have one simple qustion , can u you pleas tell me can i pay by paypal in amazon website ?, thanks again for this detailed article
Now Roy has updated the full data for this month
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-nh.jpeg
Northern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-noext.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-nopol.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-sh.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-soext.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-sopol.jpeg
Long term
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-long-term.jpeg
Residuals
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-residuals.jpeg
Month on Month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah_lt.jpg
MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah_mt.jpg
TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah_tp.jpg
LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah_ls.jpg