Home/BlogWe hear that a new El Nino forming in the Pacific Ocean is likely to push global-average temperatures to new record highs in 2023.
Setting aside the fact that we have no idea if current temperatures are warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period of ~1,000 years ago, I have to ask…
So what?
Doing something about global warming depends a lot on how much we are asked to pay to fix it. If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.
It also depends upon just how much global warming we have experienced, and whether it is enough to be concerned with. For the global oceans, the climate models enlisted to scare us in a steady stream of alarmist news reports over-predict ocean warming by a factor of 2. In America’s heartland during the summer, the discrepancy is a factor of 6(!). So, clearly, public concern is being inflated by factually incorrect information.
What Temperature do Americans Choose?
When it comes to life in these United States, roughly 50% of U.S. residents have at least a moderate worry about climate change and global warming. As mentioned above, I believe this is largely due to their response to what is reported by the news media, which is routinely exaggerated.
An interesting question that the late Dr. Pat Michaels asked about 25 years ago is, what temperature do Americans choose to live with? We have a large country with a wide range of climates, from frigid winters to tropical year-round, so there is considerable choice of what climate we decide to live in.
Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013) that over the years, Americans tend to migrate to warmer climates. Some of us might claim to be concerned about global warming, but we increasingly choose to live where it’s warmer. I’ve updated those calculations to 2022, and the results are the same:
The blue curve is the usual area-averaged temperatures for the Lower 48, while the orange curve is the state population-weighted average. While the area average temperatures have warmed modestly over the last century, the temperatures where people choose to live have increased by twice that amount. (The possibility that Urban Heat Island effects have spuriously warmed these NOAA-reported temperatures is part of a research project we have been involved in).
Some might claim that the migration to states with warmer temperatures has more to do with economic opportunity than with temperature. But who creates economic opportunity? People. And where do people choose to live? Where the weather is warmer.
There’s a reason why people are flocking to Texas and Florida, and not to the Dakotas or Maine. Ultimately, it’s due to the climate. So, while some of us like to think we are Saving the Earth by buying a Tesla, our migration habits are telling a different story.
> roughly 50%
39 + 22 = 61.
Are those your IQ’s for the left and right sides of your brain? C’mon, your IQ has to be at least 70.
Roughly, Troglodyte.
Roughly.
Hey man, I couldn’t resist you served it on a silver platter.
Another official narrative myth biting the dust. The spinners in here seem to find joy in being a punching bag.
Indeed, Gill.
Twas about time people realize that 39% was roughly 50%.
Willard desperately tries to change the topic to 61% of the nation consists of stooges who believe the government when they say their life is in danger from man-made climate change. I didn’t even realize that was an official narrative, much less a spinner narrative. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Willard the myth I am talking about is the claim that there was a mass migration of climate refugees underway due to global warming when in fact the mass migration is in the opposite direction to warmer locations. A fact brought forward here by Roy and confirmed by the literature.
https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts
Gill is once more trying to deflect from a simple point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1483790
Confusing natality and migration might not help him, but who knows?
Yep definitely shows what the weaponization of an over sized government can do even when the science is going the other way.
Gill, Gill,
Your gang had the keys to the Whitehouse and a few years and you *never* reduced the size of the gubmint. I am sure migrants will appreciate your myth that they come to America because it is warmer:
https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2022-interactive/
Three cheers for your larger than life fight for freedom!
Willard your response merely tells me the Republicans are almost as corrupt as the Democrats. Like no sheet.
I am not a member of a political party. As they say there isn’t much difference between the two.
what you idiots do is oppose stuff rather than build something. Your political disposition is one of disassembly. Rather than contributing to society your aim is to tear it down and rebuild it in your image because you believe its absolutely terrible how America became such a magnet.
then you come in here in defense of your viewpoints by pointing out some other political party was just as bad. I would suggest you have no personal vision by which to rebuild the world. All you are is a tool for somebody else’s vision. . . .which you defend by comparison to what others did wrong.
Wait, Gill. You. Do. Not. Vote?
Must be fun to live in a minarchist fantasy!
Willard that just another example of you incorrectly deducing something. Jumping to conclusions seems to be your primary mode of operation.
Gill, Gill,
That you’re a freedom-luvin’ libertarian creep is not that hard of an inference to make when we read your anti gubmint comments.
Unless you voted for Ralph Nader?
Willard being for ‘small’ government isn’t anti-government. Its pro-small government. And no again you jump to a conclusion. I am not a libertarian fully realizing that some government is needed.
Gill, Gill,
You care confusing minarchism with a caricature of anarchism.
Unlike you Willard we all don’t strictly ascribe to any ‘ism’.
The El Nino of 2016 is probably no greater than that of 1878.
Anomaly temperature of absolute temperature?
Read some papers that have shown just that.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
Conclusions: “The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
Got ANY AGW theory predicting that can’t happen?
Strange how only those maximums that you chose make it to the ‘important’ list.
So that would be a No, you dont have anything?
Just another standard RLH strawman.
AWG does not predict the 1878 event. In fact it says it did not happen.
“AWG does not predict the 1878 event. In fact it says it did not happen.”
Explain how you arrive at that conclusion?
Obviously you have no real explanation.
If AGW accepts that 1878 event happened then +0.13 C/decade gives an overall 4C rise since then.
Entropic man says:
”Anomaly temperature of absolute temperature?”
If its not anomaly temperature then it isn’t an ENSO event. Longterm global temperature records (longer than 50 years) aren’t at all reliable as it has changed both by method and what is being monitored. Thus anomalies are the only reliable measure so its what we go by.
Setting aside the fact that we have no idea if current temperatures are warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period of ~1,000 years ago
We do know. The Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Warm Epoch as was originally called) was from 1150-1300 or about 700-850 years ago [1]. It is definitely warmer today than during that period…globally. It is even warmer today than during the peak around 800 AD [2].
[1] Lamb 1965: The early medieval warm epoch and its sequal
[2] Kaufman et al. 2020: Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach
Really? Where are the 1,000 year old thermometer measurements?
Lamb used botanical proxies and historical accounts. Kaufman et al. used various ecological, geochemical, and biophysical proxies including but not limited to planktic foraminifera, δ18O, Mg/Ca, alkenones, pollen, chironomids, macrofossils, dinocysts, glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers, chlorophyll, tree rings, isotopic composition of ice, etc.
Ah! Magical proxies accurate to tenths of a degree C!
Is this why you portray a 2013 op-ed by Pat as recent, Roy?
I said, “Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013)…”, so I’m not sure what your point is here. -Roy
Kaufman et al. 2020 say it is about +/- 0.3 C during the period in question. Magical?
I am still looking for the cause of all of the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white during the Medieval Warm period when Greenland was named by the Vikings living there ;).
BillyJack, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the leading hypothesis for the MWP. Note, however, that Greenland was still mostly snow/ice covered during this period. There were areas along the coasts that were snow/ice free, but that isn’t unlike how it is today.
“the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white”
were they Irish?
Billyjack,
Here you go:
https://climateball.net/but-mwp#greenland
And in case anyone missed the irony here I’m being dismissed for using “Magical proxies accurate to tenths of a degree C” by someone who used a proxy based temperature reconstruction advertised with a tenth of degree C accuracy to make statements about the MWP and presented it to congress.
See, this is where we differ… I move on when the science changes. The non-treering plot that Craig Loehle published (which you are referring to), as well as other evidence, finally convinced Loehle that none of the proxies can be trusted (personal communication). So, we move on… no point relying on “science” which cannot be proved right or wrong since no one recorded actual thermometric temperatures 1,000 years ago. -Roy
BillyJack,
It is the old “local temperature” argument. They not only know the proxies are very accurate but that any data contrary to their views means it must have been local.
Billyjack
” I am still looking for the cause of all of the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white during the Medieval Warm period when Greenland was named by the Vikings living there ;). ”
What’s that for a nonsense? Is it from the Goddard guy?
Anyone knows since quite long a time that Greenland is covered since millions of years by a ~ 2 km high ice sheet, which of course didn’t disappear during MWP – especially because at that time, it wasn’t warm at all there.
There was no more green than the small traces visible today on the southwest and southeast coasts.
The major reason for the Norses to move to Greenland via Iceland and to finally come back from there was not warming and farming, but… walrus ivory.
Maybe you spend some time in reading this article:
Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the MedievalWarm Period coeval with Norse settlement
Nicolás E. Young, Avriel D. Schweinsberg, Jason P. Briner, Joerg M. Schaefer
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.1500806
I find it suspicious that Loehle thought proxies could be trusted enough to advertise an accuracy of around 0.1 C until he learned that BP (before present) in academic literature meant 1950 (not the literal “present”) thus missing at least 57 years of warming (now 72) which if included causes the contemporary period to easily surpass both the MWP era and the peak around 800-900 AD even despite the other mistakes.
That personal correspondence with Craig must be recent, Roy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/climate-sensitivity-from-1970-2021-warming-estimates/
Why should you believe that the MWP happened without proxies – paintings?
Dr. Spencer still has his sense of humor, so thats good.
And when you add in the last 22 years of warming to the Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction that he presented to congress you can see that it is significantly warmer today than the MWP. Like, it isn’t even close.
bdgwx,
I’ve done a lot of work with Ljungqvist’s paleo-proxy reconstructions as well as Marcott et. al. 2013, working with their SI materials and raw datasets.
When you add the last 22 years of warming to Ljungqvist’s 2010 reconstruction, how do you compensate and weight for the different spatial and temporal resolutions and physics of the instrument record vs. proxies when adding it to Ljungqvist’s results? Marcott attempted to do the same as you are suggesting and failed so miserably that he admitted his attempt was not robust and should not be used to compare current temperatures with the past. Ljungqvist made no such attempt.
So, I’m guessing you solved Marcott’s methods and dilemma? How?
There has been global COOLING since 2016.
Wishful thinking.
This shows that the warmest year in each decade is an El Nino year. Coolest in each decade is a La Nina year.
https://www.climate.gov/media/10685
But each decade’s average T is warmer than the previous one, since the 1970s.
So the fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is not evidence of a cooling trend.
In fact after accounting for the ENSO contribution, we can see that underlying warming is still evident.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2023.pdf
Nate: So if it has been cooling since 2016, when do you expect this to change?
RLH, I know. And even with the transient cooling since 2016 it is still significantly warmer today than during the MWP and even the global peak around 900-1000 AD using the Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction.
“So if it has been cooling since 2016, when do you expect this to change?”
False premise.
The fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is not evidence of a cooling trend.
Do you not understand that statistically, a single event does not define a trend, RLH?
Greenland did have snow and ice during the MWP; however, it was less than today. Under today’s ice & snow are the rye fields that Vikings cultivated during the MWP.
Vintage 2021:
https://polarjournal.ch/en/2021/03/05/agriculture-in-greenland/
The warmest year in each decade is an El Nino year, and the coolest in each decade is a La Nina year, yet RLH wants us to compare them to determine if there is a cooling or warming trend.
This is as misguided as comparing the warmest day of this week with the coldest day of next week to determine if we are headed for summer.
bdgwx says:
”See, this is where we differ I move on when the science changes.”
You mean you move on when the science you accept changes.
Proxies have been shown to move in the opposite direction such as in the ”hide the decline proxies” were found out in 2009 Climategate affair.
folks have been trying to make more of proxies than they can deliver since the beginnings of science. One who is trained in this knows to not trust appended records from different measurement means. . . .and appending records is the only way to get back a 1,000 years. Its just not reliable and the science you quote isn’t universally accepted.
https://climateball.net/but-cg#proxies
bdgwx — No you don’t know and Kaufman et al. 2020 has the unwarranted, agenda-driven temerity to compare 200 year mean temperatures to the “most recent decade”.
to quote from Kaufman et al. 2020:
“To bracket the likely range of the temporal resolution of the GMST reconstruction, we focus on intervals of 1000 and 200 years…For 80% of the ensemble members, no 200-year interval during the past 12,000 years exceeded the warmth of the most recent decade. For the other 20% of the cases, which are primarily from the CPS reconstruction, at least one 200-year interval exceeded the recent decade.”
They and you have no idea of how many decades within a given 200 year period may have exceeded the “most recent decade”. Unless temperatures were extraordinarily stable during the “20% of cases” wherein “at least 200-year interval exceeded the recent decade” those intervals that exceeded the current decade would have likely had multiple decades that exceeded the most recent decade. Even 200-year intervals that came somewhat close to the most recent decade would likely have had decades exceeding “the most recent decade”.
A temporal resolution of 200 to 1000 years to assess the warmth of a period you assert to be about 150 years??? Roy Spencer is right we, you and Kaufman et al have know idea if current temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.
I’m not looking at figure 4 or any of the 200/1000 yr binned data. I’m looking at figure 3 and specifically the PAGES2K inset with interannual resolution.
Even the older Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction that Dr. Spencer presented to congress was decadal using proxies with annual resolution. Adding in the last 22 years of warming puts the modern warm period almost 5-sigma above the 900-1000 AD peak and almost 8-sigma above the MWP. So even using Dr. Spencer’s preferred it is way…WAY…W-A-Y warmer today than during the MWP.
The hockey stick in the Pages2k inset of figure 3 in Kaufman is created by a 1900-2010 modeled warming that exceeds measured warming warming from 2000-2010 by a factor of 4-8X. Not comparable Pages2K reconstruction. Estimates of 5-sigma to 8-sigma have no basis.
First the concern was of the 200/1000 yr bins. Then when I explained that has nothing to do with the topic you moved the goalpost to the instrumental record. That’s okay. Let’s talk about it now.
The instrumental record in Kaufmann et al. 2020 comes from ERA20C. It does indeed use a model. But that’s no different than any other global average temperature dataset including UAH. And note that HCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST show almost exactly the same amount of warming as ERA20C…about 1.2 C. So if you don’t like the ERA20C methodology then look at other datasets and compare the results. Furthermore, even our spot temperature measurements require complex models involving material science, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc. to produce a meaningful temperature value. If you don’t like models then you probably aren’t going to be satisfied with temperature observations or science in general for that matter.
bdgwx says:
”The instrumental record in Kaufmann et al. 2020 comes from ERA20C. It does indeed use a model. But thats no different than any other global average temperature dataset including UAH. And note that HCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST show almost exactly the same amount of warming as ERA20Cabout 1.2 C.”
—————————
Everything uses a model to find a global mean temperature. That fact provides zero assurance of any particular means of estimating GMT.
What provides assurance is consistency and accuracy in the equipment, consistency in location of the equipment, random distribution of the locations, adequate numbers of observations, frequency of observations and the controls over all the above and the controls over the data after collection. . . .among others. That is what separates good models from bad models.
bdgwx says:
”If you dont like models then you probably arent going to be satisfied with temperature observations or science in general for that matter.”
If you just like models, in general, and pay no attention to the above then you are going to be soon calling everything you like to hear science. . . .because you already are cherry picking the models you like.
” If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.”
Uhhh..Obviously what is cheap and practical changes over time.
Car – 1905. Not cheap or practical. Stick with a horse.
Car – 1925. Cheap and practical.
Solar wasnt cheap or practical 20 y ago. Now certainly is.
Which is exactly why I drive my solar powered car to work and use solar power to light my office, laptop, and equipment. Then I travel on a solar powered airplane (at night of course), to visit my parents who live in a solar powered facility that powers their solar powered heart monitors. I then use my solar powered cell phone to call my wife and tell her how my day was.
After all, solar is “cheap and practical”.
Nate, do you have solar panels on your home? Oh you don’t? Hmmm. Wonder why.
“Nate, do you have solar panels on your home? Oh you dont? Hmmm. Wonder why.”
Wanted to, but my roof wasnt the right size/orientation. But plenty in my town do have it.
Cars? Of course, indirectly.
Airplanes? Etc. Nah, there is no energy source does that fits all the needs.
“Nah, there is no energy source does that fits all the needs”.
You’re right Nate. Fossil fuels can’t power ALL the airplanes at night, nor can they run ALL the cars, or power my parents heart monitors. Fossil fuels can’t generate the electricity to run my battery powered cellphone either.
Oh, wait–yes they can–And they do every day.
You may rethink your statement. After all, EVERYONE should–no–MUST–get off fossil fuels–including you. Why don’t you go first? You may need to move to a more solar panel friendly home though. But hey–it’s “cheap and affordable” right?
“Fossil fuels cant generate the electricity ”
In some cases that is true.
Talk to Western Europeans about natural gas used as a cudgel against them.
Go ahead an invest in a Coal power plant in the Great Plains, instead of Wind, and lose your shirt.
Did Henry Ford require subsidies?
FYEO:
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=hist_honors
Every penny to pave a road should be regarded as a grant to the automotive industry.
Your point is we should be like Nazis? I guess California already is.
The point is rather that troglodytes like you never really minded fascists if it meant cheaper commodities, Troglodyte.
Yes oil exploration has been subsidized over the last century.
And yes,
“The United States Congress first funded roadways through the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, and began an effort to construct a national road grid with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921. In 1926, the United States Numbered Highway System was established, creating the first national road numbering system for cross-country travel. The roads were state-funded and maintained, and there were few national standards for road design. United States Numbered Highways ranged from two-lane country roads to multi-lane freeways. After Dwight D. Eisenhower became president in 1953, his administration developed a proposal for an interstate highway system, eventually resulting in the enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.”
“Following the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, use of the railroad system for moving passengers and freight declined sharply, but the trucking industry expanded dramatically”
Energy subsidies, if any, should be compared in dollars per kWh.
Federal and state highway’s have until recently been wholly paid for with user fees (fuel taxes).
So, except for trucks not paying their fair share, any economic argument in favor of alternative energy sources or subsidies is wishful thinking.
So you’re saying funding interstate commerce is analogous to funding solar panels and electric cars? Have you read the Constitution lately? Funding roadways isn’t picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
However, I do think even funding interstate highways is probably unconstitutional. There’s no authority in the Constitution to do that.
> Funding roadways isnt picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
When was the last time you took the train, Troglodyte?
The government has equally funded railways and rail construction. But, it isn’t practical for people to own their locomotive. We can’t bring a train to everyone’s house. And the government didn’t intentionally try to drive people to use autos. People drove autos on the same dirt roads that wagons used. But you know all this, don’t you?
“Funding roadways isnt picking winners and losers in the marketplace.”
It had that effect.
“Following the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, use of the railroad system for moving passengers and freight declined sharply, but the trucking industry expanded dramatically”
Especially compared to Europe which has excellent, affordable rail transport.
“However, I do think even funding interstate highways is probably unconstitutional. Theres no authority in the Constitution to do that.”
And Lincoln’s transcontinental railroad? Also unconstitutional?
Well, thankfully for the development of the country, you would be an outlier on that view.
Part of that was train travel was much more advanced and more convenient in Europe when the automobile was invented, so rail was still heavily used. There has always been crony capitalism, but electric cars and solar panels will never be self-sustaining unless a much more efficient battery is developed.
So you argue that green energy just hasn’t scaled up enough? And Henry Ford needed government subsidies to get his cars off the ground? Is that your argument?
“over the years, Americans tend to migrate to warmer climates”
Most of human civilization has flourished in the temperate zone. Not in the extremes.
Flourished-
since the industrial revolution.
Would we have flourished fueled by whale oil?
There were no civilizations before 1800???
Werent there? News to me!
Oh wait, were you trying to be sarcastic, or just trying to be annoying?
Stupidity through obscurity?
“1750 and 1850. Those are the years historians commonly use to bracket the Industrial Revolution.”
“Most of human civilization has flourished in the temperate zone.”
thats not true.
the tropics are home to 40% of the worlds population while only making up 36% of the worlds land mass.
Basically what is true the further north or south you go from the tropics the less the population density.
And what is projected:
”By 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globeaccording to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts
The reason populations in the temperature regions have flourished was necessity of fossil fuels and what else arose from the development of those resources.
this is where the ”big dumb” comes into effect as stupid people who have grown up privileged and think they know it all and what is good for the world but have just simply forgotten what made the world for them.
“was necessity of fossil fuels”
Fossil fuels are a recent blip in the history of human civilizations.
“By 2050, half of the worlds population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globeaccording to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”
The tropic is where the 3rd world, and its rapidly growing population, lives, but not by choice.
Children like it warm too Nate. Rapidly expanding populations hardly suggests the problem is the environment. When you can sleep outside year round, or in a tent why would anybody want to move? People move due to violence and oppression and that’s a small part of the population. You can sit behind your desk and proclaim that they don’t want to live there because of the climate but thats nothing but you spewing your daddy’s propaganda. And what does your daddy stand for? Violence and oppression?
Ugggh. The usual rot.
Nate .
I live in the UK, which has renewable electricity generation capacity to meet over 60 percent of our requirements.
At best,due to our weather, it reaches 50 percent and frequently supplies less than 10 percent.
While the cost has come down we are still dependent on gas fired units.
I hardly call the current situation as practical.
Who said it had to meet 100%?
Also UK solar insolation is less than ideal, much less than some other countries, like US, and southern Europe.
Most of the UKs renewable energy installation is from wind, not solar.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/britain-produced-record-amount-wind-power-2022-national-grid-2023-01-06/
“The share of wind power in Britain’s electricity mix last year was up from 21.8% in 2021, the data showed, as more wind projects came online.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65557469
“Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time”
That makes more sense.
Alright, let’s be serious for a change:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-where-americans-are-moving-florida-texas-north-carolina-south-carolina/
I call 793.
They are also moving to places with more hurricanes, maybe Americans
are becoming more suicidal.
We know more children going to public schools have seriously considered suicide.
Good.
Now do the Valeriepieris circle.
Why?
Wiki:
“The Valeriepieris circle is a South China Sea-centered circular region on the world map that is about 4,000 kilometers (2,500 mi) in radius (roughly 6.7% of the Earth’s total surface area) and contains more than half the worlds population”
It seems Will has some ideas about this region.
If it wasn’t for China, it would fast growing population region.
China’s average temperature is about 8 C, but China is not collapsing
because it’s too cold, rather it’s crashing because of it’s govt.
Vietnam is bustling and it has Communist govt, but everyone ignores it.
Chinese should also ignore their stupid govt.
Why do you ask that silly question, Richard?
You asked the silly question, not me.
Is that a No U?
U asked the silly question, not me.
Isn’t that a tortuous way to say yes?
U asked the silly question.
I am starting to suspect you do not even realize the point behind it, Richard.
Worrisome Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I am starting to suspect you do not even realize the point behind it, Richard.”
Can you you name just one person (you have over eight billion to choose from) who cares what you are “starting to suspect”?
Or one who cares whether you finish suspecting, or not.
Are you full of yourself, perhaps?
Keep the laughs coming.
I’m starting to suspect that you are braying, Mike Flynn.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Can you you name just one person (you have over eight billion to choose from) who cares what you are starting to suspect?
Or one who cares whether you finish suspecting, or not.
Are you full of yourself, perhaps?
Keep the laughs coming.
“the point”
You have a point? That would be a first.
So, Richard, when do you expect Muricans all to settle in the middle of the Death Valley?
About the same time as you have a point I suppose.
I thought you agreed that Muricans chose a warmer life, Richard.
Speaking of which, you might like:
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/04/where-oregon-ranks-among-states-with-fastest-population-growth-in-past-decade.html
I know a large number of you cluster round the Donald, guns in hand.
I am no Murican, Richard. Nor do I live over there.
Everyone knows that older people move to Florida. The population is aging. In 1980, 11.3% of people were 65 or older…. that’s now 16.3%. A larger fraction of the population being older and looking for a warmer climate in their old age could explain most of what’s happening in the graph.
More people die from the cold, than warmer conditions. But it’s mostly older people from either cause of death.
skeptical
This is absolutely correct.
Roy Spencer is a bit naïve here and should refine his stats by age and personal wealth.
I’m sure he would wonder a lot.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Roy Spencer is a bit nave here and should refine his stats by age and personal wealth.
You’re a bit arrogant here, and should poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle for my amusement.
See – I can make silly comments as well.
Who won?
skeptikal says:
”A larger fraction of the population being older and looking for a warmer climate in their old age could explain most of whats happening in the graph.”
Demonstrating of course its easier to live in a warm climate. But its not just Florida.
Currently about 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics and the projection is:
”By 2050, half of the worlds population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globe according to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts
And even Key West, Florida isn’t in the tropics.
What needs to be stopped is the murder of people who can’t afford to move and can’t afford the upward pressure on energy prices that are being foisted on them by corrupt governments.
6 days and no response. Obviously there isn’t even an argument about another ”official” government climate narrative biting the dust.
Visible influence of the geomagnetic field in the north on the circulation in the stratosphere. It promises to be a cool May in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/618KpgY/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
> I said, Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013), so Im not sure what your point is here. -Roy
Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.
Roughly.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote-
“Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.
Roughly.”
Bully for Pat and Chip!
Someone wrote
“Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet,
Lion, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet.” more than 4000 years ago.
Roughly.
Mike Flynn,
What are you roughly braying about?
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote-
“Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.
Roughly.”
Bully for Pat and Chip!
Someone wrote
“Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet,
Lion, dear to my heart,
Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet.” more than 4000 years ago.
Roughly.
You already said that, Mike.
Roughly speaking.
What you haven’t done is to say what you’re braying about.
Would we have flourished in the temperate zones with whale oil?
No flourishing going on in the Age of Exploration, the Renaissance or the Ming Dynasty?
Would we have flourished in the temperate zones fueled with whale oil?
We have a lot cows, likewise we could farmed whales. Whale meat would be cheaper than chicken.
Interesting.
Do the data dig into where people came from and went to?
Those early frontier days meant a lot of labor required on site in the colder and hotter regions. I see nothing in this analysis that precludes a population movement out of hotter regions as well as colder regions. The graph could just indicate the relative numbers living in the two extremes from where they originated.
The conclusion could be that, with modernity allowing for the possibility in various ways, people will move to a more mild climate if they can.
I would like to know how the Medieval Warm Period deniers explain the 1,000 year-old tree stumps at the base of retreating glaciers. Was it warmer then, or just less snowfall? How did those trees get there? I am open to suggestion.
All of the reasonable estimates I see require each person to have a very large and expensive battery if they want to have reliable energy without fossil fuel. The clear answer is nuclear power, but the green people don’t want that either.
“The clear answer is nuclear power” if price doesnt matter.
Out energy mix is evolving as it always has, with both subsides and mostly market forces.
It takes ~ 30 years for significant shifts in the energy mix.
Electrification
The gasoline automobile
Hydropower
Nuclear power
Natural gas
All these took ~ 30 y to rise to a peak fraction.
There is no expectation of an immediate sharp transition to 100% renewables, so I don’t see an immediate need for home energy storage.
Nate,
Why does price matter? If you can’t afford something, don’t buy it. If some idiot wants to waste their money providing a good or service at less than cost, take it!
Why not?
“If you cant afford something, dont buy it.”
Good tip. Perhaps Swenson should focus full-time on such helpful pearls of wisdom, as opposed to trolling.
“I would like to know how the Medieval Warm Period deniers explain the 1,000 year-old tree stumps at the base of retreating glaciers. Was it warmer then, or just less snowfall? How did those trees get there? I am open to suggestion. ”
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
There you go, Tim. During the MWP it was warm enough for the glaciers to retreat and boreal forest to grow. Then the glaciers advanced and covered the forest during the LIA. Now the climate is warmer than the MWP and the glaciers are retreating again.
EM,
If you are not a Medieval Warm Period denier, why are you answering Tim’s question with facts he obviously already knows, by virtue of his comment.
By the way, why do you say it is warmer than the MWP, and the glaciers are retreating – again?
Surely, before the MWP, glaciers existed. At the height of the MWP, the glaciers had retreated, to be replaced by forests. As far as I know, this has not happened again, so the temperatures cannot be as high as they were during the MWP.
Maybe in the future? Or maybe not? I don’t know – and neither do you!
Hi. I’m a layman. I try to follow you all, but I’m just someone who became interested in the climate out of curiosity. It seemed to be integral in my developing an anxiety disorder so I had to quit caring as much. Took 6 months before I could even return to this website. In NZ we had an atmospheric scientist/ meteorologist called Augie Auer, now deceased. But, I was wondering if his views on global warming from circa 2007 still held up today. I’m particularly interested in the CO2 saturation idea that Dr Spencer also mentions. I’ll post a clip where he discusses his views. Curious what people make of it as I find he’s good at explaining things in an easy way for all to undetermined.
https://youtu.be/E7-12y1GycI
This is the biggest irony of them all, people move to experience global warming. Global warming allows more people to live and thrive in more hospitable environments. People will die in the next ice age. Simply put, civilization thrives in the warmth, they die in the cold. Study history.
Good idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people
One day we all will be able to afford living there.
Co2,
Many people living in the 3rd world already live where its been warm for centuries. Has that helped them attain longer life spans, better health, greater prosperity than others in the temperate zones?
It’s no coincidence modern man flourished during the Holocene. Or do you prefer the glacial period?
That man is only modern when compared to troglodytes, Troglodyte.
Silly Billy Willy,
In the grip of a nonsense spewing episode of mental aberration, are you?
Dear oh dear.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Silly Billy Willy,
In the grip of a nonsense spewing episode of mental aberration, are you?
Dear oh dear.
“Or do you prefer the glacial period?”
The logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#:~:text=A%20false%20dilemma%2C%20also%20referred,but%20in%20a%20false%20premise.
Where people choose to live is only one factor. Wherever we choose to live, we still need food to eat.
From the beginning of humanity, people lived where the food was produced, both because it took a lot of people to raise/collect/process the food and because transportation of food was expensive and difficult. Thanks to modern agriculture and modern transportation, people are no longer tied to the land. So we can live one place and do our farming somewhere else. We don’t have to keep most of the population on farms or near deer or fish or chickens.
The other side of the coin is that we still need food, and climate change impacts food sources. The temperature changes in the past 50 years are about 2C from the graph, or about 3-4 F. This roughly corresponds to moving about 1 state south in the US. So the farmers in northern Iowa are growing the crops that had been grown in southern Iowa. Trees and birds and insects that that flourished Kansas will now flourish in Nebraska. (To say nothing of changes in precipitation).
Sure, there is some leeway to adjust what variety of corn to plant, or even to switch to wheat instead of corn. But trees can’t just move north. And switching crops is not trivial.
Where humans choose to live is only one small part of the equation; only one of many impacts of climate change.
Tim,
“Where humans choose to live is only one small part of the equation;”
What “equation” would that be?
If I “choose to live” in the White House, or Buckingham Palace, does the equation help me to achieve my desires?
You’re babbling, Tim. No GHE.
It almost seems that you are being sarcastic. Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth? I have heard about the studies that faster plant growth means less mineral content, but there are many different nutrients that are not mineral based. I am also curious why you think warmer and more humid weather is a problem. Do you disagree that increased instability in the atmosphere should cause more rain?
> Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth?
You’re on a roll, Tim:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12069
On a geological time scale, 2012 is quite recent.
Tim S asks ” Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth? ”
That is not the point of my post. The point is whether climate *change* (related to CO2 *change*) hurts plant growth.
“I am also curious why you think warmer and more humid weather is a problem.”
Again, the question is about whether a *change* in weather/climate is a problem.
The answer is pretty clearly “yes”. Plants in a region thrive when they are suited the the conditions there. Change the conditions significantly (whether that is hotter or colder or more humid or less humid or more rainfall or less rainfall) and you will change how well different plants thrive in the region.
Let me be less subtle and more explicit. There is every reason to believe that increasing CO2 makes food crops grow faster. Increasing instability in the atmosphere should cause more rain which should also increase the growth rate of food crops. None of this seems like a negative. Is there data to show that staple crops such as corn and wheat are sensitive to climate? Rice needs water and there are reports of problems from lack of rain in rice growing regions, which tend to be in tropically areas. Is there any scientific basis to say that tropical regions should have less rainfall in the long term?
> increasing CO2 makes food crops grow faster
Again, up to a point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation
Let me me more explicit — “more” does not always equal “better”.
And every plant and animal is sensitive to its environment — including the weather.
Sure, some plants in some cases will do better with more moisture. But there are always trade-offs. The *direct* effect of more CO2 is indeed improved plant growth, but this must be weighed against climate change, which tends to be a negative for the plants native to a region.
************
And again, the bigger point is that it is very myopic to base ‘good’ on where humans choose to live — as implied by the top post. Humans choosing to live now in warmer regions is NOT evidence that warming is good.
Tim Folkerts, I have to do it: Predictions are difficult — especially about the future. I believe that the USA, Europe, and some other places will go carbon neutral within the next 50 years, but it will not matter. Other nations will keep burning and producers will keep pumping until all of the fossil fuel is burned up. Then and only then will future generations know the true cost. By that time, with 20 billion people on earth, there will be many other problems.
Some odd ideas here.
Greenland was never green. The name was propoganda by Erik the Red, invented to persuade Norse settlers to live in a freezing wilderness.
Rather like persuading people to settle in the wasteland West of Philadelphia by calling it William Penn’s woodland paradise.
The climate sceptics set great score on the Vikings growing barley in Greenland, as evidence that it was warm. They fail to mention that it was grown in small walled enclosures designed as suntraps and wind shields. This was the only way to get the soil above barley’s minimum germination temperature of 4C.
Entropic man
The only reason the Norse moved to Greenland was that at the time they were leaders in the processing and trading of walrus ivory.
They had already decimated the walrus colonies in Iceland, so they moved to Greenland.
A few centuries later, a new era began: elephant ivory from Africa became known and the jewelry made from it far surpassed that made from walrus ivory.
End of the story.
This barley stuff is just ridiculous.
Did the Romans grow grapes in Scotland?
The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century, says Avery, and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age.”
Binny,
You wrote –
“The only reason the Norse moved to Greenland was that at the time they were leaders in the processing and trading of walrus ivory.”
Read a few peer reviewed articles which say you are wrong, and that farming and raising cattle came first.
Feel free to denigrate, deny, and dismiss any research with which you disagree.
Bindidon
I don’t think the Greenland colony was ever very successful. The total population of the two settlements peaked early at about 5000 and there were never enough children to keep up the numbers.
They were never economically independant, dependant on trade for tools etc. When the walrus ivory trade declined and they could no longer trade, the colony was abandoned. The last couple who married in Greenland were later recorded living in Iceland.
Again, the Flynnson stalker comes out with his usual unproven stuff:
” Read a few peer reviewed articles which say you are wrong, and that farming and raising cattle came first. ”
*
1. Do you think the Flynnson boy would post even ONE link to such a
‘peer reviewed article’ ?
You would be plain wrong.
*
2. Suppose you would dare, in a discussion thread on this blog, to post ONE link to a ‘peer reviewed article’ when you are arguing about anything.
Flynnson’s automatic, dumb reply:
” Oh you refer to a ‘peer reviewed article’, and appeal to some ‘authority’ ! Are you a delusional Sky Dragon cultist?
*
Flynnson is one of the worst, most stoopid trolls on this blog.
Binny,
Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to be unable to find anything which disagrees with their beliefs.
If you don’t believe that what I say is correct, fine. If you want to provide some support for your disbelief, even finer.
You “believe” that “Flynnson is one of the worst, most stoopid trolls on this blog.”, presumably attempting to be annoying – or something.
You can’t name one person who values your beliefs, can you? How galling that must be!
Maybe you could try explaining why nobody can even describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality.
Only joking – you can’t.
Keep whining.
The optimum temperature for economic activity is 13C.(55.5F)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283293885_Global_non-linear_effect_of_temperature_on_economic_production
The annual average temperature of the United States is now almost 13C.
Perhaps the time has come for the US to stop further global warming so that the country can stay on the temperature sweet spot.
Oops, forgot.
https://www.climate.gov/media/9123
EM,
Is that supposed to mean something? Was the graph prepared by a twelve year old, or did some adult waste somebody else’s money producing something totally useless?
A Government “worker”, do you think?
What of the snow geese?
These Winnebago owners Winter in Florida and then move North as temperatures rise until they reach Maine in midsummer.
They then move South again as temperatures fall.
They are not seeking a single location, they are seeking to live at a constant temperature.
Nate wrote this:
[ If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.
Uhhh..Obviously what is cheap and practical changes over time.
Car 1905. Not cheap or practical. Stick with a horse.
Car 1925. Cheap and practical.
Solar wasnt cheap or practical 20 y ago. Now certainly is.”]
This is the most fundamental of all errors when trying to use talking points in a technical discussion. I see this a lot from poorly educated people. Energy is NOT a “technology”. Energy is reality. The laws of physics such as the First Law of Thermodynamics are not negotiable. I admit there are creative ways to harness energy, but to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive.
You may have heard of the Kardashev Scale.
It classifies civilizations according to their energy use.
A Class 1 civilization uses all the energy falling on a planet from its star.
A Class 2 civilization uses all the energy output of its star.
A Class 3 civilization uses all the energy output of a galaxy.
We are Class 1 minus. Our total energy budget is about 1/10,000 of the solar energy available from the Sun.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#:~
For example, to become a Class 2 civilization we would need to build a Dyson Sphere around the Sun.
This would trap all its visible output. The waste heat would be radiated as infrared from the outside of the sphere. The James Webb Telescope would see such a Class 2 civilization as an object radiating the energy output of a G type star at infrared wavelengths, but not in visible light.The
Similarly a Class 3 civilization would be detectable as a visually dim galaxy radiating mainly in the infrared.
EM,
I can’t see any connection to AGW due to human energy use.
Is there supposed to be one, or are you just trying to avoid the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE?
“This is the most fundamental of all errors…”
What error is that?
Quote me saying “Energy is a ‘technology'” or any such thing.
Quote me ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics.
“to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive.”
All I see here is the usual grasping for something, anything, to bitch about, but coming empty.
Nate, energy is a very difficult problem. In many ways, the solar panel is a step backwards, not forward. They are not cheap, and they have an end-of-life problem where they have progressively less output. They do not require additional expendables in use, but they are only really practical when a battery is involved for nighttime use. The battery is another end-of-life element in the system that stops working after enough cycles. The electric transportation economy needs a better battery that is fully and easily recyclable. Your comparison of moving from horses to cars is actually backwards when used as a political talking point. Horses are renewable energy.
> They are not cheap
Moar magical thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg
Your graph is for utility investment which is different than homeowner or commercial installation, and it does not seem to account for the reduced capacity of solar panels over time. It also shows that natural gas is a good investment. Then, there is this:
“Care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[10] For any given electricity generation technology, LCOE varies significantly from region to region, depending on factors such as the cost of fuel or energy resources such as wind.[5]
Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.[10] In particular, for LCOE to be usable for rank-ordering energy-generation alternatives, caution must be taken to calculate it in “real” terms, i.e. including adjustment for expected inflation.”
” In many ways, the solar panel is a step backwards, not forward.”
Nah. Clean renewable energy acquired. No fuel to be mined, transported, no emission of pollutants, except for manufacture, which as been shown to be a small fraction per unit energy generated compared to others.
“They are not cheap, and they have an end-of-life problem where they have progressively less output.”
Yes they are cheap, on $/GWh basis, compared to other types of power plants. Much cheaper than Nuclear. Better than coal. Closing in on Gas.
“They do not require additional expendables in use, but they are only really practical when a battery is involved for nighttime use.”
False premise. Solar without storage contributes to the energy mix during peak daylight hours. For homeowners they can sell this energy to the grid which needs it during these hours, so homeowners dont NEED batteries.
Large scale storage would be helpful as the renewable percentage becomes high, but that is in the works, and down the road.
All energy production power plants have a lifespan that is part of their $/GWh
To think that incredulity can power an argument is to believe in magical thinking, Tim.
Perhaps you’d prefer, you might wish to take a look at the Sensitivity to Cost of Capital table:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
And that’s notwithstanding the fact that investments, policies, and infrastructure of the energy industry as a whole are skewed in favor of fossil fuels.
You misread the figure, BTW. It’s for solar panels in general.
I am not making the case that solar panels are worthless. I am making the case that the claim of cheap and practical is not true, and comparisons to other technologies such as cars and airplanes do not fit with the problem of producing energy. Already, I have to correct myself that energy is never created, it is converted from one form to a more useful form.
Solar panels need space. It is not possible to compare solar panel cost for a utility company project without including the cost, or at least the value of the land. There was a case several years ago that a solar project in the desert was protested by environmental groups because it would affect desert animals. No type of alternative energy is cheaper or more practical than fossil fuel. There is always a trade-off. Knee-jerk reactionary proposals like the new one to require utilities to install carbon capture are just stupid when the rest of the world is moving forward with projects that will increase world-wide emissions.
> I’m making the case
You’re not making any case, Tim. You’re just arguing by assertion, running around all the Bingo squares.
Solar is cheap. Its main problem is that it’s still relatively new, at least at large scale. And the scale can get bigger, e.g.:
https://theconversation.com/should-we-turn-the-sahara-desert-into-a-huge-solar-farm-114450
There are side effects to such projects, insofar as you believe modulz output. But then you’re skeptical of these, aren’t you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Solar is cheap.” Yeah. Right.
You are mentally deficient.
I can support my assertion. You can’t support yours. That supports mine, don’t you think?
How much does “solar”cost? Where can I buy some? What can I do with it?
Idiot.
> I can support my assertion.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Did you make an assertion?
Where?
Cheers.
Wondering Wee Willy,
I asserted that you are an idiot. Are you proffering comprehension deficit rather than idiocy for your idiotic comment?
Tut, tut – you would appear less than fully functional in either case.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“I asserted that you are an idiot.”
You did?
Where?
What a buffoon!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You are an idiot.
Please stop trolling.
These are not the magic words, Mike, and you evaded another question.
Long live and prosper.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate: “to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive”
What are you guys talking about?
No technological development involved in solar energy collection?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1484559
> Energy is NOT a technology. Energy is reality.
That’s the problem with contrarians.
They still believe in magic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
– Arthur C. Clarke
https://icewind.is/
Idiot.
https://youtu.be/1nqp09nFQZA
There is nothing new about vertical wind turbines.
Next you’re gonna argue that there’s nothing new with fracking because China harnessed gas 500 BC.
Speaking of which:
https://www.quaise.energy/
Next you are going to argue you don’t have a brain. I agree with you.
You’re too kind, Richard dear.
Enjoy:
https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/green-hydrogen
Willard, you are an idiot, linking to “green hydrogen”.
You obviously don’t realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.
The most abundant so-called “greenhouse gas” is, you guessed it, H2O!
Don’t believe me? From Wikipedia –
“The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
Water vapor (H2O)
. . . ”
Gee. Using “green hydrogen” increases the amount of “the most abundant greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere!
Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?
You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.
Keep it up!
Mike Flynn,
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and any sufficiently stupid contrarian is indistinguishable from a crank.
Keep braying!
Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.
You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.
The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!
Dont believe me? From Wikipedia
The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
Water vapor (H2O)
. . .
Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!
Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?
You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.
Keep it up!
Mike, Mike,
You say –
“The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!”
You really have no idea what you’re braying about, don’t you?
What an absolutely useless sock puppet!
Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.
You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.
The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!
Dont believe me? From Wikipedia –
“The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
Water vapor (H2O)
. . .
Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!
Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?
You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.
Keep it up!
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
A lot of irrelevant stuff nobody read.
Doesn’t that bother you?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.
You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.
The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!
Dont believe me? From Wikipedia
The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
Water vapor (H2O)
. . .
Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!
Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?
You might just as well run around making silly masturbatory references. That would be equally idiotic.
Keep it up!
“Willard, you are an idiot”
Yup.
Swenson, RLH
You are both idiots.
Water vapour is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. Add extra water vapour from burning hydrogen and the extra H2O promptly precipitates out again.
Unlike that other GHG, CO2 which accumulates.
“the extra H2O promptly precipitates out again.”
I wondered where Tulare Lake came from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/12/california-ghost-lake-nasa-images
It obviously comes from Ligma:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/chemists-create-artificial-photosynthesis-system-10-times-more-efficient-existing-systems
EM,
You wrote –
“Water vapour is in equilibrium in the atmosphere.”
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere over Antarctica, but it seems there used to be, before the water vapour from somewhere became ice. The extreme example occurred when the surface was above 100 C – all of the water vapour was in the atmosphere.
Equilibrium?
Then you wrote –
“Unlike that other GHG, CO2 which accumulates.”
No it doesn’t. CO2 is plant food. Maybe you don’t realise the CO2 created by burning hydrocarbons comes from plants which have removed CO2 from the atmosphere in times gone by. By the way, you use the term GHG. Does this have some magical significance? Was CO2 responsible for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years?
Powerful stuff, that CO2!
Luckily, humanity is trying hard to restore CO2 levels to a healthy state. If global CO2 levels drop below about 200 ppm, we all die. Plants start to die off.
You sound like you need assistance to rise to the intellectual status of idiot, if you truly believe the fantasies that you write. Even idiots realise that the “greenhouse effect” cannot be described in any way that agrees with reality.
Silly Swenson.The
You remind me of Schiller’s aphorism.
Against stupidity
The gods themselves
Contend in vain
Nate made a strange assertion –
“For homeowners they can sell this energy to the grid which needs it during these hours, so homeowners dont NEED batteries.”
The homeowner still needs to be connected to the grid, does he?
Maybe homeowners face additional charges, too –
“But then she found out about a monthly $5-per-kilowatt solar fee from the state’s largest utility, Alabama Power.” – NPR.
Photovoltaic power may be cost effective or not, depending on circumstances. There may even be some SkyDragon cultists not connected to a power grid, potable water supply, or sewerage system. I don’t know of any, but someone might.
Peasant subsistence farmers depend on solar and wind power – working from sunup to sundown, and utilizing wind for winnowing grain, etc. Not my choice of lifestyle. Give me reliable electricity, pressurized potable water, and sewerage, and I’m a happy chappy.
“Green energy groups say this solar fee is a key reason why, according to Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association, Alabama comes in 48th out of 50 states in residential solar capacity. (North Dakota and South Dakota trail Alabama).”
Obviously Alabama is a deep red state, and it can be deduced that for political reasons it has no desire to encourage solar.
“Some might claim that the migration to states with warmer temperatures has more to do with economic opportunity than with temperature. But who creates economic opportunity? People. And where do people choose to live? Where the weather is warmer.”
Except for Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and some others, which were below average in population growth. Probably because of lack of economic and educational opportunities in those states.
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states/
On a personal notes, I’ve lived in Houston, and visited Florida many times. Their heat AND humidity is not appealing.
Up North some would rather avoid the cold in January and February and stay inside.
But I’ve spent time in Dallas in July and August, with many days exceeding 100. Few people want to spend time outside.
The few that can afford to be Snowbirds have the right idea.
“On a personal notes, Ive lived in Houston, and visited Florida many times. Their heat AND humidity is not appealing.”
I tend to agree.
But it could be something you can adapt to- and I rather not adapt.
When I first move to LA, it took quite a long time to adapt, but wasn’t constant thing, just some times, the heat and humidity was uncomfortable. Now, I would say there are even rarer times, where there very high humidity conditions that are noticeable- or I would think this must be what it’s like living in Houston or Florida is like {and didn’t like it}.
Generally I would say it’s mostly UHI effect.
But in terms of this “even rarer times” event, it was not UHI effect but rather was a freak weather effect, lasting about a day or so, which wasn’t particularly warm, but very humid.
Anyways, an interesting question is does global warming, cause more
Houston and Florida?
Well, first, there large differences within Houston and Florida- I know there is large difference within LA county {though it a big county- ranging from high desert to beach areas] and the biggest effect in regards Houston and Florida [or LA] is the UHI effects.
One aspect related to UHI effects, is human population and poorly built urban areas. And it’s possible we could build ocean settlements- low income and everyone can live on the beach- without the current problems of living on a beach.
And we have latest problem, which people are increasing becoming more aware of, which is human populations are going to crash.
Govts have proven they can’t do anything about CO2 emissions, and they going to prove they can not do anything to about a crashing populations.
But what is global warming. It’s warming our cold 3.5 average temperature, ocean. Or more directly, it’s warming the average ocean surface temperature which about 17 C.
Which about 26 C in tropics and about 11 C in 60% of the rest of world’s ocean. Or if 60% was 12 C [or more] you get global increase in surface air temperature- which means on land, a higher average nighttime temperature which in turn increase the average daytime temperature.
I suppose in short term, what will mostly likely cause global temperature increase is the weather effects from a strong El Nino.
That seems to be what is hoped for.
This is an interesting post from Dr. Spencer. Especially with the evidence from UAH that temps aren’t anywhere near *catastrophic* or *unprecedented*.
My experience has been that the preference for warmth comes with age. Senior citizens tend to prefer warmer winters, as opposed to shoveling snow. Younger folks see cold and snow as recreational opportunities — skiing, snowmobiling, ice skating, etc. My older relatives either lived in the South, or found ways to vacation there in winters.
> evidence from UAH that temps aren’t anywhere near *catastrophic* or *unprecedented*.
I thought UAH dated back to 1979, Pup.
Also, how can a time series provide any evidence about impacts?
Ten years trolling this website and you learned NOTHING.
I get ineffective flak from worthless willard, and I wasn’t even trying!
Shows how effective I am.
Pup is so EFFECTIVE that he can’t even rally Bordo to his cause:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484752
How much FUN must he have trolling this website daily for the last ten years under various socks.
Just one more medal I graciously accept.
So MuCh FuN:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484779
Episode 2106 Scott Adams: Trump Changed Everything On CNN, Migrant Surge, Economy, Twitter CEO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQE9ZB4FHbk
“Trump ended the war, with just interview”
Yeah, …sort of.
Moving forward: Ukraine claims gains on Bakhmut front
“Russia acknowledged its forces had fallen back north of the ruined eastern city in a retreat the head of Russias Wagner private army called a rout.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/13/moving-forward-ukraine-claims-gains-on-bakhmut-front
I remain unconvinced that solar panels are either cheap or practical for the long run. The end-of-life problem remains that at least 4% of panels in use have to be replaced each year. More than 50 years ago there was a movie called The Graduate. Dustin Hoffman was encouraged to work in plastics because they are the future. Now, there is a huge waste problem with plastics, and they are discouraged. There may be a similar problem brewing for solar panels and batteries.
https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
“it costs an estimated $20$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1$2.”
Cut and paste problem”
it costs an estimated $20 to $30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1 to $2.
> I remain unconvinced
Pardon me for asking, Tim, but who cares what you believe or not?
I’m glad that you finally saw the hippie light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
It’s really hard to outcompete fossil fuels in a race to the waste bottoms.
Weary Wee Willy,
Only 47 dead? A mere bagatelle.
Much better to ban fertilizer, wouldn’t you think? Terrible stuff – creates “ships of death”. Here’s a US example –
“The Texas City disaster is generally considered the worst industrial accident in U.S. history. Witnesses compared the scene to the fairly recent images of the 1943 air raid on Bari and the much larger devastation after an atomic bomb was dropped at Nagasaki. [] Official casualty estimates came to a total of 567.”
Or ban motor cars – about 50,000 deaths per annum in the US.
Fossil fuels? Just carbon and hydrogen in plant remains. All natural and organic – no harmful chemicals added by dirty filthy money-grubbing humans.
I like cheap electricity, running potable water, and sewerage. If you can provide me with these for less than I currently pay, please let me know.
Mike Flynn,
You stupidly go all in –
“ships of death”
That’s not ships of death. Here are ships of death:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
Is this all you got, silly sock puppet?
Witless Wee Willy,
Do you realise that explosives are designed to “explode”?
In relation to your comment “Its really hard to outcompete fossil fuels in a race to the waste bottoms.”, you have just reinforced my contention that it is quite easy, when the best you can offer in your original “fossil fuel” comment is 47 lives lost!
I even tried to help by pointing out that motor vehicles kill about 50,000 people per annum in the US, but you would probably whine that some were due to electric vehicles which only used fossil fuels to charge their batteries!
Anyway, your stupid attempts at diversionary trolling can’t disguise the fact that neither you nor your associated crowd of dimwits and idiots can produce a valid description of the GHE.
Mike, Mike,
Two plus two equals four.
Four minus four equals zero.
You realize that zero is also the amount of sense you make?
Keep braying.
Willy, Willy, Willy, Willy,
You seem to have lost it completely.
Is it a revelation that two plus two equals four?
Tut, tut, Willy – your trolling attempts get progressively lamer.
Carry on.
So you cannot the facts submitted to you, Moron Mike?
Is it because you are a moron?
Go ahead, prove me that you are not a moron –
How do we call an object with an emissivity of 1, again?
Moron.
Damn Otto Pilot:
> you cannot *refute* the fact
“Fossil fuels? Just carbon and hydrogen in plant remains. All natural and organic no harmful chemicals added by dirty filthy money-grubbing humans.”
Nah, Coal and oil has sulfur, and produces sulfuric acid which burns human lungs.
Coal also has a neurotoxin, Mercury, which gets concentrated in the fish we consume.
And Lead was added by money grubbing humans to gasoline for decades, which ended up in soil and humans everywhere, who lost a few IQ points, some (eg Swenson) more than others.
All natural. Do you realise fossil fuels were created before mankind was?
If you don’t like the way fossil fuels were created, don’t blame me. If you are complaining about impurities, blame the refiners. I would.
Things like water, oxygen, electricity, are all completely lethal if incorrectly used. Are you now saying that you don’t like fossil fuel use because of “toxins”?
Fine, don’t use it. Go and live somewhere where you are not exposed to air (it contains all sorts of harmful substances, viruses, bacteria etc), and don’t drink water. Stop exhaling CO2, if you consider it a pollutant.
I’ll laugh as you worry about what is going to kill you.
Fair enough?
As mentioned toxic Lead was added by humans to gasoline.
The others are natural in FF but still toxic to people, as is snake venom and arsenic.
Just because a thing is natural doesnt mean its good for humans to breathe in or swallow, as most sensible people understand.
“The end-of-life problem remains that at least 4% of panels in use have to be replaced each year.”
Current wholesale price < $1/Watt. @ 2000 h per year in a medium sunny place, @ 25 y, that is 50 KWh generated. So the replacement cost is $1/50 KWh or $6/Million BTU.
In 25 years, the replacements will be cheaper.
Consider Natural Gas. "United States' electricity producers paid about 4.98 U.S. dollars per million British thermal unit for natural gas in 2021."
Only about 33% of that is electricity output. So $15/MBTU = $15/300 kWh.
Compare to $6/MBTU for solar panel replacement.
All power plants need maintenance and upgrades to expensive hardware, not sure why you think only solar has an issue.
And there is an environmental cost for all energy sources. The question is what is the relative cost.
Numbskull Nate,
And of course you have no answers whatsoever.
All you can do is state the blindingly obvious, and whine and whine about it.
Very useful – not!
Since you are not trolling or posing a ridiculous strawman question, I will answer. Once again, I will state that solar panels are not worthless, but they are not cheap and practical either.
Energy is a difficult problem. Even after people come to their senses and we get started on a competent nuclear power program, solar panels will still have a place. They work really well in remote areas were there are no wires, but that is another problem. Transporting solar electricity from New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas deserts to New York is a difficult problem.
Another point is that an oil refinery or natural gas power plant costs a lot of money, but the metal is easily recycled. They produce very little solid waste over time. Refineries produce byproducts such as ammonia which is used for fertilizer (injected into the ground as a gas), coke (dirty carbon) which is either refined or sold overseas for fuel, and sulfur which gets dumped into huge stockpiles in some countries, but sold really cheap in this country as raw sulfur or sulfuric acid.
Intelligent and rational people are already discussing the need for standardized nuclear breeder reactor designs of various sizes. Just like most refineries, one big expense in a nuclear plant is the massive engineering and design effort for so much unique and custom equipment and plant layout. Admittedly, there is also a very high construction cost because so much inspection and testing is need for QC.
” Intelligent and rational people are already discussing the need for standardized nuclear breeder reactor designs of various sizes. ”
Really?
I would rather say: intelligent and rational people are aware of the problems that arise from nuclear breeder reactors.
Such reactors were designed and implemented in France decades ago.
First, they generate even more nuclear waste than conventional nuclear power plants because of the extensive blanket reprocessing that must be carried out in addition to the reprocessing of the fuel rods.
All known breeders produced plutonium-239 from uranium-238 bombarded by high-energy neutrons in such blankets placed around the core.
The higher energy neutrons generate much more heat and therefore require a more complex primary cooling system than traditional pressurized water technology.
The only technique known so far is liquid sodium.
A breeder reactor with a capacity of over 1 GW like the French Superphnix requires over 5,000 tons of liquid sodium operating at 800 C.
This reactor clearly demonstrated that no metal alloy could truly withstand a material as aggressive as liquid sodium when subjected to such extreme temperatures during longer periods.
To start Pu239 generation from U238 you need fuel rods containing Pu239 because the neutrons produced by U235 fission are not strong enough.
Such MOX fuel rods, in which Pu239 and U235 are mixed, already exist and have been used in conventional nuclear power plants for a long time: the delay in reprocessing requires significantly longer rod cooling phases after use.
*
Surprisingly, breeders that convert thorium-232 to uranium-233 have been very en vogue for quite some time, although no reactor based on this technique has ever shown success in the last 60 years.
The main problem with generating U233 from Th232 is that one cannot avoid the cogeneration of U232, which is not only known to be non-fissile but also highly toxic; There is currently no technology that separates U232 and U233.
*
Breeding is a dead end.
As is D+T (deuterium plus tritium) based fusion, because while deuterium is present in oceans (approximately 25,000 Gt), tritium does not exist on Earth and must be breeded from lithium blankets to which beryllium is added for additional neutron flux.
The neutrons generated by D+T are even more aggressive than those used in 4G breeders.
Other fusion candidates require much longer plasma heating and confinement times than D+T.
*
Come back to us when all these problems will be really solved…
I forgot one tiny detail.
At the time of its conception in the 1970s, the cost of dismantling Superphénix was estimated at 300 million French francs (about US$ 50 million).
After US$ 10 billion was invested in the operation and the sodium cooling problems worsened, the reactor was decommissioned in 1997 and the dismantling costs were then estimated at US$ 1.5 billion.
The dismantling began in 2007 and should originally last until 2027. In 2017, as far as I remember, the neutralization of the extremely aggressive sodium was not yet complete. The date for the end of the work was no longer spoken of as the 2030s :–)
If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. He could corner the market. What could go wrong?
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bill-gates-future-nuclear-energy-ai/story?id=99160110
https://www.terrapower.com/
Bindidon,
China intends to build more coal fired power plants, not nuclear.
India, with about the same population, intends to build more nuclear power plants, not coal fired.
About 2.8 billion people between them.
Which country is proceeding down the correct path?
Do you have an alternative? Do you think either country (or any of their 2.8 billion inhabitants) really gives a brass razoo for your opinions?
Feel free to let me know your relevant opinions. Or just complain and whine in general.
Have you figured out how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years with more CO2 in the atmosphere than now? That might seem a bit contradictory to anybody but a delusional SkyDragon cultist, don’t you think?
Oh… chattering stalker Flynsson once again has nothing relevant to say but, as always, urges something unimportant to say.
Will that never end?
Binny,
You can’t commit yourself to anything at all?
Not prepared to declare you believe in anything?
Maybe you could try describing the GHE in some valid way – that would everyone a good laugh.
Or you could keep whining and complaining about how pathetic you are, being picked on by figments of your imagination.
What’s your choice, Binny?
Tim S
” If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. ”
If this is all you are able to say about such a complex matter, then we don’t need to discuss further: you belong to the Robertson / Clint R / Flynnson poster class.
Some of you are so busy trolling each other you completely missed my sarcastic comment:
“If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. He could corner the market. What could go wrong?”
Bill Gates is a very clever businessman, but he is not someone you would rely on for important information. In fact, one should assume that everything he says and does is a matter of self interest. That includes includes his foundation and his association with that creepy guy who had a private island.
If that comment was sarcastic, TS, that would mean that your previous one was sarcastic too.
You may have little honour, but at least you feed my Climateball Bingo.
Thanks for that.
“Once again, I will state that solar panels are not worthless, but they are not cheap and practical either.”
Coal was initially cheap and practical, but it has great environmental costs, and is no longer that cheap and practical.
In 1930, one could have said building Hoover Dam is not going to be cheap or practical. In fact it was quite a challenge. But it worked. And now we know there are environmental costs.
Before we had the natural gas pipeline network, one could have said hauling gas around by train or truck makes it not cheap or practical. But the pipeline network was built, incrementally, and with govt support.
When we started building nuclear, with lots of govt support, we probably thought this is going to be the cheap and practical solution.
Nuclear is useful, but it certainly has an unsolved waste issue, and costs. Right now, not cheap or practical. Might be again.
It was true that solar was not cheap or practical 30 years ago. Same for wind. Off shore wind seems not cheap or practical, yet.
I suggest that as part of the current energy mix, solar is evidently cheap and practical, as is land-based wind. Whether they will dominate in the future remains to be seen.
It may require a yet to be built gravity storage network, and long distance power transmission lines. We have to try it incrementally, and allow better solutions to develop, to see if it is going to be cheap and practical.
For most countries which use coal {and a lot do} coal is still
cheap:
“Nigeria’s Coal Market Report 2023 – Prices, Size, Forecast …
What is the average export price for coal in Nigeria? In 2021, the average coal export price amounted to $68 per ton, remaining stable against the previous year.”
Europe:
“Benchmark European thermal coal prices remained close to historic highs throughout 2022 on sustained higher use across the continent, averaging roughly $285 per tonne for the year, compared with about $115 a tonne in 2021”
I would guess it’s due supply and demand, and can’t import natural
gas from Russia. Pipeline natural gas can be quite cheap.
In US it’s less than $40 per ton.
And China imports at cost of $165.50 per ton, the cheapest it’s been
since beginning of 2022. And if generating electrical at where you
mine coal it cost a lot less- which is done in US and in China- and I know Germany does that- it imports the electrical power where coal is
mined and made into electrical [low quality coal, but cheap coal]. With US, low quality coal is not mineable- but lots higher quality coal in US.
And yet Coal: “but it has great environmental costs”.
Will temperatures surprise in the Northeast?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
> Admittedly, there is also a very high construction cost because so much inspection
If only TS could be 10% as serious as he portrays himself.
Nukes immobilize Very Big capital for generations:
V. World Nuclear Association’s website.
Wavering Wee Willy,
The Indian Government is proposing to build many more nuclear plants.
They seem to be ignoring your comments. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe you could send a letter to each of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of India, telling them how clever you are.
How many do you think might agree with you?
Inept and powerless troll – that’s all you are.
Mike Flynn,
India will indeed increase its nukes by half. From 3% nukes should produce under 5% of Indian energy. India will then have two thirds of Murican capacity. A great feat, considering that it needs to import uranium. But then it also needs to import gas.
The new nukes will cost them between 3 to 4M per MW. Some of the cash has been put forward by Russian banks. Would you have taken that deal, and are you stupid enough to suggest that they should go all in on fusion?
Long live and prosper.
Weird Wee Willy,
Do you have a point?
I repeat “They seem to be ignoring your comments. Why is that, do you think?” pointing out that your influence is precisely zero.
Does anybody at all value your opinions? It would seem not, but if you feel like producing evidence to the contrary, go ahead.
I can always use an extra good laugh, on top of the never-ending supply you deliver.
Go for it, Willard.
Moron Mike,
Yes, I do have a point.
Do you?
Repeating your inanities will not make them relevant.
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Yes, I do have a point.”
Sure you do, Willard, sure you do.
You’re just going to keep it secret, and not tell anybody what it is, aren’t you you?
Do you think that will make you look clever, or make you look like a delusional SkyDragon cultist idiot?
The world wonders.
Why would I waste my time stating the obvious, Moron Mike?
Do you keep repeating the same things over and over again because you are a moron?
Moron.
An interesting post would be a graphic of the global temperatures and then showing a 1-degree shift. Basically, we may lose NYC but we gain all of Siberia to grow crops, we would have unlimited fresh water with the melting of the iceland and Greenland glaciers, more land would become inhabitable. Anyone thinking that global warming would cause starvation doesn’t even understand the basics. Much of the Earth’s landmass in uninhabitable. Michigan getting the climate of Ohio is a good thing, Ohio getting the climate of Tennesee is a good thing. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
There’s a problem with your suggestion that global warming g will create an increase in uninhabitable land.
The classic Mercator projection world map distorts the areas of countries, making higher latitudes look bigger.
On an equal areas projection like Gall-Peters you can see that high latitudes contain less land area than you think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection#/media/File%3AGall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg
Overall global warming will make more tropical land area uninhabitable than it will make high latitude land habitable.
We’ll lose more habitable land than we’ll gain.
I hate autocorrection. That should have been
“Theres a problem with your suggestion that global warming will create an increase in habitable land.”
“An interesting post would be a graphic of the global temperatures and then showing a 1-degree shift. ”
The temperature gradient between equator and poles averages 30C over 6000 miles.
Your map of global temperature contours would show that 1C of warming would move each contour by 6000/30=200 miles further from the Equator.
Lapse rate is 9C/kilometre. IC of warming would raise vertical temperature contours by 110 metres, about 360 feet.
What does this look like on the ground? The boreal forest is moving northwards as it’s northern edge encroaches into the tundra. It’s southern edge is being colonised by temperate forest species where rainfall allows near the coasts, and the trees are dying or burning to be replaced by prairie in drier areas.
The Midwest grain belt is extending North, but the Southern edge is getting too hot.The
Treelines are moving higher up mountain slopes. Cold climate species such as ptarmigan surviving on mountains in Scotland are going to disappear as the mountain tops get too warm for them.
Deadlines are
We are living in the Holocene interglacial period.
We are living between glaciation periods- we are in a very long
ice age.
Thousands of years ago, the Holocene was much warmer than the present
time. For thousands of years global temperature was above 15 C and sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
And the Holocene was not as warm as past interglacial periods, which had periods of thousands of year where sea level were more the 4 meter higher and global average temperature were 17 C or warmer.
The last interglacial period is called:
“The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian Stage, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, penultimate, Valdivia or Riss-Wrm)”
The Eemian during it’s warmest time {peak temperature- which lasted thousands of years} had ocean with average temperature of about 4 C [or more].
More than 90% of global warming is warming our present ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
In past times when ocean was 4 C or warmer, there was less deserts on
Earth and Sahara Desert had many people living in it, and it was mostly grass lands with rivers and lakes and forests which no longer exist. The desertification of Sahara began about 5000 years ago, and global temperature have gradually lowering over last 5000 years.
All past glaciation periods “started” after the peak temperatures of the interglacial period and has always been a gradual cooling which eventually leads ice sheets on the North American continents [and other continents] and ice sheets wax and wane, until one reaches glacial maxinium, which then has rapid global warming and peak interglacial period.
The last glacial maximum:
“The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers covered approximately: 8% of Earth’s surface.”
I have explained why I think this happens, and many other have tried to explain it. But everyone agrees it’s related to changes in Earth’s orbit- which is called the Milankovitch cycles.
Anyhow, the ice sheets are only about 8% of Earth’s surface, but they
are only on land, and land is only about 30% of Earth surface.
Or in terms of land it’s about 25% of land area and most land area in in the northern hemisphere.
Currently, more than 30% of land area is desert area. So, one gets 25% of ice sheets and more desert area then we have now. Or total around 50% of land area, which you call frozen waste land.
But humans are quite clever, and they could transform these wasteland- there is one huge advantage- there is a lot frozen water on the land.
But we had the industrial Revolution and now we in the Space Age/information Age. And we currently attempting to explore the lunar polar region to see if there is mineable water. Then we going to explore Mars, and also see if there is mineable water.
We exploring the lunar polar regions, because in 1998, water was detected in the moon’s polar region {I was very excited at that time]. But it really was not particularly unexpected- in 1962, some NASA guy mentioned this was possible- but humans very good at ignoring things. Also it was long considered “likely” that Mercury’s polar region had ice {a lot more than we generally think our Moon has]. Mercury btw, is the shortest distance to Earth, when using hohmann transfer- it’s 104.5 days. Easy to flyby, very hard to get into orbit around Mercury {or land on it’s surface- which has never been done}. Messenger did orbit it, and another mission is still going to try to orbit Mercury. Mercury is interesting planet- that we don’t much about, but in terms delta-v which requires changes in vector [hohmann isn’t about changing vectors- it’s adding or removing for the vector, but not changing the direction of vector. Example of change direction of vector, is if you want to go to Geostationary orbit, from 28 degree latitude, you have 28 degrees inclination of orbit, and need something close to zero inclination orbit. There number ways to solve this, but “easiest” is to launch from equator so you don’t have change it].
Anyways, some might wonder why we explore the Moon during Apollo Program. The reason is it wasn’t about exploring the Moon, Apollo was race to land humans on the Moon- Cold War PR reasons which worked quite well- and was factor in starting the global warming cargo cult.
I thinking of climate question- what was the temperature of Sahara Desert, during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)?
No one can answer what Venus temperature would be if it was at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
And I had easier question which no one could answer, but I am thinking the above question should be quite easy, assuming someone knew anything about global climate.
Google gets first hit:
“Abstract
We present a new reconstruction of Mediterranean sea surface temperatures (SST) during the last glacial maximum (LGM). A calibration data set based on census counts of 23 species of planktonic foraminifera in 129 North Atlantic and 145 Mediterranean core top samples was used to develop summer, winter and annual average SST reconstructions using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and the revised analogue method (RAM). Prediction errors determined by cross-validation of the calibration data set ranged between 0.5 and 1.1 C, with both techniques being most successful in predicting winter SSTs. Glacial reconstructions are based on a new, expanded data set of 273 samples in 37 cores with consistent minimum level of age control.
The new LGM reconstructions suggest that the eastwest temperature gradient during the glacial summer was 9 C, whereas during the glacial winter, the gradient was 6 C, both some 4 C higher than that existing today. In contrast to earlier studies, our results tend to suggest much cooler SST estimates throughout the glacial Mediterranean, particularly in the eastern basin where previous SST reconstructions indicated a decrease of only 1 C.
….”
[I will look for others- and I will also read this more.]
grr,:
ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379104002124
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379104002124
“India set to launch next lunar mission. India’s space agency is targeting July for the launch of its Chandrayaan 3 mission to the Moon on a Launch Vehicle Mark-3 rocket, DNA reports. The first edition of ISRO’s Moon missions, Chandrayaan 1, was launched in 2008 and was successfully inserted into the lunar orbit of the Moon. Chandrayaan 2 was launched in 2019, but its lander had crash-landed on the lunar surface due to a software glitch.
Launch in less than two months … Chandrayaan 3 will have a lander and a rover, just like Chandrayaan 2, with the hope of better luck this time in the landing process. The project has a budget of about $80 million and, on the current timeline, will launch in the first week of July. (submitted by Ken the Bin)”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/rocket-report-spacex-hits-success-milestone-vulcan-to-resume-testing/
$80 million dollars to land on the Moon is quite cheap.
The lunar Prospector orbiter was considered very cheap and it
was, wiki:
“The Lunar Prospector mission was the third mission selected by NASA for full development and launch as part of NASA’s Discovery Program. Total cost for the mission was $63 million including development ($34 million), launch vehicle (~$25 million) and operations (~$4 million).”
And lander is a lot harder than something that orbits- and it’s both orbiter and lander.
Though Prospector did work, the first time:)
Also from article:
“Ranking the UK launch companies. The website Orbital Today has published a ranking of six launch companies in the United KingdomSkyrora, Lockheed Martin, SmallSpark, Astraius, Newton Launch Systems, and Orbex. “This is a way to keep tabs on what these companies are doing, and how they are developing new technologies and craft that will turn the UK into a hotbed of space launch activity!” the list author wrote excitedly. I’ll be honest, I have never heard of some of these companies. And the only one I feel fairly confident will ultimately reach orbit is Lockheed, which is partnering with ABL Space to launch the RS1 rocket from the SaxaVord. Both companies are also based in the United States.”
—The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.
The Chapter topics are:
No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
Measuring global surface temperature
Controversial Snow Trends
Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
Misty climate sensitivity
AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
Extreme scenarios
A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
Extreme views on disasters
Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven
—
https://judithcurry.com/
“With regards to IPCC AR6s error ridden assessment of extreme weather events, see also this analysis by Roger Pielke Jr that demonstrated egregious errors in incorrectly reporting the conclusions from papers that were actually cited by the IPCC.
With regards to ignoring natural climate variability, Chapters 1 (mid-Holocene), 2 (Hockey Stick) and 6 (the sun) are excellent.”
And nearer the bottom:
–JC reflections
The CLINTEL Report provides a much needed critical evaluation and intellectual counterpoint to the IPCC AR6.
There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report, but there is also a lot of cherry picking and flat out errors in the Report (the AR6 WG2 Report is just flat out bad). With any kind of serious review, or if the author teams have been sufficiently diverse, we would not see so many of these kinds of errors. Unfortunately, the IPCC defines diversity in terms of gender, race and developed versus underdeveloped countries; actual diversity of thought and perspective is dismissed in favor of promoting the politically mandated narrative from the UN. —
You might also like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/05/08/clintel-report-bingo/
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wouldn’t be linking to the site run by your delusional buddy Ken Rice, would you? Only joking, of course you would!
Do you think that Ken Rice merely repeating criticism of the hockey stick, unreliability of models etc., is supposed to make people question those criticisms?
By the way, is Climate Bingo an attempt to revive your silly Climateball, hoping that it won’t attract the same lack of interest? Good luck with that. I suggest if you are actually aiming for comedic effect, that you don’t give up your day job.
Have you found a description of the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling? No?
Colour me unsurprised.
But now 2 out of 3 satellite agree one with the other, UAH and STAR agree. RSS is now the outlier.
Mike Moron Flynn,
No, I am linking to a post written by an astrophysicist.
Why are you now self-employed when you worked for 30 years in the oil and gas industry?
“There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report,…”
Hmm.
–Foreword
It is unequivocal that human activities have heated our climate.
Recent changes are rapid, intensifying, and unprecedented over
centuries to thousands of years. With each additional increment of
warming, these changes will become larger, resulting in long-lasting,
irreversible implications, in particular for sea level rise.
…–
It does seem that humans have cause the sea level to rise- at least by some small amount.
But I don’t think humans have warmed our cold 3.5 C, ocean, much.
Even the underwater nuclear blasts, didn’t do much.
“…Unless deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
occur in the coming decades, global warming of 1.5 C and 2 C above
pre-industrial levels will be exceeded during the 21st century.”
It’s not clear what the global temperature was during “pre-industrial”, and it’s possible our current average global temperature of about 15 C is already 1.5 C warmer.
It has been claimed that 20th century average global temperature was about 14 C, and it seems to me, it was cooler before the 20 century.
Or having lived during 20th century, it seems they didn’t know the global temperature was back then, and more likely did not know what was before the 20th century. And it seems we don’t even know exactly how cold it is, now.
Our satellite measurement, doesn’t indicate much warming, lately.
And using such a term as pre-industrial lacks clarity- or is actually, profoundly unscientific.
I am going read more, and see what Judith means by “a lot good material”.
Response of the climate system relative to 18501900
Pg 106 of 2409
Today, +1.1 C 1.5 C
{today, 2020 AD}:
Temperature: +1.2 C 1.9 C
Hottest day in
a decade (+C)
Drought: x 1.7 x 2
A drought that used to occur
once in a decade now
happens x times more
Precipitation: x 1.3 x 1.5
What used to be a wettest
day in a decade now
happens x times more
Snow cover extent: -1% -5%
change (%)
Tropical cyclones:
Proportion of intense tropical
cyclones (%) 10%
We got get to 0.3 plus add .4 C
Or get to highest year temperature, stay that high.
1.5 C = +0.7 [average]
Th El Nino of 1878 is considered by experts to be the same/similar to others that are more recent.
The 1878 Eo Nino precedes the start of systematic measurement in 1880.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.txt
The first recorded El Nino in 1882 peaked at anomaly 0.16C on the 1951-1980 baseline(14.0C). That is a true temperature of 14.16C.
The 2016 El Nino peaked at anomaly 1.37C, a true temperature of 15.37C.
Please explain how 14.16C is the same as 15.37C.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nino?”
Boyin Huang, Michelle LHeureux, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Xungang Yin, and Huai-Min Zhang
Don’t take my word? Do you believe the ‘experts’?
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
“Please explain how 14.16C is the same as 15.37C.”
RLH can’t explain it.
Nor can he explain why he thinks large El Ninos in the 1800s somehow falsify AGW.
“Please explain how 14.16C”
Please explain how 14.16C is associated with the 1878 El Nino?
“Nor can he explain why he thinks large El Ninos in the 1800s somehow falsify AGW”
Maximums are not important for AGW, apparently.
How so?
Nate do you think that the El Ninos represent a maximum for T in the tropical Pacific?
Do you also accept that the ‘experts’ think that the El Nino of 1878 is similar to those that occurred more recently (see paper quoted above).
Richard still forgets to comment on the last sentence of that article he keeps peddling.
Willard demonstrates that he is unable to read the thread.
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
is the last line of the papers conclusion I quoted.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483059
Does a bathtub curve mean anything to you?
Willard: Please see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1485795 for a comprehensive list of probable El Ninos.
Richard still forgets to comment on the last sentence of that article he keeps peddling:
He also forgets to tell which numbers between 1877, 1982, 1997 and 2015 stands out and why.
Willard: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1485795
Willard cannot read
1977-78, 1880, 1865, 1888-89, 1891, 1896-97 and 1899-1900
1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 and 1997-1998.
2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. July 2009-May 2010
edit: 1877-78
So Richard disputes his own authority, but won’t say it because he does not have the fortitude or the competence to do so.
Willard won’t admit he is an idiot. (Read the paper and see).
Once again Richard is biting more than he can chew:
Op. Cit.
Willard hasn’t heard of a bathtub curve.
If the 1877/78 El Nino is indeed among the strongest, it may suggest that the warming climate has not necessarily enhanced the ENSO amplitude (Enfield 1988; Quinn and Neal 1995; Grove 1998; Rsnen et al. 2016; Singh et al. 2018).
“El Nino/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871
as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO
index (MEI.ext)”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2336
“The most extreme El Nio events (18771878, 19821983, and 19971998) occurred at the beginning and end of the 135-year record”
Mind reading again, Willard?
Tut, tut.
What are you braying about, Moron Mike?
Our cycle nut has very selective concerns for data.
“Nate do you think that the El Ninos represent a maximum for T in the tropical Pacific?”
An all time maximum? Doubtful. Why can’t it happen in 1878?
Witless Wee Willy,
You don’t seem to realise that El Nino, and similarly named phenomena, are just names given to a group of historical temperature observations.
Historical observations have no power to affect anything at all, contrary to the delusional thinking of SkyDragon cultists.
Primitive societies thought things like lightning and thunder were due to gods who needed to be placated. Modern societies are not much better. ENSO, El Nino, La Nina, PDO and all the rest, are just observations – nothing more, nothing less. No two sets of observations are even the same – just like no two clouds are ever the same. Chaos in action.
Luckily, there are simple souls such as yourself, who are too dim to accept reality, and give people like me much amusement.
Keep it up.
“Based on the estimated uncertainties, the differences among the strength of these four major El Nio events are not statistically significant.”
Again, RLH, unless you can show that AGW predicts this cannot happen, this is a red herring, a nothingburger.
All El Nino, not just this one. Mind you, as others have pointed out, 1878 was well before humans could have influenced climate.
Just to make sure, Richard, are you suggesting that one single El Nino event can influence climate, which is a 30y average? I thought you were trying to argue the other way around, i.e. AGW does not make El Ninos stronger.
If you could keep your red herrings straight, that would be great.
“AGW predicts” that CO2 is not important for climate. You heard it here first from Nate.
Willard: What I am observing is that maximums are not dependent on CO2. According to you and Nate.
“AGW predicts that CO2 is not important for climate. You heard it here first from Nate.”
Quote me saying that, troll.
Still waiting for you to shows us any relevance of the 1878 El Nino to climate change.
Richard: do you realize this is not Roy’s monthly death thread?
Nate:
Do you agree
1. That the 1878 El Nino happened?
2. That in 1878 CO2 was not that important?
3. That the 1878 El Nino caused (or was part of) world wide high temperatures, droughts and deaths?
Willard doesn’t like facts.
Richard has no courage.
Willard just doesnt like facts.
> Famine had been a recurrent feature of life in the South Asian subcontinent countries of India and Bangladesh, most notoriously under British rule. Famines in India resulted in more than 30 million deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Famines in British India were severe enough to have a substantial impact on the long-term population growth of the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
I wonder if Richard has any colonial ancestor or relative.
RLH, El Ninos have been happening for presumably a long time, with varying strengths. Sometimes they are strong.
Same can be said for other regional weather phenomena, Droughts, Monsoons, Hurricanes, etc.
Also, globally, there has been a long term warming trend.
These things have not been shown by you or anyone else to be mutually exclusive.
Willard talks as though India was the world.
“Also, globally, there has been a long term warming trend.”
Only if you start your data in the 1900s.
Richard wishes to forget that his own government once was as conservative as he is.
Its laissez-faire policies killed millions of people.
Richard wishes to downplay the human decisions that led to millions of deaths.
Humans decisions related to his political philosophy and perhaps his own ancestors.
Willard doesn’t like data which confronts his illusions.
“From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/
Richard does not read his own sources:
> El Nio didnt work alone in generating the Great Famine. Singh and her colleagues found evidence of exceptional conditions in the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well.
Op. cit.
A combination of natural factors caused the 1878 event, not CO2 at all, as I have observed before.
RLH seems blissfully unaware that droughts and famines have happened throughout history.
Is he claiming that they shouldnt have existed before CO2 rose? Why?
RLH suggests large El Ninos should not have happened in the past before CO2 rose, but he can cite no evidence nor anyone claiming this is a prediction of AGW.
He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic, the theory is falsified, but can cite no evidence nor anyone claiming this is a prediction of AGW.
He is grasping at straws.
Nate seems blissfully unaware that a combination of natural factors caused the 1878 event, not CO2 at all, as I have observed before.
“He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic”
No I don’t. Nate just wants it to be true that maximums (El Nino) are not dependent on CO2.
He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic
No I dont.”
Then what is your point, if any, that has relevance to AGW?
> the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
The formation of the long-dormant Tulare Lake was the product of an extraordinarily wet winter, culminating with a series of big storms in March.
The basins many dams, canals, levees and ditches normally contain the water that runs out of the Sierra and into the valley, but this year it was too much. The lakebed, which is mostly farmland with the exception of a few communities like Corcoran, has subsequently flooded. Earlier this month, more than 100,000 acres was under water.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/newsom-tulare-lake-levee-18094733.php
It will continue to rain in California.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/19/0400Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-117.93,44.10,490
It’s always amazing to see that while Coolists (and among them, especially those who claim not to be) always switch to MEI when NOAA’s Nino3+4 no longer is lanina-ish enough, they suddenly come back to the Nino3+4 temperatures when MEI conversely no longer supports their narrative.
This is easy to see in the HadISST1 SST record, by generating time series for the respective regions:
5S-5N — 170W-120W
versus
30S-30N — 70W-100E
While in a descending sort of the Nino3+4 series, the 1877/78 El Nino phase occurs at the top, this is not the case for the MEI series.
*
The major point however is something else.
To say ‘There is no temperature difference in the Nino3+4 region between 1878 and 2016, hence there was no warming in between’ is dumbest cherry-picking.
Simply because we can’t compare what happens within a tiny part of Earth (about 1 %) with the whole figure: this is exactly the same mistake as that made by US people thinking that US temperature evaluations are valid for the Globe.
The maximums do not appear to have changed much in the period since 1878, but that is not important to warmistas like you.
P.S. 1878 was world wide (see elsewhere), not just in the central Pacific.
“a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 1877/1878, when human influence was negligible.”
> the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
RLH
Thanks for the paper.
It gives me enough information to summarise the relationship between late 1800s El Ninos and modern El Ninos.
ENSO produces an approximately +/-0.2C variation either side of the global average for their time.
When the peak temperature is expressed as an anomaly relative to baseline sea surface temperatures at the time the 1887 El Nino is of comparable size to the modern El Ninos. This suggests that the anomaly amplitude of the cycle has not changed significantly over time.
Measured by their effect on peak monthly global temperature modern El Ninos show a peak temperature 1.2_C higher than in the 1880s.
Since the global average has increased by 1.2C since the 1880s you would expect the true temperature of El Nino to increase by a similar amount.
Since this agrees with the conventional global warming narrative I’m glad to see you agreeing with me for once.
So you don’t accept Micelle (and others) conclusions?
edit: Michelle
“The 1877 record-breaking El Nio was accompanied by a record strong Indian Ocean Dipole (1878), and a record warm North Atlantic Ocean (1878), according to Singh et al. (2018). This extraordinary set of events resulted in severe droughts in Asia, Brazil, and Africa, with total human fatalities likely exceeding 50 million (Davis, 2001; Endfield and Nash, 2002; Singh et al., 2018).”
“What may be the greatest El Nio ever identified may have caused record-breaking droughts that helped trigger disastrous famines, likely killing more than 50 million people globally, a new study finds. Moreover, such an extreme El Nio could repeat in the future, scientists added.”
“a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 18771878, when human influence was negligible. The mechanisms explaining this global disturbance are not well established, but there is considerable evidence that the major El Nio episode that started by the end of 1876 and peaked during the 18771878 boreal winter contributed significantly to it. The associated regional climate anomalies were extremely destructive, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, where starvation due to intense droughts in Asia, South-East Asia and Africa took the lives of more than 20 million people. In South America regional precipitation anomalies were typical of El Nio events, with rainfall deficit and droughts in the northern portion of the continent as well as in northeast Brazil and the highlands of the central Andes (Altiplano). In contrast, anomalously intense rainfall and flooding episodes were reported for the coastal areas of southern Ecuador and Northern Per, as well as along the extratropical West coast of the continent (central Chile, 30 S40S), and in the Paran basin in the southeast region. By far the most devastating impacts in terms of suffering and loss of life occurred in the semiarid region of northeast Brazil where several hundreds of thousands of people died from starvation and diseases during the drought that started in 1877.”
“a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 18771878, when human influence was negligible”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/
“Its not easy to forget the deaths of 50 million people, but we have managed it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
Very likely El Nino events from history have so far been identified for:
16th Century: 1500, 1525-26, 1531-32, 1535, 1539-41, 1544, 1546-47, 1552-53, 1558-61, 1565, 1567-68, 1574, 1578-79, 1581-82, 1585, 1587-89, and 1596.
17th Century: 1600-01, 1604, 1607-08, 1618-19, 1621, 1624, 1630-31, 1635, 1641, 1647, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1661, 1671, 1681, 1683-84, 1687-88, 1692, 1694-95 and 1697.
18th Century: 1701, 1703-04, 1707-09, 1713-14, 1715-16, 1718, 1720, 1723, 1725, 1728, 1731, 1734, 1734, 1737, 1744, 1747-48, 1751, 1754-55, 1761-62, 1765-66, 1768-70, 1772-73, 1776-78, 1782-84, 1785-86, 1790-93, 1794-97 and 1799.
19th Century: 1802-04, 1806-07, 1810, 1812, 1814, 1817, 1819, 1821, 1824-25, 1827-28, 1830, 1832-33, 1835-36, 1837-39, 1844-46, 1850, 1852-53, 1857-59, 1860, 1862, 1864, 1865-66, 1867-69, 1977-78, 1880, 1865, 1888-89, 1891, 1896-97 and 1899-1900.
edit: ….1867-69, 1877-78, 1880….
20th Century: 1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 and 1997-1998.
21st Century: 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. July 2009-May 2010
No one knows why you think this one-off weather event has anything to say about Global Warming.
Because the maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance.
RLH
From your link.
“Several factors played a role. The most obvious was a big El Nio in 1877-78. During an El Nio, warm water spreads over the Pacific, releasing heat into the air. This affects weather all around the world, bringing storms to some places and drought to others.
It has been clear since the 1980s that the 1877-78 El Nio was intense. Now we have a lot more data, says Singh. This event was the strongest El Nio that has occurred since the 1850s. Sea surface temperatures remained high for 16 months. That makes it bigger than the huge El Nios of 1997-98 and 2015-16.
A nexus of impacts
But thats not all. In 1877 a second climate cycle, the Indian Ocean Dipole, was active meaning the western Indian Ocean was warmer than the east. This typically weakens Indias monsoons. It was the strongest Indian Ocean Dipole on record, says Singh.
The Atlantic Ocean was also unusually warm from 1877 to 1879. Following the El Nio, it peaked to the most extreme temperatures on record, says Singh.
To determine which factors were significant, the team ran a climate model with the global sea surface temperatures, and with just the Pacific temperatures simulating the El Nio alone. They found they could only explain the droughts using the global pattern, suggesting all three climate cycles were involved. ”
The 1878 famine was caused by a year with three climate cycles peaking at once and giving an extreme temperature peak.
We are now seeing larger peaks every few years without the three cycle amplification. I wonder why?
So a new global SST maximum is not significant?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/earth-in-hot-water-worries-over-sudden-ocean-warming-spike/ar-AA1arfJV?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d17980d25abb46f7e03fe0db1a6e0c6f&ei=37
The maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance i.e. in 1878.
“three cycle amplification”
As in a recent triple year La Nina.
“The regular export of grain by the colonial government continued; during the famine, the viceroy, Lord Robert Bulwer-Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 tons) of wheat, which made the region more vulnerable. The cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.”
The 1878 famine was not just confined to India.
The British Crown is responsible for the death of millions.
“From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”
> El Nio didnt work alone in generating the Great Famine. Singh and her colleagues found evidence of exceptional conditions in the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well.
Op. cit.
“Since the conditions that cooked up the Great Famine arose from natural climatic variation, theres nothing to stop a global drought from recurring.”
Well before CO2 rose in the later part of the 1900s/2000s.
As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
If it gets warmer than 1878, that is probably true.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1486845
the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
“Because the maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance.”
Are you suggesting that a single year regional warm spike has any statistical significance to a century long global warming trend?
Remove the spike, and how much does the trend change? Significantly?
If not significant–and those of us familiar with statistics know that it won’t be–then why should we care?
Are you suggesting that the El Nino of 1878 didn’t happen?
Statistics that include maximums are not significant. You heard it from Nate first.
OK so you’ve nothing to connect this insignificant blip to the Global Warming trend of the last century.
But you are obsessed with it anyway.
“Statistics that include maximums are not significant.”
??
Here is the Global Temp data including 1878.
https://tinyurl.com/u5zephmm
You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878, is ~ 0, much lower than the average today, 0.9.
Are you suggesting that El Nino is not the maximum temperatures in the central Pacific?
“this insignificant blip” that killed 20 million people (or so)?
“The famine occurred at a time when the colonial government was attempting to reduce expenses on welfare. Earlier, in the Bihar famine of 187374, severe mortality had been avoided by importing rice from Burma. The Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple, were criticised for excessive expenditure on charitable relief. Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India, insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[9] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meagre relief rations.”
RLH,
You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878, is ~ 0, much lower than the average today, 0.9.
Are you suggesting that this has not been happening?
Are you suggesting that 20 million people did not die?
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/
“From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”
Off topic, but nice try at distraction..
BTW,
Your attempts to highlight past warming episodes neglects the associated cooling episodes.
“But the extreme El Nio may have been primed by cooler waters in the central tropical Pacific from 1870 to 1876. This prolonged period of coolnessthe longest on the recordmay have led to immense buildup of warm water in the western tropical Pacific. “
“You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878”
where the southern hemisphere oceans T is almost non-existent.
“Off topic”
That was for Willards consumption, not yours.
Nate: BTW
“The team’s findings suggest that the 1876-78 droughts extended far beyond Brazil, India, and China, although that’s where famine struck the hardest.”
Also interesting that you come up with reasons for the large EL Nino that do not include CO2. Looks like it is not the main driver of Global T and drought.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1485797
Speaking of consumption:
> the famine arose from an engineered profit inflation, described by John Maynard Keynes in general terms as a necessary measure for forced transferences of purchasing power from the mass of working people, entailing reduction of their consumption in order to finance abnormal wartime expenditure.
https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/42/special-articles/profit-inflation-keynes-and-holocaust.html
“The team’s findings suggest that the 1876-78 droughts extended far beyond Brazil, India, and China, although that’s where famine struck the hardest.”
“Remove the spike”
Ignore the maximums and all is well.
> The excess mortality in the famine has been estimated in a range whose low end is 5.6 million human fatalities, high end 9.6 million fatalities, and a careful modern demographic estimate 8.2 million fatalities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_18761878
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought
“From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”
> In 1877, the Indian Ocean experienced exceptionally warm temperatures, particularly in its western portion, generating a dipole in sea surface temperatures. These contrasting conditions in the Indian Ocean can often lead to dry conditions in Australia and South Africa. But in 1877, the thermal contrast between the two halves was the strongest ever recorded before or since, which likely assisted El Nio in generating severe droughts in those regions.
Op. cit.
“Since the conditions that cooked up the Great Famine arose from natural climatic variation, theres nothing to stop a global drought from recurring.”
Nothing to do with CO2 at all.
As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
If it gets warmer than 1878, probably true.
“‘Remove the spike’
Ignore the maximums and all is well.”
Not at all.
The question is whether T spikes significantly impact the T trends that are relevant to AGW.
Do they or not?
How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era? What we have is mostly guesses that depend on extrapolating backwards assuming that AWG is present.
“How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era?”
You tell me. You are claiming warm SST in that period.
In case, that is a different topic.
Richard does not have the fortitude to confront his denial of the implication:
the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era?
Almost non-existent. You can make up whatever you want to make things come out how you want it to.
Red herring.
The Southern Ocean is a tiny fraction of the globe.
the southern ocean may be a small percentage of the globe Nate but add to that the arctic ocean, then add in Russia and China and their disinformation programs and you have a whole lot of totally unreliable temperature histories predating the satellite era.
“and their disinformation programs ”
Sure they must have been keeping temperature data a secret because…
Grasping at straws.
Look, show us real evidence that observed natural cycles can explain the record or admit that it is just pure speculation.
Are you denying that Russia and China run disinformation programs for the purpose of influencing American citizens? That has been a Democrat talking point that they do now for 6 years.
Buzz off.
Gee not only Nate has no sensible statistical argument for CO2 effects now he doesn’t even have anything to defend the surface temperature record.
https://imgur.com/Ulah5KV
Distribution of ocean data 1955-2017
How British let one million Indians die in famine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339524
The famine was world wide, not just India. And over 20 million died in it.
The British colonies extended beyond India, and The Great Famine of 18761878 was a famine in India under Crown rule.
That was just a portion of what was world wide.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought
“From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”
> Scientists disagree over whether El Nio could have triggered these effects in the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Maybe it was just bad luck that extreme conditions happened in all three oceans at once. But the oceans are all connected, and Singh and her colleagues suspect El Nio set off the cascade of effects.
“‘It’s hard to think that all of this was a coincidence,’ Singh says.”
“Since the conditions that cooked up the Great Famine arose from natural climatic variation, theres nothing to stop a global drought from recurring.”
Nothing to do with CO2 at all.
As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
If it gets warmer than 1878, probably true.
Richard lacks the courage to contradict his own source,
Willard just makes up facts to overcome his inability to say that the 1878 event was not caused by CO2.
Richard disputes that
“As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.”
is a real quote from his own source.
Only Willard could ignore that somethings are put in so that AWG is assured.
‘could’ is a weasel word to allow for no actual percentages to be quoted.
The 1878 event was not caused by CO2.
Yep, and orangutans are not caused by apples.
Is it fun to post true but pointless factoids?
“A Comparison of Daily Temperature-Averaging Methods”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml
“The daily temperature curve does not typically follow a normal (i.e., bell-curve type) distribution, an important assumption made by the traditional method, but is instead skewed toward the right (i.e., Tmin) on average.
This skew of the daily temperature curve varies spatially, seasonally, and temporally, with recent variability potentially being enhanced by anthropogenic climate change (Shiu et al. 2009).
The hourly method lessens or eradicates artificial effects on the temperature from the time of observation bias, for example, the difference between determining Tmax, Tmin, and thus the average daily temperature from a midnight-to-midnight period versus a morning-to-morning period. In the United States, Tmax, Tmin, and the average daily temperature are determined from midnight local time to midnight local time, occasionally introducing a reset high or low temperature, which is not representative of the true Tmax or Tmin from the diurnal curve. (McKinnon et al. 2016; Karl et al. 1988; Schaal and Dale 1977)”
RLH,
Luckily, no facts were harmed by being averaged this way or that way.
Nothing changed at all. A colossal waste of time, effort, and money. I suppose if people want to apply resources to pointless arithmetical calculations instead of improved health or education facilities, or many things of more immediate impact, that’s their right.
Bad luck for anyone who expresses a contrary opinion.
As the article says, high frequency analysis is more accurate for various reasons.
Do you dispute that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe?
If it gets warmer than 1878, probably.
“If it gets warmer than 1878, probably true.”
Its already been warmer.
Even in the central Pacific.
https://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/ONI_NINO34_1854-2023.txt
Based on what assumptions about T in the surface of southern oceans before 1979?
??
Richard seeks to deny that it is warmer now, but does not have the audacity to do so explicitly.
So he Just Asks Questions.
I do like how STAR/NOAA agree that the past was warmer than that recorded before by RSS.
The question was from Nate (who still thinks that no data in the southern oceans means that warming has been constant for the last 1000 years).
1854 01 25.90
1854 02 26.06
1854 03 26.91
1854 04 27.63
1854 05 27.90
1854 06 27.23
1854 07 26.88
…
…
2022 01 25.60
2022 02 25.88
2022 03 26.33
2022 04 26.72
2022 05 26.83
2022 06 26.98
2022 07 26.59
Nate does not even read his own sources.
I do like that Richard cited approvingly a scientist reminding (cycle nuts) that warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.
“(who still thinks that no data in the southern oceans means that warming has been constant for the last 1000 years).”
Quote me thinking anything like that, troll RLH.
RLH you show me your selection of months in a small part of the ocean then and now.
What was the ENSO state during those two periods? The same? Not the same?
What is this supposed to tell us?
Here is the 30 y average up to the data shown, for that region (climatology).
And the change.
30 y average
1871 1 25.9
1871 2 26.03
1871 3 26.55
1871 4 26.99
1871 5 27.16
1871 6 26.93
1871 7 26.57
1871 8 26.13
1871 9 26.03
1871 10 25.85
1871 11 25.93
1871 12 25.87
Change 2022-1871
2022 1 26.55 0.65
2022 2 26.76 0.73
2022 3 27.3 0.75
2022 4 27.83 0.84
2022 5 27.94 0.78
2022 6 27.73 0.8
2022 7 27.29 0.72
2022 8 26.86 0.73
2022 9 26.72 0.69
2022 10 26.72 0.87
2022 11 26.7 0.77
2022 12 26.6 0.73
The average change is 0.76.
30 y average up to the DATE shown.
RLH,
Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C, it should be no shock to anyone that selected months today can be found that are cooler than selected months in the past for that region.
And yet there has been a net warming in the region (0.76 C) and globally.
Try to understand that these two facts are compatible.
“And yet there has been a net warming in the region (0.76 C) and globally.”
Based on what sampling error in southern oceans temperatures from before the satellite era?
“RLH you show me your selection of months in a small part of the ocean then and now.”
I was demonstrating that individual T has not changed that much.
“Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C”
Only 2C from El Nino to La Nina? I think not.
“I was demonstrating that individual T has not changed that much.” by selecting El Nino in the past and comparing to La Nina in the present.
In any case T in that region are behaving exactly as expected for a warming world.
Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C
Only 2C from El Nino to La Nina? I think not.”
plus minus 2C means a range of 4 C
“Based on what sampling error in southern oceans temperatures from before the satellite era?”
Equatorial ocean. Ships and buckets measured pretty well.
What is error on 1878 ONI values that you showed?
“AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.”
Non sequitur.
Both GW and the 1878 El Nino have happened.
ENSO is an independent natural ocean cycle. It doesnt require rising CO2.
You need a new logic chip.
I said AGW not ENSO. You need to upgrade your reading ability.
So Richard admits he has not RTFR.
“I said AGW not ENSO. You need to upgrade your reading ability.”
You claimed AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.”
Both GW, as predicted by AGW, and the 1878 El Nino happened. Both can be independently true.
Specifically, AGW has predicted global warming. AGW doe not predict the warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.
AGW does not predict there could be no large El Ninos in the past. Your Strawman.
In the specific region of ENSO, there has been warming of the climatalogical 30 y mean, comparable to the rest of the tropics.
And yet, the ENSO caused variation in the 3.4 region is larger than the NET GW.
AGW of this region does not cause ENSO variation to cease!
No one but you claims this is a problem for AGW.
Because you fail at logic, and statistics.
“AGW doe not predict the warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.”
I do not claim that warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.
“I do not claim that warming will be uniform or monotonic. ”
OK, then you have absolutely no logical basis to claim that AGW says the 1878 spike could not happen.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485813
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/
Willard ignoring facts as usual.
Richard ignoring the blog post as usual.
Willard ignoring facts.
1+1=2
1 + 1 = 10
1+2=3
1 + 10 = 11
1+3=4
1 + 11 = 100
1+4=5
1 + 100 = 101
The East India Company helped kill off India’s once-robust textile industries, pushing more and more people into agriculture.
The East India Company was confined to India. The 1878 famine was world wide.
> The East India Company (EIC)[a] was an English, and later British, joint-stock company founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world.[vague] The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company’s three Presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time. The operations of the company had a profound effect on the global balance of trade, almost single-handedly reversing the trend of eastward drain of Western bullion, seen since Roman times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
The East India Company did not trade in the South Americas. The famine of 1878 covered that area.
Most of the deaths caused by the famine were caused by colonialist policies.
Most of these policies were made by the British Crown.
And of course Richard refuses to acknowledge that the East India Company was *not* confined to India, in contradiction to what he just said.
“It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia.”
I should have said ‘mostly’ in India. My bad.
“Most of the deaths” were caused by the climate and droughts.
Richard should have rather said that the company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong.
Despite Willards thinking, it is highly probable that the East India Company did not effect the climate.
Despite Eichard playing dumb, it is quite certain that colonial policies from his own country killed millions of people.
The East India Company did not influence the climate.
They actually might have, but the point here is that in a trading world famines are for the most part man-made.
So you agree that the East India Company did not influence the climate.
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/47788/
How Her 3-Year-Old Daughters Hardship Changed a Therapists Understanding of Motherhood
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/how-her-3-year-old-daughters-hardship-changed-a-therapists-understanding-of-motherhood_5263867.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink
Linked: https://instapundit.com/
We have separation: Stratolaunch reaches milestone with release of test payload
by Alan Boyle on May 14, 2023 at 10:01 pm
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/stratolaunch-separation-release-hypersonic/
“Stratolaunch says its planning to launch its rocket-powered, expendable TA-1 hypersonic test vehicle from Roc in late summer.”
And, Virgin Galactic planning to launch crew at end of May:
https://www.virgingalactic.com/news/virgin-galactic-announces-crew-for-return-to-space
Roy, have you seen this? How does this fit with your temperature record for the 48 states?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series
1 + 10 = 11
As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
Willard being an idiot as usual.
Richard forgot to read his own source, as usual.
Willard prefers fantasy over facts.
“As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh” is a quote from Richard’s source.
Richard cited his source as authoritative.
I am glad that Willard agrees that natural factors caused the 1878 event and not CO2.
I am glad Richard accepts that warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.
How accurate do you think the southern ocean temperature was before the satellite era?
Why do you deny it is warmer now than in 1878?
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM BLAST FROM THE PAST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_18761878
May be this link is better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
Well before CO2 became important.
Yet CO2 is plant food, and humans control food production:
https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/42/special-articles/profit-inflation-keynes-and-holocaust.html
1878 was well before 2018.
“Profit Inflation, Keynes and the Holocaust in Bengal, 194344”
or the 1940s
> The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th century, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 per cent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth’s total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as “the empire on which the sun never sets”, as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
Willard is just fascinated with the UK in history.
Richard fails to realize that I am refuting his implicit argument.
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard just agreed with Troglodyte on the silly idea that we have no control over the CO2 we dump in he atmosphere.
Willard is still fascinated with the UK in history. I hate to break it to him, the East India Company did not influence climate.
Richard keeps denying that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.
Please state why you think that ocean temperatures in the southern oceans prior to the satellite era is in the slightest bit accurate.
Please tell us why you think that Whig policies have not killed millions of people in the British colonies.
Willard being an idiot as he always is.
Richard is a Whig who wishes reality would be more whiggish.
Willard is wrong. As Usual.
Richard dislikes the fact that I remind him that Edmund Burke was a Whig.
Willard is just wrong.
“Born in Dublin, Burke served as a member of Parliament (MP) between 1766 and 1794 in the House of Commons of Great Britain with the Whig Party.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Guardian: Climate Change is Linked to More Pirate Attacks
Climate change is just another word for bad government.
So, when mob stealing or “pirate attacks” is just bad government.
Or could say, that lots pooping on the streets is linked with climate change.
Huge banks failing, climate change. Wars, climate change.
Over taxation climate change.
Joe Biden is climate change.
Putin is climate change.
Pooh Bear is climate change.
Having political prisoner is climate change.
Lock downs are climate change.
“There is skepticism over Beijings ability to manage and resolve a conflict as complex, bitter and deeply entrenched as the one between Ukraine and Russia. Its neutrality has also been questioned because of its closeness to Moscow.
Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is visiting the U.K. on Monday as Kyiv tries to drum up more military support ahead of a highly anticipated counteroffensive.
Ukraine claimed more gains in the besieged and largely ruined town of Bakhmut in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, this weekend. Fighting has been raging there for months between Ukrainian forces and mainly mercenary fighters belonging to the Wagner Group.
The town holds little strategic value to either side, but after nine months of intense combat there, winning back the town has a deep symbolic importance for Ukraine.
The Wagner Groups leader has complained of a lack of ammunition supplies for his troops in Bakhmut amid a very public dispute with the Russian Defense Ministry.”
Updated Mon, May 15 20234:36 PM EDT
Share
Ukraine war live updates: China set to visit Ukraine; 8,800 civilians killed in Russian invasion so far, UN says
Amanda Macias Holly Ellyatt
Elon Musks Starship Wont Save Astronomy from Satellites Cluttering the Sky
Launching a fleet of space telescopes is not the solution to the Starlink problem
By Phil Plait on May 15, 2023
[Phil Plait bad astronmy- I used to read his blog a long time ago.]
“But, in a potential irony, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has claimed that the cause of this woe may also be its cure. The company is currently testing its huge Starship rocket, which, if it works as planned, will have the capability to launch extremely large and heavy payloads. This, Musk said, can be used to send large telescopes into space above the fleet of Starlink satellites, potentially alleviating the contamination issue and ushering in a new era of widespread space-based astronomy.
Historically, Musk has made a lot of claims over a wide range of topics that didntor cannotpan out. His flawed hyperloop plan, for example, or nuking the Martian poles to create an atmosphere, or basically anything hes promised about Twitter. These claims, in general, are more than just unrealistic; they also lack any of the specificity necessary to actually carry them out.”
I think they using hyperloop, Musk is building town which will have it, apparently that black fashion guy who apparently called antisematic, Ye or something {oh I got it right- not losing my mind, or something}.
Goes on:
“A lot of cutting-edge astronomy is done with very large telescopes, some with mirrors eight or more meters across. At the moment, no rocket is capable of launching a monolithic mirror that size into space.
Both the American Delta IV Heavy and the European Ariane 5 rockets have a payload fairingthe part at the top of the rocket that encloses a would-be space telescopewith an inner diameter of about five meters. These are two of the largest rockets flying, but unfortunately both are being retired (and the planned next-generation Ariane 6 is having some development issues). Neither is large enough to house the biggest telescopes anyway.”
Falcon 9 and Heavy have fairing dimension: “13 m (43 ft) long, 5.2 m (17 ft) in diameter”.
Falcon Heavy is cheapest rocket in the world, and lifts a lot
payload.
The Vulcan Centaur test launch will be sometime in the summer
and it’s fairing diameter is 5.4 meters.
New Glenn might have test launch in 2024, it’s 7 meter diameter and
does far more payload than Delta IV Heavy and the European Ariane 5 rocket.
Starship has tested it raptor 3 engine- it gets more thrust than than current raptor 2.
If you want large telescope capability, you could dust off, the Space Interferometry Mission which NASA canceled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Interferometry_Mission
“SIM Lite would have been the most powerful extrasolar planet hunting space telescope ever built.”
There other ways to make large telescopes in space, cheap, if not just trying to see to end of universe.
But many small telescopes is probably what Musk is talking about, because there are a lot people who use small telescopes, and you make better small telescopes for them to use.
So, you make lots better telescopes then most people use, and make some better then any of them use.
And instead of setting up a telescope some place away from city lights, you use it from your computer.
A question is how much does it cost and how many more people are going use telescopes, if there cheaper and easier to use?
And other question is what orbit are they going to be in?
It seems the lowest orbit could be 600 km- that is above starlink, but lots companies doing satellite internet and they much higher [though less of them]. And of course the telescopes can be connected by using satellite internet.
And those better at using telescopes, can be paid, by others wanting to see, whatever they find interesting to look at.
Or you pay by the hour, and you could waste an hour, just trying find
something, as compared having “more of pro” do that work. And pro might renting one the better telescopes. And pro might take suggestion/requests in term what to point at. Or rather than paying for telescope use, he/she makes money doing it. But one could also the freedom to use it, however you want- or not use a pro.
Of course one possibility, is that rather looking up, you look down at Earth’s surface.
Of course you might want use telescopes on Earth’s surface various
reasons, but the atmosphere, even at it’s clearest and at high elevation, is impaired by looking thru the atmosphere. And from space, you don’t have wait for night and you don’t have problems with weather conditions.
Dr Spencer, you should produce a graphic that shows the average annual temperature for the USA based upon latitide. That way people can see that a 1 Degree increase basically means that people in Minesotta may get the temperature of Tennessee, and Tennesse gets the temperare of Florida. They make is sound like climate change will make the world uninhabitable, whereas it really makes more of the world habitable. Imagine being able to grow crops in Siberia? There will be a food and energy glut if the earth continues to warm, and the iceland ice sheet would stake thousands of years to melt.
Minneapolis average low in Winter and high in summer: 6 F, 80 F
Memphis average low in Winter and high in summer:: 32 F, 91 F
The difference is bigger than some might think. This did not take long on Wikipedia. Others may have better data. I looked at the average July high and overnight low (deg F):
Winnipeg 78/56 (26/13 C)
Minot 80/56
Minneapolis 83/65
Sioux Falls 85/63
Lincoln 89/67
Kansas City 90/72
Tulsa 94/73
Dallas 97/78
San Antonio 95/74
CO2, it doesn’t matter. We have no control over temperature. It is going to do what it is going to do.
Yup.
As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.
Willard,
“Catastrophic flooding on the scale of the disaster hitting Queensland and New South Wales is becoming more likely as the planet heats due to greenhouse gas emissions, climate scientists have warned.” – some rag or other.
More severe droughts and more severe flooding. Whereabouts, do you think?
Tricky stuff, this CO2. No wonder nobody can actually describe the GHE, supposedly involved in hot, cold, wet, dry, change, no change – the list goes on.
You’re a bit simple, aren’t you?
Natural factors, not CO2, might get together and influence future climate.
Wait until the next ice age, and then we’ll have a drought to worry about.
Keep denying that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, freaks.
Please state why you think that ocean temperatures in the southern oceans prior to the satellite era is in the slightest bit accurate.
Please tell us why you think that Whig policies have not killed millions of people in the British colonies.
Willard being an idiot as usual.
Richard once again fails to see that I could reply NO U.
Willard being an idiot as Usual.
Wiltard,
Nature’s going to take care of your thermostat. It might be more prudent to prepare for the imminent deflation.
Nature takes care of troglodytes, Troglodyte.
Enjoy your swan song!
” They make is sound like climate change will make the world uninhabitable, whereas it really makes more of the world habitable. ”
Not going to happen.
Half the land area is already too hot, cold, wet, dry, steep or lofty to live on.
The land area of the tropics is considerably larger than at high latitudes. The area of tropical land rendered uninhabitable by global warming will exceed the area of high latitude land rendered habitable.
You are looking at a net loss of habitable land.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3HjZjqyZUCo/V7c8uWet_cI/AAAAAAAA31U/92DX-EdnNbMgPERJauqc68f0shY0fa_yACLcB/s1600/Latitude.png
Highest land mass at mid Northern latitudes.
Now do an inhabited/not inhabited plot.
Entropic,
Humans are quite adaptive as are most animals. Those that cannot will go extinct (natural selection), but humans would try to intervene and save those that they could.
Tropics will expand into the higher latitudes, high temperatures will move moderately up, and low temperatures more so. Humans will eventually expand into the Oceans, mostly the continental shelves. We will learn urban farming, vertical farming, ocean farming. Deserts will change, frozen tundra will thaw, and humans will thrive, that is if they avoid nuclear annihilation or large meteor hit.
The sun will continue to get hotter as it has done for billions of years. And billions of years from now, the inner planets will be toast. We do have time, but we should probably focus on living with climate change then deceiving ourselves into thinking we can stop it from happening.
For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
–
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems that since Venus is warmed in it’s upper atmosphere and this
atmosphere rotates every 4 to 5 days, that this warmer effect is greater as compared to a situation where it’s rocky surface were to rotate every 4 to 5 days.
This is one factor why I think that if Venus was at 1 AU distance [Earth distance from the sun} it would colder than Earth is.
Or at 1 AU, Venus upper atmosphere would rotate at same speed as it’s rocky surface.
SpaceX Raptor 3 Starship engine sets new world record for larger Starships!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Czl7poAvM
Another weekly report. And lots of stuff- will Starship land crew on Moon in 2025?
It would almost be a first in terms meeting schedule- you have to go back to Apollo program, to get targets which are, more or less, actually met.
It does seem Starship wouldn’t get another test launch within a month of time, but would be nice if was close to 4th of July.
This graphic would make a nice blog post.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-temperatures.php
Warming simply make inhospitable states more hospitable, and warm states even better. Most of the earth’s land mass is in the N Hemi, and much of it is frozen. A warming N Hemi simply allows for much much much more food to be grown and oil to be drilled.
No one will ever convince me that Wisconsin getting the climate of Illinois is a bad deal for anyone.
How true. The sad thing is even if warming was bad, which its not, climate has changed forever. Used to be and still is, surreptitiously, that global warming started 150 years ago but today all we see is defense of global warming since 1980, which lays well within the boundaries of natural multi-decadal variation. The southwest has gone through longer droughts before nothing unusual is occurring since 1980. And when you make that argument then they jump back a hundred years to days of poor global record keeping and proclaim it has been warming longer. But as recently as a couple decades ago no warming was noted in the US over the past 100+years which had one of the best weather records of all nations.
As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records, not to speak of the yet to be explained multi-decadal warming of early 20th century.
The climate religion seems to be a product of a lot of fables and story telling.
https://youtu.be/JX9B5tnj-xI
” As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records… ”
Please give us the exact place where Roy Spencer explained what you wrote.
Please give your exact reasons for RSS being SO much better that STAR and UAH.
Please tell us why you deny that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.
Please state why you think that ocean temperatures in the southern oceans prior to the satellite era is in the slightest bit accurate.
Please tell us why you think that Whig policies have not killed millions of people in the British colonies.
Please tell me why UK history is so important to you.
Please tell us why you think peddling your pet topic of the moment everywhere you comment matters to you.
Pleased tell me why you think that being an idiot matters to everybody else.
Please tell us why you keep poisoning your own well, dummy.
Blindsley H00d
Could you stop being SO opinionated, and start telling me where I wrote that RSS would be SO much better than STAR and UAH?
You are all the time insinuating things on this blog, especially about what others write (not only me) – without being able to prove your insinuations.
Moreover, your preference concerning the LT evaluations do not have anything to do with what I was asking.
If you are not able to answer what I ask the Hunter boy: why do you insert a post which is of no interest in the point being discussed?
Getting Blinny in a twist is nothing new.
> You are all the time insinuating things on this blog, especially about what others write (not only me) without being able to prove your insinuations.
Richard just peddles his pet talking point wherever he goes.
That dummy trolls the blog on which he should play defense.
Taking points like about 1878 being nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with natural oscillations.
“without being able to prove your insinuations.”
Go on then. Prove my 60/50/39 low pass filter is not a VP CTRM. You have said it often on here. You are wrong.
Blindsley Hood
You yourself admitted in the previous thread that, contrary to my results, both your S-G and 60/50/39 filters follow neither the original Savitzy-Golay filtering nor Pratt’s recommendation for CTRM, but are the result of subsequent filtering . Read your comment carefully!
No one would have the audacity to pass off a Savitzky-Golay or CTRM 5 year filtering as such when it’s subsequently being smoothed down by 5 further passes. You do it!
Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt (and NOT by Greg Goodman, let alone you, oh no!) that proves Pratt ever did what you did in addition to the cascaded running mean?
*
And again: why do you endlessly divert to your egomaniacal stuff, instead of telling us where Roy Spencer claimed that grid cell area weighting would lead to unduly warming in US temperature time series?
My 60/50/59 monthly filter follows exactly VPs recommendations (as I can show). I have never said anything else. You lie.
edit: 60/50/39
Vaughan Pratt’s recommendation of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 is in the comments he made to Greg’s thread.
60/59/39 follows exactly those ratios.
Mt fingers, edit: 60/50/39
“No one would have the audacity to pass off a Savitzky-Golay or CTRM 5 year filtering as such when its subsequently being smoothed down by 5 further passes. You do it!”
I do not. The CTRM is not filtered further as you would know if you actually looked at the results.
The S-G is a 5 pass (the same as CTRM is a 3 pass) as I have long acknowledged and I am just following recommendations that others made.
Are you saying that they are wrong?
c.f. https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rlh-simple-rss-plot.pdf
“#I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky-Golay method. Nate Drake PhD”
now amended to 60 month/5 years.
P.S. This was before VPs full recommendations were taken on by me.
It should now be
…
f1 = period
f2 = round(f1/1.2067)
f3 = round(f1/1.5478)
…
As usual, you don’t tell us the truth.
Not the 60/50/39 ratio (OF COURSE due to Pratt’s 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 factors) is the problem, you know that very well.
You yourself DEFINITELY wrote in the previous thread that both your S-G and CTRMs are post-processed. And SO they LOOK like, Blindsley H00d!
Finally, your trial to sell us the tail of an S-G output as an alleged ‘projection’ in all your charts is incredibly brazen.
*
Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt (and NOT by Greg Goodman, let alone you, oh no!) that proves Pratt ever did what you did in addition to an original cascaded running mean?
Willard says:
”Please tell us why you deny that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.”
Did I deny that Willard? I am not aware of that.
IMO, you need some science to deny or claim that is true. Why do you seem so convinced?
And as I pointed out Willard people are moving to warmer locations and are projected to do so over the next few generations. Since already the tropics are the most densely populated it seems the benefits have been outweighing the negatives.
So where does that leave your claim?
Bill, Bill,
Why do you think I was talking to you?
“You yourself DEFINITELY wrote in the previous thread that both your S-G and CTRMs are post-processed.”
NO I DID NOT. Only the S-G is a 5 pass and there is no post processing other than that. The CTRM is a 3 pass (as VP demanded). You are just deluded. As usual.
“Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt”
It is in the comments to Greg’s thread. Not that you read those at all.
In any case, 60/50/39 is what his factors of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 comes out to for 5 years and that I use for his triple pass filter, my CTRM 5 year low pass filter for UAH data, see below. (My 12 month is 12, 10, 8).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
Willard: Why do you think it is getting warmer now than in 1878? Are the various natural factors getting that big? Obviously CO2 was not the reason in 1878.
Why do the various satellite series (2 out of 3) show less warming than those the are based on 2m temperatures? Could it be that the methodology used is suspect?
Richard: as the global thermostat rises, do you think the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, as per your own source?
Is it as warm now as it was in 1878?
Do you deny it is warmer now than in 1878?
RLH,
Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C, it should be no shock to anyone that selected months today can be found that are cooler than selected months during the strong 1878 El Nino in that region.
And yet there has still been a net warming of the (30 y) average temperature in the region (0.76 C) and globally.
Try to understand that these facts are compatible, and thus are not informative on AGW, at all.
AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.
edit: AGW
Richard still fails to RTFR:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
The IPCC does not take into account 1878.
Richard is wrong as usual.
You mean the IPCC doesn’t think that CO2 is the cause of climate change? Or that CO2 had nothing to do with 1878?
You mean that you still haven’t RTFR?
You mean the IPCC doesnt think that CO2 is the cause of climate change?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487322
RLH fails at logic.
The IPCC doesnt think that CO2 had nothing to do with 1878?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487334
AGW does not rely on CO2 being the main cause? Give me a break.
So Richard admits that he has not RTFR.
“AGW does not rely on CO2 being the main cause? Give me a break.”
And nobody said otherwise. You are thoroughly confused, and flailing RLH.
Here’s the reality. ENSO happens independently of CO2 or AGW. Sometimes it produces large El Ninos. Their size is not dependent on CO2.
GW has happened as predicted by CO2 driven AGW, independently of ENSO, and without uniformity, as predicted.
You are the only one trying to illogically claim the presence of the ENSO oscillation before the onset of AGW, in some way falsifies AGW.
But you have no statistically sensible argument.
Nate says:
”Heres the reality. ENSO happens independently of CO2 or AGW. Sometimes it produces large El Ninos. Their size is not dependent on CO2.”
——————————-
Yes it does. And so do multi-decadal ocean oscillations in the Pacific Ocean that determine multi-decadal global temperature changes that are disconnected from CO2. In fact a single ENSO cycle can result in global mean temperature varying by as much as the entire industrial age once you smooth out and properly match the cycle suggesting that normal temperature variation is perfectly capable of explaining the industrial age warming.
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Nate says:
”GW has happened as predicted by CO2 driven AGW, independently of ENSO, and without uniformity, as predicted.
You are the only one trying to illogically claim the presence of the ENSO oscillation before the onset of AGW, in some way falsifies AGW.
But you have no statistically sensible argument.”
———————
Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander. You respond with a suggestion that a singular correlation is a statistically sensible argument when clearly it is not. . . .that is it isn’t if you able to pass a single college class in statistics.
Willard says:
”Do you deny it is warmer now than in 1878?”
Should anybody expect it to not have warmed? After all we experienced a solar grand maximum in the 20th Century that ended in 2008. We will have to see if the next decade is able to produce more than .2c warming before throwing the entire CO2 theory in the trash can. I’m patient, some others are not.
Have you read the Questions Richard kept Just Asking in this thread, Gill?
Its fair to wonder if there has been any warming Willard. With all the out front data fudging going on over the past 25 years, mostly of temperatures more than 45 years old but still plenty in surface records post the satellite era, one can indeed wonder.
But seems rather uncertain that we are currently warmer than 1944.
Explain to me why UAH shows a total of approximate .57C warming over the last 4.3 decades and that is virtually identical to the amount of warming seen from 1911 to 1945 in 3.4 decades and actually explain why you believe both were from CO2. . . .noting that if you don’t do that. . . .that means total warming from CO2 can’t be more 6 tenths of a degree far short of the 2C benchmark for taking action.
“Explain to me why UAH shows a total of approximate .57C warming over the last 4.3 decades and that is virtually identical to the amount of warming seen from 1911 to 1945 in 3.4 decades”
Did we have lower troposphere measurements in 1911-45?
“But seems rather uncertain that we are currently warmer than 1944.”
But we are certain about the 1911-45 change being 0.57 C?
Nate says:
”Did we have lower troposphere measurements in 1911-45?”
———————-
That response wasn’t to you Nate. You are supposed to be telling us why, if you ever had a course in statistics, that you believe that the sloppy correlation of CO2 to sloppy records of warming is supposed to be a ”statistically sensible argument”.
But you instead seem intent on changing the topic.
Bill, you are saying contradictory things.
this is where Nate plays dumb. We certainly don’t want to discuss the details of or especially the statistical validity of the science behind the CO2 AGW theory.
” In fact a single ENSO cycle can result in global mean temperature varying by as much as the entire industrial age once you smooth out and properly match the cycle suggesting that normal temperature variation is perfectly capable of explaining the industrial age warming.”
Not really.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:6
LMAO!
First you have to deal with bias. The idea that you can process thousands of thermometers in the continental US and double or triple the warming by simply redefining which thermometer affects which area that thermometer never measured is rather preposterous.
I am not sure how Roy is going to deal with that issue but he is working on it. But it has to be an immense issue. I live in a micro-climate very unlike my nearby airport which has an actual weather station. So NOAA models my weather forecast. They aren’t all that bad at it but we aren’t talking about small misses here. A typical miss for my location is like right now they are only off by about 8 degrees.
Worse probably is USHCN probably uses a different model with a different objective in mind.
And of course I completely failed to note that Nate is still dodging the topic he initially brought up because he is one giant hypocrite.
Nah. You are bloviating.
I’m bloviating about you not having a statistically sensible argument for the IPCC projected effects of CO2 while you run around like a banshee hypocrite calling out everybody else’s opinion on how climate changes by saying they don’t have a statistically sensible argument.
All I am doing Nate is calling a hypocrite a hypocrite.
“Im bloviating about you not having a statistically sensible argument for the IPCC projected effects of CO2”
First of all, thats not what the topic of this thread was. Go back and read what it was about.
Second, I thought you have been visiting this site for several years. If so, you would have encountered various lines of evidence in support of AGW, way beyond just the correlation between temperature and CO2.
Your claim of no ‘statistically sensible argument’ is just hot air.
Nate says:
”Second, I thought you have been visiting this site for several years. If so, you would have encountered various lines of evidence in support of AGW, way beyond just the correlation between temperature and CO2.
Your claim of no statistically sensible argument is just hot air.”
So your claim is a statistically sensible argument for your viewpoint on this topic has been presented in this forum in the past few years?
Can you support that claim? Just claiming its so isn’t a statistically sensible argument. You should know that.
Bill,
This is just your usual baiting. Attempting to get people to rehash things discussed many times.
Here we go again Nate drifting off in a trance where he fools himself like an alcoholic believing he ever discussed a statistically sensible argument for CO2 effects on the climate.
The only one I am aware is Ben Santer’s attempt that way stretched the discipline of statistics is now nearly 25 years old and failed to meet future projections followed immediately by an even longer lived pause. Further it was never updated as a result. I think even Ben Santer has come to his senses on this.
What we have is a science denying bunch of dinosaurs hanging around the IPCC and politically injecting non-science into the IPCC reports to desperately trying to keep the fear alive.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/#more-30093
If you are to start your Climateball career as a peddler, Gill, you need to copy-paste your links properly.
There are numbers missing at the end.
It seems we in a Solar Grand Min.
I don’t think it will have much effect upon global average temperature, but it probably have large effect upon global weather.
My view is that we have recovered from the Little Ice Age within the last 10 years, so one could say, it’s good time to have a Solar Grand Min, which is predicted not to last very long- unless you think that 20 to 30 years is long.
Also it seems possible we could have an El Nino within next 10 year which tends to have a weather warming effect. As Roy Spencer has proven on this blog. Of course also possible we could back to back severe La Nina, which doesn’t have global weather warming effect. Or
we could long period of neither.
Various factors might cause it to get a cold as 1970’s, but it seem more like we get to “Pause” back, and have a Great Pause. Which I don’t think would be caused by a Solar Grand Min. But if add in some
major volcanic activity into the mix, which cause cooling, then it could be tempting to see it as related to Solar Min and could get the 1970’s type thing. Anyhow we somehow survived the 70’s.
After Solar Grand Min, we are predicted to get big Solar Grand Max period, but again, don’t think it’s going to much effect upon global average temperature.
What is more important is Solar Grand Min will effect space weather, in terms Mars crewed exploration. And will effect radiation levels on ISS, and will effect radiation effect from flying over north polar region. Or will effect Airline personnel- and perhaps increasing cancer and other health effects.
So, I think higher levels of radiation on ISS, will cause to program to end sooner, though it’s not scheduled to last long.
But space stations not flying in highly inclined orbits, would have less radiation than ISS, or despite having higher GCR levels it’s could reduce it by 1/2 the current radiation levels- which is still worse industrial standards, allow. So anyhow I think biggest change will about flying airlines over the poles.
And Mars crew. so this period will continue past 2060 AD.
But if Starship works as planned, it can add enough shielding so that crew get less radiation per year, then ISS crew have getting over the decades. But, it’s not really, good enough. And seems we can more than that- but it’s a added cost.
The planet would greatly benefit from 5-6 C warmer temperature and 800-1200 ppm CO2
Not that one has much to do with the other
If you are living in a home, it’s higher temperatures and a higher CO2 level.
Or there a lot more warming of a house, than the cooling of a house.
I guess the serious global climate cargo cult believer are the homeless- only problem is they don’t think it’s warm enough- but they aren’t living in a warmed house.
My home is set to 20C year round.
The flooding in Italy brings out the typical claims of climate change. Oddly, if climate change is to blame, it could be cooling of the upper atmosphere causing instability and not warming at the surface that is be to blame for increased rain intensity.
” … and not warming at the surface that is be to blame for increased rain intensity. ”
Who said such simple things besides yourself, Tim S?
Binny,
The Climate Council, for example.
“A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. In fact, for every degree of warming the atmosphere can hold around 7% more moisture. More moisture can then mean that more rainfall comes in short, intense downpours. This can increase the risk of flash flooding.”
Or the IPCC.
“A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts (Wetherald and Manabe, 2002;”
Would you like some more, or do you think you could find them yourself?
I hope you are not silly enough to think that CO2 makes the surface warmer. It’s the sun, stupid. At night the surface cools, even faster than the atmosphere, in clear dry conditions.
No sunlight, you see.
Keep dissecting history. Try dissecting nighttime temperatures to get rid of the Sun’s influence.
See how you go.
I realize that trolling is more fun and easier than being educated, but there is a fundamental concept in weather forecasting (rain is weather) that high pressure days are warm and sunny and low pressure days are cool, cloudy, and raining. Why is that?
Tim S,
Interesting question. Even more interesting, to me at least, what causes pressure variations?
Here’s what the Met Office says –
“Areas of high and low pressure are caused by ascending and descending air. As air warms it ascends, leading to low pressure at the surface. As air cools it descends, leading to high pressure at the surface.”
Of course, if the air column just expands vertically, it just gets taller, and the pressure doesn’t change at all. Standard pressure is 1013 mb at the equator and the poles. Cold or hot – still 1013 mb. The depth of the troposphere varies from about 9 km at the poles, about 17 km at the equator.
The Met Office explanation is a tad lacking, or even wrong, it might seem.
An example of delusional SkyDragon cultist preference for fiction over fact?
Swenson
YOU: “Of course, if the air column just expands vertically, it just gets taller, and the pressure doesnt change at all. Standard pressure is 1013 mb at the equator and the poles. Cold or hot still 1013 mb.”
You are wrong with this statement. The surface pressure IS a measured value not a guess. They build pressure maps (High/Low) using the measured values. Not sure why you have chosen to think the pressure does not change at all or where you came up with this understanding. It is wrong.
Here look:
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/ussatsfc.gif
Re the Met Office explaination:
Descending air compresses and warms as it descends. As it warms, if the absolute humidity remains the same, the relative humidity drops. Hence fewer clouds and/or precipitation.
Ascending air associated with low pressure systems cools and expands causing it’s relative humidity to increase. If it increases sufficiently you get clouds and rain.
The most extreme low pressures we see on Earth are, of course, at the eye of a hurricane. Not coincidentally at the center of the most extreme wind and precipitation events.
The answer is that high pressure is associated with a smaller change in pressure with altitude and a smaller reduction in temperature with altitude. High pressure system are considered to have stable air. Sometimes there is an inversion.
Low pressure is associated with a larger change in pressure with altitude. The lower pressure is associated more rapid cooling at altitude. The atmosphere in a low pressure system is unstable.
The greenhouse effect causes cooling in the upper atmosphere and increased instability leading to the prediction of more intense rain. Both affects increase the potential for rain fall — high humidity at the surface and an unstable atmosphere.
I would like to show how wrong it is to think that ‘the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and can’t be found in thermometer records’.
This is a very simplistic view. Here is an example.
*
Some years ago, John Christy published a document about ‘Record Temperatures in the United States’, presented on this blog but which unfortunately had to be retired:
https://tinyurl.com/3uparkhw
In this document, he showed the ratio of temperature maxima/minima per 100,000 daily observations as reported by USHCN weather stations with at least 105 years activity.
I did the same job, but with as source the GHCN daily originals of the USHCN stations: because this data of course is restricted to the US, and I wanted to extend the view to the Globe as a whole.
Moreover, I wanted to show how highest minima behave compared to lowest minima, what recently was extended to lowest maxima.
The job was restricted to the period 1920-2022 to avoid absence of data at any time.
*
1. GHCN daily for CONUS
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
The red and blue plots correspond to John Christy’s bar charts.
2. GHCN daily for the Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view
The similarity to the CONUS graph was very unrealistic; a switch to a generation with an area weighting into 2.5 degree grid cells a la UAH gave this:
3. GHCN daily for the Globe (with grid area weighting)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view
Where does this huge difference between charts (2) and (3)?
Simply from the fact that while in chart (2) about 20,000 US stations ‘compete’ with about 20,000 stations outside of it, in chart (3) about 200 US grid cells compete with about 2000 cells outside of it.
When you realize that some US cells encompass over 300 stations, and many non-US cells one or two, you easily understand that these no-US stations can’t play any role when you don’t perform grid area weighting before the yearly maxima/minima averages.
*
But interesting is as well that when generating a chart for CONUS out of area weighted data, the difference still exists – even if much smaller:
4. GHCN daily for CONUS (with grid area weighting)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OjIZLluXonnGUjzX5wvjXxA4pS4frJn/view
*
When my faster computer gets ready to work again in 2 weeks, I’ll generate more ‘classical’ time series and associated data for CONUS showing a similar behavior.
Pleez hurry up
Hi ankle-biting German-like dachshund stalker, nice to hear from you again.
“I will do my very best!”.
Maybe when you get the real fast computer you can figure out the global temperature has been falling for the last 8 years
Which one, dachshund?
UAH?
How could it have increased since 2016, after having reached the highest anomaly since Dec 1978?
Did you forget what it was due to?
Never heard about the 100 % natural, ‘Super El Nino’ of 2015/16?
I don’t need fast computers for explaining that, dachshund: unlike you, I have a working brain.
*
The very best would happen if ENSO didn’t collapse this year as it already seems to intend:
https://i.postimg.cc/3RvWGF39/nino34-Mon170523.png
and we had for the next two years another 100% natural ‘Super El Nino’.
And 8 years later the dachshund would proudly write again:
” Maybe when you get the real fast computer you can figure out the global temperature has been falling for the last 8 years ”
*
Ha ha ha…
” I have a working brain”
That is fairly disputable.
” That is fairly disputable. ”
Then start doing to dispute this, Blindsley H00d, e.g. by proving that you really are able to beat me in all what you until now were simply unable to achieve, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487231
*
Until now, you show only trivial, technically disputable stuff, like your 5 year low passes which all don’t look like 5 year low passes, what you recently admitted.
And about your so-called S-G ‘projection’s, any statistician would laugh (apologies: Google’s translator wasn’t able to accurately translate ‘se tordrait de rire’).
Blinny still doesn’t get that the CTRMs are to VPs specifications.
“you recently admitted.”
Show me where.
“so-called S-G ‘projection’s'”
S-G is not accurate when it ventures into non full kernel mode. i.e. at the ends.
Binny,
Well, blow me down.
If you had a really, really, fast computer, you could tell me what the temperature used to be even quicker, couldn’t you?
I can’t wait. Will your really, really, fast computer change the old temperature records, or will the past stay just the same?
Maybe your really, really, fast computer will allow you to see into the future better than an old, slow, computer. Is that it?
Fool.
Blather blather blather from the boring Flynnson.
He forgot his pathological ‘4.5 billion year’ blah blah, oh dear…
Un peu de repos lui ferait probablement du bien.
Binny,
Well, blow me down.
If you had a really, really, fast computer, you could tell me what the temperature used to be even quicker, couldnt you?
I cant wait. Will your really, really, fast computer change the old temperature records, or will the past stay just the same?
Maybe your really, really, fast computer will allow you to see into the future better than an old, slow, computer. Is that it?
Fool.
Blather blather blather from the boring Flynnson.
He forgot his pathological 4.5 billion year blah blah, oh dear…
Un peu de repos lui ferait probablement du bien.
What you have really shown is that tmin and tmax are a very bad way to get a true taverage for the 24 hour period, world wide. As many previous papers have shown.
Instead of stalking with your non-committing blah blah, do the same job, Blindsley H00d, and show us YOUR results in four similar charts.
But I think we all on this blog can wait quite a long time because you’ve never been able to process such data the way I did, no matter what kind of data source you would use.
All you were able to do until now has been to insinuate and discredit what others do.
*
Come back to us by the way when you
– have understood when and why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviate from the 24-hour average values,
and
– finally achieved something similar to my monthly anomaly-based USCRN time series comparing means, medians and true hourly averages:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view
Your trivial college boy evaluation made at that time was in comparison absolutely laughable.
“why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviate from the 24-hour average value”
(tmin and tmax) /2 is inadequate when the length of the day is not a simple 12 hours. It makes that simple assumption. Only true for a few days a year, world wide.
“Td1 = (Tmax + Tmin)/2 is calculated from the daily maximum temperature (Tmax) and minimum temperature (Tmin), and Td0 is integrated from hourly values during a day, defined as being from midnight to midnight. …. The standard deviations between daily Td1 and Td0 in winter seasons are generally larger than those in warm seasons. Spatially, the standard deviations between the daily Td1 and Td0 are higher in the northern high latitudes and the global arid/semi-arid regions (Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, and Australia)”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/10/jamc-d-19-0001.1.xml
“A Significant Bias of Tmax and Tmin Average Temperature and Its Trend”
“Overall, the present analysis indicates that the previously applied method to calculate daily and monthly mean temperature using Tmax and Tmin significantly overestimates not only the climatological mean of the national stations and mainland China on a whole, but also the upward trends of surface air temperature at most of the stations and in the country. “
“you’ve never been able to process such data the way I did”
My maths is a lot more accurate than yours. As are my graphs.
Study: Climate Believers Are More Likely to Trust Strangers
Eric Worrall
“Perhaps greens find it difficult to imagine that scientific authority figures can be self serving lying toads, just like anyone else.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/17/study-climate-believers-are-more-likely-to-cooperate-with-strangers/
I think it’s similar, populations are aging.
And they want them to get off their lawn and Greens want to kill their lawn.
Green also are happily killing a large amount of whales.
Lefties are just using the religion of global warming- all they always care about is power over people.
The left love using the old “existential threat.” They’re the masterminds who can fix it. Of course, their fixes always mean less liberty for everyone.
Today its the Right trying to take away liberties.
Banning books and media from libraries and schools that don’t fit the conservative agenda.
Using government to control corporate free speech.
Banning free expression and taking away parental rights if adults and kids don’t conform to their religious views of gender norms.
Taking away established constitutional right to reproductive choice.
“Taking away established constitutional right to reproductive choice.”
Right, and it should be mentioned that China and North Korea have always been world leaders “protecting this constitutional right”.
wiki: Abortion in Finland:
“Abortion will be legal and free of charge upon request in Finland in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy starting from 1 September 2023. Between 1970 and 2023 abortion was widely accessible in practice for a variety of reasons (including socioeconomic factors) but nevertheless the law required the pregnant woman to state her motivations and get approval from one or two doctors.
By international standards, political controversy in Finland regarding abortion has been mild and incidence is low. Abortions in Finland have been decreasing since the 1960’s. In 2021 about 7600 abortions were performed.”
“In Finland, abortion was illegal until 1950, when the Parliament of Finland legalized abortions to preserve the physical or mental health of the woman, if the woman was under 16, if the fetus might be deformed, or the woman had been raped.[9] Under pressure from the women’s liberation movement and supportive editorials from most national newspapers, Finnish law was further liberalized in 1970.[10] The 1970 law allowed abortion up to 16 weeks of pregnancy for broad socioeconomic reasons, if the woman was younger than 17, if the woman was older than 40, if the woman had already had four children, or if at least one parent would be unable to raise the child owing to disease or mental disturbance.”
Such a backward country compared to China.
China was so progressed, it aborting babies when citizens were illegally having them- no country [other than North Korea} has openly, done this.
An established Constitutional right? Do you mean like established in the Constitution? Chapter and verse?
The Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS 50 y ago.
Stephen,
I get it, you dont like people who don’t agree with YOUR religion’s views on gender norms, sexuality and reproductive freedom, so you are fine with restricting their liberties.
And you are fine with weaponizing govt against peoples right to free expression and free speech by corporations, if you don’t like the expression or speech.
A similar backlash and govt crackdown on deviants and free expression happened in Germany in the 1930s.
A WARMER LIFE
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176657700/arizona-farms-running-out-water-farmers-climate-change-colorado-river
Blindsley H00d
” My maths is a lot more accurate than yours. As are my graphs. ”
As usual, you persist in superficial, absolutely unproven smalltalk instead of technically proving your claims by showing something more relevant than your typical ‘5 year low pass’ stuff.
I therefore repeat:
Come back to us when you
have understood when and why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviates from the 24-hour average values
and
finally achieved something similar to my monthly anomaly-based USCRN time series comparing means, medians and true hourly averages.
As long as you won’t be able to do such things, your ‘my math is better’ blah blah is and keeps of no interest.
*
And when you finally you will have proven that you are able to replicate what I did with USCRN, feel free to start replicating this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YkJvOTEqJbecLFHUBpGpjChWnzA-u5xX/view
and this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
*
We’ll then see clearly how much better your math and your graphics are than mine when you have to leave your little, trivial, comfortable, endlessly repeated low-pass corner!
Here are the sources for your trial to prove that you are really able to present a real, anomaly-based work:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-
*
There are a lot of points to help you in beating me, Blindsley H00d!
One just needs to look at the splendid work done by Sönke Dangendorf and his colleagues; their data is easy found and downloaded.
“when and why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviates from the 24-hour average values”
(tmin+tmax)/2 assumes that days are 24 hours long and that half of it is night. It isn’t. I have quoted many papers that challenge that nave assumption.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487166
Blindsley H00d
You still dissimulate you inability to challenge me at the working level by endlessly repeating the same, non-committing stuff.
When will you start proving your allegations by proving me wrong through your own anomaly-based evaluation of USCRN?
I therefore repeat:
Well then see clearly how much better your math and your graphics are than mine when you have to leave your little, trivial, comfortable, endlessly repeated low-pass corner!
So you cannot prove what you say is true by quoting the original source where I said what you claim. No surprise there.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global-1.jpeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5ltDjun3g
SpaceX’s New Raptor 3 Smashed The World Record!
Video gives more detail and reminds us that 350 bars probably
will not done soon, in terms rocket launch. Or after hundreds of
more tests, and maybe within a 1 year or two we might get rocket launch going at 360 bars.
That test was full burn test- or Starship first engine only burn just over 1 min, though engines way reduce thrust as it approach Max Q.
And video reminded me, again, on how many engine tests SpaceX does.
It huge amount which would be been impossible if the rocket engines
were expensive {as they have been throughout rocket’s history} and
also raptors use a cheap rocket fuel {cheaper than kerosene and a lot cheaper than LH2/LOX}.
What tells you we in the Space Age, is cheap rocket engines and cheap satellites- and cheap satellites, is probably more important.
Will Space Age has radically change the world as did the Industrial
Revolution. Or should it be called the Space Revolution?
Or the Revolution of Heaven?
Will it transform our Universe?
We might have to find some space aliens to know. Though in terms of just human mind- the Universe, will likely/probably be radically transformed- but I was thinking of a big picture- will humans radically affect life [if there is any} in our universe?
Another question is when will the space age have considered to have
started, and when will it end. We typically say it started in the 50’s and 60’s, but by 2050 AD, will that still be counted as the beginning. We don’t count, the Vikings maybe going to North America,
as discovering the New World- the 1492 Columbus mistaken trip to China. Or maybe Space Age will begin, when more people are ready- maybe it will start when Indian or African steps on the Moon.
Or Space Age = Spacefaring. And then, whenever people land on Mars or
maybe whenever people are living in the orbit of Venus. Or related
to both, whenever artificial gravity is tested, thereby allow people to live in space, rather than visit space for less than 1/2 a year.
When it ends, seems harder. But it maybe after any possible war with any space aliens, it will be when we have a peaceful relations with space aliens- which could be like Star Trek and first contact with the Vulcans {space aliens are a war and we have peaceful relation with a faction of those at war}. Or something else, like movie Alien. Or it could like Hitchhiker Guide to Universe- which roughly is humans, sort of become aware of universe filled with numerous kinds of idiots. Which might make a lot idiots, feel “normal”.
So, Age of Normal.
I just started listening to: I’m Obsessed With Venus Now. Here’s Why
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhaJu-GNM
And I am taking notes:
Dr Paul Byrne, Planetary Evangelist
Don’t know what rocks are like
don’t know what interior is like
Don’t know how active it is
Don’t understand how it keeps it’s cloud layer- {sunlight should/could break it up}
Why doesn’t it have a magnetic field?
[I would say, the Moon has magnetic fields which are regional/localized,
and Mars- check that:
“The magnetic field of Mars is the magnetic field generated from Mars’ interior. Today, Mars does not have a global magnetic field. However, Mars did power an early dynamo that produced a strong magnetic field 4 billion years ago, comparable to Earth’s present surface field. After the early dynamo ceased, a weak late dynamo was reactivated (or persisted up to) ~3.8 billion years ago.
…the southern hemisphere possesses strong remanent magnetization, showing alternating stripes.”
-wiki
So somewhat like the Moon. And I would say, it’s good thing that Venus doesn’t have magnetic field like Earth- as Earth’s magnetic field causes radiation problems in most of LEO- and at Venus
distance, it seems to me- it would be worse if exactly like Earth’s
magnetic field.
{God winking, again??}
Cheap is Elmo’s middle name:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-told-twitter-advisor-124041523.html
A WARMER LIFE
https://www.newsweek.com/lakes-drying-worldwide-science-1801165
Lake Mead isn’t filled, yet. Filled or unfilled?
“Lake Mead is 167.78 feet below Full Pool (Elevation 1219.60 )
By content, Lake Mead is 30.2% of Full Pool (25,877,000 af)
https://lakemead.water-data.com/
The inflow has been fairly high, about 21,000 cfs, but outflowing
a lot for power which about 16,000 cfs- per day.
And it’s slightly higher than it has been in last year, and could go significantly higher in coming months. And:
Total inflows for water year 2023: 5,384,554 acre feet
This is 140.97% of the May 17th average of 3,819,733 acre feet
And:
Total releases for water year 2023: 4,563,395 acre feet
This is 50.7% of minimum required release of 9,000,000 acre feet
So, in about 4 months they have used about 50% of the amount of
water they feel they must use for the year.
I tend to think they will get their 100% or maybe more, but unlikely
to filled this year.
So, average or “normal” isn’t a Full Pool.
The other one which is also likewise still in region of drought is
Lake Powell:
Lake Powell is 158.39 feet below Full Pool (Elevation 3,700)
By content, Lake Powell is 26.93% of Full Pool (24,322,000 af)
Inflowing about 50,000 cfs per day and out flowing about 17,000 cfs
per day- and obviously is rapidly rising.
And unless they increase outflow [which they probably will- though been near constant of 17500 for month and just went to 17916 and then back down little to 17753] it would get near a full pool.
https://lakepowell.water-data.com/
> Lake Mead isnt filled, yet.
It’s just a metaphorical unit to give an idea of the size.
The planet has been global cooling for 8 yearz
The chart Bindiclown cannot make
https://i.postimg.cc/sDBmRJXC/offset.png
Not even a nice try, Eboy:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2014
2014 is 9 years ago, not 8. This is 2023. And changing the source just to try and make a point just makes you dishonest.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend
9 years is more than 8 years
“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.”
In the case of Richard, it is intentional.
Eboy might not have what it takes to be an intentional system.
Linear OLS with infinite bandwidth means that you are not studying nature (straight lines do not appear normally).
Richard fancies that a wave is more natural.
And then he shows a cherry-picked graph with an OLS…
1878 was 145 years ago.
You wanted an OLS. I gave it to you. Strange how it was not to your liking.
Richard gives another free win:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-lower/from
(Estr) https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2014
(Vlad) You wanted an OLS. I gave it to you.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-lower/from:2015/plot/best-upper/from:2015/trend
[RICHARD] 1878 was 145 years ago
[ALSO RICHARD] https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-lower/from:2015/plot/best-upper/from:2015/trend
Wonky Wee Willy,
Initial Earth surface molten.
Now not molten. It has cooled over 4.5 billion years.
I suppose you want to cherry pick a shorter period, and ignore the longest term?
Idiot cherry picker.
Mike Flynn,
You’re the most moronic sock puppet that ever touched the Climateball field.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Initial Earth surface molten.
Now not molten. It has cooled over 4.5 billion years.
I suppose you want to cherry pick a shorter period, and ignore the longest term?
Idiot cherry picker.
Maybe you could whine and attack the messenger?
Not a good look.
Forrest, not trees.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/plot/best/from:2015/trend/plot/best/from:2013/trend
What’s the matter with the ankle-biting dachshund?
Did he not understand what I wrote above?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487147
*
Where is your problem, dachshund?
I repeat: UAH can’t become warmer than in 2015/16 before the next El Nino starts.
Is that so difficult to grasp?
*
But firstly, let me help you, by showing a graph in which the recent trend starts in 2016, and not in 2015, what makes the negative slope even lower!
*
But then I invite you to look at ALL UAH values, and to compare 2016-now to
– 1998-2005
and
– 1987-1994
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1994/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2005/trend
*
Did you tell us about the rates of UAH cooling at these times?
*
Aaaah!
Apologies, dachshund! I forgot that you hate dissecting the past :–)
Blinny agrees that the last 8 years have been cooling world wide.
Too bad you didn’t predict global cooling five years ago like I did, you could be a hero, instead now you are just a blabbering retard smudging zshit all over this board, and reposting old temperatures to ad nauseam , acting like you discovered something.
What a pack of stubborn people…
But then I invite you to look at ALL UAH values, and to compare 2016-now to
1998-2005
and
1987-1994
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1994/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2005/trend
*
Did you tell us about the rates of UAH cooling at these times?
Of course you both did NOT.
That makes it clear, some folks like to fit noise.
Noise that is 145 years long?
P.S. UAH does not have that length (yet).
So you agree that the world has been cooling since 2016.
Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs and Nate Drake PhD’s S-G.
” Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs… ”
And Blindsley H00d can’t argue without lying.
He does NOT show original Cascaded Triple Running Means as shown by Vaughan Pratt but a multipass smoothing of what one obtains when doing the same as did Vaughan Pratt.
The same holds of course for Savitzky-Golay.
“He does NOT show original Cascaded Triple Running Means as shown by Vaughan Pratt”
Completely wrong as always.
“The same holds of course for Savitzky-Golay.”
I use what Nate suggested.
UAH Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
RSS Global
all with 60/50/39 CTRMs and 5 pass S-G.
Blinny thinks that Cascaded Triple Running Means are not a 3 pass process.
Perhaps he wants it in Excel.
Wrong, as usual, Blindsley H00d: NO ONE on Earth doubts about the fact that a TRIPLE running mean is a 3-pass process, me the least.
You insinuate in the most underhand way and lie as always.
What is beyond doubt, HOWEVER, is that YOUR CTRM outputs are DEFINITELY NOT from a 3-pass process, but are the result of further smoothing, which you also admitted to.
The same holds of course for your Savitzky-Golay outputs.
“What is beyond doubt, HOWEVER, is that YOUR CTRM outputs are DEFINITELY NOT from a 3-pass process”
You are wrong. Simple as that. The code that does it (in C#) is below
…
float[] firstPass5 = RunningAverage(temperatures, 60);
float[] secondPass5 = RunningAverage(firstPass5, 50);
float[] thirdPass5 = RunningAverage(secondPass5, 39);
…
thirdPass5 is what is plotted (at 60+50+39)/2 centered) for my % year low pass just as VP requires.
“The same holds of course for your Savitzky-Golay outputs.”
Again wrong (as usual).
…
double[] filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(noisySignal);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
…
is the code used. Just as Nate required for his 5 pass, multi-pass process.
Show me where the plot actually differs instead of your futile claims that I am wrong (with absolutely no evidence to back that up).
” … thirdPass5 is what is plotted (at 60+50+39)/2 centered) for my % year low pass just as VP requires. ”
Where can I see this claim ‘just as VP requires’ ?
*
” filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
is the code used. Just as Nate required for his 5 pass, multi-pass process. ”
Exactly what I claim, Blindsley H00d!
It is NOT a real, pure Savitzky-Golay filter process, but a SEQUNCE of such processes.
Why are you so dishonest, Blindsley H00d?
“Where can I see this claim just as VP requires?”
In the comments to Greg’s thread that I have pointed you to many times already. Are you saying my code does not follow VPs recommendations?
“It is NOT a real, pure Savitzky-Golay filter process, but a SEQUNCE of such processes.”
As Nate Drake PhD required (and I have long acknowledged). A single S-G pass leaks too much high frequency as your graphs show.
Blinny does require this in Excel. I have posted such a thing before. I can do it again.
Why are you so stupid Blinny?
Richard won’t admit that environmental changes can impact the climate.
Willard wont admit that 1878 happened as a very large EL Nino (along with other natural oscillations) without CO2 being involved.
Richard won’t admit that a bunch of very large El Ninos in a row might mean a bit more than one El Nino of similar size.
So now we switch to a different argument, where multiples count more than a single.
The maximum of 1878 has not been exceeded, even in the recent past.
So now Richard can’t even realize that this was the argument all along.
As if he believed anyone would fall for his squirrels.
Willard just doesn’t like facts. Especially that maximums are important in climate.
Regional warm spikes happen now and happened in the past.
They don’t nullify anthropogenic global warming. Because spikes and GW are statistically quite different phenomena and not mutually exclusive.
They are apples and orangutans.
But RLH is hyper-fixated on spikes anyway. He imagines if we find apples, there can be no orangutans.
He has very strange notions.
“Regional warm spikes happen now and happened in the past.
They dont nullify anthropogenic global warming.”
AGW assumes that CO2 is the principle component of rising T. CO2 was not significant in 1878. Natural factors drove it then. Why should now be any different?
“RLH is hyper-fixated on spikes”
aka maximums. Are you saying that maximums are not important (or only when you think that they are)?
Where has Richard read that AGW implies bigger ENSO related events?
Certainly not in the reports, for he did not RTFR.
“Natural factors drove it then. Why should now be any different?”
Exactly.
And yet GW also happened.
Because apples don’t cancel orangutans.
But you keep trying to claim they do.
“GW also happened.”
How long do you think that natural oscilations take?
Also, how much do you think natural cycles contribute, compared to AGW?
Contribute to what?
Global warming?
Why does Richard always forget that it’s more than 100%?
Why does Richard always forget that the natural cycles had a cooling effect?
“the natural cycles had a cooling effect”
Except in the case of 1878.
How does an El Nino *cause* warmth?
Is Willard saying that El Nino does not cause warmer air temperatures in the central Pacific?
Make that ‘air and sea surface temperatures’.
Is Richard saying that El Ninos are in fact heat pumps?
Does Richard have an argument or is he full of hot air?
Willard says that measuring higher temperatures does not occur during El Nino.
Richard claims that El Ninos generate energy.
‘How long do you think that natural oscilations take?”
changing the subject, are we?
GW happened, as predicted by AGW.
Willard invents things as always.
Richard painstakingly tries to hide his cycle nuttery behind leading questions.
“GW happened, as predicted by AGW.”
But CO2, which is the heart core of AGW, did not cause the 1878 event.
Cycles are the go to of Willard, even though I am cautious enough to say oscillations (which are cycles with varying length).
Richard still insists that AGW must cause El Ninos.
Try again. Just started listening to:
I’m Obsessed With Venus Now. Here’s Why
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhaJu-GNM
That worked, try this, part:
And I am taking notes:
Dr Paul Byrne, Planetary Evangelist
Don’t know what rocks are like
don’t know what interior is like
Don’t know how active it is
Don’t understand how it keeps it’s cloud layer- {sunlight should/could break it up}
Why doesn’t it have a magnetic field?
[I would say, the Moon has magnetic fields which are regional/localized,
and Mars- check that:
“The magnetic field of Mars is the magnetic field generated from Mars’ interior. Today, Mars does not have a global magnetic field. However, Mars did power an early dynamo that produced a strong magnetic field 4 billion years ago, comparable to Earth’s present surface field. After the early dynamo ceased, a weak late dynamo was reactivated (or persisted up to) ~3.8 billion years ago.
…the southern hemisphere possesses strong remanent magnetization, showing alternating stripes.”
-wiki
So somewhat like the Moon. And I would say, it’s good thing that Venus doesn’t have magnetic field like Earth- as Earth’s magnetic field causes radiation problems in most of LEO- and at Venus
distance, it seems to me- it would be worse if exactly like Earth’s
magnetic field.]
{God winking, again??}
So, found 85,000 volcanoes which mostly small and small is about 5 km diameter using resolution of 100 meter per pixel and quite noising data. And talked about active volcano change over 8 month period time
during Venus Magellan radar survey, which began in 1990-09-15 and mission ended: 1994-10-13.
They also say, one could look at data a lot more than has been done,
and want better radar with much better resolution- and NASA has delayed that mission for 3 years. For unknown reasons related to budgeting problems.
Or probably a lot more active at the present times, and a lot more volcanoes, then I thought there was. And also evident of past volcanic activity would been erased, due possibility of it being a younger surface then Earth’s ocean surface- which is very young.
Or I say it, this way Io is most volcanic body known, Venus might be more active, but we don’t know, because of lack of exploration.
I am taking my time listening to it [doing other things] and talking about exoplanets which mostly have CO2 and Venus distance from star.
So what would Venus temperature be if it had 10 atm instead of 92 atm at Venus distance.
First question is could it have H2SO4 acid clouds?
I am sure it could.
So, let’s do both, H2SO4 acid clouds and no significant H2SO4 acid clouds.
With Venus acid clouds the surface would be dim and without the clouds the surface would a lot less dim.
With Venus not having Venus thick clouds and allowing for a similar similar topography as Venus has, it could have brighter sunlight in higher elevations. Or it’s dimmer in the deeper basins.
And this Exoplanets could have more difference in terrain- be like Earth with ocean removed. Or it could less difference in terrain because it has ocean.
Or lets say terrain same as Venus but has 70% of it’s surface being an ocean. Oh, it can’t acid clouds, and it has water clouds and reflect more sunlight than acid cloud, and clouds absorb less sunlight than acid clouds. But the lighter H20 clouds can higher.
Earth has clouds reaching to tropopause. With more atmosphere, you have higher tropopause.
Though height would depend also on global surface air temperature.
At Earth distance if added 10 atm of CO2, Earth freezes.
At Venus distance, you get more sunlight, you get higher clouds, you get very uniform temperature. And probably cooler than 40 C.
Which ok for life, the problem is no oxygen to breath. But thing like plants could live and evidence of no life is plants didn’t remove all the CO2. Why would world have so much plant food, other than, no plants.
Let’s skip idea of having water. Problem with that is we know no life that can existence without water. Of course Venus might life and it’s roughly has no water- unless count the water held by the acid clouds.
May 18, 2023
Editors’ notes
Scientists discover past climate change to blame for Antarctica’s giant underwater landslides
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-scientists-climate-blame-antarctica-giant.html
“They also highlight that the layers formed at a time when temperatures in Antarctica were up to 3C warmer than they are today, when sea levels were higher and ice sheets much smaller than at present.”
It still could happen, what could we do about it.
One thing could do, is live in ocean settlements.
Tsunamis (although devastating) only produce a momentary sea surface change.
As opposed to what?
The tides 🙂
Tides are not temporary?
Depends on what timescales you think in. The ups and downs of a Tsunamis is usually a lot shorter than a tide.
At which timescale do tides become permanent?
That all depends on the Moon’s orbit.
“Large tsunamis may continue for days in some locations, reaching their peak often a couple of hours after arrival and gradually tapering off after that. The time between tsunami crests (the tsunamis period) ranges from approximately five minutes to two hours. Dangerous tsunami currents can last for days.”
The time between tsunami crests (the tsunamis period) ranges from approximately five minutes to two hours.
Tsunami are natural ocean waves. They are amplified to importance by land.
“Dangerous tsunami currents can last for days.”
And roughly little effect if in deep water.
And ocean settlement have breakwaters and breakwaters near coast would not help much. Though ocean settlement could locally reduce the effect on the coastal area- depending on how big ocean settlements are and are within say 5 km of coast- reduce pulse though not lowering and rising of water on the coasts {which obviously generally the larger effect} but people should not live on beach, they should live on beach in the ocean settlements. Let beaches go back to “nature”. People could visit, but not live.
No one doubts about the fact that there were huge El Ninos in the past, me the least: I was the one who first posted the link to Quinn’s well known picture
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482980
originating from his great article
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98PA00401
which was one of many, as you can see here:
https://academictree.org/chemistry/publications.php?pid=498185
*
But who compares the 1877/78 El Nino edition to 1982/83
1983 5: 2.89
1983 4: 2.79
1983 2: 2.74
1983 3: 2.68
1983 1: 2.57
1998 4: 2.55
1878 3: 2.50
1982 12: 2.48
1998 2: 2.43
1878 2: 2.36
should not forget that 1982/83 was completely hidden by the extremely SO2 rich eruption of El Chichon in 1982:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view
*
Thus of course: the 1877/78 El Nino led to devastating famines in many places of the world.
The questions remain:
– what would have happened in 1877/78 if that event would have had the same power as the one in 1982/83?
– what would have happened in 1982/83 if El Chichon’s eruption had not taken place?
*
And above all: we should not forget that earlier famine events were not only due to climatic exceptions but to the extreme average poverty in earlier times as well.
The eras around Tambora’s eruption (1815) and Samalas’ (1257) are full of reports dealing with famine. London lost 33 % of its population in 1258/59.
*
An interesting article (possibly mentioned by other posters before I do here):
Unraveling forced responses of extreme El Nio variability over the Holocene
Allison E. Lawman & al. (AGAIN: with Terrence Quinn!) 2022
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm4313
You forgot to mention that each time when the last three La Ninas were coming you were the last one to ever figure it out
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736483
Blather blather blather blather blather
from this blog’s second dumbest stalker.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Blather blather blather blather blather
from this blogs second dumbest stalker.”
Does this have a secret meaning for other delusional SkyDragon cultists?
It doesn’t seem to mean anything to normal people.
Blinny thinks that La Nina are unimportant. Only his El Nino are interesting.
I note that he doesn’t claim that 1878 did not happen.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
So much for 1983.
Proxy series, like this one, should have very large error bands placed around them.
I should have said “SINGLE proxy series”.
We all remember bristle cone pines.
” Blinny thinks that La Nina are unimportant. Only his El Nino are interesting. ”
As always: stupid, insincere, insidious insinuations.
*
If I would think that La Nina is unimportant, I wouldn’t show that this last edition was the fourth strongest in MEI’s complete record since 1871:
Year / Index sum / Nr of months below -0.5 treshold
1892: -54.67 40
1908: -52.22 41
1973: -48.71 36
2020: -46.80 34
1954: -40.45 31
1915: -38.97 31
1998: -37.66 36
1873: -36.82 33
2010: -32.99 22
*
” I note that he doesn’t claim that 1878 did not happen. ”
Why should I ignore what every one can see in MEI, Had-CRUT and similar data?
*
” So much for 1983. ”
We talk about the effect of ENSO and eruptions on the Globe, and not on the Tropics.
Samalas’ eruption in 1257 took place in the Tropics, but it is not known to me that London would be located there as well.
*
Why are you always diverting, and distorting discussions such that they fit your personal narrative?
Blindsley H00d behaves like a 12 year old college boy.
Why are you always so wrong in your conclusions? Even when consulted with proofs?
Do you want me to post RSS, GISS, etc. for the impact world wide in the tropics (not that the tropics then feed into the ROW) of 1983?
Since Dr. Spencer mention ENSO at the beginning I feel like it is fair game to discuss. Based on the latest ENSO forecasts my model is now predicting that 2023 will come in 0.09 C shy of the record in 2016 using UAH. Using GISTEMP my model is saying that we will eclipse the record by 0.05 C. And Berkeley Earth just posted that there is a 56% chance that a new record will be achieved. This is a bit of surprise as I had all but written off a record in 2023. I still think it is unlikely in the satellite record, but the surface record?
https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2023-temperature-update/
Don’t forget the spring predictability barrier for ENSO predictions.
I’m using the IRI ensemble which only peaks the El Nino at 1.2. But, yeah, it is possible it falls short of that even due to the SPB.
It will be next month at the least to tell what is going to happen this year I think.
“Weve seen this before. In the space law book I co-authored with Rob Merges, we quote Samuel Eliot Morrison on Columbus and his impact:
At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .”
Reflections on a death, and life on the final frontier
No, it’s not morbid.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds
May 18, 2023
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/reflections-on-a-death-and-life-on?sd=pf
linked: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.
They might just as well argue interminably about the “best” method of achieving nothing useful at all.
Such is life.
Aaaah… Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog, can’t think of anything better than to copy/paste the text of the second dumbest stalker.
Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.
Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.
And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.
They might just as well argue interminably about the best method of achieving nothing useful at all.
Such is life.
Aaaah Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog, can’t think of anything better than to copy/paste the text of the second dumbest stalker.
Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.
Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.
And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.
They might just as well argue interminably about the best method of achieving nothing useful at all.
Such is life.
Climate Migrants on the move and another spinner narrative bites the dust.
Hunter boy
1. I remind you that you still haven’t provided us with a clear reference to the passage of the alleged allegation by Roy Spencer:
” As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records… ”
Was that your invention again?
*
2. Didn’t you understand the difference between no gridding
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view
and gridding
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view
If you don’t perform data gridding, i.e. (grid) area weighting, the entire Globe looks like CONUS’ backyard because the 20,000 CONUS stations located in 6 % of the Globe’s land surface completely push away the remaining 20,000 others located in 94 % of that surface.
Is it really what you wish? ‘What is good for Uncle Sam is for the rest of the world as well’? Hard to imagine.
*
” … and another spinner narrative bites the dust. ”
By the way, Hunter boy: what exactly do you mean with ‘spinner’?
Ever notice that the posters nicknamed ‘RLH’ and ‘Eben’ don’t share your weird, personal take on our Moon’s spin?
And… who is biting which dust here?
Binny,
No description of the GHE yet? How hard can it be?
Make sure to include the role of the GHE in surface cooling at night.
Aaaah!
Finalement, l’idiot d’Oz a récompensé ma patience.
Some of us speak English too.
Too?
Binny,
Todava no hay una descripcin del GHE? Qu tan difcil puede ser?
Asegrese de incluir el papel del GHE en el enfriamiento superficial por la noche.
Bindidon denies:
Ever notice that the posters nicknamed RLH and Eben dont share your weird, personal take on our Moons spin?
And who is biting which dust here?
———————-
Who do you think bit the dust Bindidon. . . .the imminent massive movement of humanity from global warming!
Instead the movement appears to be away from the policies of the Democrat party. Your club of morons is folding up like a Chinese paper tiger.
And as to where to find your request. Even you posted it showing us the entire US warming was a result of kriging and homogenizing the raw data. Now you are in denial of your own posts?
” And as to where to find your request. Even you posted it showing us the entire US warming was a result of kriging and homogenizing the raw data. Now you are in denial of your own posts? ”
Please show me where you have read Spencer’s and my claims.
When you show me these sources, I can reply.
LMAO!
Now you are denying your own posts in response to me? Refer back to your most recent post to me re: USHCN and where you claimed to regrid it. You posted links to the raw data and your processed data and essentially all the warming arose in the processing of the data.
AFA Roy is concerned review his most recent posts regarding his work with USHCN. Probably goes back to the beginning of the year.
another spinner narrative bites the dust.
Every planet and moon has for its surface the unique properties and the unique features.
–
Inevitably, for every planet and moon, there is a different, for each planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean).
–
The planet or moon average surface temperature (Tmean) is dependent on the distance from the sun and on the celestial body’s average surface Albedo.
–
What is new in present research is the DISCOVERY of the very POWERFUL, the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
The role of this discovery in planets’ and moons’ average surface temperature (Tmean) is very important.
For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is SIGNIFICANTLY amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” For every planet and moon… ”
On Vournas’ web site we can read:
” N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin ”
Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?
Strrrange things happen these days, don’t they?
Hahahaha – Why haven’t the rest of his denier pals rushed in to silence him. Deniers treat science like a smorgasbord.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Hahahaha Why havent the rest of his denier pals rushed in to silence him. Deniers treat science like a smorgasbord.”
Presumably, you believe that Christos has made a factual error. Rather than “silencing” him, why not use your vast knowledge and intellectual prowess to make him look foolish?
You really are a sandwich short of a picnic, aren’t you?
No valid description of the GHE yet? How hard can it be, even for a delusional SkyDragon cultist?
Idiot.
Bin and Ant, have you two ever heart the expression, *Two wrongs don’t make a right*?
Bindidon and Antonin
I have invited you to discuss the:
“For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is SIGNIFICANTLY amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.”
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please first answer the question:
Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?
Bindidon:
“Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?”
–
What do you mean by:
“Does our Moon suddenly spin again?”
–
Can’t you observe moon not spinning again?
–
Moon has stopped spinning a long time ago. Why should moon suddenly spin again?
–
Bindidon, is your question a rhetoric one?
–
Bindidon, if you see any inconsistence in my research, please offer me your help.
I think you know what I should say instead of moon’s rotations/per day, when compared with a planet’s spin.
–
Please, don’t hesitate, your help will be very much appreciated.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK, you keep on this blog in the denial of what was in earlier times certainly evident to you.
No problem! I just thought you would become honest again.
Who knows?
Maybe one day even posters like ‘RLH’ or ‘Eben’ will behave like you, and start telling us the that ‘Moon has stopped spinning a long time ago’.
Good luck!
Blinny always posts what he thinks I will do.
The only way Bindiclown can pretend he is right on something is to make up imaginary posts nobody made and argue about things nobody argued about
Blinny is an angry white Nazi.
stephen p. anderson says:
May 19, 2023 at 6:49 PM
Blinny is an angry white Nazi.
You have proved Godwin’s Law and I claim my 5.
Spa,
You wrote –
“Blinny is an angry white Nazi.”
How do you know he’s white?
All people naming others ‘Nazi’ are prevented fascists.
And as long as the Anderson fascist and people like that continue to call me a Nazi, I will call them an asshole.
Well, we don’t have any fast spinning planets.
But we have fast spinning space rocks and if they spinning every 10 hours [or faster] I think the average surface is at 1 AU from the sun is about 5 C.
But in terms of moons of Mars…
“Phobos orbits closer to Mars, with a semi-major axis of 9,377 km (5,827 mi) and an orbital period of 7.66 hours; while Deimos orbits farther with a semi-major axis of 23,460 km (14,580 mi) and an orbital period of 30.35 hours.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Mars
“Temperatures vary on Phobos, reaching highs of 25 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 4 degrees Celsius) during the day, while nights can be as cold as minus 170 degrees F (minus 112 degrees C).”
“The average temperature of Deimos is -40F.
This is a similar temperature to that of Phobos, ranging from around −4C (25F) on the sunlit side of the moon, down to around −112C (−170F) on the shadowed side. ”
One thing about fast spinning small space rocks is they can throw off dust and/or can have bare rock- which can absorb more energy.
Tiny Asteroid That Buzzed Earth Is a Fast-Spinning Rock
By Tariq Malik
published November 20, 2010
https://www.space.com/9571-tiny-asteroid-buzzed-earth-fast-spinning-rock.html
“”We measured the rotation rate of the asteroid at about 31 seconds,” astronomer Eileen Ryan, the observatory’s director, told SPACE.com in an e-mail. “This makes it the second fastest rotating asteroid discovered to date.”
The fastest spinning asteroid currently known is an asteroid called 2010 JL88, which spins once every 24.5 seconds and was also discovered using Magdalena Ridge Observatory’s telescope, Ryan said.”
A WARMER LIFE
Last year was “part of a trend of hyperactive disaster years across the US”, said Adam Smith, an applied climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), which released the data. Since 2016, there have been 122 separate billion-dollar weather and climate events that have, in total, killed more than 5,000 people and caused more than $1tn in damages.
“We are seeing several trends of climate-enhanced disasters,” said Smith, noting that the US is seeing longer, more intense wildfire seasons, severe rainfall events and the sort of huge, category four and five hurricanes in the past few years that NOAA has not documented before in its historical record, which stretches back to 1851.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/10/extreme-weather-climate-crisis-us-deaths-financial-damage
This despite world T has been in the decline since 2016.
AGW sure does not prevent cycle nuts to play the Escalator:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465
How long do you expect long term natural oscillations to be? 150 years or longer?
Why are you always wrong?
No U.
As it has been from 1987 till 1994 and from 1998 till 2005:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1994/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2005/trend
What would you expect a long term sine wave to look like (merged in with some short term variation)?
How can you find such stupid questions?
We all agree that natural oscillations caused the 1878 event, not CO2.
I am suggesting that some of those natural oscillations might be at least 150 years.
We all agree that natural variability has been here since way before 1878, like CO2.
I am suggesting that cycle nuts have to explain how it can explain our current warming when in fact it was a net negative since then.
People who believe that nature and climate are cyclical are nuts. Is that your contention?
Cycle nuts believe in mean reverting patterns that they always get caught when a trend kicks in, Troglodyte. When that kind of nuttery support real bets, it leads to blown out accounts. In Richard’s case, in only leads to more leading questions.
Willard dismisses any claim that there are long term natural oscillations as ‘cycle nuts’. It is all he can do. Even though it is well acknowledged that these natural oscillations exist. He even says that La Nina/El Nino is important but claims that they are completely random (at the same time suggesting that they somehow ‘balance’).
Cycles matter, but should not be imagined.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488002
Erratum:
> Cycle nuts believe in mean reverting patterns [so much] that they always get caught when a trend kicks in
Richard tries to suggest that I don’t believe in seasons or that seasons refute AGW.
Is Willard observing that natural oscillations exist for day/night and the year?
Nate: Why is it that your only natural oscillations are for 24 hours and 12 months?
Is Richard trying to suggest that the cycle of days and nights refutes AGW?
Is Willard saying that only day/night and the year are natural ‘cycles’?
If natural cycles are regular and repeatable, the net temperature change over one complete natural cycle will be approximately…?
“If natural cycles are regular and repeatable”
They aren’t.
Zero.
Is -1 negative or positive? Depends on the direction you are facing.
-1 + 1 = 0
But which way is +ve and which way is -ve?
As a closet conventionnalist, I am bound to say pick any direction you want.
The end result is that full cycles return to equilibrium.
Cycles are only important to Wiltard and Nate when they use them to explain the step changes in the temperature record that indicate the temperature rise is not systematic. Somehow it is a cycle attached to a line. Hehehehehe……
You forget that cycles are also important to show that they had a negative impact on global warming, Troglodyte.
Somehow cycle nuts always forget about that one.
How long do you think natural ‘cycles’ are?
What is an appeal to ignorance?
Willard.
Does Richard recall his 2023-08 exchange with Barry?
We have gotten to that month in this year yet.
Very well, then how about his 2022-08 exchange?
What’s a year in climate?
That must explain why that exchange with Barry was so anticlimactic, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1350016
“Whats a year in climate?”
Good point. Eg 1878.
Never mind 7 days…
RLH: What about the imaginary cooling of the last 7 days?
Everyone: Nah
RLH: Ok then what about the imaginary cooling of the last 7 years?
Everyone: Meh
RLH: OK then what about the imaginary cooling that comes every 150 y?
Everyone: Pfft.
“Climate scientists” cry “It’s worse than we thought!”
Everyone: Pfffft.
You got that one right, Nate.
Now Nate simply ignores facts.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016
The last one cannot be plotted with the actual data sparsity in the 1800s.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2016
All that you show is noise of no significance.
Are you unable to tell the difference between noise and signal of significance?
All you claim is that current data does not show what will happen. You just chose the length of confidence to make AGW true.
P.S. How do you define signal and noise?
Hint: what are the expected spatial and temporal scales of a climate change signal?
What are the spatial and temporal scales of the variation you are highlighting?
“P.S. How do you define signal and noise?”
Noise is aimless. It lacks persistence in space or time.
In the 7 day chart, you see random appearing blotches of change.
In the 7 year window, we see lots of short duration variation.
A prominent contributor to that is ENSO, which is a regional phenomena, oscillatory, short in duration, and unpredictable beyond a few months.
One can characterize noise by its autocorrelation function or power spectrum.
One finds that it is always present throughout the whole temperature record, regardless of how climate is changing.
Here is what ENSO noise looks like
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino3.4a_a.png
Here’s what its autocorrelation function looks like:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/autocoriersst_nino3.4am0sdonfae-.png
It is uncorrelated with itself after 10 months or so.
“Noise is aimless. It lacks persistence in space or time.”
Only if you believe that all natural signals decompose neatly into sine waves of regular appearance.
In nature, nothing is a regular straight line or a continuous sine wave.
“what are the expected spatial and temporal scales of a climate change signal?”
Well there is definitely a 24 hour and a 365.25 day signal. Beyond that it is unlikely that any natural signal is either a straight line or a regular sine wave (orbital factors excluding).
> How do you define signal and noise
Nate and Richard.
Willard is just continuous.
‘Noise is aimless. It lacks persistence in space or time.
Only if you believe that all natural signals decompose neatly into sine waves of regular appearance.”
Uhhh
Do you think ENSO noise is of regular appearance?
I showed you its autocorrelation analysis.
It is uncorrelated after 10 months or so. That means it has no predictability based on its previous state beyond 10 months or so.
Autocorrelation analysis makes large assumptions about things being very repetitive. Things in nature rarely that simple. Only tuned things, like orbital characteristics, are.
So you are saying that ENSO and PDO are not similar in any way?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo-1.jpeg
“El Nio and La Nia events occur every two to seven years, on average, but they dont occur on a regular schedule.”
“Autocorrelation analysis makes large assumptions about things being very repetitive. ”
Huuh? What are you talking about?
In the case of ENSO, it is a cycle that repeats. It is just not regular or predictable like a sine wave.
RLH, Here’s what I don’t understand. When you apply your 5 year or sometimes longer LP filters, you are trying to remove high frequency noise from the data in order to see the underlying long term trends.
So you appear to know that there is noise and signal of interest, which for climate change is long time scale.
And most of this:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino3.4a_a.png
is noise, we seem to agree.
And PDO, as you can see here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488002
I agree that it appears to contribute noise on medium time scales.
But it is also cyclic, small in its contribution, and thus doesnt explain the long term monotonic warming trend.
The PDO series I showed has a much longer dataset that the smaller set that WFT uses.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo-1.jpeg
“But it is also cyclic, small in its contribution”
So the PDO signal is not noise then.
Care to run a Fourier analysis (or better still a wavelet one) on the data we have to date?
Again, what is the expected behavior and time scale of a climate change ‘signal’?
A long term, persistently rising trend, for ~ a century or more.
What is the behavior of PDO?
Looks like noise, it is oscillatory but not predictable.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipdo_ersst.png
What are the persistence time scales for PDO?
The autocorrelation function
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/autocoripdo_ersstm0sdfae-.png
shows typical persistence around (8 y) or so.
Thus warm periods would typically persist for ~ 8 y, sometimes longer, often shorter.
“A long term, persistently rising trend, for ~ a century or more.”
So anything that has a longer period than that is what? Inconvenient?
“it is oscillatory but not predictable”
When has predictability become a requirement?
The autocorrelation function is based by predictable oscillations. Nature is not like that (except for orbital mechanics).
“Thus warm periods would typically persist for ~ 8 y”
Cold ones also. You display your bias.
“So anything that has a longer period than that is what?”
is something you have yet to show us. Thus far it is fantasy.
‘it is oscillatory but not predictable’
“When has predictability become a requirement?”
You asked what is noise. I explained.
“The autocorrelation function is based by predictable oscillations. Nature is not like that (except for orbital mechanics).”
Not at all. It is an analysis tool used to characterize any time series. I showed you its use with unpredictable noise.
“Thus warm periods would typically persist for ~ 8 y”
Cold ones also. You display your bias.”
Nah. Missing the point again.
The POINT was to EXPLAIN our persistent warming trend.
PDO’s warming periods do not persist very long. It oscillates, thus does not have the required property to explain our long persistence warming trend.
Blindsley H00d
” What would you expect a long term sine wave to look like (merged in with some short term variation)? ”
This question makes no sense at all when related to your pathological insisting on the most recent cooling – together with ignoring the (very recent) past:
” This despite world T has been in the decline since 2016. ”
*
Judging by your constant behavior on this blog, you should actually be a world-renowned statistician.
You then should be able to extract the sine wave you claim to see, and to show us the residuals, shouldn’t you?
{ Hint: please avoid any simple detrending: that is too trivial, and hence not what we expect. }
Are you saying that I cannot suggest that the 1878 event is matched by current T?
Are you saying that I need to invent better measurements 150 years ago?
“please avoid any simple detrending”
No detrending needed for El Nino it seems.
I see: you did not (want to?) understand what I expect you to reply.
We are talking about the global temperature, and not about a minuscule subset of the Globe.
Let me reply like you use to do:
Are you saying that the average sea surface temperature in 5S-5N — 170W-120W is relevant for the Globe as a whole just because this fact dominates your personal narrative?
Stop stalking us with your 1877/78 El Nino (we all now it was quite powerful, yes, yes – even if not quite as strong as 1982/83, according to MEI) and start showing us how the global temperature looks like when you – as a great statistician – manage to extract this sine wave you so proudly talk about:
” What would you expect a long term sine wave to look like (merged in with some short term variation)? ”
What are the residuals for the Globe within e.g. 1850-2020, great statistician?
“your 1877/78 El Nino”
It happened to the world and was long before I was born.
“not quite as strong as 1982/83, according to MEI”
Because the southern ocean temperatures in that era are just a guess which setouts to confirm AGW.
1882/83 did not kill millions around the globe nor have effects in at least 3 of the main ocean basins.
Cue Dr Strangelove.
When did we start measuring weather and climate in megadeaths?
If millions of people die but the effects on global temperature shows no change, should we not challenge the accuracy of the temperature figures?
Worse than that, EM – Richard keeps denying that famines after the industrial revolution are first and foremost man-made.
Perhaps you should remind him what Brits did to your folks.
Willard is so determined to promote AGWE that he now claims it is all the fault of the British Empire.
Richard is so determined to minimize AGW that he will throw his spaghetti bowl at the wall in each and every thread.
Meanwhile:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-famine-as-instrument-of-fate-1.165862
Willard will not admit that AGW is just a theory that needs to be proved.
P.S. Willard: Despite your claims, the British Empire did not cause the event of 1878.
Richard won’t admit that proofs are for maths and drinks.
Neither will he admit that so far he offered nothing to counter it or to explain the phenomena.
And of course Richard is wrong about the Brits:
https://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/famines-india/government-response
The problem Wiltard and all his leftist bedfellows have is that AGW has been falsified.
Willard won’t admit that 1878 was an El Nino probably bigger than 2016. 1878 was long before CO2 was important.
Richard won’t say that his “probably bigger” goes beyond the evidence he offered.
Nor will he commit to claim that AGW ought to cause bigger El Ninos.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
nino3.4 getting warmer /sarc
And so Richard still fails to offer any evidence for the main idea he does not have the fortitude to even formulate.
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard is a Black Knight turned into a kettle.
Willard is an idiot.
A black kettle.
Willard is definitely an idiot.
Very black.
Willard thinks that nature only runs in sine wave like cycles.
Richard believes that a cosine wave is not cyclical.
Willard believes that cosine is not ‘sine like’.
Richard believes that all cycles are sine wave like.
On the contrary, I have always said that natural ‘cycles’ are not regular sine waves.
Richard butchers another formal concept, this time suggesting that a cycle implies some kind of sine wave instead of being a mere periodic function.
“What are the residuals for the Globe within e.g. 1850-2020”
There is no way to create this series, unless we can go back in time and have better data from the 1800s (and before).
“We are talking about the global temperature”
Unless I am mistaken, the majority of the energy from the sun comes in around the tropics and leaves via the poles. Therefore what happens in the tropics is of concern to us all.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-617e2b2bbc5ea5fc3676924d8109f457.webp
Likewise what happens at the Poles concerns all of us, because it determines weather patterns where we live.
Likewise what happens in the mid latitudes concerns all of us who grow our food there and live there.
Nate,
Weather is weather. Be as “concerned” as you like.
It’s not going to make any difference.
Accept reality. No GHE, either.
“Likewise what happens at the Poles concerns all of us”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-southern-polar.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-sopol.jpeg
“Weather is weather. Be as concerned as you like.
Its not going to make any difference.”
Ok so when they tell you a cyclone or typhoon is headed to your area, no worries. Stay put.
Are you saying that weather systems can effect T? Who knew?
Nate,
You wrote –
“Ok so when they tell you a cyclone or typhoon is headed to your area, no worries. Stay put.”
If you want to, Nate. I may stay, I may leave.
It’s called weather. Neither you nor I can control it, or even predict it, in any meaningful way.
“Neither you nor I can control it, or even predict it, in any meaningful way.”
Indeed one would have to believe in science and rationality in order to believe that weather can be predicted.
That is way too tall an order for you.
We don’t live at the poles. The exact ratio between the equator and the poles differs throughout the year.
A heat engine requires a heat source and a sink.
So you are certain what happens at the Poles doesnt affect our weather?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487996
So you are certain what happens at the Equator doesn’t affect our weather?
Quote me saying it doesnt..
Another NOAA nutter who doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather.
He said “We are seeing several trends of climate-enhanced disasters,. No, “applied climatologist” Smith, climate is a bunch of weather statistics. You mean weather disasters – floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes – those sorts of things.
More NOAA nuttery?
Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs and Nate Drake PhDs S-G. Even when I post my code to show he is wrong.
VP (CTRM low pass) came up with a 3 pass process.
Nate Drake (S-G usage) came up with the 5 pass process.
Or I could go to 5 pass VP
1, 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757: Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
This is well known, Blindsley H00d.
You are not the only one who reads Vaughan Pratt’s comments:
2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
So do you now agree that I am using a 3 pass VP low pass filter?
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
Why is it that BCC RZDM thinks that we will get a La Nina again this year?
Maybe they know something others don’t
Not all The modelz do not agreese
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBdzQNF/nino3-4-may2023-plume-S2-S.png
I know. I wish someone was scoring these so we know which are more accurate over time.
Well we know Bindiclown always follows the worst one so we can use that as a start and work up from there
https://i.postimg.cc/26Qjcn57/nino1-2-may2023-plume-S2-S.png
I just need to look at
https://i.postimg.cc/3RvWGF39/nino34-Mon170523.png
to understand what might happen.
No modelszz needed, dachshundle.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
“forecasts made at some times of the year generally have higher skill than forecasts made at other times of the year-namely, they are better when made between June and December than when they are made between February and May”
forecasts made by Bindikloun are always exactly opposite to actual outcome.
“No modelszz needed” sez Bindikloun – while posting a link to a model
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488755
Some cycles exist, but one can’t just assign arbitrary strength and period to them to explain away systematic warming.
One has to determine how much they actually have contributed.
Here is how the PDO may have influenced the T record.
https://tinyurl.com/4rachdks
It shows the surface T over the last century with the plateau in the middle.
Then a linear warming trend is removed.
It then shows the integrated PDO can explain much of the residual variation in global T after a linear trend is removed.
Obviously the overall (nonlinear) warming trend is not explained by the PDO cycle.
Because the southern oceans are so well sampled before the satellite era.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo-1.jpeg
Funny how the green and the red lines increase when sampling resolution increases.
Funnier to then read Richard’s reaction.
The divergence between green and the red lines, that is.
Willard thinks that woodfortrees and its limited series are the only goto for data sets.
However, this in no way prevents Blindsley H00d from using WFT’s ‘limited series’ whenever this suits his views, especially when he wants to show… how the Globe cools since 2016.
Then, suddenly, its ‘limited series’ suddenly look completely sufficient.
My series sources are larger than woodfortrees has at its disposal.
Woodfortrees is useful when we are discussing that smaller set.
And here too?
My God.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488174
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488202
Blinny is incapable of treating 2 threads as separate.
Goose, meet gander.
Richard thinks that nobody but him can read graphs.
Willard is just an idiot.
From your point of view there are many ‘idiots’ here, depending of course on how far their views differ from yours.
An interesting exercise would be to download all your comments for the last two years and find out when was the last time you called Robertson an idiot, wouldn’t it?
My series sources are larger than woodfortrees has at its disposal.
” My series sources are larger than woodfortrees has at its disposal. ”
You seem to have a deep minority complex, Blindsley H00d.
*
And above all, you are also an incredibly arrogant show-off boy.
I remember asking you to show me a graph with an overlay of UAH and RSS, as WFT’s creator Paul Clark (and I, by the way) can of course do.
The result was unbelievable, almost shameful:
https://i.imgur.com/pBEct4k.png
And a little zero dot zero boy like you, who isn’t even able to show two superposed time series in one graph, dares to discredit the huge work done at WFT!
How woeful.
woodfortrees has about 10 current data sources available (I have not included previous versions).
I have rather a lot more graphs on my page.
If you want to compare RSS and UAH, why don’t you show the STAR graph which does that rather well.
https://i.imgur.com/aNfcGmw.png
Or compare these 2 graphs
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
If you want them on the same image, do it yourself.
P.S. I don’t normally do an aggregate of 2 series. Are you incapable of doing that simple comparison?
It will come out much the same as the STAR comparison shows.
P.P.S. Have you given up on saying incorrectly that my graphs do not have VPs solution for low distortion CTRM low pass on them (which requires at least 3 steps on WFT – they only have SRM as a simple choice on there)?
I note you don’t say that WFT with 3 SRM cascaded together does not produce the same outcome as I use.
https://imgur.com/iGcZRdh
With whatever method, show us how any known cycle is explaining the overall warming trend, RLH.
Because the data available in the southern oceans is which is very short.
Nate: Are you saying that there are no natural oscillations that have main periods of less than or more than 50 years?
SO when you claim cycles explain GW, you have no evidence to support the claim?
OK.
So when you claim that there are no natural ‘cycles’ that contribute to the T changes we see, you have no evidence (other than CO2 MUST be to blame).
That’s because all the evidence indicates that warming isn’t systematic.
Exactly. Only human beans are new.
“Thats because all the evidence indicates that warming isnt systematic.”
We showed you the evidence that there is natural variation, eg. ENSO, and PDO, and in addition there needs to be a systematic warming trend.
But there is no evidence that you pay attention to evidence that we show you Stephen.
“Some cycles exist”
Some natural oscillations exist. Other than orbitally based ones, they are not simple sine wave based.
A WARMER LIFE
A study has found that the costs to B.C.s economy from 2021s extreme weather events could be more than $17 billion.
The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9316074/2021-bc-extreme-weather-events-cost/
Willard,
“The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”
Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who don’t know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have a point except to show you’re a moron?
Willard,
“The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”
Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.
So you don’t have any point, Mike.
Willard,
“The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”
Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.
Repeating your comment won’t help you make a point, Mike.
Try again.
“Repeating your comment wont help you make a point”
Kettle – black.
Willard,
“The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”
Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.
Moron Mike,
Please ask me the Question Answered a Thousand Times.
What is the point of Willard?
Has Richard anything to counter that 2022 was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters, and what it implies regarding the OP?
Recently we have more people with more stuff.
More stuff and more power in general, which means people can more easily protect themselves against an empire that tries to exploit their resources, inducing famines along the way.
Like the USA?
Like everywhere, relatively speaking.
It’s not like the Brits are going to try to do what they did for “roughly” (H/T Roy) 400y, right?
The British Empire faded from view some 50 or more years ago.
While empires fade with the rise of social democracies, there are still famines caused by resource misallocation. The trend is going in the right direction, however:
https://ourworldindata.org/famines
This trend may reverse if the world continues to polarise. Inflation makes commodities more expensive for everyone, and this taxes the poorest the most. With the rise of interest rates capital may go again in the USD. Last time it did Latin America basically went bankrupt. But for that the GOP must stop pouting and stop their debt ceiling standoff.
The actual speeds of the changes in our climates is far from reducing the risks of witnessing more resource curse around the world.
“While empires fade with the rise of social democracies”
Puerto Rico will be very happy.
When Puerto Ricans will have the right to elect their President?
You bet.
Puerto Rico might be happy to know it is not part of the USA Empire.
Porto Ricans surely appreciate that somewhere on the Intertubes there’s a Whig who dreams that one day we all become part of the United States.
Willard is just an idiot.
By serendipity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Puerto_Rico
The USA will spend some money really soon in PR.
It indeed will:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Puerto-Rico/Trade_balance/
It might take back too.
Flynnson clearly hates when people discuss temperature trends, climate change, and science in general.
It is quite perplexing that he repeatedly visits and posts at a blog discussing those very things.
Maybe he is trying ‘exposure therapy’ in hopes of curing his affliction.
It’s amazing to see that Sunny Boy’s activity hasn’t been worth showing this chart on the blog for a while now:
https://tinyurl.com/29urrx7w (EISNcurrent.png)
But… wait! One day, SSN will drop again below the famous Coolista alarm treshold, and then…
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
nino3.4 getting warmer /sarc
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488755
Dr. Spencer a similar blog post would be to address all the things that have gotten better with higher CO2:
1) Global standards of living
2) Falling Global Rate of Child Labor
3) Falling real energy prices
4) More women in the workforce
5) Higher crop yields
6) Lower global poverty
7) Lower global hunger
8) Greater leisure time
9) Life expectancy has increased
10) and the list goes on and on and on.
There is hardly a single demographic metric other than obesity and health-related issues having to do with a longer life span and better living. Why if increasing CO2 from 300 to 400 caused so many good things, by what mechanism would increasing CO2 from 400 to 500 suddenly reverse that well-established trend of improving lives wiht higher CO2?
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
*****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Except the ones which are not rotating. Presumably in your universe the Moon’s temperature can be explained without the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
According to Vournas newest thoughts (of course 100 % derived from the non-spinners’ opinion), all moons in tidal locking (i.e. all moons in our solar system) stopped rotating long time ago.
Hence these poor celestial bodies unfortunately CAN’T be subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
Thus, Vournas should have written:
” All planets are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON. “
Bindidon:
“Thus, Vournas should have written:
All planets are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON. ”
–
***
And, moon’s axial rotation supporters (Bindidon Etc) should then confirm:
“All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.”
–
Thank you, Bindidon. Your acceptance of the UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON should not be obscured because of moons’ not existing axial rotation.
–
A moon does not rotate about its axis, but a moon orbits its mother planet. By doing so moons are subjected to their, a unique for each moon, the moon’s DIURNAL CYCLE!
–
The celestial bodies having a DIURNAL CYCLE, when considered in terms of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON,
for those celestial bodies’ the surface interaction processes with the incident solar flux are exactly the same as for the planets, which have axial rotation.
–
Please compare planets’ and moons’ mechanical movements:
Planets orbit sun and rotate about their axis.
–
Moons orbit sun and orbit their mother planets.
–
See now! Both planets and moons are performing two distinguished movements.
–
That is why for planets and moons the DIURNAL CYCLE’s duration is longer than their respected (with reference to the steady stars) the planets’ and moons’ the respected sidereal cycles’.
–
Now it is explained to you, Bindidon, that in spite of moons not rotating about their own axis, they are like-wise subjected to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
***
Thank you, Bindidon. Now you can accept the moons’ not rotation, because it is not anymore for you an obstacle when discussing the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Very good, Vournas!
You have nowm proved that you belong to the top deiner class of this blog.
Look at what you yourself write in your own blog, Vournas.
” NASA has precisely measured the solar system planets and moons the rotational spins. ”
” The rotational spin (“N” rotations/day) ”
” The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m from one direction. ”
” N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin. ”
” N.earth = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotation spin. ”
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ”
” N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin ”
” 3. The planet’s axial spin N (rotations/day). ”
” N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day. ”
” And It is a confirmation that the planet axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the sixteenth root… ”
etc etc.
Don’t try to kid anyone on this blog, Vournas.
It is absolutely evident that if you would mean ‘axial spin’ for Earth and Mars but would claim that Moon doesn not spin about its axis, you then of course would have written ‘orbiting’ for the Moon.
Binny,
You wrote –
” . . . you then of course would have written ‘orbiting’ for the Moon.”
But of course he didn’t did he?
He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!
Just accept reality.
Aaaah
Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog.
Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.
Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.
Binny,
You wrote
” . . . you then of course would have written orbiting for the Moon”
But of course he didn’t did he?
He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!
Just accept reality.
Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog.
Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.
Binny,
You wrote
“. . . you then of course would have written orbiting for the Moon”
But of course he didnt did he?
He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!
Just accept reality.
As a matter of interest, what mental deficit causes you to think that you are so important that anyone at all would bother stalking you?
Swenson,
Ever met a Nazi?
Yes, and I might even encounter a second one eventually.
When do we meet?
As sceptics repeatedly remind me.
Correalation is not causation.
Correlation is not causation, but the matching is striking!!!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
They all correlate with fossil fuel burn, and the temporary increase in living standards will end when the fuel runs out.
EM,
We might as well enjoy better living standards while we can, then.
By the way, who are these skeptics to whom you refer? Are they perhaps people who do not believe in a GHE that you cannot even describe?
Are you a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who has redefined “realist” as “skeptic”, just like redefining “slow cooling” to mean “getting hotter”?
For example, surrounding a thermometer with CO2 may result in it cooling slower compared with a vacuum, but it does not make the thermometer hotter, does it?
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Write down your theory. Show me your experimental results.
Only joking, of course. If you think I’m taunting you, I won’t disagree.
ent…would help if you gave a hint as to what you are talking about.
–Hateful Attacks
Curry said Twitter has vastly improved under Musk, but its a work in progress.
There are people on both sides of the debate on climate issues that are exceedingly ignorant about science and the impact of climate change, she said. But they speak loudly on the topic.
However, its those on the alarmist side of the debate whose rhetoric of extinction and crisis is the most out of touch with reality, she said.
Curry said that despite the bad information they spread, she thinks its more important to reign in what she calls libelous and hateful attacks by climate scientists who hold faculty positions at universities.
Lately, Mann has been on a rampage on Twitter, attacking figures who express viewpoints he doesnt like. Some might call the Tweets abusive.
In one tweet, Mann called Curry a go-to figure on the denial circuit. —
Mann is less of “a go-to” figure- and he is jealous.
Mann is not global warming cargo cultist- he is a fake- and corrupt bureaucrat.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/05/17/climate-scientists-gripe-about-denier-criticism-on-twitter-but-seem-ok-with-dishing-it-out-themselves/
linked: Climate Wars On Twitter
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
His public actions certainly seem to support an assumption that he may be suffering from delusional psychosis.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It’s a definition. If Michael Mann is delusional enough to believe that anyone can deny that a definition exists, he is demonstrating that his attachment to reality is marginal at best.
Michael Mann has no integrity. That isn’t a good trait for a person who wants to be considered a scientist.
Deniers try their best to slander the messenger with every available ad hom.
However, the message has gotten through anyway.
The scientific findings of Michael Mann still stand. They have been reproduced by many others.
Oh well.
That Judy has become a central figure in the denial circuit is a statement of fact.
That Willard is an idiot is a fact as well.
“Some might call the Tweets abusive.”
From the warmistas.
“not global warming cargo cultist- he is a fake- and corrupt bureaucrat.”
As most warmistas are.
You can do better than that, Richard.
Channel your dark side. Think of a black kettle.
Why would I think of you?
Even better.
Not thinking of you is even better.
Yet you are still here, ushering sweet nothings in my ear.
Wiltard also goes by the name Re Re.
Thanks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUX_JNixxZQ
Winsome Wee Willy,
You wrote “Yet you are still here, ushering sweet nothings in my ear.”
And? Your homosexual protestations of undying love for me, swooning, and all the rest, just make you look like an idiot attempting to be annoying.
How is that working out for you?
“Are Ya Winning Son” is so prfct for your new sock, Mike Flynn:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-ya-winning-son
Whacky Wee Willy,
Another appeal to irrelevant and pointless authority?
Can’t you think for yourself? What is in your link that you think is relevant to your homosexual protestations of love?
I can’t be bothered looking, so you can keep your secret knowledge to yourself if you wish.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
It is just a link.
It will not bite, unless you ask.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Another appeal to irrelevant and pointless authority?
Can’t you think for yourself? What is in your link that you think is relevant to your homosexual protestations of love?
I can’t be bothered looking, so you can keep your secret knowledge to yourself if you wish.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You complain that I appeal to my own authority.
You also complain that that I am not thinking by myself.
Don’t you see the contradiction?
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Another appeal to irrelevant and pointless authority?
Cant you think for yourself? What is in your link that you think is relevant to your homosexual protestations of love?
I cant be bothered looking, so you can keep your secret knowledge to yourself if you wish.
A contradiction? You are an idiot – who could contradict that?
Carry on.
Did you know that a double bind was a manipulative technique, Moron Mike?
Blinny will no doubt be able to show how this differs from what I plot.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
(excluding the 5 pass S-G which WFT does not offer)
A WARMER LIFE
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-called-karen-musk-reddit-over-remote-working-stance-2023-5
” And like a pendulum, his net worth dropped in 2022 due to the falling share price of Tesla, of which he owns 13%. Musk also had to sell many of his shares in Tesla to fund his acquisition of Twitter. This resulted in him losing the top spot of the richest person in the world to Bernard Arnault.
Tesla’s share price moved upward in Jan. and Feb. 2023, allowing Musk to take the top spot of the richest person in the world once again, but as markets fluctuate, he is currently the second-richest person in the world.”
It should be noted that french stock market has gone up a lot, and US stock markets have been declining during this time.
” 2. Elon Musk
Age: 51
Residence: Texas
Co-founder and CEO: Tesla
Net Worth: $165 billion
Tesla Ownership Stake: 13% ($67.5 billion)
Twitter Ownership Stake: 79% ($9.65 billion)
Other Assets: Space Exploration Technologies ($48.9 billion private asset), The Boring Company ($3.33 billion private asset)”
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-richest-people-world.asp
It seems twitter is worth more than 10 billion and is somewhere around 50 billion.
SpaceX owns starlink. Starlink has about 1.5 million subscriber, and by end of year could have about 3 million subscribers.
And SpaceX and/or Starlink could go public somewhere near the end of this year.
SpaceX launched about 60 rockets in 2022, and looks like it will launch about 60 in 2023. And 2024 looks better.
Bezos won a +4 billion contract for crew lunar lander, so US should have two possible crew landers landing on Moon around 2025 AD and US will be only country which will have lunar crewed lander within this time frame.
> Co-founder
Hmmm:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-interview-history-elon-musk-ev-market-2023-2
Founders are usually on the other side of a Series A trade our Space Karen was.
Musk is a thief. If it weren’t for Everhard, then Musk would be selling shoes somewhere.
Elmo might still have enjoyed his 175M from PayPal tho.
gb…”The name Karen is a moniker used to refer to white women who are thought to be acting inappropriately or who are perceived as entitled”.
***
Karen is just another ignorant moniker applied by ignorant people. Karens are a race of people who are black, but ignorant people would not be aware of that. They are the same people who derived the word woke, which is supposed to mean ‘awakened’. However, as applied, it is a term of ignorance derived from a reference to ‘awake’ as In I am awake. Those who apply is are actually saying, I’m woke, as in woke up, illustrating an ignorant application of English.
The message is that people who indulge in the woke culture, or calling white women Karens, are ignorant SOBs.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s “Karen” even in plural. They’re Sino-Tibetan, not black. And the “Karen” meme derives from a generic name to designate an entitled white woman. Ken and Karen from St.Louis are the epitome of that idea.
Meanwhile, you got your “woke” upside down. It is a term originating from the African-American vernacular that has been transformed into a derogatory term by Freedom Fighters such as your very sorry self.
You can step down your soapbox now.
The point is, the idiots calling women Karens are the jerks, not the women who are the targets of their venom.
Please do try to keep up, wee willy. How am I supposed to teach you physics and teach you to be a better person at the same time?
Your pearl clutching rests on mere fabrications, Bordo.
C’mon.
Shocker, Gordon stands up in support of racists.
“Japan’s population peaked in 2009 with 128.56 mn people after Japan’s population decreased year by year. The Japanese population is projected to reach 120.76 million in 2030 and decrease further to 105.80 million in 2050 and 74.96 million by 2100.”
Does it seem likely that by 2100 AD Japan’s population will be about 75 million, within about 80 years?
Are all the people giving such future projections, wrong?
And/or can Japanese government prevent this large loss in population?
Of all nations, it seems to me, Japan could count their population, adequately and could manage to do the math correctly.
It seems to me, it difficult to accurately predict the future- it seems possible we discover how to reverse aging, for instance.
Or the population of humans, could less important than the population of AI.
It’s possible we living on Mars within 80 years.
It’s possible humans can’t live on Mars, but instead AI can live on
Mars. And nation of Japan has a billion AI living on Mars, ie, Futurama.
Anyhow, it seems the government of Japan, regards it, as problem.
And the government of Japan has spent over 40 years trying to do something about global warming, and has completely failed to do anything about it.
The Indy 500 is this weekend, so I have a science question. If a race car requires 100 horsepower to go 100 mph, how much power is required to go 200 mph? Explain your answer.
Drag rises geometrically with velocity.
“Drag force is proportional to the velocity for low-speed flow and the squared velocity for high speed flow, where the distinction between low and high speed is measured by the Reynolds number.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
https://www.cradle-cfd.com/media/column/a153
“We can see that the Reynolds number reaches approximately 1.4 million. Because of its complicated shape, it is difficult to know the critical Reynolds number of a car; however, the equation shows the Reynolds number is very large and thus the flow is turbulent.”
You are on the right track (pun?). We can assume the flow is fully turbulent and the flow regime does not change from 100 mph to 200 mph. The car is sufficiently streamlined that significant wake separation does not occur from the body or from the low downforce wings. Nonetheless, form friction is much larger than skin friction.
Why do you think that most Indy cars top out around 240 miles an hour?
My question is academic. If we had real data, we could do a better analysis. I will note that top speed is in the straight where cornering force is not a factor. Top speed assumes zero acceleration and no power used to increase kinetic energy.
In the old days they had more Hp and and also more drag, I think.
“the squared velocity for high speed flow”
We can assume that this applies. So 100 ^ 2 compared to 200 ^ 2.
So at least 40 times as much power.
edit: … 4 times …
4 Times the drag force is a good start, but how does that relate to the power requirement?
“Indy 500: 1,590 pounds, 201.7 inches long, 76.5 inches wide, 40 inches tall, 117.5-inch wheelbase, 25-27.5-inch diameter tires, 550-700 horsepower”
needs 4 times power, 400 horsepower
gbaikie, Nice try. Go back to school or read my spoiler.
tim s…seeing as you are being an ass to gb, here’s the formula and wiki article…
Pd = 1/2 p.v^3.A.Cd
Pv = required power
p = air density
v = velocity
A = cross-sectional area
Cd = drag coefficient
The drag is Fd = 1/2.p.v^2.A.Cd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
“Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome aerodynamic drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).[21] With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting 4 times the force over a fixed distance produces 4 times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, 4 times the work done in half the time requires 8 times the power”.
SPOILER ALERT: I will give the answer as a text description. The equations can be taken from that. It is just basic physics.
The easy assumption is that all of the drag forces are increased as the square of the speed. Rolling resistance of the tires may actually decrease with speed as the tire expands and decreases the contact patch and reduces the standing wave effect (?), but is not a big factor. The physical properties of the air do not change, so the drag force is related to some constant times velocity squared. The key concept is that power is energy per time. It is dynamic. The energy to overcome drag is work, which is force times distance. Work divided by time becomes velocity squared times distance divided by time, or velocity cubed. It takes eight times as much Hp to go twice as fast. This is why cars tend to run into a brick wall at top speed. Enzo Ferrari was wrong when he said aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines. He did not understand aerodynamics.
It seems obvious that the faster you go the more you compress air molecules and the less they have time to get out of the way. The formula is on Wiki and I won’t spoil it by posting a link. However, to analyze it analytically becomes complex.
Nnobody youses math on my planet, but generaly
The drag goes up with the square of the speed
the power required goes up with the cube of the speed
The reason they have modification to the front wing and covers for the rear wheels is that the top of the tire is actually going twice the speed of the car and represent a significant amount of drag.
This is a dumb question. It is set up as a gotcha so you can have an ego-trip whereas the problem is far more complex than you are letting on.
For people who are paying attention, sharing information for fun, and not looking at it with a trolling mindset, it is amazingly simple and only requires basic physics because the comparison involves the same fluid (air) with the same properties that do not change (c), and an object that is the same.
F= (c)(v^2) simple.
W = F x D simple.
Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).
To be fair it is not precise, but very close to reality.
Happy trolling Gordon.
Sounds good, Tim S.
No wonder that the usual ignorant troll tries to denigrate what you wrote.
Bordo stated why:
> seeing as you are being an ass to gb
No need to invent.
It is not a dumb question, I work for a dragster racing team and this is a basic formula.
But why post it on this board, here it is just more off topic trolling.
You are absolutely correct. The orbit of the moon is much more relevant, and also has a simple and indisputable explanation.
You better be a skeptic
https://youtu.be/SqC4zPYKdSg
wee willy…”While empires fade with the rise of social democracies…”
***
Why not call it what it is, socialism. Apologists have come up with the alteration ‘social democracy’ because as socialists they were usually compared to communist Russia and China.
I dare say that most true socialists support capitalism but they want it controlled by various degrees to curb the excesses of unfettered capitalism. On the other hand, some socialist governments went overboard with taxation while supporting unionists who hid behind unionism as an excuse to goof off.
Having experienced both sides of the fence, I feel positive about both sides working out their differences to make this world a better place for everyone.
In an ideal world, capitalists would be responsible citizens who took a fair share of profits and tried to better society. Ideal socialists would put in a fair days work for a fair days pay and not try to penalize capitalists.
In the real world, that’s not how it works. Social democrats have been invaded by special interest groups who are trying steer us away from democracy into a world of stupidity based on lies about catastrophic climate change and perverted lifestyles.
C’mon, Bordo.
You can call anything however you want. Liberal democracy, social democracy, Western democracy, democracy tout court, ordoliberalism. Ideological talk is boring. For the point I was trying to make, it does not matter much.
I rather like how Sidney portrays it:
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/liberal-or-social-democrat
If you ever find the round Tuit, search for his quips. He was a funny guy. Just like Mike Flynn, but funny.
Wasted Wee Willy,
You wrote “For the point I was trying to make . . . “.
Keep trying. You might get there if you try hard enough.
Thanks, Mike Flynn.
I sure will.
test
swenson…”Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat”.
***
And not necessarily in that order.
wee willy continues his alarmist propaganda…
“A study has found that the costs to B.C.s economy from 2021s extreme weather events could be more than $17 billion.
The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9316074/2021-bc-extreme-weather-events-cost/
***
From someone who lives in BC and knows what is going on….
1)a major amount of the ***ALLEGED*** stated money went to flood-control infrastructure that should have been done a long time ago. Dikes broke in a weak part of a local river and caused considerable damage over a wide area.
If you look up the damage costs you will find they are nowhere near the amount stated.
I live near a major river with proper dikes and we were never close to being in danger, even when a high tide occurred during the deluge. Those affected were unprepared for high river levels. No one in the metropolitan area of Vancouver was affected.
We have proper dikes.
2)the people claiming the damage was due to climate change are liars. The first incident, a heat wave in June 2021 was certainly unusual but it was localized and unless CO2 can act over a small part of the planet, blaming it for the heat wave is idiocy.
NOAA, who are uber-alarmists put both incidents down to La Nina conditions.
The second incident occurred in November 2021, when torrential rains from the Pacific drenched the province. If you try to claim that much rain is unusual in the Vancouver area to anyone who has lived here any amount of time you’ll get laughed out of the room. Rain jokes in Vancouver are part of our culture since we live in a rain forest climate and expect deluges every so often.
It was weather, nothing more. a simple variation in precipitation patterns. The heat wave did not appear last summer and we’ve had no similar floods since. Again, how could a trace gas cause such havoc in a small corner of the planet?
We just went through another mini heat wave, which is unusual for May. Again, how does one explain that as being caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere?
> From someone who lives
C’mon, Bordo. (1) This is not an anecdote tournament and (2) your incredulity is your own problem.
Quick question. When you say:
you’re talking about when you fart under your blanket, right?
Wondering Wee Willy,
“. . . youre talking about when you fart under your blanket, right?”
Not very mature, are you? Did you get that from a pre-schooler?
Maybe you could try describing the GHE? Show that you are more intelligent than a preschooler. Only joking.
Yeah, out of bounds, Willard.. Swenson has exclusive rights to juvenile humor in this territory!
Too bad. I was about to ask if it was the blanket or the greenhouse gases that was warming Bordo.
Aw, diddums. Such a nice setup.
Actually it was funny..
Nate,
You’ll no doubt roll around laughing at this – Fart. Bum. Dick. Shit.
How funny was that?
You don’t need to thank me.
You are overestimating your comedic talent.
You think you’ve got an immigration problem now. Plan for 1 billion refugees trying to move to a cooler climate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6
EM,
From your link –
“To estimate future exposure, we use an ensemble of eight climate model outputs”
All “tuned” by delusional SkyDragon cultists, of course.
Maybe Americans are all mad. Dr Spencer titled his post “Americans Increasingly Choose a Warmer Life.”
In any case, there will be room and more for a billion refugees if Antarctica reverts to its former verdant self – along with Alaska, Canada, Siberia etc.
Where is this planet warming heat to come from? Is the Sun about to increase its output?
Your Bump Of Gullibility is likely to be exceptionally pronounced, if my Phrenological studies are any guide. I can describe phrenology, at least. You can’t even describe your silly greenhouse effect, can you? Which is more pseudoscientific?
Gullible cultist.
Nice find.
If scientists continue to study stuff that makes cranks crankier because there’s nothing they can do about it, that’s life.
You’re right for once. Cranks have no control over the temperature.
Once again you spoke too soon, Troglodyte:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/physics/diy-generate-your-own-electricity
Re Re,
Creating more energy?
You need a crank to activate it!
Get it? A crank!
Wondrous Wee Willy,
I wouldn’t be surprised if you linked to something irrelevant which does’t even mention the word “crank”!
Feel free to show that you are not delusional, as well as being an idiot.
How can you know if a link is irrelevant if you do not click on it, Moron Mike?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
“We show that for thousands of years, humans have concentrated in a surprisingly narrow subset of Earths available climates, characterized by mean annual temperatures around ∼13 C. This distribution likely reflects a human temperature niche related to fundamental constraints. We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y.”
For thousands of years, most people have lived in tropics or region where average temperature is more than 15 C and they still do- Africa is warmest continent: 1.4 billion. and India: 1.4 billion- to name the biggest.
Also average temperature of Europe is about 9 C, China is 8 C, US about 12 C, and India averages about 25 C.
Room temperature is 20 to 30 C. So European are mostly living in buildings, with average temperature more than 20 C and are mostly wearing clothes.
Humans and animals mostly migrate, they go places which are colder when it’s warmer [summer] and travel south for the winter. Or both go where it is warmer.
What is “normal” for Russians is to migrate, as was case with North America “Indians” and buffalo they followed.
“What is ‘normal’ for Russians is to migrate”
Did they go to Ukraine?
Russia is relatively new** state/nation-
I mean the people who living in Russia, which are currently called, Russians.
Or what the western world might generally refer to as
Russians
** In the “For thousands of years,” context- very, new.
“Also average temperature of Europe is about 9 C, China is 8 C”
Data?
China:
https://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov:4443/regions/china
Not sure has “Europe” but can look at countries in Europe:
https://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov:4443/country-list/
But generally that is typical number given for Europe
It does have Europe:
https://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov:4443/regions/europe
Interesting.
This site https://climatereanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/
shows China 9.5 C
and W. Europe 11-12 C
Spain and France are about 15 C. And are large part of Western Europe.
Italy is likewise about 15 C.
Greece is about 16 C
google:
Are there 25 countries in Western Europe?
“Altogether, there are nine distinct regions in Europe. Looking specifically at Western Europe, there are seven countries in total, though the debate never ends regarding which countries are actually part of Western Europe.”
I didn’t say it, Google did.
but I think the problem is Russia is considered “Europe”
and western may mainly mean, not Russia- or something
Obviously the parts of Europe and Russia that are extremely cold are also extremely uninhabited.
In any case, there is a distribution,
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1910114117/asset/2af1a9c3-b7a0-4751-bf62-1cf7e5022b99/assets/graphic/pnas.1910114117fig02.jpeg
Tulare Lake, the historical lake that surprisingly reemerged in the San Joaquin Valley with this years wet weather, could grow to a peak of 182 square miles next week, nearly the size of Lake Tahoe.
But heat and drought are supposed to grow under AGW.
More than that, Richard –
Unless there is more heat and drought everywhere and at all times, AGW does not exist.
Willard believes that if the extremes are not reached, AGW does not exist.
More than that, Richard –
Unless extremes are not increasing everywhere second by second, AGW does not exist.
Yeah that pretty much is what he argues.
Willard believes that if the extremes are not reached in a second, AGW does not exist.
Nate: Still think that we will get an El Nino this year?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Richard: still think that this is a good beurre blanc recipe?
https://www.billyparisi.com/beurre-blanc-sauce-recipe
Yeah, why not?
Again, you are led astray by short term noise.
So if we don’t get one, what will you say?
Does
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
contain short term noise?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
and
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
shows what is likely to happen to Nino 3.4 in the immediate future.
“shows what is likely to happen to Nino 3.4 in the immediate future.”
How’s that?
Are you looking at the down wiggles while ignoring the up wiggles?
They are standard short term noise in a positive but still neutral ENSO state.
Does the model predict the noise? No of course not.
For reassurance look at this data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
See noise throughout, eg during January-June 2022
Meiv2 seems to show a continuous downwards trend.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2-1.jpeg
Ur dreamin..bad projection and not updated.
That is the latest data. Care to plot it?
P.S. See source provided on the graph.
1979 2023
1979 0.47 0.27 -0.04 0.26 0.35 -0.14 -0.13 0.50 0.42 0.28 0.58 0.68
1980 0.42 0.30 0.52 0.85 0.71 0.55 0.52 0.13 0.19 0.06 -0.09 -0.09
1981 -0.28 -0.19 0.16 0.15 -0.38 -0.63 -0.51 -0.25 0.03 -0.05 -0.16 -0.18
1982 -0.44 -0.61 -0.31 0.13 0.66 1.42 1.87 1.93 1.74 1.87 2.25 2.45
1983 2.59 2.73 2.71 2.74 2.60 1.58 0.88 0.03 -0.41 -0.44 -0.42 -0.44
1984 -0.38 -0.36 -0.06 -0.06 -0.78 -0.75 -0.23 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 -0.59 -0.32
1985 -0.31 -0.57 -0.51 -0.68 -1.04 -0.24 -0.02 -0.36 -0.35 0.05 0.11 -0.36
1986 -0.42 -0.33 -0.37 -0.30 0.24 0.61 0.77 1.24 1.38 0.57 0.73 1.07
1987 0.96 1.12 1.49 1.62 1.85 1.78 1.74 1.49 1.18 1.05 0.89 0.86
1988 0.64 0.39 0.27 -0.13 -0.59 -1.35 -1.77 -1.82 -1.80 -1.53 -1.65 -1.56
1989 -1.15 -1.14 -1.26 -1.09 -0.98 -1.04 -1.11 -0.74 -0.60 -0.59 -0.35 -0.14
1990 0.13 0.40 0.47 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.27 0.11 0.26 -0.06 0.07 0.26
1991 0.13 0.04 0.21 0.49 0.74 1.07 0.85 0.41 0.65 1.17 1.14 1.23
1992 1.63 1.51 1.69 2.00 1.71 1.66 0.82 0.13 0.56 0.95 0.84 0.77
1993 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.05 1.40 1.11 0.73 0.57 0.63 0.93 0.72 0.27
1994 0.06 -0.09 -0.02 0.19 0.17 0.40 0.93 0.86 1.03 1.52 0.93 0.80
1995 0.75 0.53 0.21 0.34 0.39 -0.08 -0.27 -0.59 -0.78 -0.57 -0.62 -0.85
1996 -0.78 -0.71 -0.63 -0.78 -0.93 -0.70 -0.59 -0.50 -0.18 -0.29 -0.18 -0.46
1997 -0.83 -0.89 -0.41 0.39 1.15 2.35 2.07 2.27 2.16 1.93 1.95 2.00
1998 2.24 2.43 2.26 2.25 1.72 -0.25 -1.53 -1.79 -1.39 -1.19 -1.27 -1.20
1999 -1.17 -1.11 -1.04 -1.20 -1.42 -1.26 -1.21 -1.12 -1.16 -1.33 -1.36 -1.40
2000 -1.22 -1.24 -1.38 -1.03 -1.17 -1.12 -0.55 -0.17 -0.34 -0.50 -0.77 -0.75
2001 -0.81 -0.82 -0.75 -0.74 -0.78 -0.57 -0.02 0.23 -0.09 -0.28 -0.36 -0.07
2002 -0.07 -0.41 -0.26 -0.36 -0.06 0.42 0.39 0.81 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.79
2003 0.70 0.56 0.57 -0.04 -0.51 -0.22 -0.07 -0.04 0.14 0.30 0.36 0.18
2004 0.12 -0.15 -0.50 -0.29 -0.38 -0.05 0.37 0.69 0.51 0.30 0.44 0.49
2005 0.10 0.56 0.75 0.13 0.14 0.14 -0.08 -0.03 -0.08 -0.80 -0.80 -0.72
2006 -0.67 -0.50 -0.58 -0.77 -0.30 -0.06 0.15 0.57 0.63 0.62 0.83 0.56
2007 0.61 0.46 -0.13 -0.47 -0.65 -0.98 -0.65 -0.90 -1.15 -1.19 -1.19 -1.27
2008 -1.12 -1.24 -1.57 -1.27 -0.96 -0.81 -0.94 -0.99 -1.01 -1.15 -1.13 -1.08
2009 -0.99 -0.88 -0.89 -0.68 -0.63 0.25 0.58 0.54 0.41 0.61 1.18 1.06
2010 1.03 1.34 1.28 0.42 -0.47 -1.70 -2.45 -2.45 -2.41 -2.21 -2.08 -1.94
2011 -1.86 -1.64 -1.82 -1.86 -1.35 -1.13 -0.87 -0.89 -1.18 -1.43 -1.33 -1.24
2012 -1.12 -0.71 -0.56 -0.48 -0.40 -0.14 0.37 0.03 -0.27 -0.25 -0.17 0.00
2013 -0.00 -0.04 -0.17 -0.44 -0.87 -1.11 -0.79 -0.46 -0.37 -0.20 -0.16 -0.26
2014 -0.49 -0.45 -0.19 -0.24 -0.26 -0.02 0.39 0.21 -0.09 0.04 0.30 0.32
2015 0.17 -0.04 0.06 0.52 1.22 1.74 1.66 1.85 2.14 2.12 1.87 1.94
2016 1.90 1.75 1.30 1.23 1.15 0.16 -0.51 -0.21 -0.28 -0.47 -0.30 -0.16
2017 -0.23 -0.25 -0.47 -0.36 -0.10 -0.57 -0.86 -0.89 -0.84 -0.62 -0.54 -0.68
2018 -0.76 -0.75 -0.92 -1.35 -0.89 -0.61 -0.34 0.13 0.49 0.38 0.19 0.13
2019 0.04 0.46 0.71 0.29 0.20 0.28 0.20 0.26 0.13 0.22 0.44 0.40
2020 0.22 0.13 0.09 -0.14 -0.36 -0.87 -0.88 -0.94 -1.21 -1.19 -1.14 -1.16
2021 -1.18 -0.93 -0.81 -1.04 -1.16 -1.29 -1.53 -1.35 -1.45 -1.50 -1.43 -1.19
2022 -1.06 -0.96 -1.28 -1.76 -1.88 -2.07 -2.10 -1.79 -1.76 -1.71 -1.48 -1.25
2023 -1.11 -0.81 -0.67 -0.41 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00
-999.00
Multivariate ENSO Index Version 2 (MEI.v2)
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei
Row values are 2 month seasons (YEAR DJ JF FM MA AM MJ JJ JA AS SO ON ND)
or
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
Dolly is choosing a warmer life:
https://youtu.be/MLIGxNZeW78
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard is choosing the most heartwarming life.
Willard is choosing to be an idiot.
Richard chooses to be ugly to his mama –
https://people.com/country/dolly-parton-talks-climate-change-compares-mistreating-earth-to-being-ugly-to-your-mama/
RLH,
You wrote –
“Willard is choosing to be an idiot.”
I must disagree – I believe he is a congenital idiot, and, in the finest SkyDragon cult tradition, “idiot” means whatever I want it to mean, so it is no use for Willard or his ilk to demand to know what I mean.
They are obviously idiots if they don’t know that they are idiots.
Willard also seems afflicted with other mental disabilities, demonstrated by his strange preoccupations with homosexual love, masturbation, schoolyard humour of the “fart” and “bum” variety.
You will note from his comments that Wee Willy is often sloppy and bordering on incomprehensibility.
Oh well, it takes all types.
Willard chooses to be an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Listen to your mama –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Willard is still an idiot.
Now Richard aint one for speaking out much
But that dont mean he dont stay in touch
Everybodys trippin over this or that
What he gonna do when we all fall flat?
Willard predicts the future.
Richard is predictable.
He is not the future, however.
Willard only thinks he can predict, like other idiots.
He can’t.
Moron Mike,
You are very easy to predict:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/the-100th-meridian-agricultural-scare-another-example-of-media-hype-exceeding-reality/#comment-298731
That was more than five years ago.
And that’s not an isolated incident:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1403970
You’re like an open book.
I also predicted that you will return to your “but prediction” silly line. Wanna see it?
Long live and prosper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are an idiot who confuses “prediction” with “assumption” or “guess”.
The sort of idiot who “predicts” the Sun will rise tomorrow, or that night will be darker than day.
Maybe you go even further further, and think that you can predict the future by intense examination of the past. Even the idiot James Hansen, after “forecasting” and “predicting” climate outcomes, took refuge in semantics, and later claimed he was actually only “projecting”, and producing “possible scenarios”!
You can’t even describe the GHE, so you certainly look like an idiot if you are claiming to predict the future, based on the effect of something you can’t describe!
Maybe you should appeal to the authority of some nonsensical “links”? Or talk about farts, or other bodily excretions? Carry on Willard, maybe someone even more of an idiot than yourself values your opinions.
Good luck.
[laughs at delusional SkyDragon idiot]
Moron Mike,
You are a moron who confuses special pleading with a valid argument.
It is easy to predict that you will keep asking for your silly sammich.
Even when you got it in your hand and paid for it.
Moron.
Yep not predicted for May.
JJA.
So you disagree with most of
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
especially BCC RZDM.
“forecasts made at some times of the year generally have higher skill than forecasts made at other times of the year–namely, they are better when made between June and December than when they are made between February and May.”
From the fortune sellers – “Differences among the forecasts of the models reflect both differences in model design, and actual uncertainty in the forecast of the possible future SST scenario.”
Actual uncertainty as opposed to model uncertainty?
As long as people are paid to produce rubbish, they’ll keep doing it. Why not?
They used be called Rainmakers, now climate scientists, but climate shysters all the same
Where is May on your chart?
Right where the current observations are.
Are you aware that we havent reached June July or August yet?
And thus the predictions for El Nino development in those months cannot be falsified just yet, RLH.
they are better when made between June and December than when they are made between February and May.
One can always hope and dream that ENSO will stop cycling between cold and warm states.
One can always hope and dream that cold events are taken equally with warm ones.
Meiv2 seems to show a continuous downwards trend.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2-1.jpeg
Until you look at the monthly data. It bottomed out at -2 in mid 2022 and has now recovered to -0.4.
The current trend is upwards.
The current short term trend is upwards.
The 5 year trend (so far) is downwards.
ET: Even though I hate them, want to do an OLS on that data?
Bleh!!!
Far from El Nio.
A blockade of highs in the Pacific and Atlantic. A strong typhoon in the Philippine Sea.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR1OpCo_TwclN9pKzKVVgUxSzdhql5fgdgMFE4YsqkPg8pnE5wbZloyLM5g#2023/05/29/0000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-99.28,67.65,281/loc=-15.994,57.973
Earlier, Nate wrote –
“Shocker, Gordon stands up in support of racists.”
Was Nate playing the “racist” card, the woke notion that there are no racial differences.
The US government might beg to differ.
“For race, the OMB standards identify five minimum categories:
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
We use a sixth category, Some Other Race, for people who do not identify with any of the OMB race categories.” – census.gov
As do scientists such as anthropologists. Some people even believe that there are no physical differences between males and females! How woke would that be.
If that makes me racist and sexist, so be it.
As usual you post nothing nothing to do with the topic of ‘Karens’.
I met a doggy ‘Karen’ at the public dog park the other day. She had a pure bred fancy Visla dog. My mixed breed rescue mutt tried to play with her dog. Her dog barked at my dog. She then suggested I needed to put my mutt dog on a leash, or if not, stop bringing her to the dog park to keep it from potentially harming (by trying to play with) her dog.
That is a good example of how a ‘Karen’ behaves, except more often with people rather than dogs.
The woman was expressing intelligence, your dog needed to be on leash so you could control it. One of my walks takes me through a dog park along a river and I have to be constantly on alert for idiotic dogs taking a run at me. I have no idea if they are being friendly or vicious and I won’t wait to find out. I’ll simply boot the mutt in the face. Then I’ll need to deal with the owner who will insist his dog was just being friendly.
The use of the word Karen to describe a white woman is racism, pure and simple.
> your dog needed to be on leash
A public dog park, Bordo.
The encounter was in a public dog park.
You have no idea what’s a dog park, right?
C’mon.
BREAKING NEWS:
A “new” study says that climate change is causing people to lose an average of 44 hours of sleep per year. I am not making this up. And you guessed it, poor and underdeveloped countries are being impacted the worst. After looking at millions of sleep records and controlling for every other factor, climate change is the only possible cause.
It appears that the IPCC will now have even more data to show that developing countries need more assistance from the industrialized world to combat this social injustice and ease the suffering.
Others will say that if you fund a study looking for a particular outcome, you are likely to get exactly what you asked for.
I think more people are losing sleep over mass shootings.
Many institutions like schools now have to train and drill employees for the possibility of active shooters. Although unlikely to happen to any of us, when they happen, they are in the news and do widely affect people.
Civilized countries do not lose much sleep over mass shootings.
Do all civilized countries have that many mass shootings?
Google Mass Shootings by Country 2023
Something tells me you misread my comment, Richard.
I don’t think so. Please state what you intended to say.
P1. USA loses sleep over mass shootings.
P2. Civilized countries do not lose sleep over mass shootings.
C. Richard has problems with syllogisms.
You calling the USA not civilized?
Are you always that tone deaf, Richard?
So you are.
You might need this translation manual, Richard:
https://youtu.be/8JtnEUPvpus
Laughing at mass shooting is all that Willard is capable of.
Good grief, Richard.
You can’t really be that dumb.
Willard is dumb enough to laugh at mass shootings.
I am mocking idiots who think guns do not kill people, dummy.
I am mocking idiots like you.
Playing dumb and repeating “idiot” over and over again may not be the best way to mock, Richard.
Not civilized when it comes to gun regulation.
School shootings are caused by schools. More specifically, school shootings are caused by the crap the kids are being indoctrinated with.
Exactly, Pupman.
Hence why there’s no school in Japan and Australia.
Wrong again, Karen. Both Aus and Japan have schools. In fact Japan’s students typically excel in math and science. IOW they’re NOT worthless, like you.
I won’t respond to any more of your trolling today. You had your one chance and you blew it.
Good point, Pupman:
> Results from the longest running large-scale international assessment of maths and science show Australia has significantly improved in Year 8 maths and science, and Year 4 science.
https://theconversation.com/australia-lifts-to-be-among-top-ten-countries-in-maths-and-science-150275
Interestingly, Aussies became good at maths and science a few years after they banned guns.
“Roughly” speaking, of course (H/T Roy).
“Interestingly, Aussies became good at maths and science a few years after they banned guns”.
***
Like most countries they likely banned them for law-abiding citizens and have done nothing to prevent criminals carrying them, until caught. Here in Canada, the government is focused on confiscating legally registered guns from law-abiding Canadian gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to confiscate them from criminals.
Funny you mention Canada, Bordo. It finished in the leading pack.
You should watch Justin every day, it may improve your math and science skillz.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Funny you mention Canada, Bordo. It finished in the leading pack.
You should watch Justin every day, it may improve your math and science skillz.”
Are you trying to win a logorrhea competition?
Only joking, you are just naturally incomprehensible, along with demonstrating sloppiness and poor English. Take pride in your idiocy. It’s better than nothing.
wee willy…you don’t know Justin the way I do, being one of the poor sap citizens who has to endure him. One day he is pushing carbon taxes and the alleged evils of climate change, the next he is pushing pipelines. It all depends on where the votes are and Justin will leave no stone unturned to get a vote.
Mike,
Conservatives relaxed gun control in Canada. Canada now has the third highest rate of firearm homicide among populous high-income countries, after the U.S. and Chile.
Like you, Bordo is a buffoon.
“school shootings are caused by the crap the kids are being indoctrinated with.”
Such as?
Are they being taught in schools to be white supremacists, neo Nazis, far-right fanatics, and Incels?
“Such as?”
Racism, sexism, Capitalism is bad, there is no evil, we’re only here by accident, Government is “god”, your sex isn’t determined by your body, it’s determined by your perversion, your life has no purpose, Freedom is bad, there is no realityon and on and on.
Right on, Pupman:
https://apnews.com/article/texas-mall-shooting-mauricio-garcia-424607c69a5df0adab64f236924ae4e2
CRT obviously Made Him Do It.
So mass shootings are conveniently caused by people being taught things that Clint doesn’t agree with.
It doesn’t even need to make sense.
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between. ”
James Agate
“After looking at millions of sleep records and controlling for every other factor, climate change is the only possible cause”.
***
Cause of what, the idiocy underlying such a paper? What kind of idiots would presume to know the sleeping habits of more than a couple of people in a lab?
Besides, what kinds of idiots sit around worrying about climate change when they can look out the window and see for themselves that nothing is happening?
Come on, Bordo.
You just jealuz.
Not me. Any day the temperature is above 75 is too warm for my liking which is why I live close to the Canadian border.
In fact, UV radiation during times of low solar activity is dangerous. The temperature in the stratosphere over the tropics, shows how the amount of ozone changes with changes in solar activity.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://i.ibb.co/L0js9Bm/onlinequery-1.gif
ren…it has occurred to me that insufficient oxygen exists in the stratosphere to block all UV. There are apparently two types of UV, one more dangerous than the other. At any rate, there are enough people in the world with skin cancer caused by UV.
Oxygen absorbs UV at the highest energies and ozone at lower energies. Less ozone, more UV near the surface.
What is the truth about the ozone hole in the South in recent years?
https://i.ibb.co/NNm98rC/ozone-hole-plot.png
ren…all I know is they banned fluorocarbons to combat one hole in the atmosphere and now we have two holes.
In a similar move, they banned DDT because it was believed to cause a deterioration in the egg shells of one species of bird. Studies after the fact revealed those same egg shells had been deteriorating before the invention of DDT and after it was banned.
Meantime, millions of people died in Africa and other Third World countries from malaria caused by mosquitoes, and DDT is one of the only really effective agents against malarial-borne mosquitoes.
That should go down as Rachel Carson’s legacy. She’s the eco-weenie upon whose book the ban of DDT was implemented.
A WARMER LIFE
According to WMO, weather, climate and water-related hazards caused close to 12,000 disasters between 1970 and 2021. Developing countries were hit hardest, seeing nine in 10 deaths and 60 per cent of economic losses from climate shocks and extreme weather.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897
Water it down all you want, wee willy, it’s weather, not climate.
1970 – 2021 is 51 years and any climate change should be apparent. There is simply no evidence that any regions of the world have seen a significant change in climate.
2021 – 1970 = 51, Bordo.
Your move.
Your mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly, wee willy. Now you are muttering to yourself.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re dismissing 51 years of data as weather.
Have you been tested for senility?
Cmon Willard,
Youre being idiotic.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
Try another way of wriggling out of the reality that you cant even describe the GHE, let alone explain why the surface cools each night!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
A deceitful cretin is a deceitful cretin.
Try to refute that, deceitful cretin.
C’mon Willard,
You’re being idiotic.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
Try another way of wriggling out of the reality that you can’t even describe the GHE, let alone explain why the surface cools each night!
Mike, Mike,
Deception is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true.
A cretin is a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person.
“Deceptive cretin” befits you splendidly!
Wasteful Wee Willy,
you wrote –
“Deception is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true.”
Perfectly true. Delusional SkyDragon cultists are deceptive. They believe that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 will make it hotter! Even an idiot like you accepts that such a thing is completely untrue.
Deceptive? Or just stupid and ignorant?
Michael Mann was deceptive when he claimed in a court document (supposedly true), that he was the recipient of a Nobel Prize. The claim wasnt true, so that makes him deceptive, a fraud and a faker. And an idiot into the bargain, for thinking he would get way with telling untruths in public.
Are you a complete idiot, or do you believe that Michael Mann has never been deceptive?
Idiot.
Here, Mike:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/summary
Is that all you got, deceitful cretin?
Far from El Nio, as seen in the western Pacific. Typhoon in the Philippine Sea and tropical storm over Guinea.
https://i.ibb.co/B2b5JqY/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif
tim s…”F= (c)(v^2) simple.
W = F x D simple.
Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).
***
It’s plain to me that physics is not in your everyday experience.
What does F = c.v^2 mean?
I understand f = ma, and KE = 1/2mv^2,
I also understand f = m.dv/dt, but where the heck do you get f = c.v^2?
In physics, you are supposed to explain your variables, maybe it would have helped had you done that. But then you offer the formula for work correctly as w = f.d.
I don’t think it is correct to write HP = W/t for the simple reason that HP is only one form of work rate. It should be power = w/t. You simply cannot presume that power will be in HP unless you specify the required factors.
Then you state…hp = w/t = (c.v^2.d)/t = c.v^3
You failed to explain where the extra v came from to get v^3. It’s obviously from d/t = v. But what is c?
Your approach may be mathematically correct in general but it fails to offer an intuitive understanding of the actual forces working on the car to produce drag. That’s why I was critical of the problem you posed because it is far more complex, and interesting, than the gotcha you presented.
It would have come across to me better had you presented the problem as a shared interest rather than trying to set posters up with you as the guru. That’s how you tend to come across with your propaganda sessions related to AGW.
On the possibility that you are not trolling, you have my sympathy that you put so much effort into demonstrating that you do not understand very much science. The answer is in my spoiler to which you actually responded:
“SPOILER ALERT: I will give the answer as a text description. The equations can be taken from that. It is just basic physics.
The easy assumption is that all of the drag forces are increased as the square of the speed. Rolling resistance of the tires may actually decrease with speed as the tire expands and decreases the contact patch and reduces the standing wave effect (?), but is not a big factor. The physical properties of the air do not change, so the drag force is related to some constant times velocity squared. The key concept is that power is energy per time. It is dynamic. The energy to overcome drag is work, which is force times distance. Work divided by time becomes velocity squared times distance divided by time, or velocity cubed. It takes eight times as much Hp to go twice as fast. This is why cars tend to run into a brick wall at top speed. Enzo Ferrari was wrong when he said aerodynamics are for people who cant build engines. He did not understand aerodynamics.”
Here is the full quote that has you confused:
“For people who are paying attention, sharing information for fun, and not looking at it with a trolling mindset, it is amazingly simple and only requires basic physics because the comparison involves the same fluid (air) with the same properties that do not change (c), and an object that is the same.
F= (c)(v^2) simple.
W = F x D simple.
Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).
To be fair it is not precise, but very close to reality.
Happy trolling Gordon.”
I can usually tell, when someone leads off with a paragraph of ad homs, insults, and how much my understanding of science is lacking, that I am dealing with a twit. Even after your long explanation you are still confused about the physics.
I finally figured out that you have incorrectly lumped several terms of an equation under ‘c’ for constant. Only one of the terms can be considered a constant and even that’s not certain.
Overall, we are dealing with a complex function with 5 variables…
f(Fd, u, A. p, v) = 0
u = speed of air mass and v = speed of vehicle.
Fd = drag force, p = air density, and A = area affected
For drag force, Fd = 1/2.p.v^2.Cd.A where…
p = air density
A = cross-sectional area of surface impinging on the air mass
Cd = drag coefficient
and you have written it as F = c.v^2.
The drag coefficient, Cd, is a complex quantity that cannot easily be determined. It is not a constant because it varies with velocity, therefore you had no right lumping it under ‘c’ as a constant. The same applies to density, which will vary with velocity as well.
Furthermore, Fd is proportional to the force applied to the front of the car, which is the pressure over an area and that force can be written in terms of kinetic energy, as Pd = 1/2 pv^2, where density is substituted for mass. So, that seems to be the derivation of the v^2 term.
I was trying to point out that such calculations are not trivial and can be quite complex.
You have lumped all other terms in a convenient term you call ‘c’ while incorrectly maintaining that Fd is proportional only to v^2. That’s why I asked what F = c.v^2 means in physics.
Power is calculated using a variation of work = f.d, that is force x distance.
Since d also = v.t = average velocity.time, it can be substituted for d as .. v.t
but…
Pd = work/time = (Fd).d/t = ([Fd].v.t)/t = (Fd).v
There’s your cube term from (Fd).v when you substitute Fd into Pd = (Fd).v …
Pd = 1/2 p.v^3.Cd.A
Still, all that tells us is that Pd is proportional to v^3.
For your continued education without insult, I will explain Cd. Have you noticed that car manufactures often quote their drag coefficient? It is a shape factor that is so complex that it can only be found experimentally for a complex object such as a race car. It remains constant because movable aerodynamic devices are not allowed for Indy Cars (F1 has the drag reduction system, DRS, which opens the rear wing and adds about 10 mph of top speed). Further, doubling the Reynolds Number does not change the flow regime because turbulence is already fully established and wake separate is only slightly affected (trust me). As I stated, the air does not change and the car does not change from 100 mph to 200 mph. One very subtle effect is that the downforce also increases as a square of speed, so the suspension is compressed, putting the car closer to the ground with an effect that could only be measured in a wind tunnel. To a first approximation, and with significant accuracy, the various complexities remain constant over the speed being analyzed.
A WARMER LIFE
Using more than 200 mother-daughter-granddaughter triads, Cohn’s team found that the granddaughters of those in the top third of DDT exposure during pregnancy had 2.6 times the odds of developing an unhealthy BMI. They were also more than twice as likely to have started their periods before age 11. Both factors, Cohn says, are known to raise the risk of later developing breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. These results, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, mark the first human evidence that DDT’s health threats span three generations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/consequences-of-ddt-exposure-could-last-generations/
Is there an urban legend for which Bordo will not fall?
ww…”had 2.6 times the odds of developing an unhealthy BMI…”
***
An unhealthy Body-Mass Index??? That’s an indicator of how much fat you are carrying, an unlikely outcome of DDT exposure.
Wee Willy, you are a waste of space.
C’mon, Bordo. DDT is connected to children’s midlife heart health and breast cancer rates. If you want to know how it’s connected to the BMI, read the damn study:
https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/30/8/1480/671027/Grandmaternal-Perinatal-Serum-DDT-in-Relation-to
Or just continue to rant. In ten years you’ll do the same.
Wasted Wee Willy,
From the paper – “Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”
On the other hand, they may not.
Correlation is not causation.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Mike Flynn,
That’s all you got – correlation is not causation?
Deceitful cretin.
Wasted Wee Willy,
From the paper “Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”
On the other hand, they may not.
Correlation is not causation.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Mike, Mike
Only a deceitful cretin would confuse “correlation is not causation” with a relevant argument.
Menarche is the first menstrual cycle or bleeding.
Risk factors are variables associated with an increased risk of disease or infection.
Is that the best you can do, deceitful cretin?
Wasted Wee Willy,
From the paper “Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”
On the other hand, they may not.
Correlation is not causation.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
You obviously overlooked the words “may influence”.
Maybe you didn’t read your link properly, so here’s more –
“Discovery of actionable biomarkers of response to ancestral environmental exposures in young women may provide opportunities for breast cancer prevention.”
Or maybe not?
Tell me, Mike –
Do you smoke?
Wasted Wee Willy,
From the paper Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.
On the other hand, they may not.
Correlation is not causation.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
You obviously overlooked the words may influence.
Maybe you didnt read your link properly, so heres more
Discovery of actionable biomarkers of response to ancestral environmental exposures in young women may provide opportunities for breast cancer prevention.
Or maybe not?
Yes, Mike. The authors suggest that the method they used in the paper could have other applications. Got a problem understanding that?
You may replace DDT for your Marmite if you please.
wee willy…”Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases”.
***
After all the time me and Swenson have put into educating you, it appears you still can’t read a paper. Since when is ***MAY*** a scientific term? In other words, they have no idea whether or not DDT affects anyone.
Naturally, if you take enough Aspirin you will die. I don’t see them rushing off to ban Aspirin.
Come on, Bordo.
Yes, *may* is indeed a scientific term.
People *may* get killed when not wearing seat belts while driving.
You *may* get logorrhoea if the Ria sisters get too close to you.
You *may* one day learn something about science if –
OK, scratch that one.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
One day, someone may be able to explain the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling.
Or maybe not.
One day, someone may find a cure for the particular form of idiocy which afflicts delusional SkyDragon cultists.
But probably not.
Scientific enough for you?
Mike, Mike,
You may not recall. That person is you.
The Moon cools faster. No atmosphere.
Cheers, deceitful cretin.
“People *may* get killed when not wearing seat belts while driving”.
***
And you may not, so the outcome is inconclusive. I don’t see the point of publishing a paper in which the outcomes are inconclusive. Then again we are describing many of the papers on which climate science and medical science is based.
Personally, I wear a seat belt because it seems reasonable it will help save my life. I am under no delusion that it will save my life.
I currently have my air bags disabled. I was in a fender bender and the bags went off. I had thought a little door would open on my steering wheel through which the bags would emerge. But no, they have an explsosive charge in them that blows the bags right through the plastic in the steering wheel cover and the dash board on the passenger side. I could still smell the cordite from the explosion afterward.
I thought to myself, “self”, we don’t like the idea of explosive charges aimed right at our eyes when those thingys go off, do we? Self replied, “No…we don’t, I’d rather take my chances without the air bag”. I concurred and thanked my self for the illuminating conversation.
Me and my self are still debating over which one is ‘I’.
C’mon, Bordo.
What is “the outcome is inconclusive” supposed to mean?
Here’s what we know:
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/seat-belt-statistics/
nate…”Deniers try their best to slander the messenger with every available ad hom.
However, the message has gotten through anyway.
The scientific findings of Michael Mann still stand. They have been reproduced by many others”.
***
We are talking about the Michael Mann who made misogynist comments about Judith Curry when she decided to switch sides and express skepticism about the AGW meme. The same MM who was caught on the CLimategate emails drumming up support to interfere in peer review.
The same Michal Mann who created The Trick, a devious scheme to hide declining temperatures. The same MM who lied about winning a Nobel Prize. He was only lightly associated ith the IPCC who got it for some unknown reason. John Christy of UAh is far more deserving of the Nobel since he actually participated in reviews.
The same MM who failed miserably with the hockey stick and who later joined Stieg to erroneously claim the Antarctic has warmed since 1950. They managed to transfer a slight warming in the north of the Antarctic Peninsula into a general warming over the entire continent.
With the hockey stick,they used the same type of tree, the pine-bristlecone, to cover the entire 20th century. The National Academy of Science, when reviewing the methodology, told Mann et al they could not do that. Mikey likely wondered why, after all, they used only 1 tree to cover the entire 13th century.
Even at that, the proxy data showed a cooling in the 1960s as the actual temps were rising. No problem, Mikey invented The Trick to hide the declining temps while splicing in thermometer temps to get the blade. The fact that temps were warming when proxy data showed a cooling does not bode well for the accuracy of proxy data. Of course, Lohle, an expert on tee ring counting told us that already.
Swenson is being kind by referring to him as a scofflaw, deadbeat, etc. And after all the chicanery he gets elected to the same NAS who criticized the hockey stick.
C’mon, Bordo.
Mike. Judy. CG. MM. Nobel. IPCC. JC. Stieg. Trees. Craig, the expert on tee ring. Mike Flynn. NAS.
That’s just a logorrhea.
cmon Willard,
“Mike. Judy. CG. MM. Nobel. IPCC. JC. Stieg. Trees. Craig, the expert on tee ring. Mike Flynn. NAS.”
Logorrhoea writ large. Thanks for the demonstration, idiot.
My pleasure, deceitful cretin.
Do all idiots take pleasure in being idiots?
The world wonders.
Others can decide whether to take notice of a delusional SkyDragon cultist who refuses to say which bizarre version of the greenhouse effect he believes in!
Maybe he’s the sort of idiot who believes that the fact that the surface cools at night really means that it is getting hotter!
Oh well, there are different sorts of idiots, and Willard manages to fill the shoes of several types at the same time. Quite a feat.
In the meantime, still no valid description of the GHE. Just lengthy attempts to convince other idiots that reducing the rate of cooling results in temperatures rising.
Deceitful cretin,
A logorrhea is a communication disorder that causes excessive wordiness and repetitiveness, which can cause incoherency.
All you lack is wordiness.
Keep writing!
Do all idiots take pleasure in being idiots?
The world wonders.
Others can decide whether to take notice of a delusional SkyDragon cultist who refuses to say which bizarre version of the greenhouse effect he believes in!
Maybe hes the sort of idiot who believes that the fact that the surface cools at night really means that it is getting hotter!
Oh well, there are different sorts of idiots, and Willard manages to fill the shoes of several types at the same time. Quite a feat.
In the meantime, still no valid description of the GHE. Just lengthy attempts to convince other idiots that reducing the rate of cooling results in temperatures rising.
wee willy..are you trying to say that people interested in science who feel the need to explain science in detail talk too much? Would you prefer that Newton edited Principia to get rid of those long, explanations and boring math?
You do not need to emphasize that you have no idea how empirical sciences work, Bordo.
We all can see it every day.
Perhaps you could test the toxicity of DDT on yourself?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“DDT is connected to childrens midlife heart health and breast cancer rates.”
There’s a possibility that everything is. So what?
Life is an invariably fatal disease, and you’re an idiot. As I said, correlation is not causation. Even the paper you appeal to doesnt say what you imply.
Try another diversion to avoid admitting that nobody has ever described the GHE in any way that agrees with reality. Or just try to annoy someone, if you can.
So what, Mike?
That is all you got?
If a substance may be toxic to the point of affecting the liver and the reproductive system, what do you think we should do with it, moron? We limit its usage to the cases where the benefits outweigh the risks. Like we actually do for DDT, e.g. indoor, sparingly, for malaria.
One day you may turn into a responsible adult.
Keep asking silly questions!
Willard says:
”If a substance may be toxic to the point of affecting the liver and the reproductive system, what do you think we should do with it, moron? We limit its usage to the cases where the benefits outweigh the risks. Like we actually do for DDT, e.g. indoor, sparingly, for malaria.”
thats certainly reasonable. The problem is all the corruption out there and rent seeking by outsiders. Like Nate going on about statistically sensible arguments when he has none.
Problems arise when people rig the analysis to serve a political agenda. Distrust in the science community is the inevitable result and the science community does a terrible job of policing themselves on that score.
> thats certainly reasonable
That’s the “yes” part.
***
> The problem is
Now comes the BS part.
“Perhaps you could test the toxicity of DDT on yourself?”
***
It would be wasted on me wee willy, it’s for pests like you.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s not like you have periods.
What do you have to lose?
Willard is just going to ignore the corruption and lack of controls over product quality in the science community and parade on with his complete fealty to his own agenda, without anything statistically sensible supporting it.
Gill is simply going to compete with Richard’s peddling.
Did anyone mention corruption:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-ron-desantis-elon-musk-014102994.html
David Sacks is the genius behind the SBV fiasco, a crypto scammer, and a self-confessed date rapist.
Willard quickly changes the topic from science to politics.
“statistically sensible arguments”
Bill instead offers up ignorant nonsensical assertions,
like “the corruption and lack of controls over product quality in the scientific community”.
which suggests he thinks science’s job is to efficiently produce widgets on an assembly line or something like that.
LOL!
Very clearly I said the job of the science community was to produce ”statistically sensible arguments”.
And you think that is restrictive to the science community?
And we have you running around here attacking people expressing their opinions as not having ”statistically sensible arguments”.
Yet you obviously believe that the science community should be restricted in the same way.
Obviously you don’t think your opinions need to be supported by ”statistically sensible arguments” which of course makes you a hypocrite.
It is obvious that the science community is perfectly fine with issuing work that last a sensible statical basis and that the community if it wants to protect its reputation and be considered to be reliable for people to make decisions by they need to take major steps to shore that lack of credibility up.
here attacking people expressing their opinions as not having statistically sensible arguments.
Wrong. I had a lengthy debate with RLH on the subject. Which you know nothing about but felt the need to add your 2 cents anyway.
No kindly go and troll in traffic.
No the only point was you are hawking climate change in this forum and you DON’T have a statistically sensible argument to support your position.
Then you run around in here like a banshee criticizing the opinions of others exactly because they haven’t presented a statistically sensible argument either.
That isn’t a winning debate strategy Nate. Its nothing but trolling.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and go trolling some place where such behavior is acceptable.
Is logorrhea related to the Ria sisters, Gono, Dia and Pia?
They did not tell you?
You must have been busy.
Witless Wee Willy,
What has your logorrhoea to do with the fact that Dr Spencer opined “Americans Increasingly Choose a Warmer Life.”?
Do you disagree, and if so why?
Seems a fair view to me.
How is *any* of your comments related to the topic of the post, Mike?
Go off, King.
Climate twitter twats are discovering not everybody a grease
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/24/climate-activist-scientists-get-all-verklempt-their-echo-chamber-no-longer-exists-on-twitter-throw-tantrums-and-leave/
It’s amazing that the cult cannot come up with a description/definition of their bogus GHE, that they can consistently support. As Swenson has asked, “How hard can it be?”
I can describe how Earth gets warmed, in four simple words — “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
If more detail is needed, I can explain the solar shortwaves warming the surface, and the surface longwaves warming the atmosphere. All easily explained. No violations of the laws of physics.
I can explain how the laws of thermodynamics allow the atmosphere and oceans to control Earth’s temperature, modulating solar energy. The design has worked for thousands of years.
Good. Now explain why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.
Sorry Ent, but this is about science, and reality. You understand neither. You believe you can make up crap to suit your false beliefs. Like when you claimed that passenger jets fly backward.
EM,
Nobody can accurately measure the temperature of either the troposphere or the stratosphere.
There is not even a practical method of measuring the temperature of a given sample of air in the atmosphere.
Your religious mania has overpowered your attachment to reality.
Asking somebody to explain something which is not in evidence is a silly as trying to explain a mythical GHE which cannot even be described.
Try another diversion. The surface of the Earth has cooled over the past dour and a half billion years, and does so every night.
You need to ask better gotchas.
The typhoon is headed for Taiwan.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif
A WARMER LIFE
“As the temperature has risen to about 36 degrees Celsius [96.8 degrees Fahrenheit], Sri Lanka has experienced about 3 degrees Celsius [5.4 degrees Fahrenheit] increase of the daily maximum temperature during the recent heat stress period,” says Shiromani Jayawardena, the deputy director of the Department of Meteorology. Exposure to excessive heat along with high humidity may prove stressful to the body and in extreme cases can even kill, so the department assesses the situation and issues warnings to the public to remain cautious, Jayawardena said.
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/05/sweltering-heat-wave-hits-sri-lanka-climate-change-will-likely-bring-more/
World temperatures have been going down for the last few years. See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
When the 2016 El Nino caused the temperature spike the climate zshysters were all over it as a an unmistakable sign the global warming crossed a “tipping point” and a prove the warming was accelerating ,
I predicted it was going to only decline from there
Confirmation bias strikes again!
Where’s that 2016 comment, Eboy?
Looks like you’re more like a 2018 kinda guy.
That facts are that 2016 was still the maximum seen so far. Downwards since then. Mind you, there are those that think it will be beaten this year. We shall see.
The fact is that Eboy was not commenting at Roy’s in 2016, Richard, and so there is no receipt for his bragging.
That facts are that 2016 was still the maximum seen so far.
I was commenting on Eboy’s claim, Richard.
What are you doing here?
What are U?
[HOW IT STARTED] “As the temperature has risen to about 36 degrees Celsius [96.8 degrees Fahrenheit], Sri Lanka has experienced about 3 degrees Celsius [5.4 degrees Fahrenheit] increase of the daily maximum temperature during the recent heat stress period”
[HOW IT’S GOING] What are U?
Reporting facts. How about you?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
Do you have Eboy’s 2016 prediction, Richard?
Meanwhile, enjoy this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-305564
World temperatures have been going down for the last few years. See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/
“That facts are that 2016 was still the maximum seen so far. Downwards since then. ”
Who said this?
“Whats a year in climate?”
Somebody who, briefly, understood that a single year does not make a trend.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1490780
Looks like Eboy does not need to run regressions to work on dragsters:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-305829
Only warmista idiots think that there are no natural cycles that are longer than 12 months and that have a direct bearing on global T.
Heat stress period??? Is that the new alarmist lingo for a heat wave?
It’s weather wee willy, get over it.
Sri Lanka is located almost on the Equator and it tends to get hot there unless you’re on a mountain like Kilimanjaro, about 20,000 feet into the heavens.
C’mon, Bordo.
As Richard would say, Mount Kilimanjaro is in Tanzania.
Willard just makes stuff up, especially about me.
Richard spent two years either playing dumb or being unable to follow the exchanges in which he butted.
And here is again.
Willard just makes stuff up, especially about me. Quelle surprise.
Here is Richard playing dumb:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1489968
Here is Richard butting in with his “kick me” sign:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1490491
Willard likes to joke about everything. Short on facts though..
[RICHARD] Willard just makes stuff up, especially about me.
[ALSO RICHARD] Willard likes to joke about everything.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it Willard?
Richard does not always make stuff up, but when he does he says “the truth hurts” to justify that he’s making stuff up.
Not true.
Richard just did.
No I did not. U on the other hand….
Kilimanjaro is about as close to the Equator as Sri Lanka. That’s the point.
C’mon, Bordo. I know what you meant. But did Richard?
Cmon Willard,
What are you trying to say? Are you trying to be annoying?
You dont seem to be terribly effective as a troll. Or are you trying to sound intelligent?
If you are, it doesnt seem to be working. I still think you are an idiot.
Of course, my opinion is worth what you just paid for it. Others may have different opinions.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
When I said “I know what you meant” to Bordo, I meant to say that I knew what Bordo meant.
Do you have any other questions, deceitful cretin?
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“When I said “I know what you meant” to Bordo, I meant to say that I knew what Bordo meant.”
Presumably, you worked this out by reading his mind, although if you had read his mind, you might have realised that his name doesnt seem to be Bordo.
In any case, why didnt you just say you meant in the first place? Are you sloppy or incompetent? Why say something when you really meant to say something else?
You sound like an idiot who is trying to justify his idiocy.
Or his inability to describe the GHE. Which is it?
Have you ever tried to read what people are writing, Mike?
If you did, you would need less mind probes.
Cheers, deceitful cretin.
wee willy…”The Moon cools faster. No atmosphere”.
***
It tends to cool on the side pointed away from the Sun, which is facing space, for 14 days of its orbit. At the same time, the side pointed at the Sun bakes in the unrelenting heat for 14 days.
It’s not about the lack of atmosphere as much as it is about the fact the Moon does not rotate on a local axis and has no oceans.
See, Bordo?
That’s another example that you should read harder –
The claim you quote is actually Moron Mike’s.
Why don’t you shake him down a bit?
C’mon.
Me and whoever you are talking about seem to agree.
You really are hard of hearing, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-652240
Perhaps it’s your type-A that makes you skip reading altogether?
The problem with the post at your link is you claiming the Earth’s average temperature would be -17C without GHGs. Even you should be able to see the scientific silliness in that statement.
Belief systems are a pain the butt, wee willy. Try science, it really is enlightening.
Well, Bordo.
If you find Moron Mike silly, I’m not going to argue with you.
And I think you mean -18C.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Thermometers measure the “degree of hotness”. If you choose to believe they should measure something else – a delusional SkyDragon cult “should be” temperature, for example, good for you!
Just because you believe you “should be” powerful and respected doesnt make it so, does it? The facts support a view that you are impotent and an object of derision. An idiot, in my view.
Regardless of the preaching of your cult leaders, the Earth has cooled, and the laws of the universe still apply, whether you think they “should”, or not.
Try and annoy someone – maybe you can make them forget that you cant even describe the GHE which you imply exists!
Good luck, idiot. You’ll need lots.
Mike Flynn,
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk.
It is well known to practitioners of normal physics that an object at 273 K is hotter than an object at 77 K.
That is what the Kelvin scale is for. To show relative degrees of hotness against a base of no hotness at all – absolute zero.
Absolute zero is the relevance of the factoids you keep repeating:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-680248
What say you?
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Thermometers measure the “degree of hotness’. If you choose to believe they should measure something else a delusional SkyDragon cult “should be’ temperature, for example, good for you!
Just because you believe you “should be” powerful and respected doesn’t make it so, does it? The facts support a view that you are impotent and an object of derision. An idiot, in my view.
Regardless of the preaching of your cult leaders, the Earth has cooled, and the laws of the universe still apply, whether you think they “should”, or not.
Try and annoy someone maybe you can make them forget that you cant even describe the GHE which you imply exists!
Good luck, idiot. Youll need lots.
Why are you repeating yourself verbatim, deceitful cretin?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Thermometers measure the “degree of hotness”. If you choose to believe they should measure something else a delusional SkyDragon cult “should be” temperature, for example, good for you!
Just because you believe you “should be” powerful and respected doesn’t make it so, does it? The facts support a view that you are impotent and an object of derision. An idiot, in my view.
Regardless of the preaching of your cult leaders, the Earth has cooled, and the laws of the universe still apply, whether you think they “should”, or not.
Try and annoy someone maybe you can make them forget that you cant even describe the GHE which you imply exists!
Good luck, idiot. You’ll need lots.
By the way, not verbatim if you look carefully. What business is it of yours, anyway? I can do what I like, and you are powerless to stop me.
Thank you for being such a deceitful cretin, Mike.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Thermometers measure the degree of hotness. If you choose to believe they should measure something else a delusional SkyDragon cult should be temperature, for example, good for you!
Just because you believe you should be powerful and respected doesnt make it so, does it? The facts support a view that you are impotent and an object of derision. An idiot, in my view.
Regardless of the preaching of your cult leaders, the Earth has cooled, and the laws of the universe still apply, whether you think they should, or not.
Try and annoy someone maybe you can make them forget that you cant even describe the GHE which you imply exists!
Good luck, idiot. Youll need lots.
By the way, not verbatim if you look carefully. What business is it of yours, anyway? I can do what I like, and you are powerless to stop me, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Deceitful cretin,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Cheers.
Willard is an idiot all of the time.
Not every scientist a Greece
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/25/open-letter-to-dr-hoesung-lee-chair-of-the-ipcc/
entropic…”America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between.
James Agate”
***
There are several things wrong with Agate’s comment. For one, if he is referring to the US as America, he needs to consult a global map and identify any country called America.
Two, he has forgotten that the US was formed by settlers from the UK in general who left due to the barbaric ways of the UK against minorities. People left the UK to find a better life and that’s not a good recommendation for life in the UK at that time.
Third, Agate does not define what he means by barbarism or decadence. Furthermore, he was a drama critic and his photo reveals him as being a type-A personality who is anal to boot.
At no time has the US been barbaric when compared to the UK. This is a classic case of people throwing stones when they live in glass houses.
People in the UK tend to have a quaint notion of the Americas, which begins by selecting one country from all the Americas and calling it America. I am sure most of them also believe the States is a violent, dangerous place, yet nearly 300 million people in the States go about their business every day.
The danger in the US today is not from gangs and criminals as much as it is from the politically-correct who seem bent on killing the country through sheer stupidity. They want to defund the police while disarming people and depriving them of the right to defend themselves. They want to free violent criminals without bail while jailing police who are trying to deal with the criminals.
They want to allow school children to have sex changes while allowing perverts access to womens’ dressing rooms and washrooms.
They are the current enemy.
[BORDO] if he is referring to the US as America, he needs to consult a global map and identify any country called America.
[ALSO BORDO] his photo reveals him as being a type-A personality who is anal to boot.
Gordo,
Antman is a leftist. He hates anything to do with liberty. He’s happy the left dominates his country and stands with the Supervillain Soros against the US. He sits at home daily, living on his teacher’s pension, hating the world.
Bordo is some kind of socialist, Troglodyte.
You might like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories
Who’d have thought that you’d dogwhistle an antisemitic trope?
Wily Wee Willy,
Whats wrong with anti-anything?
You may not believe in absolute free speech. Almost nobody does. What are you all so afraid of?
Am I not allowed to dislike something or someone – are you worried someone might suffer from “hurt feelings”, or choose to feel “offended”?
Facts dont care. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Try censoring that fact. If you believe that CO2 has any heating effect on thermometers, you are an idiot.
Moron Mike,
Did you notice that Bordo’s talking of butts, anal personalities, and skirts that are not kilts?
He’s on a roll!
Why don’t you go tsk tsk him.
Cheers.
Wily Wee Willy,
Whats wrong with anti-anything?
You may not believe in absolute free speech. Almost nobody does. What are you all so afraid of?
Am I not allowed to dislike something or someone are you worried someone might suffer from hurt feelings, or choose to feel offended?
Facts dont care. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Try censoring that fact. If you believe that CO2 has any heating effect on thermometers, you are an idiot.
Moron Mike,
Here’s what Bordo is saying about your old comment:
What do you say?
Let’s hope Bordo isn’t a belief system!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
What do I say?
Why are you wasting your time telling me what I already know, and obviously don’t care about?
You are definitely strange. What intellectual deficit leads you to think that I value the opinion of an idiot like yourself?
Try something different – describe the GHE, and then try and reconcile your description with fact.
How hard can it be?
Wait, Mike – you know that Bordo disagrees with what you consider facts about the Moon and the Earth?
Deceitful cretin.
Whacky Wee Willy.
In your usual idiotic fashion, you wrote –
“Wait, Mike you know that Bordo disagrees with what you consider facts about the Moon and the Earth?
Deceitful cretin.”
Why should I wait? For you to tell me that I disagree with someone about something? Quelle horreure!
Only joking. OK, Ive waited – now what? The Moon and the Earth still seem to be there. Who is disagreeing with that?
I know you don’t intend to sign as “deceitful cretin”. “Blithering idiot” is more than sufficient.
Off you go now. Try telling other people to wait. See how many respond as politely as I.
Moron Mike,
You ask –
“Why should I wait?”
Because you already do.
You have been playing the deceitful cretin for a decade now.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy.
In your usual idiotic fashion, you wrote
“Wait, Mike you know that Bordo disagrees with what you consider facts about the Moon and the Earth?
Deceitful cretin.”
Why should I wait? For you to tell me that I disagree with someone about something? Quelle horreure!
Only joking. OK, I’ve waited now what? The Moon and the Earth still seem to be there. Who is disagreeing with that?
I know you don’t intend to sign as “deceitful cretin”. “Blithering idiot” is more than sufficient.
Off you go now. Try telling other people to wait. See how many respond as politely as I.
Deceitful cretin,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Cheers.
All I needed to know is that Soros was busing immigrants to the southern US border from places like Guatamela. Soros is a trouble-maker who is trying hard to over-throw the US way of life as well as other countries like Canada.
The thing that grates me as a Canadian is our PM and deputy PM kissing the butt of Soros behind our backs. The Deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland is an ex-journalist who has been given the portfolio of Finance Minister as well. As a journalist, she butt-kissed Soros to the point he asked her to write his bio.
The following video starts out stupid but eventually leads to a separate and very revealing coverage of the real Soros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z88obejuQIk&ab_channel=JCVdude
The following link is part 3 of an article which reveals the interference of Soros in Canada. Note the leading picture of our PM Trudeau and deputy PM Freeland kissing up to Soros.
https://niagaraindependent.ca/george-soros-and-his-canadian-chess-game-part-3/
Where’s the photo of you with your tin foil hat, Bordo?
C’mon, it must be somewhere.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Wheres the photo of you with your tin foil hat, Bordo?
C’mon, it must be somewhere.”
Are you trying to be gratuitously offensive, and failing, or just being a completely pointless idiot?
Only joking, Willard. I know you are trying to be annoying. The idiocy is not accepting that it makes no difference to reality.
Moron Mike,
You wrote
“Y”
Why should I care what you wrote?
Swoon, deceitful cretin.
Winsome Wee Willy,
Swoon? I thought you would be over your homosexual infatuation by now. You might need to go back to playing with yourself.
At least it will distract you from the derision you attract by not being able to even describe the GHE.
Does it heat anything? What? The surface at night? The Earth over the last four and a half billion years? Anything at all?
You idiot – accept reality.
Or continue believing in something which you can’t even describe. You may follow any religion you like, but don’t expect me to become a convert.
Carry on proselytizing.
Moron Mike,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Are you too much of a cretin to get this or too deceitful to realize that you had the description you ask for all along?
Could be both.
It is prolly both.
Willy Peabrain,
You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Are you too much of a cretin to get this or too deceitful to realize that you had the description you ask for all along?
Could be both.
It is prolly both.”
What are you babbling about? What “description” are you referring to? What is a prolly?
You are an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible. Maybe you meant to say something else, like you did before?
Very mysterious, even for an idiot like you.
Moron Mike,
Pay attention –
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Cheers.
Willy Peabrain,
You wrote
Witless Wee Willy,
“Moron Mike,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
Are you too much of a cretin to get this or too deceitful to realize that you had the description you ask for all along?
Could be both.
It is prolly both.”
What are you babbling about? What “description. are you referring to? What is a prolly?
You are an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible. Maybe you meant to say something else, like you did before?
Very mysterious, even for an idiot like you.
Moron Mike,
The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere.
You wanted a description?
Here is one.
Like in a fairy tale, you had the answer within you all along.
Hope this helps, deceitful cretin.
The puzzling thing about ent lamenting violence in the US is his Irish ancestry. They are still fighting the Battle of the Boyne. circa 1690, when a Dutchman kicked their butts. I don’t know which side ent is on, Protestant or Catholic, and I don’t really care since my Scottish parents instilled in me the nonsense behind the fighting between the religious sects.
That’s all it takes to end the nonsense, responsible parents teaching the kids the folly of hating someone because he/she practices another religion. That’s not how it goes down in the UK, parents perpetuate the nonsense by encouraging children to hate people with other views.
We have experienced the same problem in Canada where French sympathizers are still fighting the battle at the Plains of Abraham in Quebec. Things have settled own recently but I imagine strong feeling are still boiling somewhere.
The point is, Irishmen fighting for the IRA were engaged in barbaric actions until recently. I hope it’s finished but I am not holding my breath. Now we have Jamaican drug dealers in the UK killing people.
One might get the impression according to ent that the UK is a bastion of peace and democracy. At one time, I’d have had no problem walking anywhere in London, at least during daylight hours. Today, I would not go anywhere for fear of encountering rowdies of different nationalities.
I just got an email from a relative in Scotland that the health care system has gotten so bad a friend had been waiting 3 years for back surgery. The UK has sunk to the lowest depths it has been in a long time and it’s only getting worse with the politically-correct and their nonsense. In Scotland, once a bastion of decency, some are now calling for perverted male criminals wearing skirts to be housed in womens’ prisons. And by skirts, I don’t mean kilts.
C’mon, Bordo.
So you’re basically a bigot?
Whacky Wee Willard,
What’s wrong with bigots? Aren’t you one?
Or is bigotry reserved for people of your ilk?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Would you rather be a bigot or a deceitful cretin?
Cheers.
You have some odd ideas about the 1690 fighting in Ireland.
Perhaps you should research the War of the League of Ausburg.
Soros isn’t a Jew. His parents were Jews.
Most Jews I’ve met who claim to be Jews aren’t Jews. They often follow many Jewish traditions, but if you ask if they believe in God, they say no. They’re atheists. You ask, then, why do you call yourselves Jews? They responded because my parents were Jews. Sorry, because your parents are Jews doesn’t make you a Jew.
You’re doing that thing again, Troglodyte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
Stephen,
Soros is at often at the center of anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
When people are anti-Semitic, as exemplified by the Nazis and neo-Nazi’s, and others, they don’t stop to ask the Jews they are beating up or killing, whether they are observant or not.
Nate gets it wrong again. The Nazi’s officially defined a Jew as one having at least 3 Jewish grandparents. But since the Nazis conducted science the same way you do Nate they weren’t very precise on determining whether a grandparent was a Jew or not.
Because of this many soldiers in the Wehrmacht had been practicing Jews.
Now with DNA we know that Jews are not a unique race but most have middle eastern roots with a higher level of European DNA than other middle eastern peoples.
While the Jews are supposedly not a proselytizing religion there were periods in the history of the Jews where many other people from other ethnic groups became Jewish.
Apparently, the bottom line for both yourself and the Nazis, one is Jewish if you or they say someone is a Jew. Y’all feel no need to ask.
Yada yada yada which of course has absolutely nothing to do with ” whether they are observant or not”
Well unless you are Jewish your opinion doesn’t mean spit.
Plenty of Christians identify as Christians without following the anthropogenically interpreted practice. In fact, for Christianity there isn’t just one interpretation.
Jesus didn’t follow the anthropogenic interpretation of the practice of Judaism of his time and he got crucified for it. So its really the individual who determines his belief system and what he wants to call it.
Bill doubles down with facts orthogonal to the point I was making..
That’s what he does.
Gee Nate actually believes his opinion is worth something.
A dime a dozen? How are sales going Nate?
wee willy…”As the temperature has risen to about 36 degrees Celsius [96.8 degrees Fahrenheit], Sri Lanka has experienced about 3 degrees Celsius [5.4 degrees Fahrenheit] increase of the daily maximum temperature during the recent heat stress period”
***
To put this so-called heat wave in perspective, Sri Lanka is nearly on the Equator, at the foot of India. A lot further north, in my area, 36C would be a nice warm summers day is Lytton, BC, which often sees summer temps into the mid 40C range.
I don’t know what they are whining about in Sri Lanka. It’s weather. They are surrounded by ocean, that’s why they are cooler. In Lytton, which is 150 miles inland, they get no relief from the ocean.
I was camping near Lytton one summer and it was so hot we had to move. There was nary a breeze to offer relief. Nothing like Old Sol beating down on you with no convection. about. Bit let Sri Lanka get 3C warmer for a few days and it’s called climate change.
That’s nothing, Bordo.
When I make pizza, my oven reaches 450F.
wee willy hits an all-time low.
“The Moon gets very cold at night. Very thin atmosphere.
The Earth gets less cold at night. Atmosphere”.
***
Duh!!! The Moon is heated on one side for two weeks and gets extremely hot, with no cooling. Then that side disappears out of view from the Sun and becomes extremely cold for two weeks.
Wee willy believes the Moon rotates on a local axis like the Earth, therefore it cools at night. Trouble is, the lunar night is 14 days long.
C’mon, Bordo.
You might need to revise your factoids about the Moon:
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
This seems to corroborate what is being said in this quote:
No, I’m not telling you who said this.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (no doubt in a got of idiocy) x-
“No, Im not telling you who said this.”
Ooooooh! So obscure. Ooooooh! So mysterious! Oooooh! Who cares?
I suppose you are not gong to divulge your secret, yet strangely non-existent, description of the GHE!
Time to try another diversionary act of complete stupidity, do you think?
Nothing else seems to be working for you, does it?
[laughing at idiot trying to be clever]
Mike Flynn,
Only a deceitful cretin would feign to ignore who wrote this.
Coincidentally, it was written by a deceitful cretin.
That deceitful cretin wrote that argument for more than a decade.
Take a wild guess as to which deceitful cretin it is, deceitful cretin.
Long live and prosper.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Not a fan of facts, Willard?
Argue all you like, dummy.
Both the surface of the Moon and the surface of the Earth cool in the absence of sunlight.
If you want to complain about the Moon having an extreme lack of GHGs, then argue about this – the areas of the Earth with the least (not most) GHGs in the atmosphere have both the highest and the lowest recorded temperatures on Earth.
So you see, the only effect of supposed GHGs is to compress the diurnal temperature range. No GHE, just basic physical laws in operation. The Moon, with its total lack of GHGs, indicates both the extremes of temperature which may be obtained, and the maximum rate at which this may occur.
Keep on with your obscure attempts to reject reality. It won’t make it go away, you idiot.
Moron Mike,
You’re the deceitful cretin who wrote the comment.
Deceitful cretin.
At long last, the glorious future we were promised in space is on the way
“It is gratifying to see folks coming around.”
Eric Berger – 5/25/2023, 4:45 AM
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/at-long-last-the-glorious-future-we-were-promised-in-space-is-on-the-way/
“After losing the initial lander contract to SpaceX two years ago, Blue Origin did not just bid a lower price this time around. Instead, it radically transformed the means by which it would put humans on the Moon. The Blue Moon lander is now completely reusable; it will remain in lunar orbit, going up and down to the surface. It will be serviced by a transport vehicle that will be fueled in low-Earth orbit and then deliver propellant to the Moon. This transporter, in turn, will be refilled by multiple launches of the reusable New Glenn rocket.
To be sure, that is a lot of hardware that has yet to be built and tested. But when we step back, there is one inescapable fact. With SpaceX’s fully reusable Starship, and now Blue Moon, NASA has selected two vehicles based around the concept of many launches and the capability to store and transfer propellant in space.
This is a remarkable transformation in the way humans will explore outer spacepotentially the biggest change in spaceflight since the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957. It has been a long time coming.”
Indeed.
[As Glenn Reynolds likes say, and linked from: https://instapundit.com/
]
“We hear that a new El Nino forming in the Pacific Ocean is likely to push global-average temperatures to new record highs in 2023.”
The Spring Predictability Barrier (SPB) says that only MAY be true.
Did nobody reach you that all science MAY be true.
If you want certainty ask a politician, or a priest.
EM,
I thought “science” was just searching for knowledge, using the “scientific method”.
You obviously think science is something else. What do you believe science is? Are there many different sciences, which may be true or not?
I’m of the same view as Richard Feynman, who wrote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Speculation is fine, but unless confirmed by experience in the form of experiment, is just wishful thinking, no more or less valid than anybody else’s speculation!
As the Royal Society’s motto advises – “Nullius in verba”. Take no-one’s word. Or slavishly believe, if that takes less effort. You may choose to believe in a GHE, for example.
Others may not, of course.
Why do you slavishly hold to an old motto, Mike Flynn?
Do you mean old mottos like “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits?”
That depends, Troglodyte. If that’s just an old way of expressing what you want to say, that’s fine. Non nova, sed nove.
If you want to appeal to some deep wisdom, then at least try to be consistent to what it says. To evoke “nullius in verba” is kinda self-defeating.
Whining Wee Willy,
Im of the same view as Richard Feynman, who wrote “It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
None of your whining is likely to change my view at all.
If you want to believe in a greenhouse effect which you can’t even describe, go for it.
Sounds more like religion than science.
Moron Mike,
In Barry’s view, you’re a deceitful cretin.
The atmosphere is one big reason why the Earth cools less quickly than the Moon.
You knew the greenhouse effect all along.
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“The atmosphere is one big reason why the Earth cools less quickly than the Moon.
You knew the greenhouse effect all along.”
You are not really claiming that the “greenhouse effect” makes the surface cooler, are you?
Of course not, that’s why you can’t describe the greenhouse effect, can you?
You need to come up with something that physical laws as currently known cannot explain. Start with saying something idiotic like “the greenhouse effect makes the surface hotter at night”. Or try during the day, in Antarctica, when the surface temperature is -90 C.
Tricky thing, that “greenhouse effect”. Unless you are a gullible idiot.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
According to you, atmosphere slows down the cooling.
Why?
It is also quite chaotic near the surface over just 24 hours.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
https://imgur.com/sAzeV7A
So you agree that 90% certainty is possibly false.
https://imgur.com/fGw2yAY
I don’t think 2023 will be a record in the UAH TLT record.
Here are two OLS fits to the two most recent 7 y periods.
Was the first 7 year trend (2011-2016) predictive of what came next?
Why not?
Did the 53 y trend do a better job? Why?
https://tinyurl.com/mr37ujkb
Straight line OLS has effectively infinite bandwidth. When did nature contain straight lines?
P.S. Your 53 year timespan also says that nothing has a period longer than that.
P.P.S. Does your 53 trend predict what happened before its start? If not, why?
When was the last time you walked a pine forest, Richard?
Last month.
Were the trunks perfect waves?
No, they were as random as you would expect.
So either we accept that there are lines and waves in nature, although imperfect, or we reject that our mathematical tools are perfect representation of what’s going on.
What we can’t do is accept waves and reject lines.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What we can’t do is accept waves and reject lines.”
Of course you can. You can believe anything you wish.
You might choose to believe you are intelligent and respected.
See how easy it is to believe?
Everybody is free to be a deceitful cretin, Mike.
Only you decided to be one here.
Rejoice!
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote
“What we cant do is accept waves and reject lines.”
Of course you can. You can believe anything you wish.
You might choose to believe you are intelligent and respected.
See how easy it is to believe?
Nature is full of random events. There does appear to be regular series in there also.
There are no/few long term straight lines in nature. Least of all in global temperature.
..except for ~ the last 50 y.
Sure.
There are only straight lines in this graph. /sarc
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo-1.jpeg
Straight line OLS at maximum widths are just the resource of the incompetent statistician. It ignores all the science of signal analysis just as though it had never been created.
‘Least of all in global temperature.’
So you show PDO?? To make the case??
“Straight line OLS at maximum widths”
Whats that?
There is nothing magical about the straight line, it is just a simple measure of the rate-of-rise during that period of time.
And as mentioned, the climate forcing during the recent 50 y period was increasing approx linearly. Before that the reate-of rise was lower. So long-term non-linear.
So theory is consistent with the observation. Not proof.
Then we have all other evidence, the physics of radiative forcing, which has been confirmed by experiment. Then the first law of thermodynamics that says the additional added energy must produce warming.
To confirm that we have the measured rise in ocean heat content, that matches the net top of atmosphere energy imbalance.
You have asked to show evidence for your claimed natural cycle that explains or is consistent with the GW, and cannot show us anything.
SO on the one hand we have a real physics based mechanism, that has been tested, and produces warming consistent with this theory, during a period that just so happens to match the unprecidented rise in CO2.
And on the other hand we have speculation about natural cycles.
“it is just a simple measure of the rate-of-rise during that period of time”
Hence a statistic that is only useful over the period it is applied. It says nothing about what will happen before or after that period, though it is often used to imply that ‘things are getting warmer forever’.
“things are getting warmer forever.”
Quote any of us saying that, troll.
“Straight line OLS has effectively infinite bandwidth.”
What does that even mean?
You didnt answer why the 7 y OLS had poor predictive value?
Hint: it was fitting noise.
“infinite bandwidth” in this case means all of the data.
Does your 53 trend predict what happened before its start? If not, why?
No it doesnt because the radiative forcing proportional to log(CO2) obviously has not been linear forever.
An exponential rise in CO2 would produce a linear rise in forcing.
In the last 5 decades the long term trend in GHG forcing and resultant GW has been quasi-linear:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/log/mean:24
You can see that the trend in log(CO2) was flattening in the mid 20th century. And of course it would approach horizontal by the start of the 20th century.
In mid 20th century its rise was smaller than natural variation and contributions from anthro aerosols.
Going forward a decade or so, a quasi-linear increase in forcing is good bet. But it could also slowly deviate from linear.
But one has to realize that the ongoing warming will be accompanied by noise from ENSO and PDO.
The estimated log(CO2) going back to preindustrial times
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ico2_log.png
So you ‘prove’ AGW by quoting CO2. Kinda a circular argument isn’t it?
And what is your expected years in a natural cycle (including ocean gyres).
Where did I claim I proved anything, troll?
Nothing in science is proven.
I am explaining why AGW predicts ~ linear for the last 50 y, and not linear at earlier times.
A natural period longer than 50 years will explain all the supposed rise in T.
Do you really expect that there are no natural cycles with erratic periods that are longer then 50 years?
Show us one that explains the warming trend.
The rising part of a long period looks like a rise, but isn’t.
So you can’t show us one. This is just you hoping there is one.
That aint science.
“That ain’t science.”
Science is based on data. Show me you data for the southern oceans before the satellite era.
Im not claiming anything about it.
“I’m not claiming anything about it.”
Just that the long term data supports your ideas when no such long term data exists (except in the Northern Hemisphere).
“Just that the long term data supports your ideas when no such long term data exists (except in the Northern Hemisphere).”
FALSE.
You are misrepresenting the Southern Ocean as the entire Southern Hemisphere, when in fact it is just the tiny fraction of the ocean below 60 deg South latitude, not including the large Antarctic land mass.
Here is the sea surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data//temperature/HadSST4.pdf
The statistical error bar is shown with light blue shaded region.
You do realize that we know almost nothing about what the actual sea surface temperature in the southern oceans were before the satellite era?
Change of subject.
And where do you get this idea that there was poor sampling of the southern ocean before ~ 1970?
You think that we had accurate data from the southern oceans before the satellite era?
Where do you get this idea that there was poor sampling of the southern ocean before ~ 1970?
There were not many ships in the southern oceans at that time.
https://imgur.com/Ulah5KV
“The Southern Ocean data desert, as seen in the global distribution of temperature observations between 1955 and 2017. The dominance of the Northern Hemisphere in the data is clear; by contrast, the Southern Hemisphere south of 60 S is especially poorly covered. Whilst innovations such as the Argo programme are addressing this data desert, it remains as problematic as ever for parameters that cannot yet be measured autonomously. The bar charts show the distribution of observations by longitude (top panel) and by latitude (right-hand panel). The smooth curve in the right-hand panel is the expected distribution of those ocean observations if they were spread equally on a sphere; the irregular curve is the expected distribution of ocean observations also taking into account the shape and size of the Earths land masses.”
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Southern-Ocean-data-desert-as-seen-in-the-global-distribution-of-temperature_fig3_334126444
Only thousands of observations per 1 deg^2? Insufficient?
Thousands of obs per 1deg^2 = “we know almost nothing about” ??
That covers all ship observations up to 2017. In the early part of the record almost nothing was collected.
the Southern Hemisphere south of 60 S is especially poorly covered.
This is the Southern Ocean that they are talking about.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Location_Southern_Ocean.svg/450px-Location_Southern_Ocean.svg.png
It is tiny fraction of the globe.
“It is tiny fraction of the globe.”
Actually the data desert covers points up to 20N (in the Pacific).
Without sufficient coverage prior to the satellite era then any global figure is just a guess.
Actually the data desert covers most of the Pacific
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean
which accounts for a large portion of the globe.
“the hydrosphere covers about 46% of Earth’s water surface and about 32% of its total surface area, larger than Earth’s entire land area combined”
“Actually the data desert covers points up to 20N (in the Pacific).
Without sufficient coverage prior to the satellite era then any global figure is just a guess.”
BS assertion without evidence.
Here is the SH ocean temperature rise, with stat. error shown wiht blue shading.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data//temperature/HadSST4.pdf
It shows that statistically, the warming is significant and not ‘just a guess’.
So where is your data where there are orange (or worse) areas in the data coverage. Of course the data collection was much better before 1955 in the areas shown.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
/sarc if I need to add it. Anything in the Pacific (the largest ocean area on the planet) is basically a guess, especially in the southern hemisphere.
“Here is the SH ocean temperature rise, with stat. error shown wiht blue shading.”
Does it show the uncertainties that occur because no data was collected?
Do you not find it suspicious that the blue shading does not represent the known data deficiencies/desert?
” Anything in the Pacific (the largest ocean area on the planet) is basically a guess, especially in the southern hemisphere.”
Repeating unsupported assertions will do you no good.
“So where is your data where there are orange (or worse) areas in the data coverage”
The orange areas are the Southern Ocean. Which as already mentioned, is a TINY FRACTION of the globe and even a tiny fraction of the SH.
Since it is a tiny fraction of the globe, your repeated statement that ” any global figure is just a guess.” is simply unsupported BS.
FYI
Southern Ocean:
“With a size of 20,327,000 km2 (7,848,000 sq mi), it is regarded as the second-smallest of the five principal oceanic divisions: smaller than the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans but larger than the Arctic Ocean.[5]”
“Earth/Surface area
196.9 million mi”
So the Southern Ocean fraction of the global area is 7.8/196.9 = 0.04.
“The orange areas are the Southern Ocean.”
The orange areas cover a lot more than just the area beyond 60S. They go as far as beyond 20N.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Do you not find it interesting that the graph you quote has the same uncertainty both north and south of the equator even though it is well acknowledge that the data desert is very hemisphere biased.
P.S. This is only the data since 1955. Care to guess the distribution before that date?
Enough misrepresenting the data and hand waving, RLH.
Here is a methodology paper by NOAA discussing their most recent ocean temperature data set and how they calculated it and the uncertainties.
You want to assert that they are getting the uncertainties wrong? Then read the paper and show us what they have done wrong.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/20/jcli-d-16-0836.1.xml
So how do they cover the southern hemisphere with the same accuracy as the northern one when they had a lot less data to do it with?
They say it covers from 1854 to Present but acknowledge that the data coverage is sparse in the early years. I would love to know how they guess the values when they was no samples available in the well known data desert (see).
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
If you look at the bar graph at the right hand side you will see that there is less than 50% coverage of the oceans in the years since 1955. And that is only since then, so I am not sure how they make things up when they obviously do not have even that coverage in the years between 1854 and 1955.
Or you could do what they obviously do and make things up. To the point where data sets show the same uncertainty where there is maximum coverage to where there is effectively none.
P.S. The data desert coverage (see above) lasts for only 62 years. 22K is only 1 sample per day in a 1 degree by 1 degree grid.
Then read the paper and show us what they have done wrong.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/20/jcli-d-16-0836.1.xml
“that there is less than 50% coverage”
It is your presumption that that is insufficient. How do you know?
“P.S. The data desert coverage (see above) lasts for only 62 years. 22K is only 1 sample per day in a 1 degree by 1 degree grid.”
And why is that insufficient?
What are the correlation distance and time for T variation of the ocean surface?
If you think you know something go ahead and predict the next 7 years instead acting Nutty on this board, drawing straight lines through snippets of data and showing past temperatures as if it proves something.
That depends on if you think that 5 year S-G means something.
Speaking of predictions, can somebody ask La Bindigolina if She can see the cooling yet,
Maybe now on the fast computer She can see it better
because you know – Stats are funny
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-453666
Hello, ankle-biting, all time stalking Eben dachshund!
Thanks for posting the link to my old comment you manifestly did not undertsnad anything of – especially that Richard M and you both are boasters who claim being able to predict anything but in fact do nothing else than to come out with predictions made by others.
You NEVER predicted anything, Eben.
Try to live with that.
Nor did you. You just forgot about the spring predictability barrier.
If you look at the link I just posted you will see you need to save Bindidog’s attack posts so you can rub his ankle biting snout in them when he is proven wrong
I think I know something, the 7 years, did not have much happening,
though could say it cooled. The next 7 years probably will not have much happening, it possible could say it warmed.
And if that happens, it will be mostly be about weather.
It’s also possible next 7 years , could be about the same as last 7 years, and then have trend cooling, and can called, a Pause.
What seems likely to me, is that going to be leaving Solar Max conditions.
Within a year, some may say this, and within 2 years, one could call it solar min conditions, and within 5 years it could affect weather,
and 7 years have effected weather.
Predicting global weather in 7 years is crazy, but it could, say 50%
chance, cause greening of Sahara.
Of course humans are attempting to green the desert and I would say that attempt in next 7 year is higher than 50%. And it seems the higher portion of chance failing, would related to weather in next 3 to 4 years. But near term failure due weather, might be reversed in +5 year time period of more favorable weather.
But also regardless, they have good reason to continue, despite it.
“If you think you know something go ahead and predict the next 7 years instead”
No one here can predict ENSO better than the experts, who have a decent chance of predicting no more than a few months ahead.
But I can predict if we remove the calculated ENSO and volcanic contributions to global T, the remainder will rise over the next 7 years.
Do you remember the SPB and what it means?
No.
Spring Predictability Barrier.
Some websites even stop running the ENSO models in May
You can only guess because they have no idea where it’s gonna go at this time
We will see who is correct this year won’t we.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
You like noise then?
So we wait to see what happens then.
Take a look at it now.
With noise, what goes down must come up.
And it only took 4 days. Noise indeed.
What does that have to do with the next 7 years?
We are talking about if this year has an El Nino.
In this thread we were talking about:
“If you think you know something go ahead and predict the next 7 years”
“No one here can predict ENSO better than the experts”
Who understand that the SPB makes things difficult early in the year.
“predict the next 7 years”
Well your prediction appears to be ‘getting even hotter’ whereas mine is ‘much the same’.
We will see won’t we.
SPB is overrated.
https://tinyurl.com/3zu6jyhj
87% accurate May forecast of October in dynamical models.
Nate says:
”No one here can predict ENSO better than the experts, who have a decent chance of predicting no more than a few months ahead.”
But I can predict if we remove the calculated ENSO and volcanic contributions to global T, the remainder will rise over the next 7 years.
—————————–
You mean you believe you can. You lack a statistically sensible argument in support of your prediction. Believing the little ice age recovery will go on forever unless somebody does something to stop it isn’t a statistically sensible argument.
Nate says: No one here can predict ENSO better than the experts
Where have I heard that before ?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
Sure, we have been having El Nino for the last 3 years, or so the ‘experts’ have claimed. /sarc
Eben,
Experts? As Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Predicting the state of a chaotic system at any instance in time is impossible. ENSO is just an apparent pattern noticed in historical temperatures.
Experts can assume whatever they wish. If enough of them are involved, at least some might have close guesses. Rather like climate model “ensembles”. Unfortunately, using 131 climate models with different outcomes, nobody knows which outcome is likely to be correct – if any!
Casting the runes reading the Tarot is just as likely to predict ENSO.
So Eben thinks he can predict ENSO better than the experts. So go ahead and predict this Fall.
Rocket Lab launches second batch of TROPICS satellites for NASA
by Staff Writers
Mahia, New Zealand (SPX) May 26, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Rocket_Lab_launches_second_batch_of_TROPICS_satellites_for_NASA_999.html
“The TROPICS CubeSats required launch to a specific orbit at an altitude of 550 kilometers and inclination of about 30 degrees, with all four satellites needing to be deployed into their operational orbit within a 60-day period ahead. Rocket Lab has now launched all four satellites across two dedicated launches within 18 days, enabling the TROPICS satellites to settle into their orbits and begin commissioning ahead of the 2023 North American storm season which begins in June.”
When Black Holes Merge, They’ll Ring Like a Bell
When two black holes collide, they dont smash into each other the way two stars might. A black hole is an intensely curved region of space that can be described by only its mass, rotation, and electric charge, so two black holes release violent gravitational ripples as merge into a single black hole. The new black hole continues to emit gravitational waves until it settles down into a simple rotating black hole. That settling down period is known as the ring down, and its pattern holds clues to some of the deepest mysteries of gravitational physics.
https://www.universetoday.com/161598/when-black-holes-merge-theyll-ring-like-a-bell/#more-161598
“Gravitational wave observatories such as the Laser Interferometry Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have mostly focused on the inspiral period of black hole mergers. This is the period where the two black holes orbit ever closer to each other, creating a rhythmic stream of strong gravitational waves. From this astronomers can determine the mass and rotation of the original black holes, as well as the mass and rotation of the merged black hole. The pattern of gravitational waves we observe is governed by Einsteins general relativity equations, and by matching observation to theory we learn about black holes.”
[It seems to me, once we explore the Moon and/or become more of spacefaring civilization, we could make much better gravitational wave observatories.]
anyhow, article ends with:
“LIGO has just begun its latest observation run, so it will be a while before there is enough data to test. But we may soon have a new observational test of Einsteins old theory, and we might just prove it isnt the final theory of gravity after all.”
gb…quoted from article…”A black hole is an intensely curved region of space that can be described by only its mass, rotation, and electric charge, so two black holes release violent gravitational ripples as merge into a single black hole”.
***
Absolute poppycock. People who come up with these inane theories have black holes for minds.
What is an ‘intensely curved region of space’ and what has that nonsense to do with anything? This is more of Einstein’s stupidity taken to the nth degree.
When I took a course in astronomy, not so long ago, a black hole was defined as a neutron star gone wrong. That’s when physics was based on real mass and not on some cockamamey idiocy about curved space-time.
The theory was presented as follows. When a star runs out of fuel, there is an imbalance between its gravitational force pulling in the way and nuclear forces pushing out the way. As the fuel is used up, gravitational force weakens and the star starts to expand, eventually becoming a red giant. That will happen with our sun one day and Earth will be incinerated.
As the star continues to expand, it reaches a critical phase where one of three things can happen. The star can explode in a supernova, it can collapse into a neutron star, since theoretically all the electrons and protons have been boiled off, or, it can continue to collapse past the neutron star phase into a black hole. In essence, a black hole is a super-dense mass.
That raises interesting questions. Why should neutrons, with no charge, aggregate into a dense mass? And, how can it condense further into a nothingness with an immense mass. This is like the assinine Big Bang theory in reverse.
Seriously, theoretical physicists are stoned on something. Either that or they are savants who can pass themselves off as normal people.
My God, that’s magnificent. It’s the worst description of stellar evolution I’ve ever encountered!
The “Plan 9 from Outer Space” of astrophysics.
“As the fuel is used up, gravitational force weakens and the star starts to expand, eventually becoming a red giant. That will happen with our sun one day and Earth will be incinerated. ”
So, it’s commonly said, but is it true.
I think living on Mercury can be living in cold environment.
Cold in sense, could freeze Earth air at 1 atm pressure, into liquid
air, without refrigeration [passively let it cool in a Mercury environment- not quickly, within say a week]. And can’t do that anywhere on Earth. Or Earth is cold, but there limit to how cold- due greenhouse effect. Or in some frozen hell of Antarctica- it would cool the air faster, but it’s limited in how cold it gets.
Now if living on Mercury and sun expands to Venus distance, then Mercury might worse than surface of Venus- which is not easy for human to live there. And one would would have given Mercury an atmosphere by having within sun, but more significantly, Mercury orbits at high velocity, and traveling thru any kind atmosphere at such velocities, is extremely “exciting”- and the planet spirals into the Sun.
Now, happens to Venus with it’s atmosphere hitting the Sun’s atmosphere. We could say the Sun’s atmosphere “wins”, the Venus atmosphere decreases and is replaced with Sun’s atmosphere.
Now what is the density of the Sun’s atmosphere at the present time?
“The density, about 10−7 gram per cubic centimetre (g/cm3), drops a factor of 2.7 every 150 kilometres. The solar atmosphere is actually a vacuum by most standards; the total density above any square centimetre is about 1 gram, about 1,000 times less than the comparable mass in the atmosphere of Earth.”
And seems when sun expands to Venus distance it could be more of vacuum.
And it seems you make planet Venus into rocket with a massive ISP while you turning Venus into a planet without atmosphere.
[Also of course I should mention Humans could make planet Earth leave this solar system for relativity low cost].
Then say sun expanded just to Venus distance [they are uncertain big the sun will expand to] would that incinerate us?
Also if Sun expands to Venus distance, it will change the gravitational effect of the sun.
Anyhow, the effect seem uncertain- it could be that it mostly removes Earth atmosphere. And planet without atmosphere has some advantages.
“As the fuel is used up, gravitational force weakens and the star starts to expand, ”
“The star…can collapse into a neutron star, since theoretically all the electrons and protons have been boiled off”
” Why should neutrons, with no charge, aggregate into a dense mass? ”
Laugh? I nearly passed a kidney stone!
“The very central region of the star the core collapses, crushing together every proton and electron into a neutron. If the core of the collapsing star is between about 1 and 3 solar masses, these newly-created neutrons can stop the collapse, leaving behind a neutron star.”
-The formation of neutron stars is a long process. A star more massive than the sun, must first collapse. This occurs because of an extreme downward pull of gravity. After this occurs, protons combine with electrons (they’re squeezed together by gravity in the core of the star) and neutrons are formed. However, the gravitational pull is still present, thus a core of tightly compressed neutrons exists. Soon the gravitational pull becomes so strong that an explosion occurs. This is known as a supernova. Outer layers are thrown into space and a spinning core remains. This is the neutron star.
Though scientists have many different opinions of the mass of this star, the range appears to be no less than 1.4 solar masses, and no more than 3.2 solar masses. Most reported findings fall within this range. After a star exceeds this upper limit, it becomes too heavy and forms a black hole. In addition, below the lower limit, the star is too small and is simply a white dwarf.-
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/DannyGoldner.shtml
–Surprisingly, though there mass is so large, the diameter of neutron stars is typically only 10-20 kilometers (the length of Manhattan). In addition, neutron stars have magnetic fields which are billions of times stronger than the most powerful magnets on Earth. It’s possible, therefore, through a field of electrons and protons, for a neutron star to emit radiation. If such a star is spinning, it is called a pulsar.
Danny Goldner — 1997–
Also from above:
–Although neutron stars range from 1.4 to 3.2 solar masses, the mass of their parent stars are much higher. Neutron stars are formed from the supernova remains of stars with a mass between 8 and 10 times that of the sun.
Editor’s Supplement — 1999–
Well, here.
What is mass and size of white dwarf? Wiki:
“Although white dwarfs are known with estimated masses as low as 0.17 M and as high as 1.33 M, the mass distribution is strongly peaked at 0.6 M, and the majority lie between 0.5 and 0.7 M. The estimated radii of observed white dwarfs are typically 0.82% the radius of the Sun; this is comparable to the Earth’s radius of approximately 0.9% solar radius.
A white dwarf, then, packs mass comparable to the Sun’s into a volume that is typically a million times smaller than the Sun’s; the average density of matter in a white dwarf must therefore be, very roughly, 1,000,000 times greater than the average density of the Sun, or approximately 106 g/cm3, or 1 tonne per cubic centimetre.”
Note, it’s Average density- Sun has low average density.
Got look it up: density Sun core:
“around 160 grams/centimeter3
“The Sun’s core is about 16 million degrees hot and has a density around 160 grams/centimeter3. This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal Iron which has a density of “only” 7 grams/centimeter3″
Average is: “Being a star, the sun’s density varies considerably between its outer layers and its core. On average, it has a density of 1.408 g/cm3, which is roughly one-quarter that of Earth.”
So white dwarf doesn’t much difference in density between core and mantle, say only something like 10 times more density {I am guessing, and in terms atmosphere could include very hot carbon in a plasma- and when becomes cooler, liquid carbon and hot diamonds.}. Anyways very hot but white dwarf is small {the source of heat is small point
at 1 AU distance]
Gbaike
Thank you. You’ve saved me having to explain it to Gordon Robertson. (Smile emoji)
A WARMER LIFE
Media reports Sunday said outgoing Assemblyman Randy Voepel is a grandfather of the 22-year-old man accused of killing five at a Colorado Springs gay nightclub.
https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2022/11/20/reports-colorado-mass-shooting-suspect-is-grandson-of-assemblys-randy-voepel/
Randy sounds like a swell guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Voepel
Wandering Wee Willy,
Is this your description of the GHE? Or maybe you are challenging Dr Spencer’s post?
Or are you just a brainless idiot striving for attention by attempting to annoy anonymous strangers?
Carry on – I await the next chapter in the saga of your progressive mental disintegration.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon cools faster than the Earth.
Why?
Willard,
You asked why the Moon cools [and has cooled] faster than the Earth.
Are you really such an idiot that you are admitting that you dont know why hot things cool?
Even more idiotic, are you appealing to my authority? Can’t you find someone of your ilk to explain something as simple as cooling to you?
You are indeed a strange delusional SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
Grovel before me, beg plaintively for my help and guidance all you like. The answer will still be “no”.
Carry on.
[laughing at idiotic gotcha]
Deceitful cretin,
The Moon cools quicker because it is less hot?
Perhaps you should check back your physics textbooks.
Cheers.
Don’t you know?
The internal temperature of a smaller planet drops faster than that of a larger planet because the smaller planet has a larger surface area:volume ratio.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Deceitful cretin,
The Moon cools quicker because it is less hot?
Perhaps you should check back your physics textbooks.”
Idiotic attempt at putting words in my mouth. How do you think it worked out for you? If you now claim you know how hot things cool, (and everything above absolute zero is hotter than it could be), good for you!
You don’t need to thank me for helping you to find out things for yourself.
Have you worked out whether the GHE is supposed to make things like the Earth hotter, or colder? When you find out, let me know.
Magic Mike,
No need to put words in your mouth.
Here is you:
Why do you keep playing the deceitful cretin?
Wavering Wee Willy,
You quoted “Mike” as saying –
“Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.”
Seems factual to me. Are you disputing the statement, and if so, on what basis?
If you are just trying to be annoying, quoting facts which support me is not going to be terribly effective, is it?
Did you have to learn how to be an idiot, or does it come naturally?
Carry on.
ent…”The internal temperature of a smaller planet drops faster than that of a larger planet because the smaller planet has a larger surface area:volume ratio”.
***
That’s not the issue here, it’s that the Earth rotates 28 times in the period of one lunar orbit. During that orbit, the Moon does not rotate on a local axis and its warming/cooling is related to the Moon’s position in its orbit. That means one side of the Moon is heated for 14 days and it’s then allowed to cool for 14 days.
Moron Mike,
You say –
“You quoted “Mike””
Not exactly, deceitful cretin.
I quoted you.
Wacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
You say
“You quoted “Mike””
Not exactly, deceitful cretin.
I quoted you.”
You write to Mike, quoting him, then complain because he points it out.
You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Do you actually read what you write, or do you just hammer out rubbish in your keyboard for no reason?
You are Mike Flynn hiding under a sock puppet, deceitful cretin.
And?
That makes you a deceitful cretin, Mike.
“Randy sounds like a swell guy:”
***
If you say so, wee willy.
nate…I thikn…”An exponential rise in CO2 would produce a linear rise in forcing.
In the last 5 decades the long term trend in GHG forcing and resultant GW has been quasi-linear:”
***
First you have to prove that CO2 has a significant warming effect on the atmosphere at all. Your claims about forcings are nothing more than theories.
G&T laid it out for us using equations for heat diffusion. Heat diffusion is a reference to how heat is distributed throughout a region. It is not to be confused with heat conduction, which is insignificant from gas molecule to gas molecule.
Somehow, alarmists think heat can be distributed among air molecules when CO2 absorbs infrared energy from the surface and passes it on to nitrogen and oxygen molecules through collision. I have yet to see any alarmist prove the degree to which this can occur, even though some wags have used the term thermalization while ***INFERRING*** it is enough to raise the temperature of the N2/O2 molecules. No one has proved it.
G&T proved, using an elegant proof involving the thermodynamics involved, that CO2 at 0.04% can produce no more heat in air than its mass percent, which is slightly larger (0.06%) than its concentration of 0.04%. Therefore, CO2 can warm surrounding air molecules no more than about 0.06% per 1C rise in the overall air mass.
I arrived at the same conclusion using a watered-down version of the Ideal Gas Law. If it is this easy to disprove the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere why are we still hearing nonsense about forcings related to CO2?
This is my source for technical information.
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/publications/
Radiative forcing according to the IPCC is reported to be a total of 2.5 W/m. I calculate 0.758C of surface warming from this without any feedbacks. Any additional warming should probably be attributed to the growth in urbanization and UHI effect on cloud coverage
My current position is
1. I agree with Dr Happer and Wijngaarden that we can expect just 1C per doubling.
2. Water vapor feedback seems to be negative feedback since the amount of water vapor is not increasing at the altitudes where positive feedback is expected to play out.
If you like to debate please respond to one of my twitter posts. I can’t wait for Roy’s UAH Global temperature Update for the month of May. It’s 52F here in SC today on 5-27-2023
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that CO2 controls the climate
https://youtu.be/6OCDSEF4KFE
Typhoon threatens northern Philippines.
https://i.ibb.co/Ykfvq7L/9bb45552-1f0e-4ed2-96ca-2db2e40690a3.jpg
When absorbing EM energy the CO2 molecule not only moves faster, when absorbing EM energy the CO2 molecule also emits EM energy.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…it is actually electrons in the CO2 molecule that emit and absorb EM, and there are two different situations.
The carbon atom has 6 electrons and the oxygen atom has 8 electrons. Both have two electrons in the inner orbital shell leaving 4 electrons for carbon in the outer shell and 6 electrons for oxygen. The ideal situation for any atom is to have this second orbital filled to the maximum of 8 electrons.
The CO2 molecule is linear and looks like this…
O=====C=====O
The double dashed lines indicate the electrons that bond the carbon atom to both oxygen atoms. The 2 electron in each bond complete the oxygen outer shell to 8 electrons and the C-atom to 8 electrons and that makes a very stable molecule.
The electrons in either shell can still transition to a higher energy levels, even the bonding electrons. That’s how EM is absorbed and emitted by the molecule.
However, to move an electron from the inner shell to a higher orbital (not the 2nd orbital, but a sub-orbital of the inner orbital), requires absorp-tion of a high-frequency energy quantum like that found in the UV spectrum. It’s not the same for shared electrons in bonding orbitals, which obviously emit and absorb in the infrared band.
If you try to find information on this on the Net, about all you can find is references to the infrared activity. It’s sad that alarmist science has taken over science to the point that pertinent information about a molecule like CO2 is regarded from an alarmist POV only.
It’s the same for nitrogen and oxygen. We know oxygen radiates in the microwave band because that is the basis of the UAH satellite data telemetry. Alarmists won’t tell you that oxygen, the 2nd most abundant gas in the atmosphere, can cool by radiating in the microwave band.
As Swenson keeps advising us, all matter above 0 K emits and absorbs energy. Alarmists would have us believe that nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere cannot absorb and emit energy.
Gordon Robertson
I will attempt another approach. Since you have chosen to deny all the information of current Chemistry. Then you need to up it a bit.
You claim: “christosit is actually electrons in the CO2 molecule that emit and absorb EM, and there are two different situations.”
What is your source of this statement. Did you just make it up? Can you link to any mathematical model of electron energies that would show you statement is possible? Do you have any source at all for this statement outside of you making it up and believing it to be a factual with zero supporting evidence?
Ho much energy do you think O2 radiates away with microwave energy?
N2 and O2 are non-polar molecules. When they vibrate there is no oscillating electric fields.
You have come up with a false science completely made up. You make bold claims but have no supporting evidence for any of it.
What is it that drives you to make up stuff that you can’t support. I have asked for support, will you be a Clint R and provide none or will you at least attempt something.
I would request you give a mathematical model of how much energy an electron transition produces.
Currently the molecular vibration model works very well and is used in spectroscopy to identify compounds and figure out molecules in unknown substances. Your ideas offer nothing. You reject the real world of science based upon evidence, experiments, rational thought in favor of you made up ideas. Why do you think this is a useful way to spend your time?
Norman,
You wrote –
“N2 and O2 are non-polar molecules. When they vibrate there is no oscillating electric fields.”
Gee. Quantum physics turned on its pointy little head by Norman? Not really – you are an idiot who rejects reality, or you are incredibly ignorant and stupid.
Everything, including N2 and O2, radiates IR. You may have some magical explanation for this which doesn’t involve quantum electrodynamics, but I doubt it.
Feel free to quibble about “oscillating electric fields” if you wish. The facts are that both N2 and O2 emit IR, and the wavelength of the emitted radiation is proportional to the absolute temperature of the emitter.
Here’s another bit of reality for you – adding or subtracting CO2 from a mixture of gases changes the mixture temperatures by precisely nothing at all. Impact of CO2 on temperature? Nil.
Go on, describe your mythical GHE now, idiot.
Swenson
Your idiotic post is mostly worthless trolling with zero content of any kind. You know nothing of any science but blab on like a kook out of the looney bin. Why you feel your posts are meaningful is up to you to figure out. Mostly just stupid points you endlessly repeat like an AI bot.
What IR do N2 and O2 emit. Provide some evidence for your posts or feel free not to post (which most would hope).
I have read that in order for N2 to emit IR it has to form a complex of molecules that create an imbalance of charges and then it will emit some IR very weakly. What data do you have to support you claims? Anything?
I have explained GHE to you dozens of times. Not my fault you are too stupid to comprehend the explanation. If you grew a brain I could attempt explaining it to you but as it stands it would not sink into the empty void that is your thoughts.
Wrong troll Norman. You haven’t explained the GHE at all. All you’ve done is regurgitate your cult’s nonsense which basically says Sun heats the surface and the surface heats the atmosphere. That’s true. It’s just “It’s the Sun, stupid.”
But your cult always forgets to explain how the atmosphere heats the surface. That’s because it DOESN”T. You say things like the GHE keeps Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. But, that’s all belief, NOT science. It comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science.
Worthless willard has been running around now comparing Earth to Moon. But, he’s shooting himself in the foot. Moon gets the same solar as Earth, but reaches temperatures close to 400K! Earth’s cooling systems keep Earth from anywhere close to such a temperature.
You don’t understand any of this. You can’t even make a comment without using your troll tactics.
Norman bumbling dimwit wrote –
“What IR do N2 and O2 emit. Provide some evidence for your posts or feel free not to post (which most would hope).”
All matter emits IR proportional to its temperature – Wiens Law, Plancks Law, you might not like ” Planck radiation is the greatest amount of radiation that any body at thermal equilibrium can emit from its surface, whatever its chemical composition or surface structure.” An oldie, but a goodie.
Air has temperature. It is emitting IR which is measured by an instrument which responds both to wavelength and intensity of emitted radiation. White hot gobbets of molten metal from a grinding wheel may bounce off your skin without any sensation of heat. Very hot, but not much quantity.
You may reject reality, if you wish. Neither reality nor I will give a damn.
You can’t even describe the GHE which you worship so ardently. Nor can anybody else.
Give it a try.
Clint R
Wrong! Not only have I explained the GHE to you I have given you the SURFAD measurements to show you how it works.
You can’t understand it so conclude no one is correctly informing you. You don’t even try to understand it (insulation is the best example).
The Sun constantly inputs so much energy to the Earth System. The atmospheric GH gases return a portion of the outgoing LW radiant energy to the surface. This lowers the radiant heat lost by the surface and it will then reach a higher average temperature from solar input. It radiates the same but receives back some of this energy which reduces the NET heat loss via radiant energy. You can’t understand this so it is pointless to waste time explaining it to you. You and Swenson are on the same wavelength on this. Neither of you understand how insulation will make a heated object hotter so it is impossible for you to understand GHE logically.
You can’t understand an insulated house uses less energy in the cold winter than a non-insulated house. How can you understand GHE when you can’t understand the function of insulation.
In one post you did explain the GHE with a plate. YOu had so much energy added to it and it would radiate from both sides and reach some steady state temperature. Now here is the GHE. You insulate one side (with exactly the same input energy) and the plate will get much hotter as now it only has one surface to emit from, you reduced the emitting surface size so the temperature goes up until it emits the same amount it is receiving. The insulation is not adding new energy to the plate but it is causing the temperature of the plate to increase. This is the GHE. More GHG reduces the amount of radiant heat the surface loses so with the same input the temperature will go up. It is really simple and well understood. Your inability to understand it does not change how it works.
Much better, Norman. You’ve eliminated the childish insults. But the repetitive rambling remains.
When you get it all worked out, and can behave like a responsible adult, I’ll help you to understand the flaws in your beliefs.
Swenson,
You want some quibbles?
“and the wavelength of the emitted radiation is proportional to the absolute temperature of the emitter.”
For one, it’s the peak of the spectrum, not the wavelength of the emitted radiation.
For two, it’s inversely proportional to the temperature.
You are confusing the properties of blackbodies with the properties of individual atoms or molecules.
Learn to do better, lest the lurkers think you are less intelligent than you think.
The greenhouse effect survives despite your lack of belief.
norman…”You claim: christosit is actually electrons in the CO2 molecule that emit and absorb EM, and there are two different situations.
What is your source of this statement”.
***
Several sources, Norman…
Before saying more, I keep emphasizing to anyone willing to listen that nothing else in an atom but an electron has the ability to emit and absorb EM. An electron is a mass and when it moves in an orbit it has kinetic energy. When it transitions down an orbit it has to dump some of that energy as a photon. But what energy does it dump?
The electron has an electric charge besides it mass and when it moves it can produce a magnetic field due to that charge. It is a no-brainer that when it dumps energy it is dumping electromagnetic energy.
It can’t dump momentum because the energy produced is not mechanical energy but an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, both properties of the electron in motion.
***
sources…
1)I have formally studied electronics since an early. Even at such an early age I learned the relationship between electrons and EM because it is a basic theory in electronics. Inductors, transformers and electric motors depend on the relationship between electrons moving in a conductor and the EM field they radiate.
2)I formally studied electrical/electronics theory at university and during that period I studied electron theory at an even deeper level. One of our courses was a one semester course on the physics of electrons as related to semiconductors. We studied Bohr’s orbital theory as applied to semiconductors.
Semiconductor theory involves the study of how electrons move through that material but before learning that we had to study what an electron is and how it reacts to electromotive forces. When a piece of silicon is doped with impurity atoms to enhance the number of electrons in an n-type or the lack of electrons in a p-type, we had to study atomic structure to understand it.
3)Before even getting into the EE faculty, I had to study first year physics and chemistry. We were well indoctrinated in electron orbitals to the point we had to be able to construct molecular drawings based on Lewis structures. During the organic chemistry phase, we studied carbon-based molecular structures in depth, and of course, drawing more Lewis structures.
I have no idea what you have read and how you have interpreted it, but I had to write exams on these subjects to demonstrate my understanding.
4)experience…after years of practically applying what I had learned, when I read Bohr himself and other scientists talking about atomic structure, it came much more easily than if I had started from scratch. For example, I read a book that focused only on valence electrons, the electrons available to form atomic bonds. Much of that book was a simple review of what I had already studied.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: ” I keep emphasizing to anyone willing to listen that nothing else in an atom but an electron has the ability to emit and absorb EM.”
That is just your made up declaration. Evidence proves this wrong but you do not accept anything but what you believe is correct (even when wrong).
Real scientists who do real research had to come up with acceptable explanation for the information they were collecting. They figured out molecular vibrations (the electric poles vibrate at certain frequency). The energy of IR can interact with this vibration moving it to higher amplitude and the IR is absorbed. When the higher vibrational state loses and IR is goes back to a ground-state molecular vibration.
What is your source of your declaration that only electrons can absorb EMR? Where does this come from other then your own mind. Have you read it somewhere, have you some experimental data which shows this to be true or do you think declaring it with no support makes it true?
norman…”I would request you give a mathematical model of how much energy an electron transition produces”.
***
The equation is well established…
E = hf
Where E = E2 – E1…E2 being the outermost orbital energy level and E1 the inner level.
h = Planck’s number
f = frequency of electron generating the EM.
The frequency of the electron is the number of times it orbits/second. Some have suggested its frequency is an indication of a wave/particle duality, but that’s not it at all. The frequency is related to its orbital motion as a particle.
That’s more proof the electron emits EM since the generated EM field has the frequency of the electron that created it. Also, the EM has the electric and magnetic field of the electron.
It’s a mystery that the electron does not generate EM while orbiting and only during transitions. That is another limitation imposed on the theory by Bohr, besides his theory that electrons must reside in specific quantum orbitals.
The more I read on Bohr’s theory and given my own experience with electrons over the years, the more I smell something fishy.
“Its a mystery that the electron does not generate EM while orbiting and only during transitions.”
Not really.
An electron in an orbital is in a constant energy state.
It only gains or loses energy during transitions. It mostly gains energy by absorbing photons and loses energy by emitting photons.
Accelerating electrons also give off Cerenkov radiation. Bohr’s model of electrons orbiting a nucleus is misleading because it implies that electrons are accelerated to stay in orbit, like planets. Electrons should therefore continually emit radiation. Without an energy source, this is of course thermodynamic nonsense.
Gordon Robertson
Again more unfounded opinions demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. You just make up stuff and think it is fact.
I asked you to model your electron transitions that would correspond to the 15 micron emitted IR but all you give is a simple equation with no calculations. It is obvious you don’t know how to calculate anything but think offering an equation will cover for you lack af ability.
Real scientists do have the correct calculation and use Hooke’s Law.
The frequency of the IR is based upon the molecular vibration NOT the electron “orbit”. The rate the nuclei of the atoms move closer and further away.
This is the correct science with the correct equation which works quite well. You just won’t give up on your made up science even though you have no support or evidence of any of your claims being remotely correct or of any value.
https://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/curricular/2010-2011/modern-motion/Labs/Lab_03_IR-Spectroscopy.pdf
Making up stuff to explain things is NOT science. It might boost your Ego and make you falsely believe you are this genius and all scientist are frauds or idiots but that is about the extent of it.
No one can use made up opinions of how things work. They need useful meaningful data that works.
Gordon Robertson
I think you were sleeping in class when this issue came up.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Why_atoms_do_not_Collapse
swenson…”I have read that in order for N2 to emit IR it has to form a complex of molecules that create an imbalance of charges and then it will emit some IR very weakly”.
***
Good point. The reason CO2 emits in the IR band is its bond relationship with oxygen. Obviously, the bonding electrons radiate and absorb at lower frequencies.
I have read that CO2 also radiates in the ultraviolet range and that is likely related to emissions from its inner electrons, not the bonding electrons. I need to read more on that.
We need to remember that shared electrons are shared between the two atoms and their orbitals are not the same as in a single atom. I have no idea how that works physically or if it does work that way. However, I have read that shared electrons in their orbitals are also subject to transitions.
To complicate matters more, each orbital is broken into a series of energy levels. Hydrogen, with only one electron, generates/absorbs EM from 7 different energy levels. Three of the series it generates are in the infrared whereas two of them generate in the UV and visible range.
It seems that transitions from the outermost orbits to a nearby outer orbital generates IR while transitions from outer orbitals to the innermost, the 2nd and the 4rd innermost orbitals generate UV and light.
Based on that, it seems reasonable that valence electrons used for bonding in the CO2 molecule, being the outermost orbitals would generate IR.
Norman wrote “I have read that in order for N2 to emit IR it has to form a complex of molecules that create an imbalance of charges and then it will emit some IR very weakly”, not me.
Norman has no clue. Everything emits IR. Monoatomic gases like argon, gas molecules of gases like O2, sodium, chlorine, sodium chloride – all matter. Proportional to their absolute temperature. At the same temperature you can’t distinguish gold from faeces by examining the wavelength of the photons being emitted.
Intensity is a totally different matter. Ice can emit 300 W/m2 below 0 C. A container of vigorously boiling water can emit 300 W/m2 at 100 C.
Strange but true. Bad luck for delusional SkyDragon cultists, assorted “climate scientists” and various other idiots who prefer fiction to fact.
Swenson
The thing is I do have a clue you just babble on with unfounded opinions of how you think things work. It is obvious your are a very lazy person who has zero ability to research and learn things they do not know about. You are stupid and lazy. A difficult combination of flaws to overcome. Also to arrogant to learn like your buddy Clint R the other arrogant yet ignorant poster.
You “skeptics” never support any of your claims. You just spout ignorant opinions about things you never research and insult any who call you out on your empty posts to disguise your character flaws (arrogant, lazy and stupid).
Here you can look at this. IR emission of substances IS different and is used to identify different materials. Only a “Black-body” would emit all bands of IR. Real materials do not do this and by going across the spectrum of IR emission you can use the difference in emission as an identifier.
https://www.irdg.org/ijvs/ijvs-volume-3-edition-4/infrared-emission-spectroscopy-and-its-application-for-the-characterisation-of-textile-fibres
It would be nice if you looked at the link and corrected your ignorance but the odds of that are very low.
Troll Norman, maybe the reason you are so jealous of Skeptics is because they often get the big issues right. Your cult gets the big issues WRONG.
You lost on Moon. You lost on the plates. You lost on the GHE. Notice the trend?
At least you’ve got trolling.
Hey Pupman,
You got everything upside down. Because you got NOTHING.
You failed the Pole Dance Experiment. You failed the Shower Experiment. You failed the Hose Experiment.
Three cheers for ten more years of your silly sock puppet trolling!
Clint R
No you phony “skeptics” are wrong on most things including Moon rotation. You are just to arrogant and stupid to accept it.
You never support anything ever with evidence. You just post your opinions in an arrogant fashion and think that makes them true.
Your posts are the only Cult item on this blog. Most posters use evidence and support their claims. You can argue the support but they do provide it. You provide nothing but bluster and hot air and endless unsupported opinion. Why is that?
I am asking the “skeptics” to step up and support their claims. I think you are too dumb to understand my point so you posted this idiotic troll post for no real reason.
Gordon claims only electrons absorb EMR. I am asking him to support this claim. Swenson claims N2 emits IR well support you claim. Show this is the case with some evidence.
You also do this. You claim the radiative heat transfer equation is “bogus” but you have never been able to support arrogant stupid claim. You think opinions are science. You are an idiot.
On your level, my opinion of you is science, therefore science proves you are an idiot because I posted it.
Norman, I’ve offered several times to answer all your questions so you can learn some science. All I’ve asked is that you stop your immature troll tactics, ie, no insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, links to things you don’t understand, or endless blah-blah.
I can’t help trolls and idiots. Grow up and I’m willing to help.
Clint R
I am not interested at your opinions of what you think the correct science is.
I have asked you several times for supporting evidence for you claims but you offer none. Your answers are not important to me as they prove to be your opinions. I want you to provide evidence for any of your claims. You do not do this nor does Swenson nor Gordon Robertson. You have endless opinions but no solid support.
When you can start supplying support for your opinions I will consider the point. As it stands now they are just empty opinions you call science to try to give them more credibility. Science does not work that way. You need evidence to support the claims.
Just as astronomers come up with multiple explanations of how they think the Universe works and the evidence shows them which ideas are right and wrong. They can have opinions on how they think something works. Then the evidence will determine which is correct.
You have never (and never will) support your claim that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus. Have you heard the saying everyone has an opinion?
Sorry Norman, but you’re STILL trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1491584
Let us know when you mature enough to be interested in science and reality.
Clint R
I never lost my interest in science and reality. I am not interested in your unsupported and unsupportable opinions.
When you decide to present real science I think that would be wonderful. Seeing that you are a troll who likes to annoy posters, I do not see that ever happening. You will just troll on and on annoying posters with your stupid opinions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1491621
Troll Norman continues his nonsense, refusing to learn. He flees from science and reality. Here’s just one more example — a physics problem he can’t answer correctly:
In situation 1, the blue and green plates are in full contact, with blue plate absorbing 400 W/m^2, and both plates emitting 200 W/m^2 in different directions, at a temperature of 244K.
In situation 2, the plates are slightly separated. The false solution claims the blue plate, at 262K, is then emitting 267 W/m^2 in one direction and the green plate, at 222K, is emitting 133W/m^2 in the other direction.
Question: Did the entropy in situation 2, increase, decrease, or stay the same, compared to the entropy in situation 1?
Norman,
Your link is about spectroscopy. From your link “If such a sample is irradiated by infrared light, . . . “. And if it isn’t? Idiot.
If the sample is emitting IR as a result of its temperature, it doesn’t matter whether it’s gold, salt, or CO2. Their emissivities are different, and even differ for the same object, depending on emitted wavelengths.
Just as window glass is transparent to visible light, but quite opaque to other wavelengths. Selenium, however, is transparent to some IR, but opaque to visible light.
Ignorant people such as yourself, refuse to believe that you cannot distinguish between glass and selenium, purely on their emitted spectra due to temperature. In a dark room, with thermal equilibrium, according to your IR thermometer, the objects appear to have different temperatures, and the surrounding air seems to have no temperature at all!
If you want to believe in the impossible, good luck. Reject reality, if you wish.
Maybe you should read what you appeal to – it might save you from looking like an idiot.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“At the same temperature you cant distinguish gold from faeces by examining the wavelength of the photons being emitted.”
Maybe you can’t, but pit vipers have no problem distinguishing prey from shit.
Try reading HITRAN.
Not only does the absor*tion and emission frequency matter but so does the emissivity factor.
Flynnsons endlessly repeated nonsense, #2:
All matter absorbs radiation. All matter emits radiation.
He is such an incompetent ignoramus
Let us compare the absorp-tion/emission capabilities of N2/O2 versus CO2/H2O, extracted out of the newest HITRAN database by SpectralCalc
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
near the surface
in raw mode, i.e. discarding the gases respective atmospheric abundance (we know anyway, e.g. N2: ~ 2000 times higher than CO2)
at frequencies between 1 and 30 micron.
*
1. N2
Intensity range: ~10^-29
https://i.postimg.cc/2616Rg7n/N2-raw-int-1-30-mu-0-km.png
2. O2
Intensity range: ~10^-24
https://i.postimg.cc/1zjmHJ1X/O2-raw-int-1-30-mu-0-km.png
3. CO2
Intensity range: ~10^-18
https://i.postimg.cc/QN58QQ4N/CO2-raw-int-1-30-mu-0-km.png
4. H2O
Intensity range: ~10^-19
https://i.postimg.cc/sD438VCt/H2-O-raw-int-1-30-mu-0-km.png
*
In raw mode, H2O artificially appears less than CO2; but its atmospheric abundance is on average 10 times higher, and even much more in the Tropics (100 times).
*
What we see is that N2 and O2 not only absorb emit nothing relevant in the IR range; Flynnson also deliberately ignores the fact that N2s and O2s capability to absorb/emit is between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times less than H2Os and CO2s capability.
*
And like Robertson, he will once more discard this comment and repeat his nonsense
All matter absorbs radiation. All matter emits radiation.
ad nauseam in all subsequent threads.
Alarmists have an anal fixation on the infrared range. As Swenson keeps reminding us, all atoms absorb and radiate energy. There is nothing to stop N2 or O2 from radiating in other spectral ranges.
We know from the UAH work that O2 radiates below the IR range, in the microwave spectrum. Are you trying to claim that such radiation does not cool the atmosphere?
Thank you Gordon.
–
Does the CO2 molecule emits IR EM energy when it collides with a faster moving molecule?
–
What happens when the CO2 molecule collides with the slower moving molecule, should the slower moving molecule move faster, by accepting a quanta of EM energy?, or it is plainly a mechanical transfer of molecular kinetic energy?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Does the CO2 molecule emits IR EM energy when it collides with a faster moving molecule?
What happens when the CO2 molecule collides with the slower moving molecule, should the slower moving molecule move faster, by accepting a quanta of EM energy?, or it is plainly a mechanical transfer of molecular kinetic energy?”
***
Christos…I lack the expertise to answer such questions. I have read, when two atoms/molecules approach each other, the electron orbitals can be altered. I would think that could be interpreted by the electrons in the orbitals of a change in energy states, therefore they should emit an EM quantum provided the frequency and energy levels are satisfied.
I don’t understand where atoms/molecules get the velocities they have…why they move around. Why don’t they simply lie on the bottom of a container?
To me, quantum theory is ambiguous. No one has been able to examine atoms at the atomic level and find out why they move. And what is the thermal energy that causes them to move? Maybe there is another level of science that needs to be uncovered.
If you look at the work of Planck or Bohr, their discoveries came indirectly. Neither of them actually observed atoms or electrons, they inferred their theories indirectly from reasoning.
Planck’s work is based on Boltzmann and Maxwell’s theories based on probabilities. Both tried to emulate gas molecules using probabilities. Planck uses Boltzmann’s definition of entropy which is based on probability theory. He had no right to re-define entropy since Clausius invented the term based on the Greek for a form of energy and gave it a specific meaning related to heat transfer.
I think a lot of the trouble we encounter in science today is based on assumptions related to probability theory.
Bohr followed the suggestion of a friend to review work done on the hydrogen atom emission/absorp-tion spectra re spectral lines. To make his theory explain spectral lines he had to reason that electrons must have quantized orbits. No one knows to this day if that is correct.
As Feynman stated, it works, but no one knows why.
Thank you, Gordon.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You think a spike like this will turn 2023 in to a record
temperature ?
https://i.postimg.cc/tgmVWhWj/nino1-2experimental.png
The Polar Vortex is finally developing some strength. It’s about time! Solstice is only a few weeks away, and the PV is finally waking up.
May UAH results are due out in a few days. Should be about the same as April’s, but let’s see if I’ve got this Hunga-Tonga thing figured out yet — +0.23, for May Global.
And where did OMWAR genius Clint R get ‘his Hunga-Tonga thing figured out’ from?
No source, OMWAR genius?
Being able to correctly predict indicates an understanding of the science, Bin.
You should try it.
Where’s your prediction for May?
He doesn’t predict since he attacked my zero point zero predictions and then got burned badly when I was right
Bin is just another troll. He couldn’t even answer the simple question about a Polar Vortex!
Bindiklaun has been playing a smart ass in here for way too long, it is now catching up with him
Blinny gave up on his filter presentations when it became apparent that WFT and me agreed on the CTRM presentations, 12 and 60 months that is.
Guessing is not the same as predicting. Neither is being lucky in picking the short straw.
What about someone that trolls here often, but is afraid to commit to anything?
After doing a lot of reading of papers and watching of videos by scientists who have done actual research and produce data, I am of the position that AGW climate change claptrap is an extraordinary popular delusion.
Is that enough of a commitment?
Very good, Ken.
Do you also now understand Moon is NOT spinning?
You are wrong. The moon does spin around its axis. Else the sun would only and always shine on one side.
Your inability to understand that basic fact is why you have no capacity to understand science. I am sorrowed by your handicap.
Wrong Ken. Moon’s “diurnal” motion is due to its orbit. It does NOT spin.
The Moon question is a simple test to identify incompetent trolls posing as Skeptics.
You’ve been “identified”.
posting problems
ken…”The moon does spin around its axis. Else the sun would only and always shine on one side”.
***
Ken…think it through. The lunar orbital plane is only 5 degrees off the Earth-Sun orbital plane. That means the Moon must pass between the Sun and Earth for one half its orbit then move around the Earth so it is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun. We can’t see the Moon when it’s directly between us and the Sun.
When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun shines on the side of the Moon we call the dark side, because we never see it. When the Moon moves to the far side of the Earth from the Sun, we see what we call the near side, the dark side now being in darkness, facing space.
None of this requires the Moon to rotate on a local axis, it’s all done via the curvilinear motion of the Moon.
“The Moon question is a simple test to identify incompetent trolls posing as Skeptics.”
Cults have stringent membership requirements.
I guess neither Joe Postma nor Roy Spencer is a Skeptic.
What’s more likely troll Nate is you’re so incompetent you don’t understand ANY of this.
— Ken says:
May 28, 2023 at 5:55 PM
You are wrong. The moon does spin around its axis. Else the sun would only and always shine on one side.–
Only if Moon was tidally locked to the sun.
All moons are tidally locked with their planets.
No planet is tidally locked with Sun- Mercury is semi-tidally
locked Sun.
If not for Venus, Mercury would have longest day. wiki:
“With Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spinorbit resonance. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Clint has no explanation for his claim that Roy Spencer and Joe Postma qualify as “incompetent trolls posing as Skeptics.”
Thus he tosses insult grenades.
I never made such a claim, troll Nate. You’re misrepresenting me, again.
That’s why you’re such an incompetent troll.
Gb, do you think there’s any validity to various moons begin “tidally locked”? Or is “tidal locking” just a cover up for the cult’s false belief that Moon spins in synch with its orbit?
Do you think that the Moon causes tides in the Earth but the reverse is not true?
“The Moon question is a simple test to identify incompetent trolls posing as Skeptics.”
Both Roy Spencer and Joe Postma fail Clint’s Moon Test because they have both stated that they don’t buy the the Moon-doesnt-spin BS that Clint pushes.
By simple logic, he is calling both of them ‘incompetent trolls posing as skeptics’.
But he denies simple logic.
Troll Nate, I haven’t seen Spencer’s comment about Moon. Do you have a link?
“”Clint R says:
May 29, 2023 at 1:26 PM
Gb, do you think theres any validity to various moons begin tidally locked? Or is tidal locking just a cover up for the cults false belief that Moon spins in synch with its orbit?”
I believe our Moon was formed from impacting Earth or it could have started [within say 1000 years] tidally locked and it would been much closer to Earth.
I also think this impact with Earth, increased Earth’s spin, and Earth’s spin was much faster than it is right now.
But if our Moon was captured [or formed in some other way] and if was spinning, it still would have become tidally locked {unless one imagines the Moon became our Moon recently- say within last million years.
When the Moon was nearer to Earth it would have had shorter day, and as goes further from Earth, it’s days grow longer
gb, you agree with the “consensus”.
The problem is, the “consensus” doesn’t even understand what “torque” is. Beyond that, they couldn’t understand how it applies to a moon.
Earth’s gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon. The physics is quite simple. But who wants to understand physics? Each to his own I guess.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
The Earth can not produce a torque on the Moon, if and only if, the center of gravity of the Moon is aligned with the center of mass of the Moon, and both of those are aligned with the center of gravity of the Earth.
Got that?
You might find that those requirements are not met.
Wrong again bob.
You have such a difficult time with physics, and then you mix in gravity — it just makes any return to reality impossible.
Thats why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
Gravity is what is causing the torque on the Moon.
You are familiar with the equation for calculating torque.
Well maybe not.
You’re STILL wrong, bob.
If you understood the science, you could prepare a “free-body diagram” of Moon showing CoM and CoG. Then, you could show how you believe a torque can be developed.
But of course, you can’t do any of that.
You can only make irresponsible statements you can’t support.
Prove me wrong.
Since my free body diagram would show the Moon rotating, my best guess is that you would not accept that.
Since you don’t think the Moon rotates on its axis, unfortunately you are wrong about that.
— Clint R says:
May 30, 2023 at 7:02 PM
gb, you agree with the consensus. —
Perhaps, but I also believe in what I call a pipelauncher.
You have pipe which can float.
You capped just one end of pipe.
You put it, in the water, the open end sinks, and the capped
end, flips vertical.
You make the pipe big enough and tall enough that it can, float rocket above the water. You add enough air inside it, and rocket goes vertical. Once pipe clears the water, launch the rocket- or have braking system- and apply brakes and launch the rocket.
If put a pipelauncher in orbit, one end will point at the planet-
gravity gradient. It will work with sphere, also.
bob, you can only make irresponsible statements you can’t support.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
gb, your “pipe launcher” has NOTHING to do with your cult’s bogus “tidal locking”.
They got a ship which sort of like it, RF Flip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP
It doesn’t up or down, fast, but it does float vertically and
is very stable platform.
–Clint R says:
May 31, 2023 at 7:46 PM
gb, your pipe launcher has NOTHING to do with your cults bogus tidal locking.–
Then I don’t agree with this view of the cult.
Cults tend to be confused about things.
gb, if you’re now rejecting the “tidal locking” nonsense, more power to you.
But for others that may be confused by the nonsense, and the “RP Flip”, here’s the physics.
The “tidal locking” nonsense is easily debunked because Earth can NOT put a torque on Moon. The RP Flip does acquire a torque due to a simple concepts called “buoyancy force” and “weight”. Moon, in space, has no weight or buoyancy force.
See how easy physics really is? Why are so many afraid of it?
Clint R,
Try dropping a hammer on your toe.
If you can get the handle to hit your toe, then gravity can not put a torque on the Moon.
Experimental evidence wins every time.
bob, you’re confused by the simple physics, as usual. The free body diagram for your hammer would explain everything. But, you can’t make such a diagram.
You can’t even understand my comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1492678
It’s ALL over your head.
Clint R,
Hammers are like cats, except that the head of the hammer will hit the ground first and a cat will land on her feet first.
You didn’t even try the hammer experiment.
Add that to the list of experiments that you haven’t performed.
By the way, a free body diagram would show that the force on the head of the hammer is greater than the force on the handle, which will cause a torque on the hammer causing it to spin.
If you won’t do the experiments, it’s off to the principals office for you.
Dunce cap is free.
Sorry bob, neglecting air friction the handle and head will fall at the same rate. Galileo proved this centuries ago.
But, youre braindead and have NO knowledge of the physics.
Not if they are connected moron.
Cover your ankles, Bindidog is awake
But not replying to me apparently.
Be patient, Blindsley H00d.
Given up on how inaccurate my graphs are yet?
Patient to see that you got things wrong and are only now prepared to admit it?
There is (currently) only one really ankle-biting, little dog on this blog, dachshund Eben, and… that’s you.
OMWAR genius
There are many people guessing and ‘predicting’ on this blog, and you very certainly do not belong to those I would trust.
Trolling ain’t science, Bin.
You should have learned that by watching Norman.
A WARMER LIFE
Seven different billion-dollar or more extreme weather events struck the U.S. during the first four months of 2023.
That’s one of the “notable” findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) April State of the Climate report, released Monday.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/u-s-saw-7-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-in-2023
Wow, those events never happened before!
Worthless willard doesn’t understand population growth or inflation.
Maybe when he grows up?
It’s all about choosing a WARMER life, Pupman.
Suck it up.
Even NOAA admits it’s only weather.
Strong spikes in galactic radiation since the beginning of 2023 show an unusually abrupt course of the 25th solar cycle. This brings anomalies in the circulation of the jet stream.
https://i.ibb.co/CmKTc9n/onlinequery.png
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reduce those numbers of people who are still deluded into having concerns about climate change. 39% is not enough in an allegedly educated society.
Try reading ‘HITRAN’.
Not only does the absor*tion and emission frequency matter but so does the emissivity factor.
Ken,
I’m not sure why you are mentioning HITRAN. Some people seem to think that HITRAN “proves” that some energy emitted by the Earth’s surface is somehow prevented from leaving something or other.
This is complete nonsense of course. At night, the surface cools, demonstrating that the surface is losing more energy than it receives. No “balance”, no increase in temperature due to “reduced rate of cooling”.
Do you have a specific reason for referring to HITRAN?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/28/a-critique-of-ar6/
A Critique of AR6
By Andy May
“After more than two years of hard work, Marcel Crok, I, and 11 other scientists have finally published our critique of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth report (AR6). The entire book has been extensively peer reviewed and a low-resolution pdf of a nearly final draft of the book has been available for weeks at clintel.org. All comments received on this draft have been carefully considered and incorporated, if approved by the team, in the final book. We are a bit hard on AR6, but our criticisms are well deserved
…
The IPCC tries to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago, by embracing a new hockey stick graph, that is the result of cherry-picked temperature proxies. They ignore temperature reconstructions that show significantly more variability in the past.”
Maybe IPCC is correct and we still in the glaciation period.
Also some people before this, question whether we actually in an interglacial period.
And I never heard anyone offer an explanation why the Holocene is so much colder than past interglacial periods.
Though there weird ideas that we hit by a space rock.
re-post…posting problems
norman…I think…”They figured out molecular vibrations (the electric poles vibrate at certain frequency). The energy of IR can interact with this vibration moving it to higher amplitude and the IR is absorbed. When the higher vibrational state loses and IR is goes back to a ground-state molecular vibration”.
***
Norman…this is my field. I have expertise in electrical matters like charges, poles, fields, etc. When you make claims that molecular vibrations are ‘somehow’ affected by EM fields, that’s not accep.table to me. I want to hear from you how the interactions take place.
Once again, molecule is a name given to two or more atoms joined by electron bonds (covalent) and/or electron charges (ionic bonds). All you are offering is that EM fields ‘somehow’ interact with ‘electric poles’. whatever those are.
I explained to you how a dipole works in a CO2 molecule. The carbon atom is connected to each oxygen molecule via double electron bonds on each side. Because the oxygen atom is more electronegative than the carbon atom, it draws the shared electrons closer to it than the carbon atom does. Therefore there is a net negative charge on the oxygen end of the dipole bond wrt to the carbon end.
This dipole action is completely formed by electron charges. There is nothing else in the molecule can form such a charge. When EM interacts with the dipole, hence the bonding electrons, it interacts in the same way it always does with electrons in any atom. The electron jumps to a higher energy level.
Any vibration related to atoms, hence molecules, is due to a difference in electric charges. It can be a difference such as positive and negative between protons in the nucleus and electrons in the orbitals, or simply a difference in charge related to electrons alone that cause more negative charge to appear at one end of a bond than the other.
Dipole charges can occur between molecules via hydrogen bonds and Van der Waal forces and they affect the shapes of the molecules. The point is, everything that goes on with atom and molecules is related to electric charges. However, electrons can move and form bonds, whereas the positively-charged protons are bound to the nucleus. The positive charge does affect the interaction of electrons and protons and also repels the positive nucleus charges of adjacent atoms that get too close.
All vibration is associated with electrical charges. more specifically electrostatic charges. It’s a fact that any interatomic attraction/repulsion produces vibration. The interaction behaves like a spring. Therefore the vibrations in a CO2 molecule are related solely to the interaction of various electrical charges. Electrons carry those charges.
So, if you have a dipole made up of an oxygen atom at one end and a carbon atom on the other, how does EM interact with it? There is no mystery, the electrons that are shared absorb the EM and change orbital levels.
You are claiming the EM somehow vibrates the bonds but ***the bonds are electrons***. You don’t seem to understand that the bonds are electron orbitals that have been expanded outside one atom to orbit both atoms in a CO2 molecule. Therefore, with bonds you are dealing only with electrons and how they interact with EM.
Unless you can find a way to explain that interaction outside of the Bohr inference for EM-electron interactions, there’s no point taking shots at my competence.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Unless you can find a way to explain that interaction outside of the Bohr inference for EM-electron interactions, theres no point taking shots at my competence.”
This has already been done for you with multiple links which you do not accept.
Here is another you will not accept.
https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/organicchemistry/chapter/6-2-infrared-ir-spectroscopy/#:~:text=If%20a%20molecule%20is%20exposed,frequency%20will%20remain%20the%20same.
You have been told but do not understand. The energy of an electron transition is too high to explain the energy emitted by molecules. Because of this the scientists surmised the EMR was generated by the molecular vibration which had the correct frequency to explain the emitting IR and it opened a whole new world of identifying Molecules based upon their IR “fingerprints”. I gave you the equation that is used in an earlier link.
You can say all you want, it is all wrong and is not useful in any way. Electron transitions are for UV/Visible and Near IR energy bands. They do not work at all at lower energy EMR like mid IR the energy emitted by CO2 at the 15 micron wavelength.
What is a weak greenhouse gas?
Some Greenhouse Gases Are Stronger than Others
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others
China has average temperature of about 8 C, and China emits the most CO2 in the world.
There are also much colder nations other than China- such as Russia which has average temperature of -3 C.
Is it bad idea to talk about about stronger greenhouse gases because these stupid and evil countries might want to be warmer?
Maybe the foreseen global climate end of the world, is related
poking the crazy Russia, which their people on their news have arguing they should nuke the Nazies [the western world] with their
nuclear arsenal. One particular would nuclear weapon which create wave over 1000 feet high which drown the UK.
And China and it’s vassal state of North Korea [which threatening nuclear attacks for many years] some might think the little fat guy is amusing. And we made the poor nation of China slightly richer than Mexico by moving western industry there [for cheaper labor and less regulations] and China has used their wealth to make strongest navy and have been threatening to use it.
All this has been more or less ignored by “modern nations” which are instead think world going to end from CO2 emission which they are not emitting.
So it seems making stronger greenhouse gases could scare them more than nuclear war.
norman…”The energy of an electron transition is too high to explain the energy emitted by molecules”.
***
Look up the theory of hydrogen spectral lines such as the Balmer, Lyman, Paschen series. Of particlur interest to our discussion, for want of a better word, note the Paschen series. It represents the infrared series of hydrogen.
Your argument seems to be based on the misinformation that an atom like hydrogen cannot radiate in the infrared since transitions are limited to higher energy transitions that produce UV. Yet here we have a common atom that can radiate in the UV, the visible light portion of the spectrum, and in the infrared.
If a transition, occurs between a higher orbital and the ground state orbital, it does produce high energy quanta, However, if the transition is from an outer orbital to a nearby orbital like the 5th, 4th and 3rd from the 6th, the radiation is in the infrared spectrum. I have just describe the Paschen series for hydrogen.
BTW, Bohr based his theory on these lines, all of them. It is unlikely that he was referring only to the higher energy series like the Balmer series.
Note that all orbitals involved in molecular bonding are the outermost orbitals. With carbon and oxygen, there are only two orbitals, and they have sub-orbitals. Each orbital has its own set of energy sub-orbitals to which it can expand from the unexcited state.
Supposing bonding electrons in the outermost orbital, where the bonding takes place, transition upwards and downwards. The energy levels will be lower than in the inner orbital hence they should produce IR as the transitions take place.
EM is all about electrons and their orbitals. There is nothing else in an atom or molecule that can produce EM.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “EM is all about electrons and their orbitals. There is nothing else in an atom or molecule that can produce EM.”
There actually is. Molecular vibrations with oscillating electric fields that have been studied for several years and work quite well in identification of unknown compounds. Also molecular rotation produces lower EM in the microwave range.
Here are all the known Hydrogen emission values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
The lowest electron transition in the PFund series is still double the 15 micron energy of the CO2 molecular vibrational state.
I gave you many links to help educate you in the field. You should read them. Read all about molecular vibrations and how they emit EM.
norman…” Molecular vibrations with oscillating electric fields”
***
Put on your hard hat and give yourself a smack up the side of the head. All electric fields in this case and in any case involving normal current flow and electric fields are produced by electrons.
Electric fields are not properties of molecules per se, they are properties of the moving charges produced by electrons.
The dipole produced in the CO2 atom is produced by electrons. The dipole comes from electrons favouring the O-side of the molecule due to the O-atom being more electronegative.
Ergo, you cannot have an electric field in this case without electrons. The electric fields under discussion cannot exist without them.
Solar wind
speed: 374.2 km/sec
density: 1.24 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 119
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Updated 29 May 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.91×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.7% Above Average
48-hr change: +1.6%
It appears the closing day of May will have low
solar activity but the monthly average has been high and fairly
active. It currently has got 2 largish coronal holes.
And our Thermosphere has cooled significantly from it’s energized state it reached in the month of January.
It appears possible that Jan 2023 could be the most active month in Solar cycle 25.
I was guessing, June and/or July would more active the Jan.
It said that in about a week and more active region will be facing
our nearside. But it seems June might be weaker than May.
Solar wind
speed: 380.5 km/sec
density: 5.23 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 144
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Updated 30 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.96×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.2% Above Average
Sunspots are coming from farside and spots
are leaving to farside.
For the month it’s going sideway and sun hasn’t been
very active
Solar wind
speed: 409.2 km/sec
density: 4.33 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 143
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Updated 01 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.6% Above Average
Month of May: 137.9
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Jumped much higher than April and also significantly higher than
March.
Will June be higher than Jan {which was 143.6}?
My earlier guess is May going to get more active, and June and July was was going to get much more active than May.
I would say May got a bit more spots than I guessed, but hasn’t been
more active {if one is imagining it’s close to peak of solar max, though active enough if you think solar 25 will double peak like solar 24 did}
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 May – 24 June 2023
Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels (R1-R2
Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period due to several complex
regions on the visible disk and the anticipated return of several
regions that have produced moderate level activity returning from
the farside of the Sun. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Yeah, that is suppose to show up, soon.
It seems to me, they are supposing we will get a double peak.
And I would say double peak indicate no Grand solar Min- which is good news for Mars
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“THE THERMOSPHERE IS HEATING UP: If you’re a satellite, this story is important. A series of geomagnetic storms in 2023 has pumped terawatts of energy into Earth’s upper atmosphere, helping to push its temperature and height to a 20-year high. Air surrounding our planet is now touching satellites in Earth orbit and dragging them down. ”
What is perhaps more significant is it’s removing space junk in lower LEO. A satellite in low LEO should thrusters to raise it’s orbit, space junk can’t raise it’s orbit, small debris [and low mass] has more drag.
Anyhow they have graph comparing solar 25 to 24 thermosphere kinetic energy:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/02jun23/tci.jpg
CHOOSING A WARMER LIFE
After three years of the La Nia weather pattern, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) analysis suggests that sea surface temperatures will cross the El Nio threshold by August.
“El Nino is normally associated with record breaking temperatures at the global level. Whether this will happen in 2023 or 2024 is not yet known, but it is, I think, more likely than not,” says Carlo Buontempo, director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/12/el-nino-is-forecast-to-return-in-2023-heres-what-it-means-for-extreme-weather-and-global-w
Hey, if it does happen, they have their boogeyman. If it doesn’t, then they already have alternate propaganda planned.
Nobody can outcompete troglodytes in the boogeymen industry, Troglodyte:
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1662937475537334275
As Wiltardo links one of his drone brethren.LOL
Oh, Troglodyte:
https://www.ronfilipkowski.com/about
You really should consider yielding your account to your zoomer nephew.
Yes, so now he’s one of your brethren. Dimwit.
You are not very good at this, Troglodyte:
> Remember when they used to cry over and over about cancel culture from the Left?
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1663968930807926785
Charles Kirk is a special kid.
We had two major EN’s in 20+ years and none to speak of the past 20 years.
BOM should be changed to BOMP…The Bureau of Meteorology and Propaganda.
> We had two major ENs in 20+ years and none to speak of the past 20 years.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
Why are you keeping lying about stuff anyone with an internet connection could refute in a matter of seconds?
El Nino of 1790-93, 1828, 1876-78, 1891, 1925-26, 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2014-16 produces a nice bathtub curve as I have long suggested. Thank you Willard.
No, dummy, 38-48-15-34-52-10-15-17 isn’t a bath tub.
It does show that there were a lot of El Nino in the early years though.
And we know that 1876-78 and 2014-16 were similar in strength.
> there were a lot of El Nino in the early years
38-48-…-15-17
Because the southern hemisphere was SO well covered before 1955.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
So we know because we do not know, Richard?
So we know because we use ESSRT which has little coverage in the southern hemisphere but with the same uncertainty all over the globe. How does that work?
We know that 1876-78 and 2014-16 were similar in strength.
We know that we’re already been over that last one, Richard.
We also know how it ended.
We also know that ‘experts’ agreed that it is true.
The same experts who say that “the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.”
Did Michelle ever say that?
Did Michelle write the paper alone?
If she signed her name to it, she agreed with its conclusions.
Did you know that Michelle had a blog?
Did she sign her name to the paper?
Would you like to find her blog before I find a quote that shows how silly is your actual stance, Richard?
So Willard is claiming that Michelle signs her name to papers she does not accept the conclusions to.
So Richard is finally admitting he has no real interest in what Michelle is saying.
Here she is:
https://www.wdbj7.com/2023/03/09/la-nina-which-worsens-hurricanes-drought-is-gone/
We need to work on wee willy’s attention span. I inferred the 30 year period before 1998 and wee willy extended that to a century before and claimed I am wrong.
wee willy’s lights are on but nobody’s home.
> I inferred the 30 year period before 1998
C’mon, Bordo.
You really don’t need to infer the period before 1998.
You can search, you know.
That was a typo, I mean 20 years period. Just look at Roy’s graph at the top of this page and try finding a significant EN in the 20 years before 1998.
Come on, Bordo.
38-48-15-34-52-10-15-17
This is the series we got of the number of years in between big el ninos. The third number is like the three last, otherwise the three last numbers stand out as being 2 to 5 times smaller than the other ones.
Nothing in what you say sticks, typos or not. At best you could say that the first numbers are less certain. Or that this series is too short to predict what will be the next numbers.
You have trained for more than 15 years as a Climateball crank. Are you not supposed to know how to play?
“big el ninos”
that we know of.
Yes, Richard.
There is so much we don’t know.
And Bordo tops us all.
So how do we know the temperature of the southern hemisphere in the past when we have only a limited view of the actual figures there?
How do we know if you’ll ever get over your appeals to ignorance, Richard?
So you rely on data that has obvious problems in it. Warmistas are ever thus.
So you rely on sources that conclude the opposite of what you intimate.
You rely on data that obvious flaws in it just because it shows what you believe.
So you appeal to ignorance and perfection at the same time.
You just ignore facts when they get in the way of your warmista beliefs.
This is the data coverage in the worlds oceans that I was referring to earlier :-
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Please note that 22k samples (roughly the center of the color in the graph) is only an average of 1 a day over the period covered for each 1 degree by 1 degree grid.
In order to get a reasonable daily profile you will need at least 4 samples which is the right hand edge to the color blue.
These are. of course, only for ship based samples and since 1980 or so we have had satellites which cover this area much better.
So you’re just presenting your ignorance as fact now.
That’s just great.
So ERSST for the southern hemisphere is based on an average of less than 1 sample a day for each 1 by 1 degree grid over a large portion of its coverage without changing the uncertainty. This suggests that effectively the figures given are just a guess.
P.S. It is your uncertainty that is at question, not mine.
“In order to get a reasonable daily profile you will need at least 4 samples which is the right hand edge to the color blue.”
What makes you think we need to sample the ocean every day in every degree^2, to know whether its average T is changing over decades?
You can’t just declare that the sampling is insufficient without showing your work.
So how many samples at what density do you think you need on
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif?
If you want it over time try
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
“So how many samples at what density do you think you need on”
That is the question for you to answer. Clearly you don’t know.
You cant just declare that the sampling was insufficient without showing your work.
Otherwise its just armchair quarterbacking.
“This suggests that effectively the figures given are just a guess.”
Obviously not. They show their work here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/20/jcli-d-16-0836.1.xml
You assert that they are getting the uncertainties wrong? Then read the paper and show us what they have done wrong.
So look at Fig 1 from the paper
https://imgur.com/a/B6HsdlW
and the coverage (from 1955) as shown here
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
and then tell me that their uncertainties (which do not reflect the above) about the oceans make any sense at all.
“and then tell me that their uncertainties (which do not reflect the above) about the oceans make any sense at all.”
They could make sense if you read and understood their methods.
You are not showing us any calculations, analysis, anything that suggests you understand how these uncertainties are calculated.
If they don’t make sense to you, that is likely due to your ignorance of what they are doing.
“They could make sense if you read and understood their methods”
I looked at their methods and they do NOT take account the data desert in the southern hemisphere (or the rest of the planet for that matter).
They acknowledge “the data-sparse period prior to the 1940s” but do NOT allow that to reflect in their data or accuracy.
Show me where in the paper as referenced they take account of the well known data desert (and the spasity of data prior to 1940).
“but do NOT allow that to reflect in their data or accuracy.”
Nonsense. Why do you make up BS?
You have no idea how they do it. Because you havent read it, and because it requires expertise you don’t have.
I have read it and nowhere in it do they deal with the data desert before or after 1955.
They just do as you do and assume that the spaces they do not have an actual reading in them are a strict interpolation of the ones they have. Even though current charts show quite a variation in those spaces.
RLH,
The thermometer density is high around London, and much lower in Northern Scotland.
Are you suggesting that the T sampling of N. Scotland is therefore insufficient to accurately obtain the long term T trend there?
That is the same argument you are making about the SH ocean.
In both cases, the sampling may be sufficient for the measurement of T trend, such that OTHER factors have a bigger effect on T trend uncertainty.
“have an actual reading in them are a strict interpolation of the ones they have. Even though current charts show quite a variation in those spaces.”
In the ocean, T anomalies have persistence over space and time, as you can see here in this 30 day animation.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
The paper pays careful attention to that in their interpolations.
No One Is Without Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVuhGtL72YM
My religion is based on the Round Church where the Devil can’t catch you in the corners.
I don’t believe in the Devil.
I don’t believe in ghosts, either, nor angels.
But is the Devil, ghosts, and/or angels suppose to be immortal?
Maybe, the Devil died.
Regarding religion:
–Musk, Bezos, and all the rest of us trying to establish new creative branches of human civilization on other worlds may or may not succeed. But we are carrying the banner of a noble causeone responsible for creating humanitys greatest cultural, political, scientific, and technical achievements. Rubenstein calls that cause a dangerous religion. —
https://quillette.com/2023/05/30/a-declaration-of-decadence/
I hope it is.
test
ent…”,,,[GR]Its a mystery that the electron does not generate EM while orbiting and only during transitions.
[ent]Not really.
An electron in an orbital is in a constant energy state.
It only gains or loses energy during transitions. It mostly gains energy by absorbing photons and loses energy by emitting photons”.
***
Maybe you could explain why electrons moving in a conductor, with the same so-called constant energy state, radiate EM constantly while electrons moving freely in space around a nucleus don’t. If you have a direct current running through a conductor, the magnetic field it produces will deflect a compass.
Of course, there are bazillions of electrons and their charges producing this magnetic field, whereas in the hydrogen atom there is theoretically only one electron in its orbit. Then again, why should the electron give off a quantum of EM during a transition but not during an orbit?
This is the key AFAIAC, the type of energy given off. The energy has both an electric and a magnetic field. The electron has an electric field and can produce a magnetic field. We cannot ignore either of those facts. The electron loses kinetic energy related to it being a mass moving with a velocity, and that energy becomes EM.
Why, and how? The electron is not simply a mass, it carries a negative electric charge. I have forgotten my basic electronics theory, KE can also be expressed based on the moving charge. Therefore when it loses energy during a downward transition, neither the mass nor that charge changes, only the velocity. Therefore, it seems the loss of energy is related to the electric charge and its velocity and not the momentum related to the electron mass.
This same error I just committed, confusing electron mass KE with electron charge KE, is committed by scientists who should know better. They claimed initially that an electron orbiting a nucleus would radiate a magnetic field, lose energy, and be drawn into the nucleus. That’s nonsense since an electron is defined as having a constant charge no matter what it does. It simply does not lose energy because it does not radiate its charge away. It simply has charge.
I liken it to someone with a flashlight illuminating a dark space. The light it produces is not lost in the sense that the source of the light does not lose energy. The battery driving the light source may lose energy and die, but as long as the battery remains active, there is light. Replacing the battery will bring the light back.
Besides, planets don’t lose energy and fall into the Sun. The balance of momentum and gravitational force keeps them in orbit. Although I cannot visualize why an electron would be in orbit about a nucleus, if it is, then why should its momentum not keep it in orbit? There are no opposing forces to sap its energy.
If planets could change their momentum within a range, they could also move to higher and lower orbits. I fear that scientists tend to expound far too much theory without accurately understanding the basis of their theories.
Along the same line of reasoning…
If you sum the effects of all the electrons orbiting in a substance, there should be a significant magnetic field produced. There isn’t.
The problem here is that Bohr created this theory from sheer supposition without the benefit of experimental evidence. In other words, the theory was developed from the knowledge that hydrogen emits and absorbs EM only at discrete frequencies. Bohr had to make his theory fit those known facts and he took license with it.
We know there was a flakiness about Bohr because he went on at a later date to extend his theory into a sci-fi world which is responsible for ridiculous theories like entanglement theory and quantum computing. In that theory, electrons can communicate with each other at great distances.
Bohr first had to impose the condition that electrons must orbit in discrete orbits. Then, he had to impose the notion that electron transitions have no time delay between energy levels and that they are instantaneous. Therefore, an electron transitions of 7 energy orbitals takes place in the same instant as a transition over one energy orbital level.
There is no evidence based on experiment why electrons should meet those stringent conditions. Certainly, in a microwave magnetron cavity, electrons can be made to oscillate in circles withing the magnetron cavities through the use of external fields. However, making them orbit a nucleus in precise discrete orbitals, with multiple orbits featuring multiple electrons is stretching the realm of credibility.
Whereas Bohr’s theory helped visualize the process of transition, giving it a physical meaning, his theory has been replaced by a pure mathematical analysis. Schrodinger, who produced the math, based the math purely on the Newtonian wave equation, using probabilities in lieu of actual physical measurements.
The Schrodinger wave equation is based on the assumption that electrons behave like waves. He got that nonsense from de Broglie who hypothesized that electrons act like both a wave and a particle. Then again, Maxwell and Boltzmann did the same using probability points on a probability space to emulate gas particles in a volume.
Electrons do not behave like a wave, de Broglie got it wrong. They are particles with a measured mass and they carry a charge. Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on projecting the shadow of an orbiting electron onto an x-axis, and when that is extended via time in the z-direction, it forms a sine wave pattern.
A pendulum does the same but we do not argue that a pendulum has a wave=particle duality.
It needs to be made clear that Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on Bohr theory and is not a separate discovery. The wave equation is a summation of the kinetic and potential energy of the electron in Bohr’s model. However, it leaves us with intangibles such as not being able to locate an electron’s position in an orbit but reducing it to the probability of finding the electron somewhere is a space about a nucleus.
Feynman commented that this theory/math works, but no one knows why. It would not be the first time that a scientist produced a mathematical model for a physical phenomenon that worked re experiment, but in the end, was nothing like the actual physical action.
I fear that a good portion of science is based on these thought experiments that have been developed to describe a known physical quantity. We need look no further than alarmist climate science where conclusions have been arrived at via consensus about a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“It only gains or loses energy during transitions. It mostly gains energy by absorbing photons and loses energy by emitting photons”.
No, this statement is not true. All matter above absolute zero emits IR. There are no orbital transitions below certain energy level inputs. One example might be a gas like neon. It emits IR at say, 5 K, just like any matter. No orbital transitions. Supply photons of sufficient energy, an electron absorbs the photon, moves to a higher orbital level. When it falls back, the emitted photons are of the frequency which produces the characteristic red neon light colour.
A mixture of gases at the same temperature are emitting and absorbing photons of the same frequencies. Removing one gas does not change the temperature at all.
Much of what you read on the internet about the interaction between photons and matter is just nonsense, much of it written by people who should know better, but who are just propagating nonsense that they were taught.
Not to worry, there is no GHE. CO2 makes absolutely no difference to a mixture of gases at thermal equilibrium. If one gas is heated more than others by virtue of its physical characteristics, it quickly loses heat to its neighbours, and peace and stability reign once more.
Still no GHE. Willard and his ilk are idiots.
> Still no GHE
And yet the Moon cools faster than the Earth because the Earth has an atmosphere.
How should we call this effect, Moron Mike?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Cooling, perhaps?
You do realise that some things cool faster than other things?
No GHE involved, because it doesn’t exist!
Why would you think a GHE causes cooling? Don’t delusional SkyDragon cultists believe that a GHE is heating the planet?
Is that “heating through cooling”? Or “cooling through heating”?
You idiot, there is no GHE! All there is, is a bumbling crowd of delusional SkyDragon cultists – all claiming that someone else has described the mythical creature, but they have somehow lost the description!
What a circus.
Moron Mike,
That the Earth cools more slowly because of its atmosphere is not just cooling.
What in the atmosphere slows down cooling, again?
Deceitful cretin.
Christos would disagree with you, Wiltard. Maybe you should read some of his work.
Been there done that, Troglodyte:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190790
Does it cohere with Mike’s Magic theory?
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”It only gains or loses energy during transitions. It mostly gains energy by absorbing photons and loses energy by emitting photons.
***
That quote is not from me. I think it was ent who posted it.
I was going to reply to him that transition can also be caused by heat and that would satisfy your argument.
I don’t know about transitions stopping at a certain temperature, but hey, we agree on the more important things. Information on orbitals is hard to come by without highfalutin math that means nothing.
I read a comment recently from some clown on the Net that electrons are essentially not real but some kind of quantum mystery object. I’d like to see him attached to two probes from a significant voltage source and see his reaction to electrons not being real.
Like the lame new theory that gravity is not a force but some kind of space-time anomaly, the notion that electrons are wave-like particles is promptly dismissed by the kinds of holes they burn through human skin.
“Maybe you could explain why electrons moving in a conductor, with the same so-called constant energy state, radiate EM constantly while electrons moving freely in space around a nucleus dont. ”
Electrons sitting stably in an orbital do not gain or lose energy and therefore do not radiate.
Electrons moving through a conductor are not attached to atoms. They are not in a constant energy state. They are moving between atoms driven by energy imparted by the voltage gradient. The voltage gradient is where the energy to produce the magnetic field is coming from.
ent…”Electrons sitting stably in an orbital do not gain or lose energy and therefore do not radiate”.
***
How does an electron ‘sit’ stably in an orbit? The electrons move at tremendous speeds in their orbits.
“How does an electron sit stably in an orbit? The electrons move at tremendous speeds in their orbits.”
Are you suggesting that electrons in atoms constantly radiate and lose energy as they spiral in and then crash into the nucleus?
That would be a problem for the stability of matter, don’t you think, Gordon?
The confusion here about electrons, electric and magnetic fields, and photons is palpable.
An electron is a charged particle. It has mass and charge. A stationary electron has an electric field which, like most such fields, drops off with distance. A stationary electron does NOT have a magnetic field. The magnetic field occurs with motion of the electron. It takes energy to establish a magnetic field, but no additional energy is required to maintain it. The energy is returned if the magnetic field collapses.
“Fields”, either electric, magnetic, or both, are NOT electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Photons are created by an electron transitioning to a lower electron orbit, or by a molecule emitting due to its vibration. (Other types of photon emission are not typically natural.)
Now, hopefully such statements as this can be recognized as nonsense: “Maybe you could explain why electrons moving in a conductor, with the same so-called constant energy state, radiate EM constantly while electrons moving freely in space around a nucleus don’t.”
Electrons moving in a conductor typically do NOT “radiate EM”. The writer was confusing “fields” with photons.
Photons etc.
Here is something from a university which is simply untrue in most cases –
“When a photon passes near to an electron, the electron absorbs the photon and gains the energy that the photon carried. The electron then uses this extra energy to jump from a lower energy level to a higher one, moving further away from the nucleus of the atom.” – New Mexico State University.
On the other hand, the molecules of say, CO2 speed up when photons of sufficient energy interact with them. The result is increased pressure if the gas is prevented from expanded, and increased temperature as measured by a thermometer. The momentum of the photon is transferred to the molecules.
The gas emits photons of varying wavelengths, the peak wavelength strictly proportional to temperature. This emission has nothing to do with orbital transitions, and photon wavelengths steadily increase as the gas cools, all the way to approaching infinite length at absolute zero.
At temperatures above zero, all matter emits photons. Whether you like it or not – it cannot be stopped or even reduced. That’s reality.
Still no GHE.
swenson…”The gas emits photons of varying wavelengths, the peak wavelength strictly proportional to temperature”.
***
It’s not clear what you think is untrue. For example, sodium vapour lamps emit a yellow colour and metal halide a blue colour. That means all the gas particles are emitting in a close range of frequencies.
BTW, this was the source of Bohr consulting R.W. Wood who was regarded an expert on gases. Bohr was asking about sodium vapour emissions.
I agree that all matter emits radiation above 0K.
With regard to electrons absorbing radiation and jumping to a higher energy level, I don’t think that contradicts your statement about all matter radiating above 0K. Heat will also cause the electrons to move to higher energy levels. In fact, matter that absorbs EM will heat up.
“At temperatures above zero, all matter emits photons. ”
Where does the energy to do this come from?
Ent, I’m surprised you would ask such a stupid question. Don’t you remember your cult nonsense? Your cult claims ALL matter and ALL energy came from the *Big Bang*.
You may need an indoctrination upgrade….
EM,
Other matter, of course. Otherwise all matter would be at absolute zero! Or would it?
Magic, maybe?
What do you suggest as an answer to your gotcha?
clint…”Electrons moving in a conductor typically do NOT radiate EM. The writer was confusing fields with photons”.
***
I want to be clear that I am not trying to argue here, I am simply trying to understand physics and you have brought up a good point. However, an antenna is a conductor and there’s no argument an antenna can radiate EM. It is officially classified as radio frequency EM. The argument seems to be whether similarly radiated energy at a much lower frequency is classified as EM.
It’s near-field electromagnetic energy to me and it is the basis of electric motors and transformers. Near-field is only detected locally since the frequency is normally based on 60 hz. Of course, 60hz EM will also appear as harmonics of 120 hz, etc.
That kind of shoots holes in the photon theory, since photons are deemed to be emitted by electron transitions. All EM communications is done by electrons moving in a conductor and has no need of transitions.
The difference seems to be in the independent electric and magnetic fields generated. If they eventually join together, they can travel vast distances as a combined E-M field.
Far field EM is of a much higher frequency in general although extremely low frequency EM can drop down to the 3 Hz to 30 Hz range. The distinction to me is that electrons alternating in any conductor will transmit EM but it doesn’t necessarily propagate into pace very far.
The Rugby radio stations was famous for sending radio waves right around the planet and it transmitted a relatively low frequency EM wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Radio_Station
Although I have not read into the following article very deeply it explains the distinction between the near-field and far-field. Unfortunately, many articles I have encountered on the Net are aimed at antennas. However, the early transmitters were spark gaps where an on-off current across the gap would transmit EM waves for a distance.
http://rsgb.org/main/files/2021/02/What-You-Need-to-Know-about-EMFs-v1-0.pdf
There are other sources of EM interference called EMI. It can travel through power lines and conductors or through the air via radiation. A common source is the arcing in motors with brushes. Another common example is solar flares.
In essence, any conductor with an alternating current running through it will generate an EM field. How far it will transmit seem to be the question. That’s the main reason I won’t buy into the idea of photons, since they are theoretical definitions with no proof they exist. Einstein claimed as much when he claimed no scientists knows for sure whether EM exists as a wave or a series of photons.
In other words, I don’t believe EM moves through space as individual particles called photons. I am aware that quanta produced by electrons start out as individual packets, and how they manage to form waves with frequencies is a mystery. However, if a photons, as defined, is a particle of EM with momentum but no mass, it cannot have a frequency.
Youre STILL confusing fields with photons.
You still are confusing fields with photons.
That’s because I don’t think photons exist. They are all fields to me. 🦁 ☺
That’s likely one of the reasons no one takes you seriously.
In fairness, we do not need that reason.
“Thats the main reason I wont buy into the idea of photons, since they are theoretical definitions with no proof they exist. ”
Why do you ignore all the experiments that observed them, going back to Compton?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
“Electrons moving in a conductor typically do NOT radiate EM. The writer was confusing fields with photons.”
OK then not sure how Clint thinks his cell phone transmits his calls and data?
Troll Nate, there’s a LONG list of things you’re “not sure” of. That’s because you’re braindead and can’t learn.
Let me know if anything changes.
It is just too easy to find many real world things that shouldnt work according to Clint’s Fizuks.
Wrong again, troll Nate.
Cellphones work. Its your cult nonsense that doesnt work.
What will you try next?
Unlike the poster Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’, who never admitted even once having been wrong, I have always been ready to accept my mistakes.
And I do it this time as well, by definitely acknowledging that I used a wrong technique to represent cascaded running means (not only those as specified by Vaughan Pratt of course).
*
Yes, yes, no doubt is allowed: Blindsley H00d’s representation of a monthly cascaded running mean with windows according to Vaughan Pratt’s specification (60, 60 /1.2067 ~= 50, 60/1.5478 ~=39 months) is absolutely correct.
But I have nothing to be ashamed of when I compare his indeed correct CTRM rendering to all what he so arrogantly discredits.
Here is a chart with UAH 6.0 LT data and some filter outputs:
– simple running mean
– Savitzky-Golay
– CTRM (correct resp. wrong)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TDAKJo1yTHZXr1Adrf_cDXloyUx9HNNj/view
*
So far so good.
As ‘we’ know, the original data contains lots of high frequency noise which has to be eliminated with an accurate low pass filter in order to look at the residuals whose estimates should give a better picture.
According to Blindsley H00d’s claims (which he manifestly derived around 2014 from claims made by Greg Goodman – who himself based his own thoughts on the so-called Lanczos low-pass filter), cascaded running means (CRM, especially Triple: CTRM) are clearly superior to simple running means (SRM) which don’t suppress enough high frequency spikes.
Moreover, Blindsley H00d allows himself to even discredit Savitzky-Golay (S-G) filter outputs, for the same reason.
*
If we now want to compare the quality of different filters, a possible way is to compute their respective estimates for a period common to all these filters: not only linear but also quadratic estimates because of their higher precision.
To obtain correct data from a spreadsheet calculator, the original data and the filter outputs were restricted to the common period, in the Pratt CTRM case 381 months from Feb 1985 till Oct 2016 (60/50/38 months to have symmetric windows at begin/end).
*
1. Linear estimates – for the CTRM period (!)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b_3IiNDJrAwmECYkRV15fH2Nf5o9VFME/view
Estimates in C / decade
– UAH data: 0.131
– CTRM (correct): 0.125
– my CTRM (wrong): 0.125
– S-G: 0.122
– SRM: 0.122 (!)
*
2. Quadratic estimates – for the CTRM period (!)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jJbW6HkWWVwFgdQEO_PNTXqsiiWhWSe9/view
In this case you obtain for each polynomial a function
y = ax^2 + bx + c
out of which you can compute the corrected linear estimates for the period.
Estimates in C / decade for the CTRM period
– UAH data: 0.133
– CTRM (correct): 0.125
– my CTRM (wrong): 0.125
– S-G: 0.123
– SRM: 0.123 (!!)
The difference between linear and quadratic estimates is surprisingly small.
*
Conclusion
1. My implementation of the CTRM using Vaughan Pratt’s specification was plain wrong! My bad.
2. Blindsley H00d’s claims about the alleged inaccuracy of simple running means – and above all of Savitzky-Golay filters – are plain wrong as well.
To talk as he does about the behavior difference between CTRM, SRM and S-G looks, when applied to UAH data, like talking about a storm in a teacup.
But he will never admit that.
No problem for me.
So, finally, Blinny admits he is wrong about my CTRMs (based as they are on conversations with VP as he notes).
He is still wrong about S-G however, which in their native form leak too much high frequency also. I think that this is because they too are based on a square wave sampling theorem (as do SRM) which is why Nate Drake recommended a 5 pass cascaded version for its use (which is what I use).
It may be possible to use a VP version of different bandwidths instead so I may try that also.
He does not dispute that the graphs I produce are accurate however.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
P.S. Straight line OLS ‘trends’ only apply for the data they cover. They provide no insights into what happened before or after that window, despite there often being used to imply that they do.
P.P.S. If you want my first post on this subject, try
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
Finally, we have a winner, Who is your chart-maker now
Here is your prize, one global temperature adjustment kit
https://i.postimg.cc/02CnkW8J/350.jpg
binny…”Unlike the poster Blindsley H00d aka RLH, who never admitted even once having been wrong, I have always been ready to accept my mistakes”.
***
Piffle!!!
You make mistakes all the time and blame the other person for being wrong.
Unlike you, Bilndsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ has understood what I wrote but never would admit being wrong in his condescending claims that simple running means and Savitzky-Golay filter outputs are automatically less accurate than cascaded running means.
One more example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zRvG7eARV0NcMVGRBCsXxNWXdDguKkyQ/view
You don’t understand anything of the discussion concerning the extreme similarity of the linear and quadratic fits among the various filters’ data shown here, a similarity which clearly contradicts his endlessly repeated, ideological standpoint.
Why do you all the time write about things you don’t understand anything of, Robertson?
*
But I have something which might enjoy you.
Do you recall your utterly stupid post, Robertson?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1481096
” You, on the other hand, create graphs that are clear lies. You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. ”
Here is a beautiful example of a further ‘lock-step’, he he:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uE8VKthPlQADIrIKt6AptR5eKPvSEvtD/view
And look at the graph’s end, see how good all time series show in unison a drift toward global cooling, OMG!
“his condescending claims that simple running means and Savitzky-Golay filter outputs are automatically less accurate than cascaded running means.”
Actually they are VP claims (about SRMs in any case). So Blinny does not accept what VP says.
Nor does he accept why NS used a 5 pass S-G instead of a single pass. I know why, Blinny does not.
Blinny knows better than anyone else, all of the time.
P.S. Single pass S-G do NOT match what an equivalent VP CTRM with the same window outputs.
Lets us see what he says about that. Then he might show what NS (and mine) 5 pass S-G does as well. It will be interesting to see what he then shows.
P.P.S. Unless you forgot, this is what my graph shows for UAH.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
“look at the graph’s end”
and see what his single pass S-G shows.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zRvG7eARV0NcMVGRBCsXxNWXdDguKkyQ/view
So Blinny’s plot of ‘various filters’ shows that VP CTRM and single pass S-G with the same window do not produce the same output. I wonder why?
Bindicklown’s polyidiotic charts still take the cake
https://i.postimg.cc/ydKxgTtm/solar-negativum.png
With a premise that nobody going to Mars, is enough cheap energy on Earth for next couple centuries?
This make me wonder about Methane Hydrates. And domes on the ocean.
“Methane Hydrate Extraction Market Overview
“The methane hydrate extraction market size is forecast to reach US$11.2 billion by 2027 after growing at a CAGR of 6.1% during 2022-2027. Methane hydrate, also known as methane clathrate, fiery ice or the natural gas hydrate is a solid compound in which methane gas is trapped. According to data by the U.S. Department of Energy, one cubic meter of methane hydrate releases 164 cubic meters of natural gas, making it a future source of energy. The market is in a nascent stage as the commercialization of methane hydrate is still under process.”
https://www.industryarc.com/Research/Methane-Hydrate-Extraction-Market-Research-507194
Now, normally, I would think of domes in the ocean in relation to mining, but I wondered about domes on ocean- and it could have nothing to with mining methane hydrate. Just wondering if you make big dome on the ocean. Though you could make on the ocean and then lower it, under the ocean. But whatever. So can make dome say 200 meters in diameter and say 40 meters high. And give it an oceanic foundation to sit on, and this foundation raises it say, 20 meters above the waterline?
A WARMER LIFE
According to the Canadian Drought Monitor, as of the end of April, numerous parts of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were “abnormally dry,” with some areas in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. marked as experiencing “moderate drought.”
The lack of rain is having an effect: in Nova Scotia’s Annapolis Valley, food producers are using their water reserves two months earlier than expected.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/farmers-in-atlantic-canada-battling-abnormally-dry-conditions-fearing-continued-drought-1.6417023
Was this caused by the recent La Nina or the fact that global temperatures have been going down since 2016?
https://ggweather.com/seasonal_rain.htm
California seems to be getting some precipitation. Lots of areas are more than 100% so far.
You can watch the Jet Stream affecting the West Coast like a fire hose. The winter atmospheric river moves north and south with some years soaking California and other years affecting Panhandle and North BC. Its usually a really good predictor of wet weather on BC Coast.
Earth Nullschool https://earth.nullschool.net/
See the jet stream by setting the height at 250 hPa.
Jet Stream matters a lot more than any other climatic factor on where the rain falls and when. This includes in places like NB PEI NS Nfld.
Weather is variable, wee willy. Before the hysteria about climate change hit, no one would ave taken any notice.
Come on, Bordo.
Canucks care so little about droughts that they monitor them:
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/weather/canadian-drought-monitor
It doesn’t matter that Environment Canada monitors droughts. The stations of observation are so far apart (most of them that do exist are within 100 miles of US border) that any climate data can only be considered in a very local context.
Coverage of the drought prone regions in Canada is perfectly fine, Kennui. Contrarians tend to forget that there are things on which industries rely.
Please, do continue to deny what farmers can see each season.
ken…don’t forget the name Environment Canada has been changed to Evnironment and Climate Change Canada. EC is now in the propaganda business.
Most farms in Canada are located within 100 miles of US border too.
There are parts of Canada that have been in drought conditions for so long no one can remember.
Nothing new wee willy, it’s weather.
For example, the Vancouver area is in a rain forest climate. 150 miles NE, over a mountain range, there is a desert climate and you can’t get much droughtier than a desert climate.
In the Thompson Valley they grow crops only by using extensive irrigation systems, with the water drawn from the Thompson River.
Drought is normally about location.
Come on, Bordo.
It is like a dice game. That you rolled double sixes before is not enough to explain why you would roll more double sixes out of sudden.
Or double sevens, for that matter.
Willard,
You wrote –
“That you rolled double sixes before is not enough to explain why you would roll more double sixes out of sudden.”
Incomprehensible nonsense. What is “out of sudden.”?
Idiot.
Playing dumb again, deceitful cretin?
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn,
These are not the magic words.
Silly sock puppet.
There is a widely known MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT.
–
For identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, for those with higher differentiated surface temperatures, the average surface temperature (Tmean) will be lower.
Thus, the higher the spheres’ differentiated surface temperatures, the lower their average surface temperature.
–
So, consequently, the spheres with UNIFORM (not differentiated) surface temperatures will have the highest (the maximum) AVERAGE surface temperature.
For them,
Tuniform = Tmean(maximum)
–
It is true for identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy.
–
We should mention here, that those spheres emit the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, but the source (or sources) of that emitted energy are originated from the spheres’ inner layers. That energy comes from the inside of the spheres.
–
But, for planets and moons, the emitted IR EM energy comes from the SOLAR IRRADIANCE.
–
Thus, the above MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT cannot be applied when we consider for real planets and moons the actual emission behavior.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Moron Mike,
That the Earth cools more slowly because of its atmosphere is not just cooling.
What in the atmosphere slows down cooling, again?
Deceitful cretin.”
Willard has lost his marbles. Even his gotchas are incomprehensible.
Wee Willy seems to believe that the GHE involves cooling of some sort, either on the Moon, on Earth, or somewhere else. Unfortunately, he cannot describe the GHE, and seems to think that someone else has, somewhere, sometime, but cannot actually provide a copy of this description because it is too complicated, someone else’s intellectual property, or commercially restricted – or maybe the dog ate it?
Oh well, if Wee Willy believes that the GHE causes cooling, or slows cooling, or increases cooling – good for him. Nothing to do with increasing temperatures, so we all wasted a good worry about being fried, roasted, boiled or toasted!
Phew! Missed a bullet there!
Mike Flynn,
What in the atmosphere slows down cooling, again?
Deceitful cretin.
Witless Wee Willy,
You keep asking for no reason at all –
“What in the atmosphere slows down cooling, again?”
What didnt you understand the first time? Can’t you find answers anywhere else?
Appealing to my authority is pointless, unless you can convince me that you made a sincere effort to find out for yourself. Before you look on the internet, you might like to clarify your gotcha.
In any case, because you appear to be suffering from an intellectual disability, here’s a hint (from Newton’s Law of Cooling) – “The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment.”
If you need further explanation, contact Norman the Idiot’s “college librarian”.
Moron Mike,
I keep asking for you to explain why the atmosphere slows down cooling because you have yet to provide an explanation.
The Law of Cooling does not care about atmospheres.
Cheers.
wee willy…”The Law of Cooling does not care about atmospheres”.
***
Try not to be silly, wee willy.
The definition given by Swenson makes it clear that it does. The rate of cooling is proportional to the difference in temperature between a surface and its environment. In this case, the envrironment of the Earth’s surface is the atmosphere.
Come on, Bordo.
The Law of Cooling cannot explain why the atmosphere slows cooling on Earth.
It should not be hard.
Perhaps you need more warmth. Bring your laptop in a sauna.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You do realise that slow cooling occurs when the temperature decreases, don’t you?
Do you believe the GHE is responsible for this falling temperature? This cooling?
Only joking, you’re an idiot, who can’t figure out what the GHE is supposed to do!
If you have any sensible questions, look on the internet. If you can’t find an answer, don’t bother asking me. I’ll just laugh at you, and say no.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
Still no explanation as to why the Earth cools more slowly because of its atmosphere?
No problem.
Take your time.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
Swenson,
You have to know when and where Newton’s Law of Cooling applies.
You just can not apply it willy-nilly.
bob d…please do try not to be as silly as wee willy, or his brother willy nilly.
It’s plain from Swenson’s definition, that Newton’s Law of Cooling applies to the difference between the temperature of Earth’s surface and the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface.
If the temperature of the air in contact with the surface remained the same as the surface, they would both be in thermal equilibrium and no heat would be dissipated via conduction and convection. However, air warmed by the surface rises and is replaced by cooler air from above and the cycle repeats. Ergo, the average temperature of the surface air remains cooler than the surface itself.
BTW, I am seeing nothing from Einstein or the quantum crowd to replace Newton’s Law of Cooling. Cat got their tongues?
Gordon,
It applies only when the temperature difference is small and there is only one heat transfer method.
Bobby buffoon,
You wrote –
“It applies only when the temperature difference is small and there is only one heat transfer method.”
Appealing to yourself as an expert on Newton’s Law of Cooling just makes you look like an idiot. Are you really an idiot?
Swenson,
It doesn’t make me look stupid when I get it correct.
“The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment.”
OK. So it doesnt matter if I wear a coat or go out naked in winter, my rate of heat loss will be the same?
I realize that since Flynnson lives in the tropics, he has real trouble understanding the purpose of coats, or insulation in general, and why insulated people stay warmer in a cold environment.
If he could figure that out, he would have a shot at understanding how the GHE works.
But I won’t hold my breath.
The change in state of water from liquid to gas, causes cooling.
And water changing from gas to liquid, create heat.
This also occurs with H20 ice becoming gas {cools], or changing from gas to ice {warms}.
So, generally, clouds forming from water vapor {into water droplets or ice particles, “slows down cooling”}.
Clouds are continuously condensing and evaporating, and higher the clouds the more ice they have. And a lot clouds have ice in them.
Since a lot clouds have ice in them, one might tend to think they are a cooling effect, but clouds had form in first place, and increasing amount ice in clouds is a warming effect.
Clouds of course reflect sunlight and are cooling effect related to this, but a large portion of Earth has no sunlight {night} and less
sunlight {outside of the tropics}. Outside tropics you have winters which have more time with darkness.
The tropics have always been warm and have more uniformity in temperature, global cooling and warming is mostly about regions outside of the tropics.
The tropical ocean covers about 80% of the tropical zone {and tropical conditions extend beyond the tropical zone}.
The average temperature of tropical ocean surface is about 26 C and 4 km elevation above ocean is colder, due to lapse rate of about 6.5 C
per 1000 meters, so 4 km up has average temperature of about 0 C.
And the troposphere is very high in Tropics, about 20 km. And common clouds in tropic are very high clouds.
So 1/2 mass of tropical atmosphere within tropical troposphere is well below freezing with clouds having ice particles.
Which related factor to why tropics has rather stable temperature.
And though air is cold 4 to 5 km up, it’s warmer air than air in higher latitudes which is 4 to 5 km up.
“The Hadley cell, also known as the Hadley circulation, is a global-scale tropical atmospheric circulation that features air rising near the equator, flowing poleward near the tropopause at a height of 1215 km (7.59.3 mi) above the Earth’s surface, cooling and descending in the subtropics at around 25 degrees latitude, and then returning equatorward near the surface. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
Yet another ‘official’ mainstream scientist establishment theory bites the dust.
Humans thrive with warmer temperatures!
Until a wet bulb temperature of 35 C, then they croak.
I suppose the Hunter boy never has been in Irak, for example:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20230608&daytime=day&iid=IQ
*
But Bindidon, you moron!!!
Didn’t you know it’s always warm in Irak?
*
But then: Why do these rich American guys ‘n dolls not move to Irak?
Oh yes, yes: there are no golf courses there.
So now Blinny wants the USA to invade Iraq.
And Blindsley H00d’s posts are getting a little sillier by the day: brain substance running out?
The failing director of Perch Ltd has less and less relevant things to say but more and more pressure to say something irrelevant.
The mental distance between Blindsley H00d and Flynnson decreases significantly.
Bliny, having admitted that he got things completely wrong before, now wants people to move without visa and stuff.
Iraq average temperature is about 23.5 C:
https://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov:4443/regions/iraq
So, whole country is like Florida but drier.
Southern part probably more like India and northern part
is like California [but lacking a beach- but wetter than where
I live- and probably just rains rather than pours].
Bindicklown escaped over the Berlin Wall – in the wrong direction
Historically, mass extinctions don’t happen during warm periods. But the cool periods are another story. Nature’s way of correcting things.
Come on, Troglodyte –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PermianTriassic_extinction_event
The biggest one was caused by something eerily similar as what is currently happening.
Odd that you say that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276947722_Climate_warming_in_the_latest_Permian_and_the_Permian-Triassic_mass_extinction
”The scientific consensus” is just an agreement among scientists that provides them the best opportunity to advance. You are either a member or you get black balled.
It has absolutely nothing to do with science per se. Sometime it might but thats just purely coincidental when the benefit to the group is the same as the science.
Oh, Gill –
https://climateball.net/but-consensus/
Willard, please stop trolling.
“It has absolutely nothing to do with science per se.”
in the ‘expert’ opinion of auditor Bill.
Nate says:
”in the expert opinion of auditor Bill.”
Nate claims a scientific consensus is science. Hmmmm, so how do they arrive at a consensus Nate? What exactly is a consensus? Does it employ the scientific method. Perhaps you could fill us in on your favorite scientific consensus and give us the details above on how it was arrived at.
And Willard if you can find a moment to put down your trolling rod maybe you can do the same.
“What exactly is a consensus?”
asks the ‘expert’ who earlier was certain he knew what it was.
” Perhaps you could fill us in on your favorite scientific consensus and give us the details above on how it was arrived at ”
Sure, many favorites, one is the equivalence of heat and work, the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Established by observations (Count Rumford, James Joule) theory (Clausius), and then numerous successful experimental tests.
The old Caloric theory was that heat was a fluid, a conserved substance. Rumford showed that with mechanical work and friction, heat could be continuously generated with no end.
Initially other scientists were skeptical.
The consensus came gradually from individual scientists seeing that the Caloric theory failed to explain all phenomena. Then Joule’s experiments found a definite numerical mechanical equivalent of heat. Then lots of confirming experiments followed, and full Thermodynamics was developed.
So you mean that the scientific method entails getting a bunch of guys in a room, who owe not one penny worth of legal obligation to anybody else in the world. Then they decide what is best for themselves and by extension what they might think is obviously best for everybody else and shake hands on what they will deem to be science?
that doesn’t sound like anything that Dr Richard Feynman would sign up for.
“So you mean that the scientific method entails getting a bunch of guys in a room,”
Nah, nothing like that was said by me. Your tin-foil hat is showing.
The scientific method led to consensus on the equivalence of heat and work, which enabled the development of Thermodynamics.
Maybe you preferred that we hung on to the Caloric theory?
The scientific consensus is not formally derived by a bunch of guys in a smoked filled room.
It is more like the development of metallurgy. The ideas were useful to humans so they spread by word of mouth. Soon everyone was making metal.
Same thing going on in science today, but with much faster methods of communication.
Nate says:
”Nah, nothing like that was said by me. Your tin-foil hat is showing.
The scientific method led to consensus on the equivalence of heat and work, which enabled the development of Thermodynamics.
Maybe you preferred that we hung on to the Caloric theory?”
did it make any difference? if so what?
Someone is desperate to change the subject..
bill…I know I thrive in warmer temperatures. Last winter, with the temps hovering around 0C and below, in a climate that is allegedly warming, I did not feel like doing a lot, especially outside. With temps now in the mid-20s, setting records for May, I’m out and about with a new lease on life.
Mind you, that’s as an adult. As a child, I recall taking the bus to a soccer game, running for 90 minutes in rain and on mud, then jumping back on the bus in my wet uniform to return home.
Nary a complaint. Just thinking of that as an adult gives me a nosebleed. In fact, if a game was cancelled due to snow or frozen grounds, I’d feel depressed. If it was raining hard, and the ref was thinking of calling the game due to flooded grounds, we’d badger him not to call it off. To their credit, many of them went along with us.
Yet another official mainstream scientist establishment theory bites the dust.
Heck Binny it gets 56C in California. Folks are moving from California now but it has nothing at to do with the weather.
Anyone want to throw out guesses for the 2023/05 UAH TLT update? My model says 0.20 +/- 0.20 C. Last month it said 0.07 +/- 0.20 C which is a -0.11 C miss.
Well CFSR says this about this last month
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2023-05-30.gif
Who’s your model, Barbie Doll?
Surface reanalysis says about 0.14 higher than May last year. So that would suggest 0.3 for UAH.
Abd considerably colder than March this year.
Yes, nothing extraordinary about it, nearly every year the May anomalies are lower than March ones.
Agreed, sort of.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2023-05-31.gif
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
Arctic Ice: A Cold Reality Check for Climate Alarmism
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/31/arctic-ice-a-cold-reality-check-for-climate-alarmism/
It seems over the top, Climate Alarmism has never been checked by reality.
“Recent observations in the Arctic region have shown an increase in this type of ice, which has disrupted the usual maritime routes since October 2022. If we are experiencing a global warming crisis as intense as many suggest, shouldnt we be seeing a decrease in such significant ice formations?
Its also worth noting that while Canadas federal auditor general reported a drop of about 40 per cent in average summer sea-ice coverage in the Canadian Arctic over the last 50 years due to climate change, the enduring multi-year sea ice seems to have increased. This has disrupted shipping lanes and caught governments and organizations off guard.”
Canadian govt is clueless in regards to important issues related to climate change.
Expecting any govt anywhere to do anything about climate change is
extreme folly.
more on the Russian icebreaker…it had to sail through the Suez Canal.
The ship was built in St. Petersburg, near Finland, on the western side of Russia. Rather than sail through the Arctic in May, it sailed south and through the Suez Canal to reach the east coast of Russia.
Blundering bobdroege’s dismissal of Newton’s Law of cooling –
“Swenson,
You have to know when and where Newtons Law of Cooling applies.
You just can not apply it willy-nilly.”
Bumbling bobby appeals to his own authority, having appointed himself an expert on Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Next thing, he’ll be saying that Newton’s Law Of Universal Gravitation cannot be applied willy-nilly, of course without explaining what in blue blazes he is babbling about!
All this from an idiot who claims that a GHE exists – but of course he can’t be bothered describing it.
Maybe he is one of the delusional SkyDragon cultists who believes that a slower rate of cooling creates a rise in temperature! Cooling is getting colder, not hotter.
Bobdroege and his ilk live in a dream world, populated by idiots, obviously. Cooling is really heating? The mind boggles.
Obviously Swenson knows nothing.
Newton’s law of cooling can only be applied when there is only one mechanism of cooling.
Why are there two different lapse rates, depending on humidity.
Bumbling Bobby,
You posed a gotcha –
“Why are there two different lapse rates, depending on humidity.” Don’t you know? Have you tried to find out? If you haven’t, what sort of idiot are you?
The delusional SkyDragon cultists like you, need to lift their game.
Here’s NOAA’s definition of the lapse rate – “The rate of change of an atmospheric variable, usually temperature, with height.” I’ll let you tell me what variables might affect the rate of temperature change. Go on, do your best to make me look stupid – as though that will enable you to come up with a description of the GHE!
You really are determined to prove what an idiot you are, aren’t you?
Swenson, which seems to be a synonym for stupid…
The concentration of greenhouse gases affect the lapse rate.
Bumbling bob,
You wrote –
“Swenson, which seems to be a synonym for stupid
The concentration of greenhouse gases affect the lapse rate.”
And, my response is “Water is wet.”
You are truly an idiot, Bobby.
Swenson,
Water is wet.
Well, except when it is dry.
Do you know the conditions where water can be considered to be dry?
Buffoon Bob,
You wrote “Do you know the conditions where water can be considered to be dry?”.
Are you an idiotic? Why are asking such an idiotic gotcha?
Fool.
Swenson,
Because you made an idiotic response to my post.
Water is not always wet.
There is more than one lapse rate.
Moron.
bob…a better question is why you try to discredit laws you don’t understand.
Clearly, Newton’s law of cooling applies to the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the Earth. They would normally be in thermal equilibrium were it not for convection, which removes heat from the surface and replaces it with cooler air from above.
Lapse rate has nothing to do with it, nor does humidity.
Think of yourself in a long log cabin with outside temps well below 0C. You have a hot air source at one end of the cabin and at the other end the temperatures are a lot lower. If you sit near the furnace, you don’t cool but if you get up and move to the cold end of the cabin, you cool rapidly.
Gordon,
I am not trying to discredit any laws, you have to understand how and when to use them.
Apparently you have not the slightest idea how to use any of them.
Gordon,
It’s not about me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
Swenson,
If you understood Newton, you would know that I am correct.
Apparently you do not.
Try harder, maybe look things up before you post, lest you look stupid.
Bobby buffooon,
And you are going to demonstrate the degree to which you can be totally unhelpful and useless by being obscure to the point of idiocy.
Earlier, you wrote –
“Newtons law of cooling can only be applied when there is only one mechanism of cooling.”
I’m sure everyone will wonder who appointed you the authority on Newton’s Law of Cooling?
Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled for four and a half billion years, and does so every night? Are really such an idiot, that like Willard, you believe that slower rates of cooling mean that temperatures are rising?
Yes you are.
Swenson,
If you can’t be bothered to look things up and find out that what I post is true, then your insults don’t confront me.
Slowing the rate of cooling does keep things warmer, I guess you are really that dense.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/31/we-have-no-reason-to-be-against-nuclear-energy-other-than-prejudice-stupidity-dr-patrick-moore/
“In Part Two of the BizNews interview with Dr Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace and the most prominent figures in the field of environmentalism, Moore makes a compelling case for nuclear energy. ”
Well, if CO2 is problem, nuclear energy has been, and could be a solution.
As I said, CO2 isn’t a problem. What could be problem is finite amount of what is badly named, “fossil fuels”.
The solution to a finite amount of cheap hydrocarbons, is by putting solar panels where solar panels were designed for, in space.
Which requires cheap launch costs. But the cheap launch cost could be cheap launch cost from the Moon {rather than Earth- but cheap lunar launch costs, will lower Earth launch costs.
What needs to be done, is for NASA to do it’s job, and explore the Moon. And though NASA fans might say NASA needs a higher budget, it doesn’t. But Congress screws with NASA’s budget, so if Congress continues to screw with NASA, then there is some argument for more funding. But despite Congress, NASA lately, has been going in the right direction. And NASA might costs us more time, but they look like going to explore the Moon, and then explore Mars with Mars crew exploration program.
gbaikie doesn’t want to give up on his life long dream to become a fapstronaut
What does it mean for you to be a “fapstronaut”? (NoFap dictionary)
“The words that come to my mind are: brave, fighter, helper, someone who has decided to take control over his/her life and to change for the better.
galaxim, May 15, 2014
#1
galaxim Fapstronaut
The first word that comes in to my mind is:
Rebel
Because Fapstronaut has left the planet of Fapping, where fapping is a norm. Fapstronaut is seeking for a new planet to inhabit. A planet of pure greatness. He is also brave, because the space between the two planets is cold and dark.
NotAfraid, May 15, 2014
Me: I am against being brave.
Errrr, maybe not.
“Fap” is vulgar slang in some places for “masturbate”.
Thanks for reminding me, Eben. Willard Fapper has a certain ring (pardon the homosexual allusion) to it – or him, or whatever. I’m sure Willard won’t feel offended, insulted, demeaned, . . .
Which homosexual allusion, Moron Mike?
Wee Willy Wanker,
The one I wrote.
If you can’t comprehend what I wrote, dont blame me.
It’s not my fault your an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You deceitful cretin.
A ring is not *gay*:
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/manly-man-things-the-cock-ring
Focus on something simpler –
Why does the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth?
Anyhow, Eben wants me to talk space.
“On 24 September 2023, the OSIRIS-REx return capsule is scheduled to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and land under a parachute at the Air Force’s Utah Test and Training Range.”-wiki
“China plans to send astronauts to the moon before 2030, a space official said on Monday. Lin Xiqiang, deputy director of the China Manned Space Agency, said at a news conference at the Jiuquan”
https://www.spacedaily.com/
Also from spacedaily:
“SpaceX Dragon carrying Axiom crew splashes down off coast of Florida
Miami FL (UPI) May 31, 2023”
Also:
“Spain becomes 25th nation to sign NASA’s Artemis Accords”
“SpaceX drilled for and installed new piles to repair and upgrade the orbital launch mount as they prepare for the next Starship flight. Also, two buildings were demolished to make room for new production facilities.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOxZXhCi3gk
> Eben wants me to talk space.
U sure?
Willard wants me to talk about space.
Well, roughly NASA buying two different lunar crew lander, the first one was the Starship and the second one is one which Blue Orgin will build. So Musk and Bezos is getting us to the Moon. And SLS is building a crew capsule which will do test flight around moon and return the crew to Earth- and they might even do on schedule. Then with another SLS launch this capsule will bring crew to lunar orbit where Musk or Bezos capsules will land crew on the Moon- which will have first female to land on the Moon.
And it’s sort of like Apollo except we going to southern polar regions, and the crew stays are planned to last longer.
Nobody has been to polar region, nor has robotic lander landed successful, though a booster stage was deliberately crashed into Cabeus crater in 2009. And Chinese have landed robotic land near polar regions. Anyhow lunar polar region always has sunlight which low on the horizon which casts long shadows and allow craters to be in permanent darkness which causing temperature as cold as 50 K [or colder] and surface needs to be 100 K or colder to have a “significant amount” of water ice.
There could also be other volatiles, such frozen methane and CO2.
If lunar water is mineable it could also depend or be related to any other volatiles {particularly, CO2}.
The Moon could have many different kinds uses, but how much the Moon is used will depend upon being able to make rocket on the Moon. Or
simply dramatically lowering launch cost from Earth.
For NASA going to Moon is way to prepare to Explore Mars. NASA has planning Crew missions to Mars for many decades {and not going anywhere] And there has always been argument or where to going first, Moon or Mars, President George Bush decided to go to Moon first, and then explore Mars.
So going to explore a small region of Moon {lunar polar regions] and determine if and where there could mineable water, and with that experience, then explore Mars.
> Willard wants me to talk about space.
U sure?
In a First, Caltech’s Space Solar Power Demonstrator Wirelessly Transmits Power in Space
“A space solar power prototype that was launched into orbit in January is operational and has demonstrated its ability to wirelessly transmit power in space and to beam detectable power to Earth for the first time.”
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/in-a-first-caltechs-space-solar-power-demonstrator-wirelessly-transmits-power-in-space
“Space solar power provides a way to tap into the practically unlimited supply of solar energy in outer space, where the energy is constantly available without being subjected to the cycles of day and night, seasons, and cloud coverpotentially yielding eight times more power than solar panels at any location on Earth’s surface. When fully realized, SSPP will deploy a constellation of modular spacecraft that collect sunlight, transform it into electricity, then convert it to microwaves that will be transmitted wirelessly over long distances to wherever it is neededincluding locations that currently have no access to reliable power.”
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Not sure.
Reading the room is not in gbaikie’s tool box.
Even Nate wants to know if the Moon spins on it’s axis.
It’s going to be exciting when first female astronaut lands on the Moon- and not just the Moon, the lunar polar region where nobody has gone to before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXrzLaWJ2xs
Flammable Space Tape, China Sets Moon Shot, and North Korea Takes a Swim – This Week In Spaceflight
A weekly update.
“the lunar polar region” exists because the Moon spins.
–GALTS MOTOR: Scientists generate electricity from thin air. Humidity could be a boundless source of energy, they say.
The air contains an enormous amount of electricity, said Jun Yao, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and the papers senior author. Think of a cloud, which is nothing more than a mass of water droplets. Each of those droplets contains a charge, and when conditions are right, the cloud can produce a lightning bolt but we dont know how to reliably capture electricity from lightning.
What weve done is to create a human-built, small-scale cloud that produces electricity for us predictably and continuously so that we can harvest it.
The heart of the man-made cloud depends on what Yao and his colleagues refer to as an air-powered generator, or the air-gen effect for short.
If this pans out, expect to hear the anti-energy crowd to bemoan the depletion of our precious humidity.
Posted at 10:40 am by Stephen Green —
https://instapundit.com/
No comment- maybe, it works???
If doesn’t, the left will support it.
gbaikie,
“Growing conducive nanofilms out of bacteria that can pull small amounts of electricity from the water vapor in the air.”
Presumably you feed the bacteria enormous amounts of unicorn farts, and house them in containers of unobtainium (much bigger on the inside than the outside), producing free electricity.
Climate activists will love the idea of free energy.
Water molecules on their own contain no net charge that can be identified as positive or negative. A quick Google search reveals that most explanations for lightning offer no idea as to the mechanism that causes it at the atomic level.
Apparently another ingredient is required, ice particles. Anyone who has livid in climates with low humidity, like the Canadian Prairies in winter, know that static electrical charges increase immensely as the moisture decreases. That also requires cold weather.
I imagine that the high altitudes achieved by thunder clouds would substitute for winter cold and produce a good environment for static electricity.
Static charge is due to electrons being ripped off atoms. If an electron is ripped off, the atom or molecule has a positive charge and whatever the electrons gather on has a negative charge.
Something like that has to happen in a thunder cloud for charges of opposite polarity to develop. Water molecules alone do no have such a charge, unless something rips electrons off them, producing +vely charges bodies and leaving free electrons to accumulate somehow.
Gordon,
You do know that water molecules disassociate into positively charged hydronium ions and negatively charged hydroxyl ions?
Basic acid base chemistry taught at the high school level.
bobdroege,
You do know that water is wet?
Basic knowledge for a two year old.
Do you think the GHE makes the surface warmer or colder?
Think carefully before answering – if you can!
Swenson,
First give me your description of the Greenhouse Effect, if you can.
Although I do know the answer.
Bumbling Bobby,
You pretend that the GHE exists by writing –
“First give me your description of the Greenhouse Effect, if you can.”
There is no greenhouse effect, dummy. That’s the answer, obviously.
At least you agree that you know that. You are still an idiot, believing in something that doesn’t exist, and then pretending it’s science, rather than religion.
Carry on believing. I don’t care about your religion, as long as, in the words of Thomas Jefferson “It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”
Swenson,
Not taking any based on your self appointed appeal to authority.
There is a greenhouse effect whether you like it or not.
Libertas
” Julie has a lively debate with Professor and author Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University, Vice President of Research at the Cato Institute and former chairman of the Economics Department at Boston University. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QhlqcQ061w
[Julie loses debate with Harvard University Libertarian professor.]
And back to space:
“When you realize that SpaceX’s Starship is faster…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEqDPYo6UI
Sea surface Temperature and its inherent inaccuracies.
“The exact meaning of surface varies according to the measurement method used, but it is between 1 millimetre (0.04 in) and 20 metres (70 ft) below the sea surface.”
So we can assign a spread for that variation.
Air pressure
The temperature will vary to some degree depending on the air pressure above it.
Wind velocity
Wind chill is a known factor in determining surface temperature to air temperature, depending quite a lot on the below.
Humidity
The temperature of the air will depend quite a lot on the humidity in it.
Point sampling to volume conversion
There will be an uncertainty as to the accuracy of point sampling to the volume of air surrounding it. This goes for both land and ocean.
(Sub)surface to 2m differences
When comparing SST and 2m land surface temperatures there will be quite a difference similar to that when comparing land surface temperatures to 2m temperatures. How much offset should be allowed for that?
So how much does that all come to? I think at least 2 to 5 degrees C but I look with interest as to what values others come up with (as well as any other factors I may have missed).
A WARMER LIFE
An early scorching heatwave across Spain has worsened the impact of the country’s long-term drought, causing unprecedented damage to the country’s crops. As farmers grow desperate for irrigation, the government’s plan to limit the rerouting of water from the nation’s longest river – the Tagus – for agricultural purposes lies at the centre of a heated debate.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230513-without-water-we-are-nothing-spain-s-crippling-drought-reignites-tensions-over-tagus-river
But California is quite wet during the same time.
Hence why AGW can cause more droughts and more floods at the same time.
You might like:
How much odds would you give me?
Well the BCC seem to think the odds are better than that.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
Thanks. So between 0 and 3%.
How many basis points would you give me?
Are you saying that BCC RZDM is wrong?
I am asking you to give me odds, Richard.
You know what is a basis point?
As long as every expert a grease
Wait – Are you reading the proper figure? Search for
> The chances of La Nia are very low (under 5%).
So you are saying that BCC RZDM is wrong then as it gives a La Nina later this year.
And the ‘stat average’ is for no El Nino (i.e. > 0.5c) at any time this year.
How about one BP to one, Richard?
I’d be willing to bet one buck to the charity of your choice.
RLH and I already have a bet that the UAH monthly anomaly will exceed 0.5C at least once during 2023. The terms are that the loser pays 20 pounds to the RNLI. A good format for a wager between gentlemen.
I lost two earlier similar bets due to the extended La Nina, to the benefit of the RNLI. I expect to win this one.
That should be 10 bucks to my 1 to keep things even (according to your own odds).
The year so far (according to UAH)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
10:1 is for 90%, Richard dear.
Not sure who taught you fairness, but they did a lousy job.
And you are only willing for even money on what you claim is at best 5%. Fair. I think not.
God you suck at maths, Richard.
So you want an even money bet when you say you have a 95% (or better) chance of being correct?
Richard,
Your own source give 0-3% estimates.
If we cut the pear in half, that’s 1.5%, so a bookmaker could give you 1:100 and give me 50:1.
Do you know what’s a BP?
I mean any time in the year, not just for a single month.
Even BCC RZDM does not fall into La Nina territory until later this year.
I interpret the probabilities are dependent. The 1% is part of the 2%, which is part of the 3%, which is part of the other 3%. Otherwise they wouldn’t say there’s less than a 5% chance. They’d be cumulative.
A BP is 0.01%.
Incomprehensible Wee Willy wrote –
“If we cut the pear in half, thats 1.5%, so a bookmaker could give you 1:100 and give me 50:1.
Do you know whats a BP?”
Half a pear is not 1.5 %. That’s as silly as Gavin Schmidt (climate genius – self appointed) claiming that a 38% probability means “almost certain”.
Willard is an idiotic troll, who can’t even say if his mythical GHE is supposed to make anything hotter or colder!
What a fool he is!
Mike Flynn,
I see you continue to play the dumbest moron of the blog.
Perhaps you should work on something simpler than bet odds –
Why does the atmosphere slows the cooling of the Earth?
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling,
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, butting in in a subthread in which you have no business.
Telling me I am trolling.
Deceitful cretin.
That depends of if I should believe in BCC RZDM or not.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you believe your own graph the odds favour you. Are you not confident enough to accept an even bet?
How is 10:1 an evens bet? (His stated odds).
P.S. 5% is 20:1 but I am being generous.
Generous my ass, Richard dear.
Well you want and evens bet of what you clam is at best only a 5% chance (or 0 to 2%).
An even bet on a 0% forecast is 1 BP, Richard.
You’re just 1000x above that.
There is no-one I know that is predicting a 0% chance of a La Nina this year.
Read the damn table, dummy:
Season La Nia Neutral El Nio
MJJ 0 19 81
JJA 0 14 86
JAS 0 12 88
ASO 0 12 88
SON 1 15 84
OND 2 19 79
NDJ 3 21 76
DJF 3 25 72
JFM 3 29 68
Disgraceful.
Wee Willy Wanker,
“Generous my ass, Richard dear.”
Is that another obscure homosexual reference, dummy?
No La Nina this year means in total this year. As you yourself show the total is greater than 0%.
The three letters are for 3-month periods, dummy.
Centered on the month at the middle. I know. Idiot.
Centered? Good grief.
Now, is NDJ in the year or not?
RLH
Willard thinks there is a low probability of another La Nina in 2023 (5-10%?)
What do you think the probability is?
Then a bet can be built around your odds.
Is December in the year? I think so.
That depends of if I should believe in BCC RZDM or not.
EM,
You are getting in the crossfire.
The official forecast is less than 5%. Something like 3%. Give or take rounding errors, which accumulate, in contrast to measurement errors.
I offered Richard one basis point, so a 0.01% probability. In other words, a 10000 to 1 bet. If he believes that the odds are 0%, he should take it.
I do not mind losing one buck for making Richard read his damn source.
And no, Richard, NDJ is not exclusive to 2023.
J stands for January.
So plotting
ttps://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
is not correct.
edit: https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
“The official forecast is less than 5%”
per month (of which there is 12 in a year).
And no, just adding the monthly figures together and dividing by 12 does not give you one for if La Nina is likely this year.
> per month
Come on, Richard:
Make an effort. You look like Bordo now.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
Are we talking about the average of the stats models or the dynamic ones?
What do you mean, the stats one?
The dynamic models do much better in May to predict the Fall.
https://tinyurl.com/3zu6jyhj
Can you not read Willard, statistical ones.
Nate: The dynamic models appear to be running to hot (as ever).
The lower you stretch the bounds of justified disingenuousness, Richard, the more I’ll be tempted to take the other side of that bet.
“Nate: The dynamic models appear to be running to hot (as ever).”
How do you know that?
For the dynamic models they used, the correlation between prediction and observation was 0.87, for a May prediction of October nino 3.4.
That is pretty damn accurate.
RLH says:
”There is no-one I know that is predicting a 0% chance of a La Nina this year.”
Willard says:
Read the damn table, dummy:
——————————-
Willard this board’s favorite dummy fails to read what he posts again.
Gill is replacing Graham as Roy’s lastwordist.
A 50% chance of cyclone formation within 48 hours
{within Gulf Mexico near USA mainland}
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Tropical depression as of 10 pm CDT {an hour and 1/2 ago}.
Tropical storm, Arlene. Tracked to hit Cuba, Saturday night
POST-TROPICAL CYCLONE ARLENE
going east along Cuba coast
No idea how El Nino will develop this year.
https://tinyurl.com/El-Nino-forecast-2023
An NCEP index of ~2.25 for November would be a lot:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
So tell me why https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table ‘stats average’ says that an El Nino is unlikely this year.
Probabilities for 2023 from your source.
Season La Nia Neutral El Nio
MJJ 0 19 81
JJA 0 14 86
JAS 0 12 88
ASO 0 12 88
SON 1 15 84
OND 2 19 79
NDJ 3 21 76
How do you reconcile probabilities of El Nino between 76% and 88% with your claim that “stats average says that an El Nino is unlikely this year.”?
Read the damned graph. The thick green line is the average stats model which does not cross the +0.5c line.
What does STAT and DYN stand for, again?
Statistical and dynamic.
Looks like the dynamic models are running too hot (not that it has been said before).
So the dynamic models are not statistical?
Nope. They are emulations of what we think is happening, i.e. the physics.
(It would help if you actually read the url).
It would help if you knew a bit about these models, Richard:
http://s2s.cma.cn/Models/UKMO_1
Are you saying your “That depends of if I should believe in BCC RZDM or not” is now turning into a deep belief that this is the most correct one?
The evils of ideology – Part 1
1. Good chart
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AQ_sRALFbxP2rsbSktlSvQdFzjKpjsSq/view
2. Bad chart
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bXymfPZOpI1uv5_1XVp0M74tvttUc-jf/view
La suite au prochain numéro.
So do tell me why your first graph shows that VP CTRM does not produce the same outcome as S-G with the same window of 60 months?
Is it that VP CTRM is wrong or S-G?
I repeat for the opinionated: The evils of ideology.
And you are a 100 % ideologist, Blindsley H00d, who moreover distorts the reality:
” … the same outcome as S-G with the same window of 60 months? ”
Why should a 60 S-G and a 60 SRM produce the same as a 60/50/39 CTRM which, as you recently (& correctly) mentioned, has a 75 month window?
That is the first difference.
But… what matters much more:
Did you ever show us how SRM and S-G behave with regard to the CTRM within the latter’s window, by comparing for example their respective polynomials, and computing their differences by using the polynomials’ arguments?
No. Either you are unable to do such a job, or you are, but preferred to dissimulate what you have seen.
All you were able to do until now has been to let a tool draw CTRMs and overfitted S-Gs over a set of points.
La suite au prochain numéro.
“Why should a 60 S-G and a 60 SRM produce the same as a 60/50/39 CTRM”
Well one of them has to be accurate (and we know it is not the SRM).
And, no, a CRTM does not have a 75 month window (see VP).
edit: CTRM
It has OF COURSE very well a 75 month window, according to your own recent claim. Search yourself for it.
It is so easy to see that in the spreadsheet.
The first column right to the source starts at position 60/2+1 = 31, the second one at 31 + 50/2 + 1 = 57, and the third one at 57 + 39/2 + 1 = 77.
You are and keep of such an incompetence.
Where did the high frequency in your S-G come from? Could that be distortion from square wave sampling (similar to what happens in a SRM)?
The ‘high frequency’, Blindsley H00d, is YOUR over and over opinionated view.
It is the result of an intelligent averaging process – not less, not more.
This is not rocket science Nate. You are standing in a room in your shorts in winter. It is 20C in your room. If you don’t eat to replenish internal energy, you will lose heat to the air in the room at 20C since your body temp is about 37C.
Now go outside where the temperature is 0C. Would you cool faster than in the room at 20C?
That’s Newton’s Law of Cooling.
For Bob D, the law says nothing about the range of temperature and it involves only one method of heat transfer…conduction. Same with the Earth’s surface.
Heat is not transferred by radiation from the surface, it is simply dissipated when electrons that emit the radiation drop to a lower orbital energy level. Still, the rate of dissipation depends on the temperature difference between surface and air. It also depends on the overall temperature of the atoms containig th electrons.
If the atmosphere was constantly the same temperature as the surface, no heat would be transferred. Since thermal equilibrium must be maintained, the radiation would need to adjust to suit. If the atmosphere became warmer than the surface, radiation would need to adjust more, since the surface would now be an absorber. Heat would be transferred from atmosphere to surface.
I don’t have this theory down pat but I’d sure like to hear your rebuttal.
Heat is a form of energy, and as such can not be dissipated, only altered in form, eventually turning into entropy.
The idiocy of Blinny is clear.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1492934
Richard might not be he dumbest of them all:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1492978
But that is far from helping his case.
Willard is just an idiot.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn,
These are not the magic words, so I got to ask once again –
What in the atmosphere makes it slow the cooling of the Earth?
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn,
These are not the magic words, so I got to ask once again –
What in the atmosphere makes it slow the cooling of the Earth?
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”An early scorching heatwave across Spain has worsened the impact of the countrys long-term drought…”.
***
Variable weather patterns, we willy. Check back with us in 30 years to see if it is consistent.
C’mon, Bordo.
You can also check back 30 years ago.