Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April 2023 was +0.18 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is down slightly from the March 2023 anomaly of +0.20 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 16 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.55 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.31 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.23 | +0.16 | -0.14 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2023 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Let the madness begin!
Another month to add to the new Monckton Pause.
2 months actually
In mid April my expectation was 0.08 +/- 0.24 C. By the end of April my expectation was 0.05 +/- 0.21 C. I was expecting a significant drop. According to my model a 2023/04 value of >= 0.18 C had only a 10% chance of occurrence.
It is interesting to note that the 4-month lagged ONI value is -0.8. So the 2023/04 value is still influenced by La Nina. The same will be true for the 2023/05 value as well. It won’t be until 2023/06 at the earliest that we start seeing more ENSO-neutral values.
I’m still not ready call out all of those sub-zero (on the 1981-2010 baseline) predictions we saw on here (and other blogs) as failed predictions. But, at this point, everyone has to know that it would be very unlikely. My calculations put the odds at less than 1-in-100.
I saw your prediction and thought it was too low. We still have low Antarctic sea ice. Polar factors have almost immediate UAH effects vs. the 3-4 month lag for equatorial factors.
My own thoughts were we should see something similar to March. Turned out to be correct. Whether I got the cause right is another question.
I think a lot of those sub-zero predictions also failed to account for the lower level of Antarctic sea ice.
I’m not using sea ice in my model. When I get time I’ll explore the relationship and see if the model training identifies a contribution from it.
My technique for predicting the latest month is best described as a 50/50 weight of the long term expected value and the expected change. The long term expected value comes from CO2 + ENSO + AMO + volcanic aerosols + solar irradiance. The expected change comes the real-time observations throughout of the months provided by the GFS analysis+forecast, NCAR reanalysis, and JRA reanalysis.
The reason for the low expectation for 2023/04 is that the expected Mar-to-Apr change was large and negative. In fact, the Mar-to-Apr change was the largest (by far) of the 149 test cases I used to train the model.
the Mar-to-Apr change was the largest (by far) of the 149 test cases I used to train the model.
You probably know this, but March UCAR quite an outlier on the high side while April is a bit on the low side of expectation, but nothing like March.
Yeah. I noticed that. And look at how dramatic the changes were from Feb to Mar to Apr. Record setting SSTs in Mar probably have something to do with this.
Feb
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Feb%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2302_monthly_equir.png
Mar
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Mar%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2303_monthly_equir.png
Apr
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Apr%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2304_monthly_equir.png
According to NOAA, we are supposed to have set a SST record in April.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
I saw that. It is a 4.7-sigma event. Yikes.
Tell us all about your “predictions” you never posted
What would you like to know?
The temperature remains modulating between 0.0 and 0.5C after the last step change.
Since 2016 it has been in that band, averaging about 0.25C. Before that, it was averaging -0.2C. This implies that the temperature change is nonsystematic.
It tells you ENSO contributes a lot in the short term,
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2023.pdf
but also the warming trend is still present.
Both the variation and long term appear to be consistent with expectations.
https://i.imgur.com/83GZJ1T.png
It tells you that whatever condition caused the step change is still in place.
It also tells you it isn’t some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels.
“It also tells you it isnt some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels.”
In spite of the general increase in sunlight we have been experiencing this Spring in my area, this week we had a rather cool spell.
Stephen would suggest, based on this data, that there isnt a systematic cause of our seasonal warming, like the tilt of the Northern Hemisphere toward the Sun in this portion of Earth’s orbit.
Climate science is not ignoring the natural causes, such as ENSO, of temperature variation, that make it depart from a continuous linear warming due to another cause, like AGW.
But for some weird reason, Stephen wants us to ignore these natural contributions.
Stephen, The UAH observations is what you would expect if you superimpose natural variability onto a log2(CO2) trend.
No, it isn’t. Chic has shown you with the Woodfortrees site that CO2 follows temperature. Murray Salby has shown that in many of his presentations. He’s shown that CO2 progresses as an integral of temperature. CO2 follows temperature on short and long, time scales. Only imbecile propagandists dispute that fact.
>Stephen would suggest, based on this data, that there isnt a systematic cause of our seasonal warming, like the tilt of the Northern Hemisphere toward the Sun in this portion of Earths orbit.
No, strawman. Seasonal changes are systematic, but not due to fossil fuel.
Stephen,
The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.
I’m not talking about Salby or his work. I’m talking about the variation in the UAH record. log(CO2) models are not inconsistent with the observations because CO2 is not the only agent modulating the tropospheric temperature. Just considering ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, and solar irradiance is enough to explain nearly all of the variation.
>The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.
You'll need to show where I've made that claim.
Stephen,
“The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.
You'll need to show where I've made that claim."
You keep saying thinks like this when referring to the recent T record.
"It also tells you it isnt some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels."
NO Stephen, the data are entirely consistent with ENSO-caused variation PLUS a gradual increase from some other 'linear systematic cause', which is consistent with AGW.
Stephen,
As I noted, within a decade ENSO is in the drivers seat.
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
So the fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is no surprise.
But also each decade is warmer than the previous one, since the 1970s, so the gradual warming trend is evident.
NO NATE! We’re not seeing a gradual linear increase. We’re seeing a step change that oscillates for a decade or more. Then another step change. That’s classically nonsystematic.
Stephen, these step changes are exactly what you would expect with a systematic force on the climate superimposed with natural variability.
https://imgur.com/83GZJ1T
“Were not seeing a gradual linear increase. Were seeing a step change that oscillates for a decade or more. Then another step change. Thats classically nonsystematic.”
Here is surface data since 1970 with a 5 year smoothing (in blue).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:0.92/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.1/mean:60/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60
There looks like what could be step changes in 1970s and 2010s.
A linear trend is removed. What remains is much smaller variation (in red).
Volcanoes in 80s and 90s could explain the dips we see.
The remaining small oscillations seems to correlate to PDO (in green).
It may explain your apparent step changes.
BGDWX,
The Systematic Force would be fossil fuels. And it should correlate linearly to CO2. CO2 is clearly progressing as y=mx + b. Which is exactly what Salby said. CO2 is progressing as the integral of temperature. We aren’t seeing any kind of correlation the other way around. The step change in temperature doesn’t correlate to CO2. The step change is nonsystematic.
“The Systematic Force would be fossil fuels. And it should correlate linearly to CO2. ”
After all this discussion Stephen, are you still ignoring that natural variation can contribute, and cause the data to vary around a linear trend?
And when natural it is included, it explains the so-called ‘step change’
Stephen,
First, I’ll remind you that Salby’s model does NOT predict temperature. He has no idea why the temperature trajectory exhibits a step change. None whatsoever.
Second, CO2+variation models explain both the CO2 trajectory and the temperature trajectory. And they do so with remarkable skill.
So if you’re trying to figure out why the so called step change in temperature occurs then you’re going to have abandon Salby’s model and instead use models that actually provide explanations of the observations you are analyzing.
Yes, you’re right. Salby was a scientist foremost. He didn’t offer speculation. He only noted that it appeared nonsystematic, which is the most logical explanation. Why speculate when you have no idea?
Stephen keeps on knocking down the strawman..
So let me get this straight. Salby says the temperature “appears” to be nonsystematic using a model that does not even make statements regarding changes in temperature and that’s somehow not speculation?
No, it is logically inferred. If the temperature is making step changes and then oscillating for years in a band, one could logically conclude that it is caused by something outside of the system. There is a difference between speculation and logical inference. Have you ever read Sherlock Holmes? Did he speculate?
You guys are funny. Physicists like Salby and Berry falsify AGW but you claim that if they don’t have an alternative explanation they must accept yours. LOL.
” If the temperature is making step changes and then oscillating for years in a band, one could logically conclude that”
it is caused by a linear trend plus a slowly oscillating contribution.
And one could test that by fitting the data to a linear trend, removing that trend, and seeing that what remain is small and oscillating. And also test whether those oscillations correlate well to know natural variation in the system.
Like this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:0.92/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.1/mean:60/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60
If one were using logic.
“Physicists like Salby and Berry falsify AGW”
Among all physicists their views are extreme outliers..
https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/climate.cfm
In any case this is an appeal to authority.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
>it is caused by a linear trend plus a slowly oscillating contribution.
You’ll need to explain the mathematics of that. So is that Y=mx + b + sine theta?
Yeah, oscillating above and below 0, but as you know ENSO and PDO are not perfectly periodic, so not a sin wave.
Stephen,
Here is the math I use.
TLT = -0.27 + [1.8*log2(CO2lag1/CO2initial)] + [0.14*ONIlag4] + [0.20*detrend(AMOlag2)] + [-2.8*AODlag2] + [0.05*anomaly(TSIlag1)]
The root mean squared difference is 0.12 C.
The log2(CO2) term contributes +0.13 C/decade to the trend.
The log2(CO2) term contributes nothing to the variation.
The other terms contribute 0 C/decade to the trend.
The other terms contribute everything to the variation.
So tell me, what the temperature will be in May 2027?
Assuming CO2 growth continues at the same pace as has been observed over the last 5 years then the math says 0.37 +/- 0.26 C.
I could eyeball it and give you that same number and not assume any correlation to CO2.
You’re essentially doing a short-term curve-fit mathematical construct based on no physics, plus or minus 80 percent. That confident? That’s kind of how all these climate science models are generated.
You’re moving the goalpost. First, it was a claim that the step-change behavior can’t be explained using CO2. Nate and I showed you it could. Now the argument is that my trivial model is a curve fit not based on physics. That is obviously false since every single component in the model has been shown to have a physical causative mechanism for its modulation of the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere.
I graphed the below, purely systemic function which includes two sine waves with differing amplitudes and periods, and a linear function of smaller amplitude. Try it yourself.
(2 * sin(6.28319 * X / 100 )) + (1.3 *sin(6.28319 * 0.7 * X / 100) ) + (X * 0.025) graph that function for X = 1 to 720 to generate 3 “cyclical steps”
Obviously, the results are purely systemic, but you will “see” 3 very clear steps, even though the math requires no step function and depends exclusively on 2 cyclical (net 0) functions and one (overwhelmed) linear function.
Clearly, you have not excluded the impossible.
And yes, even the fictitious Sherlock Holmes speculated. All the time.
The simple ENSO vrs UAH with 5-month lag predicted a slight dip this month, but UAH temps rising from May month-on-month until July at least. Precludes volcanic influence, etc.
that sounds about right, within the usual caveats about low predictability
Yes despite our differences, I have to give you credit where it’s due.
A bit of a mixed bag compared to previous Aprils. Very average for the month since 2016, but warm compared with most months before 2016.
Overall, tied with 2017 for the 8th warmest April. The top 10 warmest Aprils now look like this:
Year Anomaly
1 1998 0.62
2 2016 0.61
3 2019 0.32
4 2020 0.26
5 2022 0.26
6 2005 0.20
7 2010 0.20
8 2017 0.18
9 2023 0.18
10 2002 0.11
My crude statistical prediction jumps up again, as it increasingly looks like January was on the cold side.
The prediction for the year is now 0.15 +/- 0.11, compared to last months 0.13 +/- 0.13.
By my reckoning, the New Pause now starts in June 2014, some 14 months before the Old Pause ended.
You shouldn’t ignore the fact that the current pause is .2 C warmer than the last pause.
If you put both of those pauses together, there is a warming trend.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997.17/trend/plot/uah6/mean:13/from:1995/plot/uah6/from:2014.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.17/to:2015.67/trend
Bellman is certainly capable of speaking for himself, but in case he doesn’t see this I’ll chime in now. If you track his posts you’ll know that he is not ignoring that. In fact, he has numerous posts on WUWT talking about this very thing.
Are you factoring a likely El Nino into your calculations?
If it eventuates it could easily be a strong one.
If….
Yes, if.
NOAA says 62% chance for May-Jun-Jul, 75% chance for Jun-Jul-Aug, 80% chance for Jul=Aug-Sep, … up to 88% chance for Nov-Dec-Jan.
Wouldn’t you expect someone to factor those odds into their estimate?
What odds did NOAA give for a 3 year La Nina?
What are the odds that all this warm water isnt going to arrive at the surface?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Last 7 days change in ocean T
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
“Are you factoring a likely El Nino into your calculations?”
No. It’s simply a linear regression based on the average so far this year along with a linear rate of warming. I suspect we may see more warming, but I don’t like to speculate too much, that’s why the uncertainties are still quite large at this stage.
Even if there is a strong El Nino, I doubt it won’t have that much of an effect on this years figures. That would mostly affect next years average.
You doubt it “won’t” ?
Oops.
It’s really amusing to see that
– while people like Palmowski aka ren, the ankle-biting dachshund Eben and Blindsley Hood aka RLH never stopped to post links to NOAA’s NCEP Nino3+4 as long as ENSO was in persistent La Nina mode,
– their output has suddenly vanished since NOAA shows a significant transition to a strong El Nino mode:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
The bet is open as to when the three Coolistas tell us that El Nino will be gone as early as January next year!
I predicted when the La Nina finally ends Bindidork is gonna zshit himself.
So here it is.
So your prediction is that we will have an El Nino that will last until at least Jan 2024.
The observations remain well below the UN IPCC climate model projections.
When will the AGW hypothesis be declared scientifically false?
When it will stop warming, Kennui.
Roy already showed you we were on a 4.5C path, which is 50% above the current mean estimate.
“AGW hypothesis be declared scientifically false”
The projections have always had a range of probable global T rises.
Here is one from 42 y ago. We have certainly been within that projected range.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
The mid-range scenario there gives a warming of 0.6C from 1976 to 2020, and the higher range is 0.7C. Going by Had.CRUt4, usually the lowest of the land surface records, the global temperature rise has been 0.78C.
The model has a climate sensitivity of 2.8C per doubling CO2.
Using the lowest non-land surface record, UAH, the result is 0.59C, if we extend the full trend back to 1976.
Definitely within the range of the forecast from the 1981 paper.
Don’t forget that NOAA agrees with UAH.
The Monckton Pause extends to 106 months. I was expecting the pause to extend to 107 months, but the higher than expected 2023/04 value results in one less month.
Looking forward through the end of 2023 I am expecting the Monckton Pause to extend to 112 months by the time we get to December. That is assuming the monthly values slowly climb to 0.35 C by December as a result of the waning La Nina.
Might depend on rounding. I think it starts in June 2014, which would mean 107 months. The rate of warming since then is positive but tiny: +0.0003C / decade, so I’d count that as a zero trend.
Probably yes. I’m using the 3-digit file.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
I get +0.0005 C/decade for 2014/06 using the 3 digit file plus the 2 digit 2023/04 value.
There isn’t much difference between 0.0005 and 0.0003. They’re both effectively zero.
There seems to be confusion on the expectation of Monckton Pauses so I thought some commentary might be helpful here. I downloaded the CMIP5 data from the KNMI Climate Explorer to see what modeled expectations actually are.
According to CMIP5 we expect the most recent month to be in a Monckton Pause lasting 8 years about 20% of the time. UAH shows about 24% while ERA5 shows about 15%. In other words, UAH says the pauses are a bit more than expected while ERA5 says they are less than expected.
However, the big epiphany that I’m seeing a lot of people miss is the expectation for being in a pause regardless of whether we are at the end, middle, or beginning. If we reframe the question in terms of only existing in a pause regardless of where we find ourselves within it then the expectation is nearly 100%. In other words, we expect to be in a pause last 8 years pretty much all of the time.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465
Seven pauses since 1970, each about 0.14C warmer than the last.
Now, when will the current pause end? And will the next pause be another 0.14C warmer?
Exactly. Despite being in a pause nearly all of the time the global average temperature marches on as we ride the escalator upward.
Yes, Earth has been in a natural warming trend since the 1970s.
Thats reality.
But, trying to claim specific causes of that warming often leads to cultism. Beware, as cultism aint science.
If you can keep the AMO and PDO in their positive phases then you have a chance. Doesn’t seem likely though.
The AMO appears to be the real driver and it started its last phase change in 1995. If it last 30 years, which seem to be fairly common, then you are looking at 2025 as the start of the next negative phase.
There’s also a variation within the AMO itself that appears to have peaked in 2022-23. This could be the last peak which would also point to a possible 2025 transition.
The PDO is less predictable but if it stays negative into the next negative AMO phase, we are looking at a more significant cooling. The result would be a never ending pause which eventually hooks up with the first pause. That would probably take about 10 more years unless we also had a major volcanic eruption.
The PDO is NOT in its positive phase, so we can’t “keep” it there.
The decadal running average has been negative for 28 years.
And no – the PDO aligns much more closely with global temperatures than the AMO.
I should say … it aligns much more closely with changes in the rate of change of temperature, ie. accelerations and “pauses” (which used to be increases and decreases).
The PDO index almost always registers negative during La Nina events (and positive during El Nino events). Hence, we need to see what happens during neutral times to see the true state.
This is also the reason the PDO aligns closer with global temperatures. In this case it is more of an effect. Not a cause.
We haven’t seen any good neutral condition since 2014 so all I’m saying is we need to be careful in drawing any conclusions from the PDO index itself. It moved into a positive phase in 2014. It appears like it could be negative now but there’s sure way of telling.
Remember that UAH and NOAA (STAR) now agree.
The pause via STARv5 is 103 months through 2023/03. My guess is that it will extend to 104 once the 2023/04 data is published.
The STAR TLT v5 has a global trend of 0.129 k/decade for 1/1981 thru 3/2023, but 0.180 for 2000 thru 3/2023. The interesting thing is that their SH results for 1/1981-3/2023 are 0.078 k/decade but jump to 0.143 for 1/2000-3/2023. I suspect that the reason the 1981-2023 trend is less is that the positive spike from the 1998 El Nino is now firmly in the first half of their data set.
More interesting facts…
From 2002 through 2022 using the TMT corrected values per Fu et al. 2004 (similar to Zou et al. 2023) we have the following trends.
UAH: +0.156 C/decade
RSS: +0.153 C/decade
STAR: +0.184 C/decade
STARv5 is a double edged sword. Even through the 1979-2022 trend is lower the 2002-2022 trend is much higher. This is something Zou et al. 2023 mention in their publication.
Aside from the possibility of an acceleration in the warming as hinted by STAR the other point suggested by START is that the structural uncertainty in these satellite datasets is relatively high.
Please note that STAR and UAH are in much closer alignment now with RSS being the outlier.
From my first reading of the STAR v5 paper, I see that they created their TLT using an equation much like that of UAH v6:
STAR TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TUT + 0.032*TLS
UAH LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS
The STAR approach differs from that of UAH in the limb adjustment process used to produce the TMT, TUT and TLS:
“After the swath radiance data are obtained, a limb-adjustment is conducted in which radiances at off-nadir view angles were adjusted to those at the nadir direction. This adjustment allows the use of the off-nadir footprints in the same way as the nadir observations to increase observational samples and reduce noise and sampling-related biases in TMT.”
The adjustment for each swath is based on a radiation model.
The Fu et al. 2004 formula (Zoe et al. 2023 is nearly identical) for the TTT product is:
TTT = 1.156*TMT – 0.153*TLS.
Exactly how is the Moncton Pause defined? You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0. That is 176 months if I counted correctly. Of course that is mostly due to the very wide uncertainty range in the UAH record. Using GISTEMP v4, you only have to go back to June 2011, 141 months.
It is the longest period ending on the current month in which the trend is less than 0 C/decade. For UAH that is 2014/07. Though it is incredibly close to starting in 2014/06. As you point out though the pause is not statistically significant.
If using the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 method with the ARMA corrections you have to go back to 2008/06 for the positive trend to be significant.
For GISTEMP you have to go back to 2011/06.
Neither STAR nor UAH (satellite records) align well with ground/land based records on trend. RSS is the outlier now.
STAR uses the same method as UAH for their TLT product.
So you agree that RSS is the outlier now? Please note that it is mainly the early RSS records that have been adjusted. All agree the recent records.
RLH, The latest STAR v5 product(s) aren’t any better or worse than the RSS v4, especially if one is concerned with the various versions of a TLT. RSS excludes data from 70S to the end of the scan areas, as well as over Greenland and other regions with high elevations. I recall that RSS also excludes the effects of large storms, which lift precipitable ice into the views of the scans, a process not mentioned for UAH or the new STAR analysis.
Furthermore, the RSS TLT works directly with the individual swath data from the MSU ch3 and AMSU ch5 before calculating their product, whereas both UAH and STAR do it differently. RSS does not need to combine three channels of data, each with their own peculiarities, to create their TLT series. There’s no guarantee that the three channel combination provides a valid temperature vs. time result, since the equations for combining the three channels, shown above, are calculated for only one representative temperature vs. altitude model which does not include possible seasonal impacts, particularly during polar winters. For example, one should be aware that the UAH TLT trend over the North Polar ocean (0.27) is 2.5 times that of the global ocean trend (0.11).
RLH, I’m fine calling RSS an outlier according to the 1979-present trend. But in doing so I have to accept that STAR is an outlier according to the 2002-2022 trend. I also have to accept that STAR uses the same Spencer et al. 2017 methodology as UAH did for their TLT products. So if I’m going to tell people that RSS is outlier than I would be obligated to inform them that STAR and UAH are not completely independent.
“You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0. That is 176 months if I counted correctly. Of course that is mostly due to the very wide uncertainty range in the UAH record.”
Yes indeed. Given the long-term trend of 0.14 C/decade, the ENSO driven swings of 0.4 C, finding any significant change in trend over less than 2 decades is impossible.
“Using GISTEMP v4, you only have to go back to June 2011, 141 months.”
Lower uncertainty, but still need ~ 1.5 decades before the (2 sigma) error on trend is less than the trend itself.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0.”
Significance has nothing to do with Monckton’s work.
I agree, it is purely for entertainment.
Hunga-Tonga is still in play — estimate it’s now adding 0.!°C. H-T had much higher influence a year ago. We should expect to see the effect last another 8-12 months.
Please link to your source for that timing. Because you seem to be preparing an excuse for likely El Nino warming. And I note the deliberate typo to disguise the extent of your claim.
Sorry Ant but this H-T blast was so “unprecedented” that the cult hasn’t had time to put out the usual “peer-reviewed” nonsense. At this stage, Cultists will just have to think for themselves. And they hate that
You can expect the next El Niño to cause warming. That’s something CO2 can NOT do.
But thanks for noticing my typo. Correction below:
Hunga-Tonga is still in play — estimate it’s now adding 0.1°C.
Oh really? Then where do you get your “information” from?
Please don’t say NASA again – we both know their press release said the effect wouldn’t start for three years and that it might not be noticeable above noise.
Yes really.
The warming caused by Hunga-Tonga can be seen in a quick statistical correlation between La Niña-with vs LN-without.
Correlation is easy, it’s the causation that’s hard. That’s when people must understand the science, and be able to think for themselves.
And quit trying to link me to some NASA press release. Thats borderline false accusation.
Get your facts right.
You’re the one who claimed NASA supports your claim, based on their press release last year. YOU have linked yourself to it.
Clint R
” Hunga-Tonga is still in play estimate its now adding 0.[1] C. H-T had much higher influence a year ago. We should expect to see the effect last another 8-12 months. ”
Stop your brazen, absolutely unproven ‘ball-on-a-string’-like hints on your own cultish blah blah, and show us finally a valuable source allowing us to verify your allegations.
Bin, can you give me even one instance where you have chosen reality over your cult beliefs? You can’t leave your cult, so why should I waste time on you? That’s why you still reject the reality of a ball-on-a-string.
First time this year its managed 15C in the central UK for two consecutive days. Bankrupting ourselves based on a fraud.
Let’s not forget that 2022 was the warmest year on record for both the UK and CET. April 2023 was also warmer than the 1961-1990 reference period in CET. Maybe we’re just getting too used to the heat?
Nah, we dont know that for sure. Unless all of their thermometers are located way out faraway from humanity, that conclusion cannot be proven for sure.
Weather stations located in built up areas.
You’d wonder why there isn’t a new warmest year every year in that case.
There can still be variability at built up stations, because theres also cold months. Not every month is going to be warmer than average. That aside, even those cold months have some warmth added to their values as a result of the location theyre built near. Average months are also warmer than typical as a result.
The UK climate going back over a hundred years – where’s the dangerous man-made warming and climate change?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1481621
After a warmer February in the US48 it has been colder than average. Early May in the northeast has been unseasonably cool. In no way can one say we are challenged by climate overheating.
Record snow today in the WV Mtns..
…”All you snow lovers out there…you’re witnessing Canaan snow history today. The current snowfall event here and what is yet to come in the next 48 hours will likely set new daily, monthly and even possibly state snowfall records for the month of May.
Way ahead of the red line Grand Solar Minimum update
https://i.postimg.cc/DwPnjHSy/Clipboard033.jpg
Solar wind
speed: 470.1 km/sec
density: 5.19 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 87
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Updated 02 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.89×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Average
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“The profusion of sunspots reinforces a growing consensus that Solar Maximum may be coming earlier than expected–perhaps as soon as late 2023. The peak could bring 50% to 100% more sunspots than we are seeing today, cementing Solar Cycle 25 as an above-average cycle.”
[see picture of spots near equator}
Coronal holes near equator and looks like equatorial spot coming from
farside.
Solar wind
speed: 473.2 km/sec
density: 6.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 134
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Updated 03 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.80×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.25% Above Average
Well, in terms of sunspot number, it’s encouraging
for May.
Still got large Coronal holes.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
96.4 sunspots for April.
Hmm
And I guess May could be 130 for Month- which sort of sideways, but if June was 140, doesn’t beat Jan, but if July was also around 140, it could be something like that.
Then by say Sept, it’s dropping, thereafter it keeps on dropping
Solar wind
speed: 431.6 km/sec
density: 4.88 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 143
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Updated 03 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.40% Above Average
48-hr change: +0.5%
Still got large Coronal holes near equator
Now got two large sunspot near equator.
Which seems to “prove” the solar max will be short
and therefore, weak. But sunspots number month in June
and July will be high and as said above be crashing by Sept.
These not normal in term Neutron counts for Solar Max- but late
May thru July, I think you will get normal or above Neutron counts-
or will be Solar Max levels.
Picture give from May 2 at Space weather:
ttps://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
https://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
Going back to this
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The lower monthly sunspot numbers reached high end of error of curve
and high monthly sunspots were a lot higher. When reach 2024, the monthly high won’t reach low end of error, and monthly low sunspot
will be near the bottom [will we will get spotless days] and doesn’t ever get high again [no double peak].
That is my guess.
so much for the late-breaking SST panic
of course we’ll probably still get a new El Nino and associated record high soon
unfortunately even with new highs we’ve still wasted tens of trillions of dollars (per climate orgs) on a superstitious belief in models that predicted several times the observed rate of warming, lowering global living standards in a moral panic future generations will doubtless remember in proper context with postwar Polynesian cargo cults and the apocryphal throwing of virgins into volcanoes
I’m not expecting record breaking UAH TLT values until 2024 at the earliest. And it depends on the magnitude of the coming El Nino. My model shows a 0.14 C per unit ONI enhancement of temperature. For example, 2016 had a 0.14 * 2.6 = 0.36 C enhancement. If the El Nino only peaks at say 1.0 then the enhancement would only be 0.14 * 1.0 = 0.14 C or 0.26 C less than 2016. The 0.13 C/decade trend would not be able to overcome the weak El Nino.
There has been a sizeable spike in ENSO 3.4 since Feb this year which seems to be ongoing. With a ~5-month lag, anomalies in UAH_TLT could start getting pretty high from August onwards. We might see a new monthly record or two late in the year (not withstanding volcanoes, etc).
Agreed. Monthly records late in the year cannot be eliminated. Annual record will likely have to wait until 2024 or afterwards.
Bdgwx
I’m genuinely interested in what you think is going to occur after the El Nio. Large El Nio’s occurring only 8 years away from each other is unheard of.
It’s a good question. Like you say two super El Nino’s (more than 2.0 on ONI) occurring within 8 years would be unprecedented. Since it is not climatology favored I definitely lean more towards the less than 2.0 camp. A blend of dynamic and statistical forecasts puts us in the 1.0 to 1.5 range. I do, however, acknowledge the rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino that often precedes strong El Ninos. It’s probably worth mentioning the official NOAA forecast has an 85% of El Nino by January of 2024 so it’s not a lock that an El Nino would even occur.
But assuming the ONI is 1.3 in 2024/01 per the IRI forecast we might expect UAH TLT to approach 0.5 C assuming AMO does not dive too much.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
I don’t think a super-El Nino is required any more for new monthly/annual UAH_TLT temperatures to be set. The underlying warming trend should be sufficient to elevate the extra heat generated by even moderate El Nino temperatures to new record highs.
We have progressed, virgins are just getting their tits cut off.
Do the mass contrail clouds interfere with the readings.
The global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
15 C air temperature is cold air temperature.
Global average land surface temperature is about 10 C.
Global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
Humans are still mostly living on the land.
When they start living on the ocean, they will be warmer and
happier.
When some people live on Mars, Humans on Earth will start living
on the Earth’s ocean.
But in century or two, billions of people we live in the orbits
of Venus.
Venus orbit is about 2 months travel from Earth.
If have relatives living on Mars, it’s about 3 month from Venus to Mars. And it’s about 1/2 year to Jupiter.
With Venus, solar panels work a lot better, than solar panels on Earth.
Currently launch costs from Earth is high, but it has been lowering
over the decades, and probably will lower to around $100 per kg to low Earth orbit.
It would be hard to lower it to about $10 per kg.
But simple answer to doing it, is lowering our current energy costs-
by a 1/10th- and that is quite possible right now. That was possible
decades ago, or as they said, electricity could have been free- too cheap to add the costs to meter it- unless doing something that uses a lot electricity. That was predicted in 1950’s.
In Venus orbit, it’s free for residential use because solar panels work in Venus orbit. But for industrial use or other large uses of energy, such as traveling in the solar system, electrical power will a lot cheaper than is possible on Earth surface: 1/100th to 1/1000th the price. So visiting relatives on Mars or Earth is cheaper than airline ticket on Earth.
Nobody is going to Mars
Nobody will first go to the Moon in couple years, but before this
we should have quite a few lunar robotic landers going to lunar surface. And an Indian lunar orbiter is right now taking better pictures of lunar polar region than LRO has been doing for over decade.
The Vulcan Centaur Peregrine launch was planned to launch on May 4 2023, but looks like it’s delayed until summer.
Falcon 9 IM-1
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Is planned in June [sometime] it also was delayed from last year.
There are no others which are scheduled for 2023. But should be more in 2024. With Vulcan Centaur, it’s a new rocket- and this will be it’s test launch [so to speak- or they were probably given launch at a lower price, and compared to a tested rocket launch. And of course Falcon-9 is most successful rocket in history, but also cheapest rocket, other than Falcon Heavy.
The Falcon Heavy has 4 launched for 2023 [planned, and one just launched with heavy payload which required expending all 3 boosters [first time that was done}.
The Vulcan rocket would be called heavy commercial rocket a decade ago, and is competition to Heavy Falcon for payloads beyond LEO [because it’s got LH2/LOX second stage and it’s new and improved second stage being tested].
It’s the same engine which going used for New Glenn rocket- which would be rightfully called a heavy commercial rocket which suppose to lift more to LEO [and beyond] than the Falcon Heavy. And you call it competition for Starship in regards to lunar missions.
But there no competition for Starship [if it successfully does more test launches] for Mars.
Well, New Glenn is suppose to be reusable, which includes it’s second stage. I said no competition because Starship can aerobrake at Mars and land without using much rocket power to land. But if New Glenn can recover it’s second stage, then it to can aerobrake at Mars {in theory] also. And problem could related to boil off of LH2, but that seems rather minor IF New Glenn can recover it’s second stage by re-entering from Earth orbit.
For decades Mars fans, have said, getting to Mars is cheaper than getting to Moon, because you can use Mars atmosphere.
Or true, if robotic payload is small and can use a parachute, but landing anything over ton, hasn’t been done, and there “plans” which might do, more 10 tons, but they are just wild plans.
Anyways you need to do 10 ton to Mars surface, to do crewed Mars.
Starship is designed to do 100 tons to Mars surface. But New Glenn could do, tens of tons to Mars surface [maybe] and could do many tens of tons to Mars orbit.
But I think you need artificial gravity for crewed Mars missions.
Bezos, unlike Musk could test artificial gravity. Bezos could because he doesn’t talk much- and Musk doesn’t even mention it.
And Musk could done it, years ago. And Bezos hasn’t done more than suborbital, yet.
Nobody
Nobody will go to the Moon, again??
Btw, as far as 2023 robotic lunar landers:
” More missions will be attempting landings this year. India will try again with its Chandrayaan-3 mission launching this summer. Japan is launching its first lander, the Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM), as soon as August. And Russia will launch its first lunar lander mission since 1976 with the long-delayed Luna-25 mission later this year, even if theres widespread skepticism about its chances for success (see Russia returns to the Moon (maybe), The Space Review, March 13, 2023).
Landing on the Moon is very challenging. Its not easy to do, Kearns said. But I will tell you that all of these companies that NASA has awarded particular task orders to to deliver have put great effort into this.
The brightest spotlight, though, is likely going to be on American companies backed by NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Astrobotics Peregrine lander and Intuitive Machines IM-1 mission are both scheduled to launch this summer as the first missions by those companies and the first in the overall CLPS program, intended to stimulate the development of lunar landers with NASA as one of potentially many customers.
In fact, if all had gone according to earlier plans, Peregrine would have been launching this week. In February, United Launch Alliance announced it set a May 4 date for the inaugural launch of its Vulcan Centaur rocket, carrying Peregrine as well as two experimental satellites for Amazons Project Kuiper broadband constellation. That launch, though, is on hold after a fireball erupted from another Centaur upper stage being tested by ULA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in late March. ULA says it now expects the launch to take place no earlier than June or July.”
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4576/1
Instead of trying to figure out how to settle moons and planets, you could more easily populate Wyoming & Nebraska.
Would you want to populate Wyoming and Nebraska?
The daughter of a friend fell in love with a hunter from Wyoming and moved from Ireland to be with him. Unfortunately the locals were very unfriendly and the insects far too friendly so she moved back to Ireland.
Nobody is trying to figure out how to settle Moons and planets- but I would say you need to find mineable water to settle anywhere in space. There also other requirements.
You don’t have to settle the Moon, to use the Moon for many things, but use the moon for a lot things, you need to find mineable water- or launch costs. Or mineable water on the Moon, would lower launch costs to the Moon.
Mineable water on Mars is not really about lowering the launch costs to Mars.
The interest in Mars is mostly about settling Mars, and cheaper water is needed to settle Mars. Cheaper water is still fairly expensive water as compared to water on Earth.
Another interest in Mars is did it or does it have life.
If there is life on Mars, it’s possible humans can’t live on Mars anytime, soon. So, one could say need to find life on Mars and determine if that life is a threat to human or life in general on Earth. Most imagine that only extinct life could exist on Mars- and it would be scientific usefulness to find it.
I don’t hold this view. I think what important is, does this life a problem related to living on Mars. And I think it’s more likely their is life on the moons of Jupiter- and tend to think it’s at best 50% chance. But again, if there is life, it’s most important factor is it a threat to human existence. Or not life is better than alien life, but have consider the potential threat of it. So, I would say finding alien life is not a high priority in near term- except in regards to it, potentially could be harmful. I am also against gain function research on viruses.
But back to Mars water, I think cheap Mars water is about $1000 per ton, and cheap enough lunar water is about $500,000 per ton.
And assumption would be that over decade of time, the water would become a lot cheaper. So, if there enough water which mineable, eventually it could become as cheap as water on Earth.
In terms of living in Venus orbit, imported water could start at around 100,000 per ton, and eventually be much cheaper than water on Earth.
Why do the usual suspects bombard this site every month with grave and wise prognostication?
Are you all horse racing or stock market or casino gamblers predictably losing money, seeking a money-free surrounding to babble about your chicken entrails procedures?
When will you learn that you cannot predict these monthly UAH values? If you have a temporary flush of success with the global values you will likely flunk some of the regional figures. The Monckton pause over Australia is now 11 years.
You cannot properly quantify variables that you think are influencing temperatures because you cannot show that you know all of them. You cannot use ML values of CO2 as a variable because they are screened and not properly representative of CO2 in some locations that might matter. Also, we continue to lack an accepted equation T = f(CO2) +/- error.
I had a chuckle the other day from a new pharmacy product named “Pregnisticate”. At least you can test its forecasting skill within 9 months.
Geoff S
I do it because it is hard and I learn a lot in doing so.
bdgwx,
I learned to knit to get a Boy Scout badge.
Geoff S
What did you learn when you tried predicting monthly UAH values? What is the best root mean square difference you were able to achieve?
bdgwx,
I did not ever try to predict future UAH values.
All my life I have seen failure after failure of predictions of weather from one day to the next.
This leaves no hope for an exercise like yours, but please keep at it because it diverts you from more serious enterprise.
Geoff S
The noise in the data is very large, and I believe it is real. I think the actual temperature of the atmosphere really does vary that much over all time scales due to many factors including random chaos. There seem to be random thermodynamic effects, of which thermal radiation is probably just one. The only thing that has a clear and distinct indication over the history of the data set is ENSO. The long term drift could be due to many different factors. The most likely candidates are ocean current cycles and greenhouse gases in some combination.
It’s weather. It’s been known you can’t predict global average temperature, because one is suppose to 30 year average of them.
BUT global climate temperature is easy to predict.
Global climate temperature is the average temperature of the entire ocean- which is about 3.5 C.
And more than 90% of all global warming is warming our cold ocean.
Our cold ocean is why we are in an Ice Age- which also called a icehouse global climate.
I agree the oceans are extremely important. That is why I mentioned ocean current cycles and ENSO.
Here is the lower troposphere over Australia, updated with the April estimate.
No warming for 11 years now.
Please explain (but please do not guess).
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahmay2023.jpg
What’s there to explain?… it is what it is.
Start 4 months earlier and the trend is 0.10 C/decade, start 4 months later and the trend is -0.16 C/decade.
Here is the trend Apr 2012 – Apr 2023 trend with statistical significance included, ordinary least squares.
-0.01 C/decade (+/- 0.26)
The range of possible trends for that period of time to 95% CI is -0.27 to 0.25 C/decade.
Short answer – the variability in the data makes it impossible to determine any underlying warming trend, cooling trend or neither.
barry,
You wrote –
“Short answer the variability in the data makes it impossible to determine any underlying warming trend, cooling trend or neither.”
That’s reality for you.
Depends on your timescale. For most of the temperature datasets the variability of the data is similar in size to the decadal warming trend.
Over the short term, a decade or less, the trend is smaller than the variation and any trend will not be statistically significant.
For significance you need a multi-decade timescale. Thus a 0.13C rise in the last decade of UAH data is not significant, while a 0.26C rise over 20 years or the 0.6C rise over 45 years are significant.
This makes Monkton pauses rather meaningless because they rarely last longer than a decade. They are measuring short term variability rather than the long term trend and are not significant.
Absolutely. For example, over the longest possible interval, the Earth has obviously cooled – the surface is no longer molten.
Over a much shorter period, the midday surface is warmer than the overnight minimum.
What are you trying to say (apart from the blindingly obvious)?
Swenson.
You really don’t get this , do you?
The period over which you need to gather data depends on what you want to measure.
If you want to know how much the Earth has cooled since its formation you need 4.5 billion years of data.
If you want to measure day/night variation you collect data over days.
If you want to measure seasonal variation you collect data over years.
If you want to measure current long term trends in global temperature the internal variation and the decadal trend are both about 0.2C. To be confident that you can separate the long term trend from the short term variation you need about 30 years of data.
Ent, how many passenger jets flew backwards today?
Yesterday?
The weeks, months, and years before?
How much data do you need to admit you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll?
EM,
You wrote –
“The period over which you need to gather data depends on what you want to measure.”
Any fool can measure a “trend”, and many do.
Just spouting vague nonsense like “To be confident that you can separate the long term trend from the short term variation you need about 30 years of data.” doesn’t really say much at all, does it?
Although you avoid saying so, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with Gavin Schmidt’s paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, or something similar, which you can’t actually describe!
You seem to be as besotted as Bindidon, and others, with performing basic arithmetical operations on historic temperature records for no good reason at all. I repeat, what are you trying to say?
If you are trying to convince people that you can predict the future, good luck. Anybody who believes you deserves what they get.
E man
“They are measuring short term variability rather than the long term trend and are not significan”
not significant for what?
Geoff S
Geoff,
I wonder how you would answer this question.
The temperature trend for Australia from 2006 to present is 0.26 C/decade.
Please explain?
* 0.23 C/decade
The temperature has risen?
The methods of measuring temperatures has produced higher temperatures?
The equipment used for measuring temperatures is faulty?
The temperature sensors are not actually measuring the air temperature at all?
The temperature measuring equipment output is being used by people with a conscious or unconscious bias towards believing in some mythical “greenhouse effect”, resulting in “adjustments” being applied?
You posed the gotcha, but I’m sure you have a ready answer (wrong, of course).
What is your explanation?
I’ve already given it.
barry asks “The temperature trend for Australia from 2006 to present is 0.26 C/decade. Please explain?”
No, I will not answer that question because it does not relate to mine.
My question was about a pause in the numbers for 11 years.
If there is to be a turning poiunt in these numbers, as in a positve trend being replaced by a cooling trend, one might expect a term of little change between.
Nothing to do with cherry picking start dates to make a point. I don’t do those silly arguments.
Geoff S
Of course it relates to your question. It includes the entire time-period in your question, it’s the same data, and the same question, but the trend is different.
I answered you, is it so difficult to return the courtesy?
Geoff,
“Here is the lower troposphere over Australia, updated with the April estimate.
No warming for 11 years now.
Please explain (but please do not guess).”
Australia weather is more strongly influenced by ENSO, than the globe as a whole.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/images/La-Nina-in-Australia.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/images/El-Nino-in-Australia.pdf
The high T in the middle of your selected period are when El Nino dominated, and the low T at the start and end are La Nina dominated.
Overall the decade was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than the one prior to that.
Long term Australia warming trend.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.0112.53715.png
ENSO and SOI are a zero prediction game.
No one knows.
Roy measures the surface temp changes every day.
The increase in heat or decrease in heat of the ocean surface comes from how much energy the sun is allowed to provide each and every day.
A combination of sun temperature first and foremost,
followed by cloud cover and finally atmospheric winds.
At 0 C there is a 50% chance of a rise or fall, full stop.
El Nino and La Nina are predicated on a 5 month rise of temps
over 0.8 C.
This deviation from the base line has some where between 20 and 25% chance occurring either way over a year.
Hence taking the 205 model we have one La Nina and one El Nino every 5 years.
–
Easy to see why predictions early in the year are so unreliable.
BOM and all others fit smooth curves to a falling slope and predict the outcome 5 months ahead on the basis of that slope.
The higher it was and the steeper it falls the more they predict massive El Ninos, each year, and get it right one in 5.
–
The range of values is known and unpredictable.
Not one service predicted the 3 La Nina’s, weak though they are in advance.
Not one.
–
Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.
At any stage the likelihood can be predicted by trend followers until of course the trend changes, like now actually.
Where will it go/
50% upwards.
50% downwards.
Always from the moment one is in.
The tren away from the line dictates it goes further away.
Probability says the further it deviates from the mean the more pressure to come back.
Hence Random walk theory applies
“Roy measures the surface temp changes every day”
Oh no he doesn’t. He “measures” temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.
Antonin Qwerty
“He measures temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.”
–
What a nit picking comment.
–
If he adds a 30% contribution from the surface, your quote not mine,
Then he must have measured the surface temperature to get that accurate contribution.
–
I believe the TLT is a product from a combination of at least 4 different satellite measuring sources at different altitudes and related anyway to pressure more than altitude.
It is reported above as a global temperature.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly.
If I refer to it as a surface temperature. The troposphere is the lowest layer of our atmosphere. Starting at ground level, it extends upward to about 10 km (6.2 miles or about 33,000 feet) above sea level.
You will notice that it is adjacent to the surface.
There is as far as I know no true surface measurement since the land stations measure the temperature of the air 2 meters above the ground, and not from the surface it would be even more inappropriate to refer to them as surface measurements as well.
–
Sill, keep picking those nits if that is what you need to do.
It ain’t nitpicking matey. The stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms. Satellites measure temperatures averaged about 30% of the way to the tropopause. “Coincidentally” the UAH trend is about 30% less than the surface temperature trend.
AQ,
Are you really so detached from reality that you think anybody has actually measured a “global surface temperature” at all?
Go on, tell me what it was yesterday. The day before?
You idiot, 70% of the surface is covered by ocean, just for starters! You are possibly referring to foolish SkyDragon cultists, who redefine “surface” to mean something other than the surface, and who believe that thermometers surrounded by air somehow measure air temperatures!
You are probably even deluded enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air results in an increase of temperature!
What a fool you are! Do you really believe Gavin Schmidt’s nonsensical paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”?
A rhetorical question – of course you do!
Carry on.
Basically it is like people following the sharemarket who adopt the same faulty techniques.
Exemplified by two comments.
Past performance is no guarantee of future outcomes and
the trend is your friend [until it is not].
Javier mistakes climate conditions as being drivers of ENSO like financial reports are drivers of share value.
Following the trends from past similar situations gives you a trend, a direction, but both current temperatures and depth temperatures and trade winds are responses to the real drivers.
Just like financial reports show where the company was in the recent past, not the Bud light advertising or the cryptocurrency management going on in real time.
This is why the SOI did a series of recent fluctuations in what the BOM can only forecast as a strong smooth dip.
Change can occur suddenly at any time in the real drivers of the climate, the daily sun output, the amount of clouds and where they are and to a much lesser extent winds and currents.
They are the real drivers, that is why the sudden reversals occur.
angech,
If you have a spread out portfolio and you wait long enough you will make money.
Like the sharemarket, you can predict it will get warmer, but you can’t predict the exact trajectory of each share/region, or make a low-risk prediction in a short time-frame.
barry,
You wrote –
“If you have a spread out portfolio and you wait long enough you will make money.”
As to the share market, you possibly don’t realise that the companies forming any index are constantly changing, with poor performers being dropped, and replaced with better ones.
Some people convince themselves that they cannot lose if they invest with a fund which tracks the index – the index is rigged to get rid of losers, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, even a body looking after about eight trillion dollars, and administering index funds, says –
“All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of funds will meet your investment objectives or provide you with a given level of income.”
The only people guaranteed to benefit are the people administering the money, and they have to work for a living, bleeding suckers like you.
The future is unknowable. If you are silly enough to believe that someone else will work to give you money while you sit on your backside telling yourself how clever you are, good luck to you! You no doubt fully deserve whatever you get.
You’ve missed the point yet again.
“Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.”
Strange idea. Evidence?
Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.
Nate
If the sun gets a little bit warmer then the earth and its surface get a little bit warmer.
When we have an El Nino the earth surface gets a little bit warmer.
One of them is actually increasing the energy.
The other is a response to the increased energy.
Then you have no evidence of the linkage that you suggested?
Nate
If you cannot understand the link between the sun being responsible for the temperature of the earth surface then no one can help you.
If you refuse to believe it you are being wilfully obtuse.
Since your comments show you refuse to believe it you are will fully obtuse.
–
The motivation to being so is of interest.
Since you can read and write you have thinking capacity and understand that varying a heat source changes the temperature of the object it is warming.
–
Ergo you do not wish to believe this because reality conflicts with one of your other core beliefs.
What could that be?
–
On this site, on this discussion the implication is that you wish to believe something else magical makes the earth temperature hotter during El Ninos and colder during La Ninas.
–
It cannot be varying the anthropogenic CO2 production unless you can, dare I say it, provide the links.
New hockey stick – Lord Monckton pause included
https://i.postimg.cc/3RVJ2vQt/foxstick.jpg
For the benefit of Richard M:
You claimed that the AMO has a greater effect on temperatures than the PDO.
In the following scatter plots, each point is a 5-year period
(1855-59, 1860-64, 1865-69, etc.)
For each period is graphed the average AMO/PDO against how much the average NOAA surface temperature changed over that of the previous 5 years, and provided the correlation coefficient.
AMO:
https://tinyurl.com/AMO-vs-Delta-NOAA
PDO:
https://tinyurl.com/PDO-vs-Delta-NOAA
Yuk, I didn’t proof that last paragraph.
For each 5-year period, the average AMO/PDO is graphed against the change in average NOAA surface temperature over that of the previous 5 year period. The correlation coefficient is also provided.
The temperature in Antarctica is dropping very quickly. In July, the Earth is the farthest from the Sun in orbit.
Low temperatures in the upper stratosphere above 60 S.
Latest (2023/05/02) 1-day area-weighted 2m temperature anomalies calculated from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) and CFS Reanalysis (CFSR). The anomaly values fluctuate day-to-day and week-to-week depending on prevailing weather patterns. For context, daily temperatures for the domains below are available via interactive charts for the entire CFS/CFSR 1979present record. Anomalies are based on 19792000 climatology for the specific day of the year.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
World Northern Hemisphere Arctic
+ 0.44 C + 0.59 C + 1.98 C
Tropics Southern Hemisphere Antarctic
+ 0.47 C + 0.29 C – 1.79 C
Current temperature in Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/vc3y4fk/gfs-spole-sat-t2-d1.png
Thanks for today’s WEATHER report.
What else do you expect, Palmowski?
It’s October there in the Southern Hemisphere.
An hemisphere dominated by cold oceans, colder circumpolar currents, and coldest surfaces on Earth’s greatest ice sheet.
Nevertheless, your nice coloured DAILY temperature graphs are permanently contradicted by UAH’s LT data over the last decade.
While the South Pole shows no warming at all in the LT since 1979, it shows 0.11 C / decade since 2013.
Is there any reason why you never show how the Antarctic Sea Ice behaves?
La Nina conditions continue in the atmosphere.
The first tropical storms will hit Southeast Asia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif
NEUTRAL conditions persist in the TROPICAL PACIFIC atmosphere.
But the winds in the Pacific still blow from East to West.
Tropical Pacific at the equator I mean.
As they do for all but VERY STRONG El Ninos.
It is only during La Nina that clouds in the equatorial Pacific are pushed over so far west, due to strong easterly winds.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
For starters, precipitable water is not cloud.
Secondly, that statement is just wrong.
During El Nino (above, left), the trade winds decrease, ocean water piles up off South America, the sea surface temperature increases in the eastern Pacific, and there is a shift in the prevailing rain pattern from the western Pacific to the western Central Pacific. During La Nina (above, right), the trade winds increase, ocean water piles up in the western Pacific, the sea surface temperature decreases in the eastern Pacific, and the prevailing rain pattern also shifts farther west than normal. (Courtesy of NOAA National Weather Service.)
https://pacificislandsclimate.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/figure1-41.jpg
https://pirca.org/2016/04/07/what-happens-during-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/#prettyPhoto
Yes – thanks for the lesson. Next time pick something I don’t know.
Now justify your claim:
“It is ONLY during La Nina that clouds in the equatorial Pacific are pushed over so far west, due to strong easterly winds.”
Are you claiming that it never rains in the eastern equatorial Pacific outside La Nina?
Antonin Qwerty you know nothing about climate.
https://i.ibb.co/qnrfqfx/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-03-195206.png
Says the person who always presents WEATHER events as climate.
The ONLY thing you talk about is weather.
You may have noticed that temperature anomalies are calculated using a baseline average. This is based on a thirty year mean.
For UAH this is 1991-2020. For GISS it is 1951-1980.
Using a 30 year mean is not accidental. It reflects the need to pull a reliable baseline mean out of decadally variable data. Calculating your baseline mean using thirty years of data makes it considerably more reliable.
How many years are there between 1980 and now?
Are you asking why Dr Spencer has chosen not to use a 40 year baseline? If so, do you want me to answer that for you?
I am observing that Roy has updated to using the current 30 year period whereas GISS has not.
And do you believe that one baseline is preferable to the other?
If so, why?
Why is it that GISS has not followed the standard recommendation?
RLH, probably for similar reasons considered by HCRUT using 1961-1990, BEST using 1951-1980, or NOAA using 1971-2000. Actually it appear like there is not much of a standard at all.
RLH
Who says there is a “standard recommendation”?
Who recommends changing the baseline every ten years, and what is the reason?
I’m also curious about this ‘standard recommendation.’ Does it apply to all fields that use time series, or just global climate study?
An obviously good reason to keep the baseline you started with is to make easier data comparisons over the years the set is maintained.
The WMO would disagree
“Climate normals are presently updated once every 30 years, and the current official climate normal period is 1961-1990. The resulting averaged data are called WMO Climatological Standard Normals.”
“NCEI generates the official U.S. normals every 10 years in keeping with the needs of our user community and the requirements of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and National Weather Service (NWS). The 19912020 U.S. Climate Normals are the latest in a series of decadal normals first produced in the 1950s.”
NCEI changes it every 10 years.
The WMO again
“Climatological standard normals: Averages of climatological data computed for the following consecutive periods of 30 years: 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2010, 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2020, etc. (Technical Regulations).”
The WMO again (again)
“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has updated the U.S. Climate Normals to the 1991-2020 baseline period to provide a most recent baseline for climate information and services to climate-sensitive sectors and a standard reference to compare variations in temperature, precipitation etc to the 30-year average.”
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate
The WMO again:
“Together with an array of other decisions and recommendations on climate data, monitoring and science, the WMO Commission for Climatology is therefore recommending that WMO adopt a new global standard of making decadal updates of climate normals for most purposes, while at the same time maintaining the 1961-1990 period as a stable reference for monitoring long-term climate variability and change…
Maintaining 1961-1990 as the base period for monitoring and assessing long-term climate variability and change would promote a better understanding of changes over the course of this century and beyond. The 1961-1990 reference period would be retained for climate change purposes until there is a compelling scientific case for changing it.”
The decadal/tri-decadal updates are a recommendation, not a standard, and not standard practise at all for long-term global climate monitoring.
“at the same time maintaining the 1961-1990 period as a stable reference for monitoring long-term climate variability and change”
And presumably publishing what the differences in the 2 reference periods are. Over land and sea.
I believe the 2017 recommendations from WMO are the most recent, though I could be wrong.
“A 1981-2010 averaging period is much more likely to be representative of conditions in 2017 than the 19611990 period. On the other hand, there are clear benefits of using a stable benchmark as a reference point for long-term datasets, both in practical terms (not having to recalculate anomaly-based datasets every 10years), and in terms of communication an “above average” year does not suddenly become “below average” because of a change in reference period. As these two primary purposes of climate normals have become mutually inconsistent in terms of their requirements for a suitable averaging period, WMO has decided that both should be calculated (subject to availability of data).”
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4166
“WMO has decided that both should be calculated”
Does GISS do that?
GISS doesn’t have to do that. It is a mind numbingly simple calculation that everyone should be to do on their own.
WMO: “WMO has decided that both should be calculated”
RLH: Does GISS do that?
I don’t believe so. Neither does UAH.
“Q. Why does GISS stay with the 1951-1980 base period?
A. The primary focus of the GISS analysis are long-term temperature changes over many decades and centuries, and a fixed base period yields anomalies that are consistent over time.
However, organizations like the NWS, who are more focused on current weather conditions, work with a time frame of days, weeks, or at most a few years. In that situation it makes sense to move the base period occasionally, i.e., to pick a new ‘normal’ so that roughly half the data of interest are above normal and half below.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q102
” Who recommends changing the baseline every ten years, and what is the reason? ”
1. It is WMO.
2. The reason to regularly move the reference period forward is that then you can integrate newer data into your anomaly time series.
*
But the reason for GISS to keep anomalies wrt 1951-1980 is that this period is very rich in data. The more stations are active within a period, the more data you can collect to generate anomalies out of single station data, and the more valuable the resulting time series then will become.
*
A typical example is sea level data processing.
After a steady historical increase of tide gauge stations providing valid data for processing (vertical land motion correction, minimum lifetime, data for anomaly constructions for a given period) from the beginning until about 2010, since then their number has decreased dramatically.
A possible explanation for this decrease could be that tide gauge managers are less interested in reporting data to the permanent sea level monitoring system, as satellite-age tide gauge data show trends very similar to satellite altimetry.
There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.
Who told that, Blindsley Hood?
What about trying to READ before you write?
*
You can easily construct a 1991-2020 baseline out of GHCN V4 stations, but it won’t be as accurate as a 1951-1980 baseline because you have more stations active during that period.
But it is always easy to displace a complete anomaly time series from one reference period to another when you have data for both periods.
The 1991-2020 displacement for an anomaly-based time series over 1880-2023 wrt 1951-1980 is equal to the sum of all anomalies for the period 1991-2020.
Your problem is that you never constructed any anomaly time series by your own and thus keep guessing about what they really mean.
“you never constructed any anomaly time series by your own”
Sure. Blinny goes off on one of his rants again.
” Sure. Blinny goes off on one of his rants again. ”
No, Blindsley Hood: I simply tell the truth.
You never presented ANY anomaly-based time series – be it for USCRN or HadISST1 SST data, let alone for any other data like METEOSTAT, GHCN, PSMSL, A(nta)rctic Sea Ice, Greenland’s ice sheet mass balance or any one else.
Never.
Blinny knows better. There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.
This is of no interest here, Blindsley Hood, as you can compare GISS, NOAA, Had-CRUT etc anomalies to UAH anomalies by displacing the former to the mean of UAH’s reference period.
You still didn’t grasp this point: exactly like Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and the Pseudomod failed to grasp what you surprisingly seem to have understood concerning the lunar spin.
This presumes that satellites are not capable of more accurately measuring T over the oceans.
I don’t think any presumption was made either way.
Really. So what is the measuring density of non satellite T over the oceans historically?
Do you go through phases in your life where you become fixated on things, and people ask you why you are obsessing about stuff that is only tangentially related to the conversation? Just wondering if this dissociative behaviour happens to you beyond this blog.
Bindidon
That WMO reference is only for the reporting of WEATHER.
They say: “it is necessary to update the climate normals for operational services for decision-making, for example for as forecasts of peak energy load and recommendations on crop selection and planting times.”
They then say: “However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”
And for RLH
Note that STAR has recently updated their reference periods which effects the 1961-1990 period quite a lot.
“removal of spurious calibration drifting errors in NOAA-15, NOAA-14, NOAA-12, and NOAA-11 through recalibration”
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Readme_STAR_V5.0_Mean_Layer_Temperature_CDR.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JD037472
Newer series tend to be more accurate than previous ones.
“Zou et al. (2021) developed a TMT time series using satellite microwave sounders only in stable sun-synchronous orbits which covers the period from 2002 to present. Such a TMT time series has an accuracy of 0.01 K/decade in trend detection, exceeding the GCOS (2016) stability requirements of 0.02 K/decade. As a result, this time series can be used as a reference measurement for climate variability and atmospheric temperature trends for the period from 2002 to present.”
Which has nothing to do with my post, which was ONLY about what advice the WMO did or din’t give.
No need.
Thirty years is a compromise.
A shorter period would reduce confidence by increasing the effect of variability.
A longer period would reduce the ability to resolve changes in the rate of change.
Not sure what you mean by your final sentence. NOAA uses a 100 year baseline period. A baseline is just a zero point – nothing more. Changing the baseline merely shifts all data up or down by the same amount. I think you’re confusing the baseline with a running average.
Quite possible. Let me illustrate my point using sea level data.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Note the quadratic fit on the graph.The slope increases over time, illustrating acceleration in the rate of change.
If you measure the overall slope the rate of rise is 3.4mm/year.
Measure the initial slope and you get 3mm/year. Measure the most recent slope and you get 5mm/year.
If I used the whole graph for my baseline calculation I would see no acceleration.
If I split the graph into equal early and late periods I would see acceleration, but probably underestimate it. Shorter baselines allow me to see more detail in the acceleration profile.
Unfortunately too short a baseline period would reduce confidence as any trend, or variation in the trend, becomes lost in the noise.
I really don’t think you understand what a baseline is.
The baseline is merely the range of data which is averaged to determine the zero point, though I don’t know how that was determined in your example.
Let’s say I have the following data values:
6, 7, 3, 8, 1, 5, 9, 7, 12, 12
And let’s say I determine the baseline to be the first 5 values.
The average of those first five values is 5.
So I set that to zero, meaning 5 is subtracted from each value:
1, 2, -2, 3, -4, 0, 4, 2, 7, 3
If I instead decided to use all values (average 7) for my baseline, then I would set that average to zero, meaning 7 is subtracted from each value:
-1, 0, -4, 1, -6, -2, 2, 0, 5, -2
There is no loss of resolution, just a shift.
I understand exactly what phenomenon you are describing, but “baseline” is not the correct word for describing it.
You’ve got something wrong, Ant.
You last value in the series doesn’t work. For example:
12 – 5 ≠ 3
And,
12 – 7 ≠ -2
Wow mate – I guess that voids my whole explanation.
Ugh ….
Possibly. Or maybe you’re commenting so much the quality drops off — as in quantity over quality.
Just speculating about the second order consequences of choosing different periods of time when calculating baseline temperatures.
Have you any thoughts on the optimum design of baselines for global temperature anomalies?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Wow mate I guess that voids my whole explanation.
Ugh .”
Or it just shows that your grasp of arithmetic is about average for a SkyDragon cultist.
Either that, or you are demonstrating sloppiness and ineptitude, and then trying to dismiss your failings by being sarcastic!
Not a good look, AQ, not a good look.
Pretty sure you’re not the one who should be commenting about quantity. What’s wrong? Did you not understand the explanation?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Pretty sure youre not the one who should be commenting about quantity. Whats wrong? Did you not understand the explanation?”
Well gee. You’re “pretty sure” about whether someone should be commenting or not!
Good for you! I’m “pretty sure” nobody at all values your opinion at all.
If you can provide any evidence to show that you are not a complete fool, feel free to produce it.
[laughing at pretentious dimwit]
Entropic,
Are you thinking of the practise of using monthly averages to determine baselines for temperature anomalies? I can see that using, say, one year’s worth of data for the baseline, and then choosing a different year could result in wildly different trends for the same period (say 30 years).
30 years is a good minimum, as the uncertainty in trends over that period reduce to negligible, so the monthly averages would not change a whole lot between different 30-year baseline periods. We looked at that when the baseline for UAH changed, and there was a difference in the resulting trends, but only to 3 decimal places.
Newer series tend to be more accurate than previous ones.
Zou et al. (2021) developed a TMT time series using satellite microwave sounders only in stable sun-synchronous orbits which covers the period from 2002 to present. Such a TMT time series has an accuracy of 0.01 K/decade in trend detection, exceeding the GCOS (2016) stability requirements of 0.02 K/decade. As a result, this time series can be used as a reference measurement for climate variability and atmospheric temperature trends for the period from 2002 to present.
That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but your advocacy is noted.
You are using the word acceleration far too loosely. Also, you are placing too much faith in the ability of satellite telemetry to measure sea level rise. You simply cannot calculate acceleration from the rate of change of a fairly linear graph. What you are seeing is a variation in the small-scale linearity of a simple curve.
The sats that produce UAH data are measuring O2 levels over several kilometres of atmosphere and they are not trying to measure depth per se. The depth is calculated from the frequencies received from O2 and not the distance itself.
When an ocean is varying in level, sometimes up to a hundred feet during severe weather, it is impossible to measure in millimetres. They are surely using a good deal of guestimates to arrive at such precise measurements. That is further complicated by variations in the satellite altitudes.
Did Central England start to get built up only after 1985?
https://tinyurl.com/psa4crua
Interesting.
Most of the early CET data was recorded by gentleman hobbyists at their country houses so UHI would not be a factor.
But 1985?
That suggests that UHI was not a factor even in current CET temperatures.
If changes in emission from the Sun were the primary cause of the long term warming trend, surely we would see an 11 year climate cycle following the 11 year sunspot cycle.
FWIW my machine learning model for predicting UAH values does pick up on an ever so slight contribution from TSI. The standard deviation of the effect is only 0.02 C though.
Read Zharkova on that, it is more complex than what you stated. Just as the axes of planetary orbits vary over time in the direction they point, so do the cycles of sunspots vary with time.
During the Little Ice Age, there were apparently two major peaks. The last occurred near the end of the 17th century and the LIA ended circa 1850. That’s about 50 years between the peak and the end. From what I have read from Zharkova, we are on our way to a similar peak (sunspot minimum) and it should recover by 2050.
I hope she’s wrong and that’s from a skeptic.
Zharkova says the global average temperature will drop by 1.0 C in as little as 8 years.
She would have been wrong- but I think she changed her mind about that. I would say she thinks temperature could return to 1970-80s which about .5 C.
I guess should look at it:
“Similarly to Maunder Minimum, as discussed above, the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25-27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020-2053) and four solar cycles from the second modern grand minimum (2370-2415). This, in turn, can lead to a drop of the terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0oC from the current temperature during the next three cycles (25-27) of grand minimum 1.”
{so 20 years from now} continuing:
“Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0oC from the current temperature, which was grown by 1.4oC since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4oC higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is finished, the solar activity in cycle 28 will be restored to normal in the rather short but powerful grand solar cycle lasting between 2053 and 2370, as shown in Figure 3, before it approaches the next grand solar minimum 2 in 2370.”
https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
But somewhere she did talk of shorter time periods and I believe
it was what I said.
I tend we stay flat to decreasing a bit over next 10 years, if throw in some huge eruptions, maybe .5 C
This was a recent prediction.
Zharkova 2020: Modern Grand Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling – DOI: 10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
Zharkova discusses it later, or she learned more about global climate issues later- it’s not her field.
This is later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj4whLHXYes
And it’s long [about 2 hr, but she gets to point by about 28 min
point.
I will note the Little Ice Age started much earlier than 1750 when
this last grand min occurred. Also what she talking in terms coldest
is only about 15 year, after this 25 cycle.
And 15 years doesn’t make “global temperatures- and more like dip in 1970’s- when know you the NYT said we are entering an “Ice Age”.
She is actually talking about weather- after this there is longer period of Solar Grand Max- a bigger one than we had in 20th century.
She actually saying in terms of global warming, we going to get a lot warming after Grand Solar Min.
Any how I have different view, about global climate, though I said, if we have solar grand min, it will affect global weather- or I agree about that.
This cycle has already exceeded Zharkova’s predictions for the cycle max, and she stated a tolerance of +/- 2%.
AQ,
Gee, another person unable to predict the unknowable future, is it?
Peer into your crystal ball. Cast the runes.
You aren’t claiming that you can predict future climate states, are you? You can’t even describe the greenhouse effect in any way that agrees with reality, can you?
You can’t explain the present, but you imply that you can predict the future.
Fool.
Zharkova quotes out-of-date reconstructions of the solar constant from 1995 that show it increasing by maximum 3 W/m^2 from the Maunder minimum.
Those reconstructions have been significantly revised since satellite measurements, and current ones show that it increased by only ~ 1 W/m^2 since the Maunder minimum.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JA015431
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTSI_TIM_Reconstruction_20yr_low-pass_box.png
And 1 W/m^2 variation in Solar constant, corresponds to only about 0.25 W/m^2 in average TOA solar flux.
It seems it’s 1 W/m^2 at TOA, it could be 1 W/m^2 at Earth surface.
Or it’s measured at Earth surface and could converted to TOA.
No, 0.25 W/m^2 global average.
Very little heat has been accumulated beneath the surface of the Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202305.gif
What are the forecasts for Australia? So the Earth’s position relative to the Sun affects the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere?
https://i.ibb.co/QrKb697/gfs-T2ma-aus-21.png
Ren…I think you mean the angle of the Earth’s axis in its orbit affects the temperature in the SH. You are being interpreted by alarmists as claiming the position of the Earth in its orbit is affecting the temperature, which is true.
Could it be that El Nino is closer to Australia than the Sun?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/04/australia-could-swing-from-three-years-of-la-nina-to-hot-and-dry-el-nino-in-2023
Back in my days, Sun cycles were applied to the Earth as a whole.
Surely every day is your day!
😎
I was responding to Ren’s “So the Earth’s position relative to the Sun affects the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere?”
You idiots do realise that anthropomorphising patterns in historical weather observations is a sign of “cargo cult” mentality, do you?
Next thing, you’ll be calling for offerings to placate the Drought God, or the Flood God!
Or you could give things like tropical revolving storms human names, and pray to them, or put up large signs telling them to go away!
You SkyDragon cultists are a simple and gullible lot, aren’t you?
Keep praying – maybe you can make the Earth hotter if you sacrifice a few virgins or something.
> Next thing
Are you making a real prediction, Mike Flynn, or are you just ranting with But Religion?
Here:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
If you could clarify what you are braying about, you would have done so a long time ago.
In July, the Earth is 5 million kilometers farther from the Sun than in January.
http://ocs-pl.oktawave.com/v1/AUTH_2887234e-384a-4873-8bc5-405211db13a2/spidersweb/2017/07/punk-odsloneczny.jpg
Yet the UAH July average for the northern hemisphere is greater than the UAH January average for the southern hemisphere.
Gee – is it possible that other factors are also at play? Could it be that nothing is as simplistic as you try to make out?
You are cherry-picking Ren’s posts, he tends to have a broad range of comments re global weather.
Thanks for agreeing that he deals only with weather, not climate.
Ren has offered no indiction he is reporting anything other than weather. It has been you and other alarmists who have freaked out and accused him of anything else.
No indication? Oh really? Perhaps you’d care to explain why he reports ONLY cool events.
AQ,
Gee, could it be that you are trying to be gratuitously offensive?
Do you really think that anybody would waste their time choosing to take offense at the comments of an anonymous dimwit?
I suppose some might.
Oh well.
No, Mike Flynn.
Here is only one commenter who tries to be gratuitously offensive and that is you.
Cheers.
Please don’t respond to the idiot. Just talk over the top of him.
Message is for Willard.
W
Back in my days
Exactly when were your days?
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1370003-memes
The Guardian is an alarmist climate rag. They are praying for an EN.
The Grauniad reported the Bureau of Metrology, Bordo.
Come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Fun to watch all the cult excitement over the upcoming El Niño. They seem pretty sure an EN will somehow “prove” their AGW nonsense.
An El Niño is a natural ocean oscillation. We see both surface and UAH temperatures rise during an EN, but that has NOTHING to do with the bogus GHE. It has to do with how the ocean cools itself. The thermal energy in the warm water at the surface is transferred to the atmosphere and then emitted to space. Never to be seen again.
Other oceans and sections of oceans do the same thing. It’s just that the equatorial Pacific (ENSO region) is the “800# gorilla in the room”.
Not at all mate. El Ninos can only be compared to El Ninos, neutral to neutral, and La Ninas to La Ninas. It was you guys who wanted to compare the recent La Ninas to 2016, believing it “proved” your argument. And it was you guys who have been excited for the past three years. I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits.
Ant, misrepresenting me and making false accusations are troll tactics.
“I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits”
One from the 1850 to 2022 suffice?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg
works for me.
I said where the CLIMATE sits, not ENSO.
AQ,
Who cares what you “said”?
The “climate” doesn’t “sit” anywhere, you nitwit. It’s the statistics of historical weather observations. Weather changes chaotically, so you may be inadvertently trying to “sit” on a strange attractor, thereby showing you are living in a knowledge free zone!
Go on, “say” something else – I don’t mind laughing at your silliness.
How are you going finding a description of the greenhouse effect? Too hard for you, I suppose.
Maybe you could try annoying anyone who asks for a description of the greenhouse effect. Do you think that might help disguising the fact that you are stupid, as well as ignorant?
“I want a long-term neutral ENSO”
“Long-term neutral” means THERE ARE NO EL NINOS OR LA NINAS”.
Why are you so deliberately obtuse?
Or many of both, say from 1850 onwards.
WHAT?? I want to judge where the climate is NOW, not in 1850 or at any other time in that period. I am WAITING FOR the next multi-year ENSO-neutral period.
Is your obtuseness actually deliberate, or are you really that unintelligent? I am beginning to worry for you.
“One from the 1850 to 2022 suffice?”
That’s not a long-term neutral ENSO. That’s the whole series, with el Ninos and la Ninas, too.
I believe Antonin means a ~2-year neutral phase, which happen fairly regularly throughout the record (most recently 2012-14). This gives enough time for the GST response to relax. The longest neutral phase since 1950 is 4 years, 1959-63.
Many of both fulfills the requirement too.
Nonsense. What do you think Antonin wants to determine? Seems you’ve forgotten.
Just about all warming since 1998 can be explained by ENs and their after-effects. The after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years. You can hardly claim such warming as being produced by anthropogenic sources. That’s especially true since the 2016 EN came on the back of an 18 years flat trend.
Please provide PROOF that “the after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years”, without simply ASSERTING that the higher temperatures is “proof”.
AQ,
Asking for “PROOF” are you? You do realise that the scientific method does not work like that, do you?
In case you live in a fantasy world, here’s what a guy called Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
In the absence of experimental support, one ASSERTION is as valuable as any other ASSERTION. Shouting (using CAPITALS) doesn’t make your ASSERTION any more factual.
Another smart guy, Richard Feynman, 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.”
You don’t even appear to have a hypothesis, let alone a theory! Running around just trying to make others look stupid won’t change the fact that you can’t even specify what you are attempting to achieve. Can you name anyone who values the anonymous opinions of a dim nitwit like you?
How hard can it be?
aq…”Please provide PROOF that the after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years…”
***
Look at the 1998 EN. It rose to a peak then immediately descended to below the baseline, where it began. Then, for some unknown reason, it rebounded to about 2.5C (before UAH baseline re-adjustment).
The average remained about 2.5C for another 18 years, before the 2016 EN drove it up again. This time the global average did not immediately drop to it previous value. It varied up and down with two sine wave shapes (re running average curve) for the next 6 years at an elevated global average.
The evidence since 1998 dismissed the AGW warming meme. There is no explanation for why global warming would suddenly go flat for 18 years. A far better explanation is variations in the ocean oscillations. If you look at it closely, there has been little or no warming since 1998.
Starting at -0.3C in 1979 and considering 4.4 decades of coverage, we have 4.4 (0.13C/decade) = 0.57C warming. That takes you from -0.3 to +0.27C in 2023. The 0.27C represents true warming since 1998 when the UAH anomalies officially changed from -ve to +ve. That’s 2.5 decades, so the real warming since 1998 is about 0.11C/decade.
However, most of that is accounted for by the 2016 EN and its after effects. No evidence of CO2 warming I can see.
“There is no explanation for why global warming would suddenly go flat for 18 years.”
Sure there is, from Roy Spencer himself.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
If you want to find the longest possible non-positive trend, you just pick a point in a time series to start from that is a very high anomaly.
1998 is just such a cherry-pick.
Start your trend in 1997 or 1999 and suddenly you get a warming trend.
What there is no explanation for is why some ‘skeptics’ don’t understand statistics.
If you want to find an even more recent non-warming trend, guess which year is the prime cherry-pick to start your trend from? That’s right. 2016.
barry,
Your touching faith in “statistics” is admirable, but irrelevant.
The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and therefore you can obtain any trend you like – just by picking appropriate start and end points.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC.
You are free to believe that you are right, and that the IPCC is wrong. What authority are you going to appeal to?
None at all? Colour me unsurprised!
Did you post in the wrong thread? Nothing you said is about the topic on this thread.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits.”
Want in one hand, pee in the other, see which fills up first.
See where the climate “sits”? You can’t even describe this “climate”, can you?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, donkey. It’s numbers which can be derived by a 12 year old. Some fools believe they can predict the future state of the atmosphere by examining the past.
Are you one such fool, or just a wayfaring troll, attempting (but failing) to be annoying?
Go on, describe the “greenhouse effect” in a way which accords with reality. Can’t do it, can you?
Pathetic.
Mike Flynn,
So you cant find it for yourself? What effect are you talking about? Are you asking for another sammich than the one you kept asking for more than a decade here and elsewhere?
Have you watched the video yet?
Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you only pretending, because you are stupid?
Antonin Qwerty
” I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits. ”
Sorry: the ENSO time series are in puncto climate not at all representative for the Globe – neither NINO3+4 nor MEI’s region.
*
Look for example at a comparison of NCEP’s Nino3+4 data to HadISST’s data for the Globe:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oJwePq2gSmRNItNczSnlQkoClMr6UL32/view
You see that even when considering only ocean data, we can’t compare the small Nino3+4 area to the Globe.
It’s exactly the same mistake as when you compare Australia or the US to the global land surface.
*
And the most irrelevant conclusion, of course, comes from Blindsley Hood, who compares the Nino3+4 index for 1877/78 with the index for 1997/98, sees that they are about the same, and proudly proclaims: no temperature increase visible!
This is just as stupid as comparing a UAH anomaly in 1979 to an anomaly of the same magnitude in 2022 and saying: no warming.
Not even a 12-year-old would make that mistake.
binny…”This is just as stupid as comparing a UAH anomaly in 1979 to an anomaly of the same magnitude in 2022 and saying: no warming”.
***
The problem is, you don’t understand anomalies. They represent absolute temperatures over a 30 years period for UAH. They represent the absolute average for a month and the difference between that average and the average over 30 years.
You can tell from the red running average curve that the average absolute temperatures have not varied much from the baseline since 1998.
Of course, the baseline has changed but not by a heck of a lot.
Of course STAR (NOAA) now agrees with UAH.
It agrees with the overall trend from 1979-present. That agreement arises as a result of the cancellation of difference between the 1st and 2nd halves of the period. STAR shows less warming in the 1st half and more warming in the 2nd half. In other words, STAR says the warming is accelerating.
Blinny says that Nino 3.4 remaining the same since 1877/1878 means that things are warming.
Can’t believe that people are still talking about Monckton “pauses.” That bit of cherry-picking has been debunked thoroughly.
Here’s a couple of my recent YouTube videos that you might find interesting.
“Solving The EV Charging Problem”
https://youtu.be/s7S-vl68tdQ
and
“Where Did The Antarctic Sea Ice Go?”
https://youtu.be/uj7hFh6wBGQ
Enjoy.
We haven’t seen you here for awhile, Mark.
Did you ever come up with a valid definition of the GHE?
(Your last “example” of a hot vacuum tube failed miserably.)
Clint R,
Nobody can describe the greenhouse effect in any way that reflects reality.
A bit sad – I can describe other mythical creatures like the unicorn or hippogryph. Even things like phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or caloric can be described.
Alas for the poor greenhouse effect – such a phantasm it even eludes description. Mysterious indeed!
It’s hidden in plain sight, Mark, go to the top of the page and have a look at the red running average curve. Since 2016, the trend has been flat.
Earth is still cold. China added about as much as US emits doing that time and average surface temperature is about 15 C.
Earth would be better if it’s average temperature was about 17 C.
Solar panels and wind mills are still useless ways of making electrical power for an electrical grid.
Trillions dollars have been wasted making them.
gb…there is a problem with averages, as you know. If the average rose to 17C, it would mean in some parts of the world it would rise to 22C and in other places would need to drop about the same amount to achieve that average.
Look at the temperature discrepancies on this global map.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Map.png
You see a warming of 2.5C in some parts of the Arctic (for April 2023) and a cooling of -2.5C in other parts. Much of the Tropics shows no warming at all.
The things is, those colours move every month, indicating roving areas of warming/cooling.
Well it’s changing weather.
Warm 3.5 ocean by .5 C you will get 17 C.
Or add water to Sahara desert [trillion tons per year] and should add .5 C, so, one would get about 15.5 average surface air temperature {or would increase global water vapor, which is much stronger greenhouse gas}.
If somehow warmed our cold ocean to 4 C, it would also increase global water vapor- but that not all it does.
gbaikie,
Adding water to the Sahara might have the opposite effect!
A cut and paste –
“During the African humid period, lakes, rivers, wetlands and vegetation including grass and trees covered the Sahara and Sahel creating a “Green Sahara” . . .”
Seems fair to me. Removing the “most important” GHG (H2O), seems to have made the Sahara hotter!
Must be the “reverse greenhouse effect”? Very flexible, this GHG stuff – makes things hotter, colder, wetter, drier . . .
Have fun.
— May 3, 2023 at 10:13 PM
gbaikie,
Adding water to the Sahara might have the opposite effect!
A cut and paste
During the African humid period, lakes, rivers, wetlands and vegetation including grass and trees covered the Sahara and Sahel creating a Green Sahara . . . —
Well the conventional view is the Sahara gets hotter and draw in moisture. Which seems wrong to me.
The simple rule is cooler global climate has more deserts.
And warmer ocean is warmer climate, less deserts.
I am cold cause I am outside in desert, in region with highest recorded surface air temperature in the world, which happen over 100 years ago, when it was globally drier.
Water vapor causes more uniformity in global temperature.
More uniformity in global temperature is global warming.
Or other than getting wetter or drier, the tropics remain the same, it’s the warming outside of tropics which is global warming.
The jackasses think global warming is a warmer tropics. Remember the Hot spot that never happened?
It’s never going to happen.
Btw, the continent of Africa, doesn’t have shortage of water.
They will add a trillion tons per year to the Sahara Desert- it might take more than 10 years.
Gbaikie
They found the hotspot.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
EM,
“As with other efforts to homogenize radiosonde data, results here may be affected by sampling limitations and inhomogeneities not successfully removed. However, we argue that our approach is well suited for producing a dataset to examine trends.”
“We argue . . .”. Because they have no facts?
Feynman again “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.”
Keep arguing. No facts will be harmed in the process.
Mike Flynn,
People say that they argue for two main reasons. First, because it is commonplace in that context to announce what you intend to do. Second, because civilized people use arguments to convince their peers.
Either that is news to you or you are the dumbest troll Climateball has ever known.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Ent, how many passenger jets flew backwards today?”
About half of them (smile emoji)
Those were the hover jets.
You don’t understand the joke any better than ClintR does.
When an airliner’s nose is pointing in the same direction as the Earth’s orbital velocity vector the airliner is flying forwards.
When it’s nose is pointing in the opposite direction to Earth’s velocity vector the airliner is flying backwards.
YOU are the joke, Ent.
You get caught perverting reality, so you pretend it was just a joke.
Sorry, but the truth is out.
You have no sense of humour, no understanding of vectors, no feel for science.
God, I miss fandom!
See Ent, none of that is true.
You just make up crap because you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
aq…”A baseline is just a zero point nothing more. Changing the baseline merely shifts all data up or down by the same amount”.
***
We’ve had this argument before between posters. Here’s NOAA on baselines and anomalies…
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
“A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline”.
The baseline is a little more than AQ claims. Since the anomalies depend on the baseline, changing the baseline changes the relative position of the data to the baseline and not by equal amounts above and below the baseline. It is plain on the UAH graph above, that when the baseline was shifted, the anomalies moved down the way…all of them.
That’s because anomalies are based on absolute temperatures and so was the baseline initially. However, as new baselines are calculated every 30 years, it does not change the original absolute temperatures, unless you work for NOAA or GISS and want to fudge things. If you move the average temperature up, those absolutes remain as they are and change only relative to the baseline.
All except your final BS paragraph is exactly what I said, so not sure what you are arguing with.
AQ,
You wrote –
“All except your final BS paragraph is exactly what I said, . . . ”
Well, that’s informative – not. Are you promoting yourself as the arbiter of “BS”?
What’s your definition of “BS”? According to delusional SkyDragon cultists, “BS” is anything that the cultist disagrees with.
You seem obsessed with supposed “air temperatures”.
Have they some relevance to something, or do you try to use them instead of tea leaves, or chicken entrails, to predict the future?
Good luck with that! Keep the humor coming.
What I am arguing is that you think the final paragraph is bs. Anomalies are based on absolute temperatures and changing the baseline does not affect that.
Besides, I was aiming my post more at Binny et al who has no idea what an anomaly is.
NOAA and GISS are famous for fudging temperatures.
“unless you work for NOAA or GISS and want to fudge things”
Just for information, Michael Mann has tried again to have Naomi Orestes accepted as an “expert witness” in an upcoming defamation action.
From a law blog –
“Second, as shown by her misidentification of the burden of proof with the coefficient of confidence, Oreskes previously had shown a lack of understanding of scientific and statistical method. Mann might have considered that his case would be better supported by someone who had not made such glaring mistakes, in front of a national audience.”
Only one independent lawyers opinion, of course.
The judge wrote “Dr. Oreskes opinion in that regard would be entirely speculative given that she has not demonstrated any particular expertise or experience regarding Dr. Manns research. Neither her original expert report nor her supplemental declaration indicates any intimate knowledge of Dr. Manns work.”
Delusional SkyDragon cultists such as Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) seem to live in a fantasy world, detached from reality.
Trial set for June 12, 2023.
Naomi Orestes thinks consensus is a valid form of science. She is a science historian and responsible for the propaganda that 98% of scientists agree with the AGW meme. She interviewed 1000 scientists with a one loaded yes/no question to arrive at that conclusion.
That shows the desperation of Mann when he strives to have her as an expert witness. I guess the rest of his alarmist buddies are too gun shy to offer their opinions and make a fool of themselves in court.
Gordon,
Mann tried to have another six “expert witnesses” accepted, previously. From memory, the judge laughed at six of them, dismissing their silly claims of “climate expertise”, and allowed one, who actually had qualifications and experience – in the field of statistics – as valid.
I wouldn’t bet on the outcome. The law sometimes works in mysterious ways.
We have already seen that with the O.J. Simpson trial. He was guilty as sin but got off due to an idiotic move by prosecutor Marcia Clark to move the trial from the Malibu area to South Central LA, to give Simpson a fairer trial. The assistant prosecutor was Black and I wonder if he influenced her?
After he trial, the jury foreman, a Black woman, claimed they were not going to convict him no matter what. There were 11 Blacks on the jury.
Is this the Enterprise Institute case? I thought it has already been adjudicated during discovery that the criticisms of Mann had no factual merit, and that the issue then devolved to whether the criticisms were protected speech, or made with actual malice?
barry,
As far as I know, trial is set for June 12, 2023.
The judge obviously doesn’t care much what Naomi Oreskes “thinks”. She “thinks” that the judge should accept her as an “expert witness”, but the judge has, once again, decreed otherwise.
You can choose to accept reality, or reject it. Your “thoughts” probably have no effect on reality, but feel free to prove me wrong.
So you don’t know what case this is?
https://schachtmanlaw.com/category/scientific-misconduct/
barry,
So you can’t find it for yourself? What “case” are you talking about? Is the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann involved in more than one defamation actions at the moment?
Is it also scheduled for trial on June 12, 2023?
Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you only pretending, because you are stupid?
From the link:
“On the general issue of reliability, Oreskes proferred an opinion that scientific research is made reliable by
‘the collective vetting and critical interrogation of claims through scientific workshop, meetings, conferences, and above all, publication in peer-reviewed journals, formal scientific assessments and reports of government scientific agencies and laboratories.’
Even on superficial review, this description appears woefully inadequate and incomplete. For Oreskes, scientific reliability seems to be all about meetings, publications, and governmental reviews, with no room for actual data gathered in attempts to refute hypotheses, or room for interrogating the data and their quality.”
The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus.
He doesnt seem to realize that publications, and all the other methods are means of disseminating and interrogating the data!
barry,
So you managed to get someone else to waste their time, did you? Couldn’t work out how to look things up for yourself?
Good for you!
I note your legal opinion that the lawyer is an ignoramus. Presumably you think the judge is an ignoramus too, just like Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann (as their actions demonstrate).
However, the judge is making the decisions – that’s why he is called “the judge”.
As to publications, the judge said “Dr. Oreskes made no effort to compile or catalogue CEIs publications according to an objectively defined set of metrics.”
You may consider the judge to be an ignoramus, but I am certain that you will not be writing to him to inform him of your opinion, indicating support for Michael Mann (fraudster, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat).
Cases of this nature generally have a winner and a loser. Mann’s response to losing in the past has simply been to refuse to comply with the court’s decision. Presumably, if he wins, he will accept the losers following Mann’s example, and refusing to comply with the decision of the court. Only joking, of course.
Time will tell. The future is unknowable.
“So you managed to get someone else to waste their time, did you? ”
Well, you got me to waste my time by not providing a link in the first place, so it seems fair enough.
“I note your legal opinion that the lawyer is an ignoramus.”
I didn’t give that opinion. I note your reading skills remain abysmal.
nate…”From the link:
On the general issue of reliability, Oreskes proferred an opinion that scientific research is made reliable by
the collective vetting and critical interrogation of claims through scientific workshop, meetings, conferences, and above all, publication in peer-reviewed journals, formal scientific assessments and reports of government scientific agencies and laboratories.
***
hilarious…Oreskes thinks scientific research is about everything but the research itself. She adds lab work as almost trivial as if reports from a lab experiment is incidental to the real science of consensus and personal opinion. Little wonder we are saddled with the IPCC and its consensus-based reviews.
barry,
You wrote –
“The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus.” You now claim this not your opinion?
I know delusional SkyDragon cultists redefine words to suit their purpose. In this case, you have the better of me – when you wrote “I didnt give that opinion.”, were you redefining “ignoramus”, “opinion”, or something else entirely?
Oh well, it makes no difference, does it? Nobody values your opinion anyway, certainly not the judge in the case.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“barry,
You wrote
‘The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus’ ”
Nope, I didn’t write that.
Thanks, RLH, that was a useful link.
Whoever writes the blog seems to have fixated on Oreskes, when many more expert testimony was denied, including Judith Curry on behalf of Mann’s opponents. Only one expert testimony of nine survived the objections, for the defendants.
We will see what the court case produces won’t we.
clint…”Other oceans and sections of oceans do the same thing. Its just that the equatorial Pacific (ENSO region) is the 800# gorilla in the room”.
***
Until the mid-1990’s we did not know the PDO existed. I think the AMO may be fairly new in our awareness as well. It’s now thought the PDO may affect ENSO, and Tsonis et al surmised the phase of each oscillation wrt to the other determines warming/cooling globally.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288
See conclusions.
Interesting that you have shaken off your distaste for climate models.
From the conclusion:
“The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
Guess we will have to wait until 2035 to see who is right then.
Don’t see how a comment by Tsonis et al suggests I have shaken off my contempt for unvalidated models. Part of the team, Swanson, is a die hard alarmist whereas Tsonis comes across as a lukewarm skeptic.
I guess they had to agree to disagree on certain matters. In another article, by Tsonis, he suggested we set aside the anthropogenic theory and investigate the effects of ocean oscillations.
“Don’t see how a comment by Tsonis et al suggests I have shaken off my contempt for unvalidated models.”
Did you not read the conclusion you asked us to read? They validated their hypothesis via a global climate model comparing a climate event in the observations with a similar event in 2035.
[angech]Roy measures the surface temp changes every day
[aquerty]Oh no he doesnt. He measures temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.
***
More propaganda from the alarmist peanut gallery. Channel 5 on the sat AMSU units have a centre frequency at 4 km. That means they measure that frequency best therefore at the highest amplitude. However, the AMSU units are broadband receivers that measure a broad range of O2 emission frequencies that can range down to the surface. For whatever reason, UAH does not use the measurements right to the surface.
Furthermore, the new system using two other channels in conjunction with channel 5.
Still, they don’t need them since atmospheric temperatures are linear with altitude in that part of the atmosphere. They can interpolate and verify the accuracy using radiosonde data.
“For whatever reason, UAH does not use the measurements right to the surface.”
You have been quoted the reason many times.
Dr Roy Spencer:
“For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered ‘window’ channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
So Roy (and NOAA) use a weighting function that closely resembles the lapse rate. Quelle surprise.
RLH (and Gordo) doesn’t understand what the weighting functions represent. They are the calculated contribution at each pressure level to the total microwave energy of each channel as measured at the satellite. Each channel has a different curve and a different pressure level at peak contribution. That does not mean that the data is a measurement at the pressure level of the peak.
Lapse rate is the change in temperature thru the atmosphere as pressure height decreases, which is assumed to be constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions. This curve does not in any way resemble the weighting functions.
The various channels measure temperatures at different heights. They go down in value as the measurement distance from the surface increases.
The weighting functions for for middle, upper and pause that UAH and NOAA use to get the surface value reflect that set of observations.
Just as if the surface value for 2m was used to create a set of values for the 3 layers in reverse would do.
“constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions.”
You don’t say.
The weighting functions represent the sensitivity of the instrument to readings of brightness temperature of O2 molecules at different altitudes.
It’s got nothing to do with the lapse rate.
Height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The weighting functions for each channel are not based in any way on the lapse rate.
“For AMSU channel 5 that we use for tropospheric temperature monitoring, that brightness temperature is very close to the vertically-averaged temperature through a fairly deep layer of the atmosphere.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
The fact that successive channels measure lower temperatures as their peak sensitivity records higher in the atmosphere, is exactly what you would expect if the instruments function properly.
It’s like measuring air temperature with a thermometer every 500 metres upwards and then claiming that the thermometer design was based on the lapse rate.
Quelle surprise indeed.
As I said before height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.
Why do you think the various channels response curves are asymmetrical and not normal distributions which are symmetrical about the centers?
If the curve of the weighting function follows the lapse rate temperature, why do you think the curves don’t follow the temperature when they extend up into the stratosphere, where the lapse rate is inverted?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif
(Notice the curves are symmetrical in that graph)
Dr Roy Spencer:
“Individual satellite temperature-sounder channel weighting functions often do not have sufficient vertical resolution to provide useful layer temperature information.”
Each curve is not based on lapse-rate temperature through the atmosphere, because each instrument cannot read the lapse rate temperature through the atmosphere. They can only provide a vertical average. The curves are based on each instrument’s sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range.
Notice the log scale to the left on that graph.
“The curves are based on each instruments sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range.”
Why do you think that each channel is different in frequency as it goes higher up?
RLH wrote:
No, above the tropopause, the BIGHTNESS temperatures increase with altitude. The Lapse Rate of -6.5 k/km is rather an average which is useful for calculations.
Further evidence of RLH’s confusion:
“above the tropopause”
carries very little weighting in both UAH and STAR.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128119891000142-f14-05-9780128119891.jpg
“No, the UAH LT or STAR TLT are not measurements of surface temperature. They represent a correction to the MT/TMTs distortion by stratospheric cooling trend and exhibit another weighting curve with a lower peak than either of the MT/TMT products.”
They are a way of creating a surface figure by extrapolating downwards from above.
The same way that 2m figures are used to create upper layer figures from below.
2m is inside the chaotic boundary layer, averaged over day and night.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
BIGHTNESS temperatures (of oxygen) reflect the actual temperatures of the air surrounding them.
testing blah blah
barry…”You dont know what youre talking about. The weighting functions for each channel are not based in any way on the lapse rate”.
***
Richard is correct, the pressure in the weighting functions can be directly related to temperature at a specific altitude. Otherwise the lapse rate would have no meaning. That’s a complaint I have about the theory underlying the lapse rate, they try to make it look as if pressure is not related and that somehow, rising parcels of air are causing it.
RLH, you can see that each curve does not follow the lapse rate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif
The peaks correspond to temperature, the curves do not.
A curve that followed the lapse rate would be a straight or straightish diagonal line, reflecting warmest temperatures at the surface and coolest higher up.
A curve that followed the lapse rate would inflect as it passed through the stratosphere, where temperatures are cooler at the bottom and warmer at the top – any curve reaching the stratosphere should turn into a sine wave (instead of a bell curve).
A curve that instead reflected the brightness temperature of O2 in a pre-set frequency band, would exhibit a peak corresponding to the temperature of O2 in that frequency band, but the curve would die off both above AND below the peak depending on altitude. Fewer and fewer molecules emit at the specified frequency the higher AND lower in altitude you go.
That’s why we see bell curves and not slopes or sine waves. The individual curves are not a function of the lapse rate.
(Swanson, I know you are well-versed in this topic, so please correct any details of mine you think are incorrect)
RLH wrota a reply:
RLH doesn’t specify which data he is writing about. Is it the TMT perhaps? With the Tropopause at around 13-14 km the TMT exhibits a strong influence from the Stratosphere up to about 24 km, as shown in the NOAA STAR v5 release note I linked to. By combining their TMT, TUT and TLS using their weighting, the result is nearly zero influence in the TLT above ~13 km. But one must be aware that this is all the result of theoretical calculations.
Your other comment about the lapse rate ignores the WIKI link I provided. The lapse rate in the Tropopsphere is not a constant.
Frigid stationary highs in the South Pacific are causing a rapid drop in surface temperatures.
https://i.ibb.co/DfGwcJJ/gfs-pacific-sat-mslp-anomsd-d1.png
Heads up – there are no temperatures on your graph.
Is the vertical bar graph on the RHS not in degrees C? It doesn’t say so, but can it not be assumed?
Antonin Qwerty
” … there are no temperatures on your graph. ”
Exactly.
And the lack of any knowledge let alone intelligence you see in the ignoramus’ guess:
” Is the vertical bar graph on the RHS not in degrees C? It doesnt say so, but can it not be assumed? ”
OMG.
And such dumb people like Robertson insult me with ‘van der klown’ but aren’t even able to see that Palmowski’s graph deals with mean sea level pressure!
In that case, the pressure is marked on the graph. It’s like one of your graphs, too hard to read. Also, no meaningful title to tell you what it is measuring.
Blocking circulation is occurring in both hemispheres, and this is no coincidence.
A powerful Arctic high in the coming days will cause frosts at night in Central Europe, and air from the north may reach Italy.
https://i.ibb.co/vj7TYLk/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-04-070217.png
The Arctic’s ice extent is shrinking slowly.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_curve_extent_LA_EN_20230421.png
Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
May 3rd, 2023: 12,756,382 km2, a drop of -13,273 km2.
was near second lowest now 14th lowest very slow.
Fits in with lower sun output and a cooling atmosphere and 3 weak La Nina’s.
angech
” … and 3 weak La Nina’s. ”
Are you serious? The last La Nina certainly was not weak at all.
Chart of MEI indices with all superposed 2/3-dip La Ninas since 1871:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
Sort of index sums with number of consecutive months below Nina’s treshold (-0.5):
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
Sea ice extent, Arctic & Antarctic: superpositions of recent years and 1981-2010 average
Absolute daily values (first 180 days)
1. Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zduPq2XEOZgj6X3CLezp2OZvEPgVAhac/view
The Arctic sea ice is currently high, surpassed only by years with a very icy winter/spring phase (2012, 2013, 2014).
2. Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vapu5ep4spJG6t-pRtlS6ZXtjOFpv0X9/view
Antarctic sea ice is quite low.
*
It’s always amazing to see how much is said on this blog about the Arctic and how little is said about… the Antarctic.
Maybe it’s because Antarctica doesn’t fit the Coolista narrative well enough…
*
Source
Arctic
https://tinyurl.com/2bauk2aa
Antarctic
https://tinyurl.com/p8y8dehf
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-sopol.jpeg
Blindsley Hood
It’s about sea ice extent, and not your pushing ego.
And as usual, you manipulate us:
(1) In your diagram there is no projection at all, just an impression of it, which the end of a Savitzky-Golay filter output is supposed to ‘cleverly’ convey – which also is why you always leave out the beginning, isn’t it?
(2) Never and never is this blue line the result of a 5-year HQLP: it is way too flat for such a small filter window.
Blinny says that the surface temperature does not reflect the amount of ice that is measured.
“Never and never is this blue line the result of a 5-year HQLP: it is way too flat for such a small filter window”
Strange how it fits so well with the 60 month HQLP filter then.
Amazing how curve fitting works, sometimes.
When it doesn’t, find a better cycle nut.
Why do think that filtering is curve fitting?
Do you think that a LOWESS (for a similar window) would provide anything different?
” Strange how it fits so well with the 60 month HQLP filter then. ”
That, Blindsley Hood, is simply due to the fact that your HQLP filter never and never has a 60 month window.
I have shown often enough the amazing difference between your alleged 60 month filters and
– a 60/50/39 month CTRM according to Vaughan Pratt’s recommendations;
– a real, 60 month Savitzky-Golay output.
You really seem to think you can kid us with your alleged technical skill.
One day, you will finally accept Robertson’s butt-kissing and will, like Vournas, suddenly start to deny the lunar spin.
For sure!
“HQLP filter never and never has a 60 month window.”
So now you are saying that the values I plot using a 60 month window using a method approved by Vaughan Pratt is not a HQLP filter at all. Interesting.
“60/50/39 month CTRM according to Vaughan Pratts recommendations”
I use a VP 60 month/5 year filter for my plots.
P.S. You need to use a 5 pass, multi-pass, S-G filter to get data that approaches VP of the same window. As I have proved on many occasions. I did not come up with that method, as I have also mentioned before.
” Blinny says that the surface temperature does not reflect the amount of ice that is measured. ”
That is the very best.
Blindsley Hood is so stubborn that he doesn’t even realize the nonsense he’s writing.
Are rising surface and tropospheric temperatures in the Arctic consistent with rising sea ice there, Blindsley Hood?
Of course, they don’t.
Just as unchanged surface and tropospheric temperatures in Antarctica are not at all consistent with sinking sea ice there.
So the unchanging surface temperatures in the Antarctic are unimportant as far as Blinny is concerned.
” So now you are saying that the values I plot using a 60 month window using a method approved by Vaughan Pratt is not a HQLP filter at all. ”
As usual, you insinuate things I never wrote.
What I wrote was that the filter plots you show in your charts can never and never be the result of a single HQLP filter with a 60 month window, let alone could they be the result of a 60/50/39 month filtering a la Pratt.
You admitted to me in an answer last year that you run more than one filter on your data (if you really are the person doing the job, which I’m starting to seriously question).
You are dishonest, Blindsley Hood.
“let alone could they be the result of a 60/50/39 month filtering a la Pratt.”
They are just that despite your ignorant claims. I have always championed VPs methods and follow them precisely.
I added in the 5 pass, multi-pass, S-G projection to get results that reflect what the current data shows.
” So the unchanging surface temperatures in the Antarctic are unimportant as far as Blinny is concerned. ”
Again: you insinuate things I never wrote.
You are dishonest, Blindsley Hood.
And you just ignore facts that do not fit within your consistent ‘it’s always getting warmer’ claims.
Let us see what your graph with 60/50/39 month VP filter shows for the data for the South Polar that Roy publishes.
RLH, The UAH v6 SoPol data is seriously flawed, since the UAH v6 LT weighting curves peak at about 4 Km and the ice sheet elevations over the Antarctic reach that altitude. In other words, the UAH SoPol data isn’t just atmosphere, but also has a strong surface fraction. That’s why RSS excludes data poleward from 70S and data over greenland, where the elevations reach ~3 Km.
It’s even worse for the new STAR v5 TLT, which has peak weighting at about 2.5 Km.
So now you are against NOAA as well as UAH.
Could it be that NOAA siding with UAH in the choice of satellites in the early period is mainly your objection?
RSS South Polar for Feb 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-southern-polar.jpeg
RLH
You were looking for data on the relationship between ENSO and the long term warming trend.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41wHffAUo5E
“Global average surface temperature (from NASA GISS) 19802019”
Try comparing the El Nino of the 1870s with today.
“An exceptionally strong El Nio may have caused 1876-1878 famine that killed tens of millions. (Inside Science) — 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.”
I wonder if ENSO may have been the cause of the 1930s heat waves and record temperatures in parts of Canada and the US in the 1930s? Although I associate droughts with La Nina it could be El Nino as well.
“Try comparing the El Nino of the 1870s with today.”
Are you saying that this el Nino is the cause of the long-term global warming trend?
Or have you suddenly changed to a different topic?
Gordon Robertson
You have discredited this You-Tuber in the past but I think you might find this one very interesting. You have expressed concern over how modern science is done and she agrees with you on this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o
Interesting.
I think space exploration would be faster direction.
She is selling me on idea of getting Brilliant. I heard a lot other places [largely, space related] selling it.
Anyone have it?
My obsession over the years is how to get to Mars faster, using a different planetary trajectory other than Hohmann.
I don’t doubt hohmann is most efficient in terms being the most efficient. It’s most efficient in terms of delta-v, but it’s long distance of travel.
Or going to Venus to Mars with hohmann is shorter distance to Mars as compared to Earth to Mars.
Or hohmann leg [transport trajectory] is 1/2 orbit, the orbit of Venus to Mars and back to Venus, travels shorter distance because Venus is closer to Sun.
Or in terms closest planet to Earth in terms of distance and travel time is Mercury, and then Venus, and finally Mars. And velocity is also a factor, but mainly the distance travel.
So, one can do hohmann + patched conic to Mars, and shortens distance
and I want another way to shorten the distance to Mars, and not use “too much” delta-v.
Related to this, is can you use Earth for gravity assist, if going from Venus to Mars. Or if go from Venus to Mars you cross Earth’s orbital distance or sometimes if going to Mars from Venus you flyby Earth.
Or Venus to Mars is 7.2 month without doing patched conic, Earth to Mars with patched conic is about 7 month. Venus to Mars with patched conic, is a lot less than 7.2.
So, assuming doing patched conic type trajectory from Venus to Mars, also leave Venus so you do gravity assist with Earth. Can make the travel distance shorter, with the gravity assist from Earth?
Another way to look at it.
If do Earth to Mars hohmann, if go out to Mars distance and don’t interact with Mars gravity, you return to Earth distance, and then go back out Mars distance {etc}.
What I want is a trajectory, where leave Earth go to Mars distance and return to Venus distance [or Mercury distance].
Which can be related to Low Earth orbit, in which you point a gun in direction ahead of orbit {or forward] and bullet goes to lower Earth orbit.
How make bullet hit Earth, is point gun in opposite direct, and does hohmann, and easily hits Earth [goes a lot lower orbit], but talking pointing gun in forward direction and have it go higher then your orbit and then fall below your orbit.
So something like pointing gun forward and at 45 degree angle {which is not a hohmann].
gb…”She is selling me on idea of getting Brilliant”.
***
I have often thought about going back to university. When I was there, I felt too rushed and hurt myself by spending far too much time trying to understand theory when I should have been doing problem sets.
I considered looking up the Brilliant courses but I am sure they will be no different than the nonsense taught in modern university physics classes.
The problem I have now is not the mathematics, it is the physics. I refuse to absorb nonsense about Einsteinian relativity, profs putting Newtonian theory down, the more far-out theories in quantum theory, etc. For me, it will be the same old, same old…with mathematical proofs being pushed in lieu of physical explanations.
I just read a lecture given by Einstein to explain his theories on relativity. He glossed over the explanation of time, essentially reinventing it based on the speed of light. That suggests his definition of time is not the same as the time we use in the real world, and can be conveniently changed to suit. His definition of space is even more alarming. He had obviously entered a disconnect between the math explaining the 4 dimensions of space and time and the physical reality.
He had the nerve to claim that Newton’s gravitational theory is lacking and that his mathematically-based space-time, which is not based on a physical reality is correct.
The danger in science, as physicist David Bohm pointed out, is representing reality mathematically without having a physical reality to back it. That represents Einstein’s relativity theory to a tee.
Thanks Norman. You were right, I found this video much more interesting than her video supporting AGW.
One thing I did note near the end of the video was her plugging the course material, especially her specialty in quantum theory supporting entanglement theory and quantum computing. It struck me as ironic that she would slam particle physics, albeit correctly, yet see no parallel between that and the more remote quantum theory just mentioned. They have been pushing the same seemingly unprovable theories like entanglement theory since at least 1930 with no success. There are still no working quantum computers available to the average user and as far as I know, none that actually work.
Much of what she talked about re particle physics reveals how science has gone off the rails. She mentioned the tendency of particle physicists to claim a bad theory is good science since it can be disproved. She pointed out that Popper claimed a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified. Some particle physicists have turned that around to mean an experiment is good science if it can be falsified, even though the experiment is nonsense and/or based on a model.
I also found it ironic re models used in particle physics that she found fault with them but saw no problem with models in climate science. The issues she found with the application of models in particle physics are the same as those used in climate science.
Another thing that stood out to me was this. Scientists can’t even tell you how an atom works, via direct observation, yet they are trying to tell us how particles work that no one has ever seen and which are invisible in normal studies of atoms. In chemistry, for example, they never seldom go lower than protons, neutrons and electrons. Although I find particle physics to be fascinating on the face of it, I have found it hard to accept many of the claims made about it.
She mentioned the lack of instrumentation to measure at the particle level, which I take to mean beyond the proton, electron and neutron level, yet that is the same problem faced by any scientists investigating atomic theory at a larger scale. If they had the instrumentation it would immediately make quantum theory obsolete and likely put Newtonian physics back in business at the atomic level.
Experimental forecast,
yes it could well dive back into La Nina ,
but at this point it’s basically all over the place
In any case just ignore Bindebil’s rants
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBdzQNF/nino3-4-may2023-plume-S2-S.png
binny van der klown’s rants are too comical to ignore.
” In any case just ignore Bindebils rants… ”
Hello, ankle-biting, stalking dachshund.
Which rants did you mean?
This one, for example?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
All you are able to do is to insult others and to post graphs you hide the origin of.
To set against
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBdzQNF/nino3-4-may2023-plume-S2-S.png
Which rants ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1481778
“People Believe What They Want to Believe”
Do I believe in Heaven?
I believe I am in a heaven.
Do believe evil will punished when you die?
I believe evil is punished when you live.
Lies have immediate punishment and eternal punishment.
What is a true religion? It’s religion you find.
I didn’t have religion when I was a kid.
If I was a Jew, that would suggest the Jewish religion is
probably the true religion [for me and others].
Or would imagine I would have spend a lot time interested in the Torah and Jewish history and what Jews were doing. I wondering
why people tend to oppress us. It is quite an interesting thing-
a bit sad, also.
But I got some kind of kind religion, my religion was that kids
shouldn’t focus on religion- do it later. So, anyhow, it seems
to help me be interested in other religions. Which I think is useful
thing.
Life isn’t fair- no one would like life being fair. If Heaven is fair
I not going there.
swannie…”That does not mean that the data is a measurement at the pressure level of the peak.
Lapse rate is the change in temperature thru the atmosphere as pressure height decreases, which is assumed to be constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions”.
***
The data is about oxygen microwave emissions and the altitude from which they are emitted. The weighting functions represent the bandwidth per channel associating the bandwidth of O2 emission frequencies to pressure level, hence to altitude.
My take is that a weighting function indicates the sensitivity of the AMSU receivers to O2 emissions/kilometre altitude. Although a normal receiver would indicate its input in watts or volts, the weighting function describes it as a form of ratio related to altitude.
The weighting function is not likely related to the electronics of the receiver but it gives a general idea of the reception amplitude of the O2 microwave emission wrt to the altitude from which it was sent.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Weighting-functions-at-nadir-for-the-AMSU-A-instrument-on-the-NOAA-satellites-for-the_fig1_249612992
Channel 5 measures its peak amplitudes of O2 microwave emissions in the vicinity of 4 km, which is about halfway up Mount Everest. We have to remember that the sats fly well above that altitude, therefore they measure from the surface to 4 km and higher. Note that the weighting functions run along the vertical altitude axis and channel 5 cover emissions from sea level to 30 km.
Note also, how some functions overlap. The information in overlapped regions is common and I suppose can be used for purposes of confirmation. Therefore the AMSU electronics receiving data from channel 5 can receive some of the same data on other channels, which represent different and separate electronic amplifiers.
Note the symmetry of channel 7 and channel 9 and how channel 5 is cutoff at the surface high on the downside limb of the curve. Therefore, O2 frequencies detected down to the surface are well received, almost as well as at the centre frequency of about 4 km.
As Roy said, they don’t use frequencies right to the surface since the surface also emits microwave frequencies. I presume they use a statistical filter to cut off those unwanted frequencies which also eliminates any good frequencies from O2 near the surface. The AMSU units certainly won’t differentiate between atmospheric and surface radiation in the same frequency band, unless they have a filter built in, which I doubt.
However, pressure and temperature are in lock-step from the surface right through the better part of the troposphere. I am talking static conditions, not convection-induced temperatures. There should be no problem interpolating.
As Richard (rlh) has pointed out, there is a special zone near the surface where much of our weather takes place. I am sure things can go awry in that region re temperatures/pressure relations but I think, in general, the static conditions may be retrievable.
Bordo’s bluster is too burlesque to brush off.
test v
> I refuse to absorb nonsense about Einsteinian relativity
That will make Sabine sad:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-special-relativity.html
That’s too bad, for Bordo seemed to be warming to her.
Willard,
It’s easy to see why the “content creator” chooses not to work as a physicist!
Ah well, she’s right, everyone else is wrong, and prospective employers obviously don’t appreciate her brilliance!
At least she “thinks” about “definitions” and “terminology”.
Based on her explanation, I think she is as much in the dark as anyone else. We are talking about gravity…holding a brick in front of you and letting it go, then observing what happens. Minkowski and Gallilean spaces are nothing more than gibberish.
She said it all when she claimed Einstein based relativity on symmetry. Symmetry my pitutey!!! Talk science not abstract mathematics.
Einstein’s problem is explaining time and space. She (in video) claimed that gravitational force is the same as acceleration in a flat space. More nonsense. There is no physical relationship between force and acceleration since the former is real and the latter is not.
It is real in the sense we can see something happening with something like a dragster when it accelerates from a stop, however, when we try to explain it we need to introduce time. Even then, acceleration is a property of the mass in motion. The mass is real, the acceleration is not, it is based purely on observation by a human observer, although we can sense it when a mass accelerates if we are riding on the mass.
Time is not real either, so how can we claim acceleration is real if it’s expression depends on something that is not real?
It’s important to see the distinction. Start with a mass sitting still. It is real, most people would agree. We apply a force that can move the mass and it starts to move. What’s the difference now? We have the same mass and the same force. Nothing has changed physically, the only difference is that the mass is moving.
So what? Nothing has changed and until we want to measure the rate at which the position of the mass is changing, the mass has no particular new properties. Newton noted that the rate at which the position changes is related to a property of the mass he called inertia.
We humans give the mass new, superficial properties by defining properties related to the motion of the mass. We define the rate of change of position as velocity and the rate of change of velocity as acceleration. Then we multiply the velocity by the mass and call it momentum.
As long as the velocity is constant, there is nothing to write home about. However, if the mass collides with another body, there is a transfer of energy. So, we might say a moving body has more energy than a body at rest. We know that energy as kinetic energy.
Einstein went way too far by claiming acceleration produces a force on a man riding in a box. He conveniently forgot that the motion in the first place was caused by a force and without the force the acceleration ceases immediately.
Only a force can produce such a force. The fact that a human experiencing an acceleration can produce stresses on his/her body has nothing to do with acceleration per se, it is about the force that causes the acceleration. Take the force away and the body stops accelerating immediately.
Many times, in reference to a G-force, I see people explaining it as being due to acceleration. Not true, it is a force that causes a G-force, hence the name G (gravitational)-force.
Gordon Robertson says:
May 4, 2023 at 11:34 PM
The mass is real, the acceleration is not, it is based purely on observation by a human observer, although we can sense it when a mass accelerates if we are riding on the mass.
–
Not so.
If the mass is a rocket and it is causing an acceleration you will sense that acceleration.
If the mass is a rocket not causing an acceleration, but being accelerated by an apparent external force, like in a free fall, you cannot sense that you are accelerating as you and the rocket are weightless.
–
Not sure where you are going with this comment.
> Based on her explanation, I think she is as much in the dark as anyone else.
What you think is of little relevance, Bordo.
It’s what you can show that matters.
Do you have what it takes to revolutionize physics?
If you stay here and rant for another ten years, otters will beat you to the punch, e.g.:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-perpetual-motion-possible-at-the-quantum-level-20230503/
I believe in you.
C’mon.
“What you think is of little relevance, Bordo.
Its what you can show that matters”.
***
I clued in long ago that what I think is of little relevance. The real world/universe does not give a hoot what I think or anyone else, and that includes Einstein and his groupies.
I have shown what you need to understand, that time has no existence. You have yet to explain how it has existence, ergo you are not putting in the required effort. You seem willing to accept what everyone else has taught you.
This is a defining moment in your life wee willy. Do you take the step into awareness or do you keep hanging out in the populist world of authority figures?
Do you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth? If not, do you understand the illusion related to human observation that creates the impression it does? Time is the same kind of illusion. Simply look, it’s ridiculously obvious. The only thing interfering is your ego.
Come on, take the step. Go past where Einstein and his groupies are stuck.
Aerospace Company Airbus Designs New Space Station With Artificial Gravity Space
03 May 2023 By Matt Williams, Universe Today
https://www.sciencealert.com/aerospace-company-airbus-designs-new-space-station-with-artificial-gravity
Designs for expensive space station with artificial gravity, without
any testing of artificial gravity.
Joint venture announced to build ‘underwater space station of the ocean’
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/05/04/noaa-proteus-underwater-ocean-habitat/2731683173160/
Another one linked from: https://instapundit.com/
At least earlier ones have tested before.
A underwater station has one advantage, don’t need breakwaters- unless you also want station above at the surface.
SPACEX/STARLINK KICKED THIS REVOLUTION OFF: Answering the Call: How Apple Started Working with Satellite to Save Lives. It wasnt that long ago that Apple was not part of the satellite ecosystem. It is one of the most revered companies in the world, and while a lot of the industry uses Apple products in their daily life, connecting Apple and the satellite industry had never been done before. But that all changed late last year, when Apple inked a deal with Globalstar to bring its Emergency SOS via satellite to iPhone 14 users, providing access to emergency services to people that are off the grid and away from a terrestrial and wireless connection.
Posted at 6:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
Failed Assassination Attempt On Putin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reD4ntGIuQ0
speak the truth
Regarding the PDO leading global temperature changes (and ENSO regimes):
“…the PDO is not a well-oiled machine like ENSO; it’s the ocean surface temperature’s aggregated response to all sorts of atmospheric and oceanic processes. For the most part, the atmosphere is what changes the temperature pattern across the North Pacific Ocean, not the other way around. The PDO is therefore a response, not an agent of change itself.
But what about those regimes—time periods of consistently positive or negative PDOs? If the processes aren’t really connected, how do those periods arise? Well, it could be a natural result of the efforts to try and capture all of the influences in the variability of the Aleutian Low, which manifests itself in ocean temperatures in the North Pacific, via one index, the PDO.
Each “regime” of the PDO could be due to a random assortment of processes ranging from ENSO to ocean reemergence to random weather. In fact, it is known that ENSO can have periods where El Niños occur more often than La Niñas (Wittenberg et al., 2014). Since ENSO has such an influence on the PDO, these PDO regimes could be reflecting ENSO regimes.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/going-out-ice-cream-first-date-pacific-decadal-oscillation
More serious, less frivolous explanation…
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
more detailed…
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
First link is to a reputable source with less detail on the issue and is from 6 years ago.
Second link is to a 12 year old post from an unnamed blogger with a heavily biased agenda, who is engaged in curve-fitting and citing papers that do not support his contention.
Furthermore, the tangential links the blogger hopes support his case are unlinked in later research by the same authors he cites, on the same subject.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/12/jcli-d-15-0508.1.xml
These researchers also corroborate the ‘frivolous’ entry above.
The unnamed blogger’s references do not link the PDO to global temperatures. That is all his own curve-fitting exercise.
barry,
The PDO is a name given to historical temperature measurements.
Global temperatures is a name given to historical temperature measurements.
No science to be seen.
Yes Flynnson, we get it.
You find science offensive, for some reason.
When science is shown to you, you cover your eyes, plug your ears and and wish it all would go away.
Maybe you should consider stopping your visits to this science forum?
Nate,
If you think that having a grasp of basic arithmetic is “science”, you would make a good SkyDragon cultist.
You haven’t shown anybody any “science”, have you?
You cant even describe the object of your cult’s worship – the GHE!
Keep dreaming.
PDO for Apr 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
entropic…” When an airliners nose is pointing in the same direction as the Earths orbital velocity vector the airliner is flying forwards.
When its nose is pointing in the opposite direction to Earths velocity vector the airliner is flying backwards”.
***
I am sure there is an attempt at a joke in there but your logic is the basis of the propaganda that the Moon rotates about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the surface. If you want to regard that kind of logic as apt then I agree that the Moon spinning as it keeps the same face pointed at Earth is a joke, albeit a bad joke.
Your point above does rely on a reference frame. It is incorrect at any time to claim a jet is flying backwards unless it is of the Harrier type which actually can fly backwards. An aircraft flying in the opposite direction to the Earth’s rotation is not flying backwards, it is always flying forward. If it did not, it would very likely crash.
If you are joking and I am missing the thrust of your joke, perhaps you need to making your comparisons a lot more absurd, or more clever.
How parochial you are.
Your planet is rotating on its axis once every 24 hours, revolving in orbit around the Sun once a year and travelling in a spiral path towards Vela at about 300 kilometres/second, yet you can only think of movement relative to the surface on which you stand
https://i.stack.imgur.com/ly8dr.gif
Noice.
Coolio..
How do you know Earth is *rotating on its axis once every 24 hours*, Ent?
You believe your cult. You cant figure it out for yourself.
But, it you were able to think for yourself, you would know Earth is spinning relative to its host (Sun). Moon is NOT spinning relative to its host (Earth), so Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
You can’t figure that out because you’re braindead. That’s why you must make up crap like passenger jets flying backward. Talk about *parochial*!
1 % of the time Clint steps outside of himself, wants to be taken seriously, and chastises people about their insults, lack of science, etc.
99 % of the time he reverts to Clint troll mode, tosses insults, offers no real science, and can’t be taken seriously.
Sorry troll Nate, but you wouldn’t know the difference between “science” and a “seance”.
Remember, you weren’t able to answer ANY of the simple physics problems. Reality is a bitch, huh?
But thanks for your ineffective flak, confirming I was over the target.
“over the target” = troll seeking ridicule and finding it.
ent…parochial I may be but I am talking about a phenomenon that involves my parish of Earth wrt a moving body that is orbiting it. I don’t care what is going on elsewhere unless we happen to collide with another significant body along the way. I am not lying awake at nights worrying about that prospect.
barry…”Each curve is not based on lapse-rate temperature through the atmosphere, because each instrument cannot read the lapse rate temperature through the atmosphere. They can only provide a vertical average. The curves are based on each instruments sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range”.
***
I have never claimed the weighting functions follow the lapse rate through the entire atmosphere, I claimed they follow it through the linear portion n the troposphere. All I have ever referenced is channel 5, where its lower limb corresponds to the lapse rate. We have talked mostly about the 4 km altitude which is covered by channel 5.
I don’t think the weighting curves are related to the AMSU channel sensitivities. The channel amps in each AMSU unit will be sensitive to the particular frequencies they cover. It seems to me the weighting functions are more an abstraction than a reality. They vary with the scan angle of the scanning beam.
The AMSU scanners won’t care about scan angles, etc., just the amount of each frequency they receive. It will be up to the scientists to decipher what the signals mean. I think that may be where the weighting functions come in.
“each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range”
Each instrument/channel shows different temperatures in the atmosphere as you get higher up, due to the lapse rate.
RLH, No, the instruments weighting functions are the result of pressure vs. altitude. The O2 emission lines combined exhibit “pressure broadening”, thus more emissions lower down for frequencies further away from the line for each channel, AIUI. I can’t claim to be an expert on the science, though I have a couple of text books giving many details and the math involved. It’s the same theory as that for CO2 emission/absorp_tion and the GHE.
Pressure/height are the same thing effectively. The lapse rate determines the fall in temperature with height. The different center bands are to with that change.
P.S. As was mentioned earlier if you change the scale from linear to log on the left then the band distribution changes from asymmetrical to symmetrical.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128119891000142-f14-05-9780128119891.jpg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif
https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d%3Ac50e02938e0884cfa8b93aab65d16efaac1f11330287d1bbf7edd31b%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1
RLH wrote:
RLH, The lapse rate is determined by the fall in temperature with altitude. If you had taken the time to read the WIKI page on lapse rate, you might have noticed that the lapse rate is not a constant but is determined by local conditions, including convection.
You say altitude, I say height.
True the actual figure is a mix, locally based, of dry and moist lapse rates. (A dry adiabatic temperature profile will have lapse rates near 9.8 C/km, while the moist adiabatic lapse rate is near 6 C/km.)
The actual temperature, baring inversions, deceases as the altitude/height is increased.
richard…”The actual temperature, baring inversions, deceases as the altitude/height is increased”.
***
This is where I have problems with lapse rate theory. Local inversions are what they say, local. I cannot understand a definition of lapse rate that includes local weather and is not a representation of underlying static atmospheric conditions.
When we state local pressure, is it not riding on top of STP? Standard pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere. As far as I understand, any variance is +/- from that value.
Standard temperature is defined as 0C (actually 273.15K). As altitude increases, do not both pressure and temperature decrease in step?
swannie…”the instruments weighting functions are the result of pressure vs. altitude”.
***
The instruments detect frequencies/wavelength only. They have no idea where the frequencies emanated, either the source or the altitude. That is left up to the scientists to work out.
AMSU receivers are not much different than communications systems with their antennas and amplifiers. A comm system receives EM signals based on their frequency since the antennas are tuned to those frequencies. With microwave, rather than antennas they use parabolic dishes or horns that focus the signal on an LNB down converter. An LNB is essentially the unit that receives the input energy and converts it from microwave EM to a higher frequency electrical signal. Ergo, this unit knows nothing about altitude or the EM source.
The weighting functions themselves are graphed with both altitude and pressure along the vertical axes. In other words, they are equivalent. Along the x-axis I saw for the first time the other day the units 1/km. Until then I had seen no units.
When you see 1/sec, it is usually a reference to cycles/sec or hertz. I am wondering if 1/km is a reference to the equivalent wavelength as in wavenumber. If that’s the case, they are comparing the frequency/wavelength of the x-axis to the altitude/pressure along the y-axis. It may only be a logarithmic ratio for all I know.
Gordo, For the dozenth time, the MSU/AMSU insturments are passive radiometers. They measure the INTENSITY of the microwave radiation at a specific frequency for each channel at each scan position, including the calibration positions of deep space and the heated “warm” target.
The weighting functions are THEORETICAL calculations based on the physics of O2 thermal emissions, including the effects of pressure broadening of the appropriate spectral emission “lines” from lower altitude to higher altitudes. The pressure broadening declines with increasing altitude because (who would have guessed) the pressure declines as altitude increases.
swannie…”the MSU/AMSU insturments are passive radiometers. They measure the INTENSITY of the microwave radiation at a specific frequency for each channel at each scan position…”
***
Makes no sense, Swannie. You are missing the point that intensity is proportional to frequency in such a radiometer and has nothing to do with altitude from which the radiation is sent. When I say proportional to frequency, I mean the AMSU acts like a bandpass filter, passing frequencies at a max at the centre frequency and other related frequencies at a proportional level either side of the centre frequency.
Channel 5, for example, responds best at an O2 radiation frequency located at its centre frequency around 4 km. However, the same channel responds to all frequencies of O2 from the surface to 4 km and beyond.
BTW…channel 5 has a bandwidth of 170 mhz. Instruments so designated respond to frequencies, not amplitude. Also. The AMSU microwave radiometers are heterodyne receivers, where the received radio frequency (RF) is downconverted to a lower intermediate frequency (IF). That is the instrument scans O2 frequencies and all altitudes but only responds to frequencies within 170 Mhz of the centre frequency of 53.596 Ghz.
If O2 did not radiate at different frequencies based on its temperature it would be useless as a temperature measuring device. Furthermore, if O2 did not respond to temperatures at different altitudes by radiating at different frequencies it would be of no use.
Gordo wrote:
As usual, Gordo continues to display his usual EE’s confused ignorance of the problem. The emissions from O2 are limited to specific frequencies representing molecular vibration frequencies. There is are not a continuous Planck spectrum representing the temperature of the gas. The emissions at frequencies near those line frequencies are the result of line broadening by pressure.
For example, the Wien’s law temperature for 60 GhZ (~0.5 cm) works out to (if I’ve done it correctly):
T = (2.898 mm⋅K)/(5mm) = 0.58K
Not a particularly representative value of the atmosphere, is it?
RLH,
If all you’re saying is that the channels correspond to a particular layer of atmosphere, and the peaks are associated with the temperature at that altitude, then no problem.
You err when you say or imply that the weighting function curves are a product of the lapse rate. This is apparent from even a cursory glance at the figures we’ve linked here. We see bell curves where we should be seeing a slope that actually matches the lapse rate, if that was the determining feature for each curve.
barry…”We see bell curves where we should be seeing a slope that actually matches the lapse rate, if that was the determining feature for each curve”.
***
The bell-shaped curves are representative of what an AMSU receiver would see. For example, the channel 5 receiver on an AMSU unit would see the bell shaped curve in the weighting diagrams, or an approximation thereof.
If the x-axis on the weighting curve is frequency, then the curves tell you the frequency weighting from O2 emissions as seen by channel 5 in the AMSU unit.
Gordon,
Got no problem with most of what you said. The curve for channel 5 kind of approximates a curve we might see for lapse rate, but is not a function of the lapse rate. Like all the other channels, it reflects the instrument’s sensitivity to O2 molecules in the specific frequency band for that channel.
This is a good chart of the curves for each of the channels.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sheldon-Kusselson/publication/252235249/figure/fig9/AS:668690320195591@1536439604279/AMSU-weighting-functions.png
You can see that Ch 5 curves in near the surface, opposite to what it should do if the curve was tied to lapse rate.
And in the higher channels cutting into the stratosphere, we would be seeing the curves flare out as they ascend if the curves were a function of lapse rate. But we don’t, because each instrument is sensitive to a specific radiative frequency band, not to temperature.
I know that you and RLH view this differently, by the way.
barry…”You can see that Ch 5 curves in near the surface, opposite to what it should do if the curve was tied to lapse rate”.
***
I don’t think you can compare the weighting function curves to the lapse rate since they have different ordinates. Lapse rate is altitude versus temperature whereas weighting function is altitude versus frequency of emission.
When you see the weighting function for channel 5 come near the surface it is saying that wavelengths that would be emitted by O2 near the surface are seen by the AMSU units at that weight compared to the peak of the curve at 4 km. According to the curve in comparison to an amplifier response curve, you might claim the surface frequency is about 3 db down (0.707 peak) near the surface. That means the electrical signal generated by the AMSU unit for channel 5 in the AMSU unit would be about 0.707 of the peak amplitude produced by frequencies near 4 km.
Btw, if the weighting curve I posted the other day is measured in 1/km along the x-axis the functions are stated in wavenumbers, which are the the inverse of a wavelength. They tell you the number of cycles to expect in a cm, or in a km in the case of the diagram I posted. Having said that, the diagram uses 1/km which would be the number of cycles in a km which does not make a lot of sense to me.
Then again, the units along the x-axis are very small. I’d really like to know what they are up to.
It may b that the 1/km unit along the x-axis means exactly what it says and is not a wavenumber indicator. If the y-axis is altitude/pressure and we are trying to get a weighting wrt that re O2 emission frequencies, the x-axis may be a simple weighting per kilometre of frequency/wavelength to altitude/pressure.
“I don’t think you can compare the weighting function curves to the lapse rate”
This is what I’ve been saying to RLH. It’s the crux of our conversation.
I did not pick RLH up as stating it exactly that way. I think he knows you can’t convert a weighting function directly to a lapse rate, I took him to mean it is converted during the analysis of the AMSU data, likely using the relationships in weighting functions.
Roy pointed out that during look-ahead scans, the depth of the scan varies from a vertical scan, therefore different weighting functions must be used with the increased scan depth.
I am sure the science and math used is mind boggling to us observing from the outside. It’s tough to get good information on this and I am still struggling to understand it.
RLH wasn’t totally clear in his responses, but he kept arguing when I said the same thing you said – that the curves reflect sensitivity to O2 radiance readings for each channel. While I was repeating this point upthread, he was rebutting me;
“So Roy (and NOAA) use a weighting function that closely resembles the lapse rate. Quelle surprise….
Why do you think the various channels response curves are asymmetrical and not normal distributions which are symmetrical about the centers?….
BIGHTNESS temperatures (of oxygen) reflect the actual temperatures of the air surrounding them.”
If he understands that the curves are not reflective of lapse rate, then he’s done a very good job of giving the impression he thinks the opposite.
That’s the problem with being argumentative – never clarifying where there is agreement.
barry,
You wrote –
“Thats the problem with being argumentative never clarifying where there is agreement.”
Facts are facts. Arguments are opinions.
All the opinions in the world (plus $5) will buy a $5 cup of coffee. Argue away – not a single physical fact will be changed in the process, and you still won’t be able to describe the mythical greenhouse effect!
Carry on being argumentative.
Global warming – from the coldest time of the last 10k yearz
https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y
in Greenland…
Are you saying that what happens in Greenland is not relevant to the rest of the planet
Are you saying that when it’s Winter in Greenland it’s Winter in Antarctica?
Same point I have been trying to make, that we are experiencing re-warming from a cooler time rather than warming from an AGW effect.
Although I am not sold on lowering a thermometer into an ice borehole and claiming it represents past temperatures, there is plenty of proxy and other evidence to back up the Little Ice Age, which appears prominently in their diagram.
It is interesting that when a thermometer is lowered into a borehole in rock, the temperature rises but when lowered into a borehole in ice, the temperature drops. Don’t know what to make of that.
Gordon,
The thermal profile of glaciers shows that temperature increases with depth, after the top few meters or so. Anybody who claims that temperature in a glacier drops with increased depth is probably a “climate scientist” who rejects reality in favour of modelling fantasies.
However, some other SkyDragon cultists seemingly shoot themself in the foot by writing –
“Deuterium data (δD) were used to reconstruct changes in summer temperature in the McMurdo Dry Valleys over the last 900 years. The study showed that there were three distinct periods: the Medieval Warm Period (1140 to 1287 AD), the Little Ice Age (1288 to 1807 AD) and the Modern Era (1808 to 2000 AD).”
The Medieval Warm Period warmed all by itself – no nasty SUVs around at that time?
Then it cooled – all by itself. No doubt due to a lack of fossil fuel pollution.
Then it warmed again – no doubt due to SUVs being introduced in 1808.
Apparently temperatures changes of the order of 2 C were involved.
Either the researchers are dreaming, or the greenhouse effect is a fantasy. Or both. Who knows?
I just found it strange, the claim that glaciers remember the temperature at which the snow that forms them was deposited. The guy who offered the claim seemed to be challenging the cause of current warming, whether it was due to recovery from the cooling or due to anthropogenic causes. I gave him points for asking the question.
There are issues in glacial ice due to the extreme pressure of the ice gathered above. The pressure at the base of the ice is so intense it changes the state of the ice from the solid we associate with ice to a plastic form of ice that will flow. According to the geology course I took, that’s how a glacier flows downhill. Gravity alone apparently won’t force the ice to slide downhill.
It’s the same with ice on land like in Antartica. The ice is averages 2100 metres in thickness across Antarctica and that means tremendous pressure as depth increases. Jaworowski pointed out that CO2 at such depths changes state to a solid, called a clathrate. When the ice comes to the surface and the pressure is reduced, it converts back to a gas. However, liquid gets added as well and the combo prompted Jaworowski to question how reliable are the CO2 concentrations extracted in ice cores.
Storms drenched California for months and piled on epic amounts of snow in the Sierra Nevada. The states May 1 snowpack clocked in at 254% of average for the date.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
MADRID – Record-breaking April temperatures in Spain, Portugal and northern Africa were made 100 times more likely by human-caused climate change, a new flash study found, and would have been almost impossible in the past.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/spain-s-april-heat-nearly-impossible-without-climate-change-1.6385931
CTV is a right-wing rag who is part of the climate cult. Did they print the date from which these so-called records are based? Betting it is 1960.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re supposed to be above and beyond ad hom.
bad hair day.
Comb it with that:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-april-heat-in-spain-portugal-morocco-algeria-almost-impossible-without-climate-change/
Just weather, wee willy.
C’mon, Bordo.
You like what Ren poasts, so it’s science.
Whatever you don’t like thus becomes weather.
Willard,
Are you really stupid enough to believe retards who wrote “The world is approaching the moment when nearly all heat waves will have a climate change fingerprint.”?
Surely anybody so deluded to believe that something (weather) can be affected by its average (climate) is living in some sort of SkyDragon fantasy world?
That’s the sort of thing some incompetent mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) or faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat (Michael Mann) would believe, I suppose. Do you think your content creator and unemployed physicist (Sabine Hossenfelder) would agree that an average has any influence over the numbers from which it is derived?
How are you going with your quest to find a description of the mythical “greenhouse effect”, anyway? Do you think the Chinese might have stolen it, perhaps? They get the blame for everything else that can’t be blamed on the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, French, Brazilians, South Africans, Iraqis, Afghans, and all the rest. Dear oh dear, good old US intellectual property goes missing again!
Is that your excuse?
Mike Flynn,
See above –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482092
Long live and prosper.
Worried Wee Willy,
Are you really stupid enough to believe retards who wrote The world is approaching the moment when nearly all heat waves will have a climate change fingerprint.”?
Instead of posting some completely irrelevant link, you could just be honest, and answer “yes”.
Keep avoiding reality, if you wish.
Mike, Mike,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482656
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
RLH,
Per the conversation last year about more la Nina-like conditions over the last 40 years, I wonder if you read this update at ENSO-blog?
“Since at least 1980, the tropical Pacific warming pattern has become more La Niña-like in the observations. This means that SSTs are warming faster in the western tropical Pacific Ocean than the eastern Pacific, and that surface winds are blowing stronger from east-to-west along the equatorial Pacific Ocean (5). This is opposite to the El Niño-like trend many climate models are projecting into the future because of greenhouse gases. Right now, there is a vigorous debate in the climate community whether the La Niña-like trend we are observing now is being driven by greenhouse gases or has natural causes. Because natural variations in the ocean circulation are slow, it is difficult to estimate the signal of global warming in a short observational record.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/how-pattern-trends-across-tropical-pacific-ocean-critical-understanding-future
How does the AGW theory explain faster warming in the western Pacific?
If you read the article you will understand what’s being discussed, and what link, if any, GW might have to faster rising temperatures in that region.
What’s the point of reading it if they can’t answer the simple question I asked. That is, how can GHG that are supposed to be well-mixed affect only one part of the ocean?
The same is claimed for the Little Ice Age by alarmists that it affected only Europe. I want to know how temps can drop 1C to 2C in Europe without the rest of the planet being affected.
From the article…”If temperatures warm faster in the western Pacific than in the eastern Pacific, the background tropical circulation could become more La Nia-like (3). But if the trend pattern changes as global temperatures continue to rise, meaning the east starts warming faster than the west in the future, the whole circulation across the tropical Pacific could become more El Nio-like”.
Again, if GHGs are well mixed why would that happen? Why would ENSO stop reversing? If anything it would make ENSO cycles stronger but not favour one over the other.
I don’t think the article is well thought out.
The faster rate of warming in the Western Pacific than the Eastern is a pattern consistent with increased frequency of la Ninas. whereas the opposite would be consistent with increased el Nino frequency.
What is being discussed is whether AGW is changing the frequency of la Ninas or not. That’s the link to one region of the Pacific warming faster than another – ENSO’s bimodal SST patterns.
The last 7 days ocean observations.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
P.S. We just had a 3 year La Nina. We have never had a 3 year El Nino.
El Ninos tend to be briefer but stronger.
Year ONI Max or Min State
1982 2.2 Strong El Nino
1997 2.4 Strong El Nino
2015 2.6 Strong El Nino
1988 -1.8 Strong La Nina
1999 -1.7 Strong La Nina
2010 -1.6 Strong La Nina
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Looks like the world has been cooling recently.
The last 7 days ocean observations.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
And thats worth repeating why?
How global warming might cause one mode of ENSO to dominate is not to do with AGW somehow selectively warming one part of the ocean faster than the other, but is rather a more complex set of ocean/atmosphere interactions affected by a warming world.
IOW, they are not contending anything like what your question suggests, which is beside the point that RLH and I have been discussing, to which this article is an update.
You seem to rely on people who got their forecasts wrong for the last 3 years (leading to Blinny and others being wrong in their forecasts also).
Why should we believe that they are right now? Is is because they are simply predicting an El Nino (again).
A year ago you were citing these people positively for a record-breaking la Nina. Michelle l’Heureux was someone whose work you took seriously. Today you are trashing them.
I wondered if we might take up the conversation with the latest developments, but it seems you just want to be argumentative. Oh well.
Why should we believe that they are right now? Is is because they are simply predicting an El Nino (again).
Why are you talking about el Nino? The conversation was about the xtended la Nina. Do you not remember?
Are you saying that La Nina does not happen cyclically with El Nino?
Are you saying that if I talk about an increased frequency of la Ninas recently, that I’m actually talking about el Ninos?
“You seem to rely on people who got their forecasts wrong for the last 3 years”
Oh? All the major forecasts are in general agreement:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230426.nino_summary_4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230426.nino_summary_6.png
Climate has regional variation, even without AGW.
There are deserts, rainforests, temperate zones, and ice sheets.
Much of this variation is due to the global circulation pattern, including the jet streams, which is driven in part by thermal energy.
The climate feedbacks have regional differences, eg ice-albedo feedback amplifies the warming of the Arctic.
This gradient of the warming may change the jet streams.
Why wouldnt you expect climate change to have regional variation?
“Much of this variation is due to the global circulation pattern”
Care to put a timescale to these variations?
Regional variation means spatial variation.
barry,
Heres a small sample of the “experts” from your link –
“However, recent work by Dr. Richard Seager (here and here), among others, suggests models are either deficient at correctly estimating this internal variability or the response to greenhouse gases may not be right.”
And so on.
Maybe you didn’t read the article? At least your blog writer asks the experts a fair question :
“Why cant you just measure past trends and assume they will continue? Whats the problem here?”
Anybody who reads the “experts” responses should understand why pseudo -“patterns” such as ENSO are meaningless when trying to predict the future.
Can you at least appeal to an authority who supports you, rather than me?
Why do you believe I didn’t read the article? Do you imagine I have some need for models to be right all the time?
barry,
You wrote “Why do you believe I didnt read the article?”.
Because you’re stupid?
I just asked you if you had read the article. If you don’t want to answer, that is your right.
Of course I read the article. I have no idea what’s up your arse, but you have nothing more valuable to offer than a morbid attitude. Buzz off.
Are you saying that El Nino is bound to happen this year?
Who are you asking? I can’t see anyone in this saying anything that would prompt your question.
Well you seem to be relying on a big El Nino.
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Could you please quote what you are responding to so I can understand you?
You seem to be relying on a big El Nino occurring this year.
Sorry, I dont know what youre talking about. Could you please quote what you are responding to so I can understand you?
Really. Quote me.
RLH,
Have you gone to find the quote and discovered that I have not once talked about any upcoming el Nino, and that this idea is purely in your own mind?
I opened this thread to invite RLH to discuss a topic he was keenly interested in last year. He’d read an AP article with Michelle l’Heureux saying that if the la Nina extended a couple months more, then an increase in la Ninas over the last 40 years would become statistically significant.
Before I posted here I asked at the blog l’Heuereux posts at if there had been an update. Her reply linked me to an article on it. So I thought RLH would be keen to check out a follow up to a subject that had been important to him last year – a statistically significant increase in la Ninas. It was something he posted about voluminously at the time.
This topic wasn’t a keen interest for me, and I shared the update with RLH for him, not for me.
Then ‘skeptics’ piled on and trashed the researchers RLH had been relying on last year.
RLH himself trashed them, apparently forgetting his keen interest in their work last year.
I was trying to do a kindness for RLH. The skeptic milieu, including RLH, treated that to a bunch of sour rejoinders.
No good deed goes unpunished…
Post failed…lost my place
richard…”Each instrument/channel shows different temperatures in the atmosphere as you get higher up, due to the lapse rate”.
***
They do after external processing but all the AMSU unit can do is detect different frequencies of O2 emissions and convert them to a relative D-C level. After encoding the D-C level in binary and transmitting it back to Earth, it’s up to the scientists like Roy and John Christy to make sense of it.
barry…here’s a good article by Joe d’Aleo on the PDO.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf
Yes, I’ve seen it ages ago – 2008 or so. It’s a lot of curve-fitting to suggest that the PDO is the cause of global warming.
One of the problems with pinning global warming on the PDO is that the PDO is an oscillating pattern, while the global temp trend upwards. As in:
https://tinyurl.com/46ccanar
If global temps were tied to PDO, global temps would just have been long-term oscillating around a mean since 1900.
Not assessed is whether PDO leads or lags global temperature change, or leads or lags shifts in ENSO regimes. I was reading yesterday that ENSO researchers think ENSO leads PDO.
D’Aleo has combined the PDO and AMO into one signal. I wonder how it was done, considering that from the supposed 1976/77 climate shift, they swing in opposite directions.
https://tinyurl.com/3dju2wya
PDO for April 2023 from NOAA data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
ENSO (from the 1870s) does not show much warming over that whole period.
If you take a shorter period then you can show some difference.
The ENSO data show no trend because they are detrended.
The HadISST1 data for the NINO3.4 region shows a small trend over the period.
https://i.imgur.com/8zZsTtJ.png
The compilers of HadISST1 also did a graph of the HadISST NINO3.4 region data.
https://i.imgur.com/Gmte7gQ.png
The global HasISST1 data shows a more marked rising trend from 1979.
https://i.imgur.com/Te7ARSP.png
HadISST1 publication paper that the latter 2 figures were taken from…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002670
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:0.92/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.1/mean:60/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60
Last 50 y, 5 y smooth, linear trend (0.92 C) removed.
Small remainder (stdev 0.05) correlates to PDO and volcanoes.
Are you saying that NOAA is wrong?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
Are you also saying that the big El Nino in 1878 did not happen?
Im showing data since 1970, and noting correlations. Your questions can’t be for me.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Im showing data since 1970, and noting correlations.”
Oh goody!
Do you want a gold star?
Perhaps Flynnson was abused by a scientist as a child. Nothing else can explain his deep antipathy to science and logical thinking.
I am asking you if the 1878 El Nino was at least as big as the one in 2016.
How would I know? The relevance of one-off events to climate change is what?
“How would I know?”
By reading the many papers that say that there was an El Nino in 1878.
“The relevance of one-off events to climate change is what?”
Maximums are not important now apparently.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Perhaps Flynnson was abused by a scientist as a child. Nothing else can explain his deep antipathy to science and logical thinking.”
You can’t produce any “science” to be antipathetic about! Are you denying that thermometers respond to the temperature of their environment?
What “science” are you blabbering about? Maybe you are one of those delusional SkyDragon cultists who claim that CO2 has magic planet warming properties, but you can’t actually describe how this might come about, or where this magical occurrence may be observed, measured, and documented. Some fools claim the existence of a “greenhouse effect”, which they can’t describe in any way that accords with reality! Are you one of those?
What “logical thinking” do you believe I demonstrate antipathy towards? You can’t produce examples because the dog ate them?
Oh dear, your ad hominem attack doesn’t seem to be all that well supported, does it?
Maybe you need to do some research into the scientific method, and try and figure out what you are talking about. You seem a little confused.
Carry on.
Getting deja vu on this 1878 El Nino. Seems you couldnt tell us its significance for climate before, either.
Serial ad-hom grenade thrower Swenson moans about ‘your ad hominem attack’.
Aww, poor pathetic troll.
And still adds nothing of value to the discussion.
” I wonder how it was done, considering that from the supposed 1976/77 climate shift, they swing in opposite directions. ”
Exactly, barry.
*
” Not assessed is whether PDO leads or lags global temperature change… ”
This you can estimate only when detrending the temperature series you compare to the PDO:
https://tinyurl.com/5n7d3hes
*
” … or leads or lags shifts in ENSO regimes. I was reading yesterday that ENSO researchers think ENSO leads PDO. ”
Indeed, also not assessed, as you can see in the comparison PDO vs. MEI:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vo2LXFNMd1ripgz99FQc2Svxq01U8ahx/view
(The indices were converted into percentages because their value ranges considerably differ.)
I wouldn’t bet on who’s the leader of anything here.
*
Most people btw ‘forget’ that the detrended AMO cannot be compared to temperature time series – unless you detrend them too.
Here is a comparison of AMO undetrended to Had-CRUT and GISS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
*
Last not least: comparing the recent MEI to the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) by inverting one of the two, is interesting as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj5jp6xb8BqPByqwAxzo9foMeJtB486a/view
Sources
PDO
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.hadisst1.1.csv
AMO undetrended
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
OLR
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr
Had-CRUT (Globe) and GISS (LOTI) as usual.
Binny,
And your point is . . . ?
Nothing? As usual?
Any fool can play with historical figures. You do, for example.
And what is YOUR point, Flynnson?
To distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate, as usual?
You dumb ass!
Binny,
You wrote –
“And what is YOUR point, Flynnson?
To distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate, as usual?
You dumb ass!”
My point was that asking you what your point was, was pointless, as you didn’t have one. Your response merely serves to reinforce my point.
You can’t even provide examples of the distortions, misrepresentations, discreditings, and denigrations which you claim absolve you from responsibility for being a pointless data dissector!
Don’t blame me because you’ve wasted your time trying to appear intelligent by imitating a 12 year old graphic artist. That’s not actually science, but you don’t seem to care. Nor do I, come to think of it.
Oh well, I tried. Go off and try using different colored pencils. Maybe the future will be clearer if you do. Good luck.
Tamino once posted that he had analysed the AMO response time and found that it lagged global temps. His opinion is that it is an alias of global temps.
I can’t remember if anyone has done a similar analysis for the PDO. I don’t know how one might determine an inflection point in such noisy data, down to the monthly scale.
Thanks for the graphs. Lead/lag is impossible to tell visually.
PDO from NOAA data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
ONI for Mar 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/oni.jpeg
barry
Tamino has been discredited here and at WUWT since ever, especially by those who never would be able to scientifically contradict him.
He is a great specialist in time series statistics, and surprised many people when presenting ‘change point’ analysis results helping very much in comparing analogous time series. { His last head post is dated 2022, August 5, hopefully he’s still alive. }
To ‘enjoy’ the dumb Flynnson, who never has anything relevant to say and hence permanently urges in saying something irrelevant, here is more of this ‘fool playing’ with heavily colo[u]red , historical figures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HtQq7eVIaJ4zn182I6Kzs5fhxxvZzT7/view
I tried to find out how ‘Its the Sun, stupid’ might appear when lagging solar wrt the rest using different shifts, but… no success.
It is as stupid as is ‘Its CO2, stupid’.
Yes, the solar correlation to global temps broke down 40 years ago. I read about that in 2007, and the correlation has only gotten worse since then.
Or we could be seeing longer timescales (say 60-70 years) in the major components of the temperature series.
Sources
MEI historical
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
MEI since 1979
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
MEIv2 for Mar 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2.jpeg
Sometimes, the ‘official’ time series exist in different variants, what is a bit confusing.
I used in the PDO vs MEI percentile graph above
http://ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
But today I discovered
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv3b.csv
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv5.csv
and
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.hadisst1.1.csv
which of course begins somewhat later.
*
Why this variant salad?
Well ersstv5 is probably later than ersstv3b.
barry
You wrote above:
” The ENSO data show no trend because they are detrended. ”
I can’t really agree. If this was the case, MEI V2 wouldn’t show any significant trend decline for 1979-2023.
Not ENSO is detrended: rather, the SST data out of which some of its indices are computed has itself no trend (only 0.01 C / decade for 1871-2022 for NCEP and HadISST1 SST).
But anyone who has compared different historical SST series (COBE-SST2, ERSST V3b and V5, HadISST1 SST) knows that even their Tropics resp. global data do not show a very high trend (0.04 C / decade):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yt24KzRb0qzwMplIF25nHgDIUayHfIAB/view
*
I read here about El Nino 1877/78 allegedly being the ‘greatest evah’.
This is not so terribly correct.
Here is the top 25 of a sort of MEI’s historical and recent indices since 1871:
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
1982 11: 2.28
1998 3: 2.27
1941 5: 2.27
1998 5: 2.26
1997 6: 2.25
1998 1: 2.23
2015 9: 2.21
1972 8: 2.21
1997 8: 2.20
1997 9: 2.17
1877 11: 2.17
1997 7: 2.11
2015 10: 2.11
1972 7: 2.09
1877 10: 2.07
*
According to NOAA’s MEI (which suddenly gained interest among the Coolistas because its La Nina 2020-2023 indices went way below those of NOAA NCEP), the ‘biggest’ El Nino was in 1982/83.
1982/83 is ignored by most people who use to confound UAH’s LT data with ENSO indices, which of course is wrong.
We don’t see this El Nino event in any temperature series because it has beeen completely hidden by the El Chichon eruption in 1982, which had ‘only’ VEI 5 but was very rich in aerosols.
“An exceptionally strong El Nio may have caused 1876-1878 famine that killed tens of millions. (Inside Science) — 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”
https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-nino-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine
Short ENSO data can show a trend just due to variation.
ONI is detrended SST data. The Japanese also detrend NINO3 SSTs, like NOAA, with a 30 year sliding window. As I recall MEI run a principal component analysis for the suite of variables that underlie the anomalies, which effectively detrends the SSTs.
Are you disputing the source I quoted or just disagreeing with its conculsion?
I’m talking to Bindidon. If you want clarity just read our exchange.
I thought we had agreed that you always see things getting warmer.
” I thought we had agreed that you always see things getting warmer. ”
Really, Blindsley Hood?
I would rather say that barry and I view you as one of those Coolistas denying any aspect related to warming.
Apart from the fact that you seem to admit the lunar spin: what is the difference between you and Robertson, Blindsley Hood?
Any idea?
Me? I am not a coolist (except in your mind). Just someone who follows the data (as my blog shows) https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/.
Blindsley Hood
This is just a start:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/quinn/quinn15251987.gif
More tomorrow when I have some idle time to comment your so ‘highly competent’ source.
Looks like you are just confirming that El Nino has been present in its current strength right back to the late 1500s.
Well I hope you read widely as there are many papers that concluded that the 1878 event was very strong indeed.
P.S. You might like to read what Michelle LHeureux had to say on the matter.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
You might like to read to the end:
So you agree. 1878 and 2016 events are the same? So the maximums have not increased at all in that period.
Check out the series, Richard –
1877, 1982, 1997 and 2015.
Anything that stands out?
“the 1878 event was very strong indeed.”
And yet RLH, you have been unable to identify how this one-off event in the central Pacific, is significant to global climate change.
Study of probability distribution of El Nino/La Nina magnitudes.
Gaussian.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013508
“A 19971998 El Nio will occur once in approximately 70 20 years, while an El Nio 25% larger will occur once in approximately 700 200 years.”
It puts 1878 in with the largest late 20th century events.
But even if a bit larger, such events may be rare, but not unexpected.
And??
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More snow in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/t3MVP9c/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-06-150955.png
A chocolate factory in Belgium.
https://www.chocolatenation.be/en
What does chocolate have to do with snowfall?
What does Snowfall in Sierra Nevada have to do with anything?
A lot of energy and water is locked up in snowfall.
Lots of calories in a chocolate factory.
In Belgium?
In general.
1 oz of Chocolate, 152 calories
Latent heat of ice (snow), 80 calories per gram (times 28.3 grams to an oz).
I also think there is a lot more volume of snow than there is chocolate.
Chocolate with frosting on top can look like snow on a mountain.
I think that the Sierra Nevada got a little more than a dusting.
Are you suggesting that insurance premiums are on the rise and a key driver is climate change?
So now it is insurance premiums as well as chocolate that is driving climate change.
So now snowfall is driving global cooling.
Apparently global warming is causing more snow.
Apparently contrarians forget about the ClausiusClapeyron relation.
Nothing.
What does an 1878 el Nino have to do with PDO data from 1970 onward?
But if we had the ‘biggest ever’ El Nino in 1878, what then the growth in equatorial temperature?
When you refer to the “biggest” El Nino in 1878, do you mean the highest absolute temperature or the highest anomaly?
If the latter, what was the baseline for the 1878 El Nino and how does that compare with the 2016 El Nino and the current baseline?
Numbers, please.
I was referring to something quoted by another source (see elsewhere).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482850
How can you say that when the increase in the frequency of la Nina events over the last 40 years has recently achieved statistical significance?
Was 1878 only 40 years ago?
Was 1878 a la Nina?
1878 was an El Nino year.
Then it has nothing to do with the increased frequency of la Ninas in the last 40 years. A topic you seem keen to avoid. Perhaps because you require a strong el Nino this year?
What has what happened in 1878 to do with what has happened in the last 40 years?
“you require a strong el Nino this year?”
You are the one suggesting that, not me.
“What has what happened in 1878 to do with what has happened in the last 40 years?”
Absolutely nothing, and yet you keep talking about 1878 when I’ve been talking about the last 40 years and la Ninas.
I’m afraid it is you who has the fixation with el Ninos, not me.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Northern and central Vietnam regions are going through a heat wave that has pushed temperatures up to 43 degrees Celsius (109.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in certain areas.
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/environment/heatwave-sends-temperatures-up-to-43-degrees-in-northern-central-vietnam-4601936.html
Are you saying that this is caused by the (now past|) La Nina or the upcoming (according to you) El Nino?
RLH,
Are you saying that Arctic sea ice is tied to the Julian-Madden Oscillation?
Did I say that?
Did you say anything?
Yup. Whereas you just said nonsense.
Did I say anything?
Nothing of value. As usual.
Whereas No U.
No U involved.
Are you saying you’re just saying nonsense?
U are just an idiot.
Found an answer to your riddle yet, Richard?
The riddle as to if you are an idiot? There is no doubt about that.
So you don’t even recall your riddle, dummy?
The riddle as to if you are an idiot? That’s solved already.
So you’re going to play dumb again, dummy?
Why are you avoiding the discussion about the recent increased frequency of la Ninas, RLH? Is it because you require a strong el Nino this year?
You are the one suggesting a large El Nino, not me.
I’ve never said such a thing, while you’ve definitely said you’re worried about global warming.
The heaviest snowfall is forecast on the summits above 6,000 feet up to 10 inches. Snow is expected to range between 4 to 6 inches near Yosemite Valley and Mammoth Lakes. The Lake Tahoe area is expected to see 2 to 4 inches.
Winds are also expected to pick up Saturday afternoon as the low-pressure systems cold front passes, leading to 25 to 30 mph gusts along the I-80 pass between Auburn and Reno as well as Highway 120 toward Yosemite. Blowing snow will become an issue in the evening, reducing visibility and raising a slight risk for whiteout conditions.
“An unusually chilly start to May in India and eastern US”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/weather-tracker-unusually-chilly-start-may-india-us
Are you saying that the PDO isn’t responsible for weather in the UK?
Are you saying that the PDO caused what is happening in the USA and India?
Are you denying the influence of the PDO?
Interesting question re PDO. ENSO seems to be the predominant force affecting global weather likely because it is situated in the Tropics and can circulate heat directly which has a disrupting force on the jet stream. However, the PDO is claimed to influence ENSO, being in the same ocean but further north. The AMO likely has an influence as well.
Oh how interesting!
The Guardian, endlessly vilified by the Coolistas for “just talking about warming”, is now suddenly being mentioned by The British Empire’s Number One Coolista.
Reason obvious!
” It has been a historically chilly start to May in India… ”
OMG.
I, unlike others, just go with what the data says.
No.
You, like some others, just go with what your gut feeling says.
Strange how my blog is full of graphs that just plot data with VP HQLP filters and 5 pass, multi-pass S-G on them isn’t it?
Now you finally admit how deep you do manipulate us by running 5 pass filter sequences you dare to specify ‘5 year pass’ or the like.
My maths has ben proven to be correct. The base filter is one from VP and the S-G projection is one I added.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
“We can verify that the parameters chosen are correct because the line closely follows the full kernel filter if used as a training/verification guide. I have removed the early part of the line for one very good reason. It is the same reason why this should not be considered an absolute guide to the future also. Like LOWESS, S-G will ‘whip’ around on new data like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf. It is likely that it will follow some similar trajectory but this is an estimate, not a certainty.”
P.S. My 5 year low pass is a 60/50/39 month VP. A cascaded triple pass running mean as per Vaughn Pratt.
” P.S. My 5 year low pass is a 60/50/39 month VP. A cascaded triple pass running mean as per Vaughn Pratt. ”
Here is one, generated last year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
… a second one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oDK8ig7oWbtLgzCoHnh-C4hZOeVvObjD/view
… and a third one, dated March of this year, including NOAA STAR LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X43KTM8arJ6RdHgnBxd5GMLUd6xp2Gxi/view
*
I’m 100 % sure that if your filter outputs are flatter than mine then yours are not 100 % CTRM 60/50/39 resp. S-G 60.
“I’m 100 % sure that if your filter outputs are flatter than mine”
You’re 100% wrong in that then. The code I use (in c#) uses exactly VPs recommendations. See the fuller post above for more details. I have even published how to achieve the same results using Excel (that should be right up your street).
The facts are that VP uses a triple pass running mean cascaded together to produce a low distortion full kernel output.
In order to verify my use of S-G as a projection, I also use a 5 pass method (that others recommended) as my fuller posts shows.
Stop your arrogant blathering, Blindsley Hood, and show the charts corresponding EXACTLY to mines!
Not only I want to see your three outputs, some others want to laugh with me…
UAH Mar 2023 Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-global.jpeg
RSS Feb 2023 Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global.jpeg
“some others want to laugh with me”
Sone others want to just laugh at you.
Sunspots!!! They are missing. Cools the place down according to Zharkova. Of course, the IPCC wants nothing to do with such theories because the liars at the IPCC can only talk about human influences, of which there are none.
How can you be so egregiously, permanently, and demonstrably wrong? The IPCC reports have entire sections dedicated to discussing natural drivers and components of climate change,including sunspots and what their lack means.
Honestly, you ‘skeptics’ seem to get your talking points from some bottomless well of ignorance.
“For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number. Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, numerous observers noted the variable concentrations and ephemeral nature of sunspots, but very few sightings were reported between 1672 and 1699 (for an overview see Hoyt et al., 1994). This period of low solar activity, now known as the Maunder Minimum, occurred during the climate period now commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age (Eddy, 1976)….
During the latter part of the 18th century, Wilhelm Herschel (1801) noted the presence not only of sunspots but of bright patches, now referred to as faculae, and of granulations on the solar surface. He believed that when these indicators of activity were more numerous, solar emissions of light and heat were greater and could affect the weather on Earth. Heinrich Schwabe (1844) published his discovery of a ‘10-year cycle’ in sunspot numbers. Samuel Langley (1876) compared the brightness of sunspots with that of the surrounding photosphere. He concluded that they would block the emission of radiation and estimated that at sunspot cycle maximum the Sun would be about 0.1% less bright than at the minimum of the cycle, and that the Earth would be 0.1°C to 0.3°C cooler.
These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html
“Of course, the IPCC wants nothing to do with such theories”
Geeze, Gordon, all you have to do is google ‘IPCC on sunspots’ before you post such a fatuous remark. In the 21st century with access to much of the world’s knowledge at the stroke of a few keys, there really is no excuse for this witlessness.
Troll barry, your cult believes fluxes simply add. Your cult believes passenger jets fly backward. Your cult believes atmospheric CO2 is the same as a CO2 laser. Your cult believes Earth is like an imaginary sphere.
You call people “lying dog” because you don’t understand your own cult nonsense.
Maybe you need to clean up your act before you pontificate so self-righteously.
I won’t hold my breath…
You going to say anything about the topic, or just snarl like a dog?
I won’t hold my breath.
The topic was your egregious attack on Gordon for expressing his opinions. That was the topic I was addressing.
That’s another problem with you cult idiots, troll barry. You can’t accept reality.
I didn’t attack Gordon for expressing his opinions. He is free to spout total nonsense to his heart’s content, just as I am free to point out his egregious errors with as much flair as suits me.
I’m also free to point out that it’s rich for you to be a tone nazi here. You’re as contemptuous in your remarks as anyone else.
The topic Gordon brought up was his contention that the IPCC fails to consider sunspots influence on global temperatures. He’s wrong, it’s demonstrated, you’re just nipping at my heels. Buzz off.
barry…”How can you be so egregiously, permanently, and demonstrably wrong? The IPCC reports have entire sections dedicated to discussing natural drivers and components of climate change,including sunspots and what their lack means.
Honestly, you skeptics seem to get your talking points from some bottomless well of ignorance”.
***
The IPCC pays lip service to real science but it is offered in a condescending manner. For example, they downplay the effect of the Little Ice Age which discredits their ridiculous propaganda that trace gases in the atmosphere are responsible for not only heating it, but dissipating the heat they allegedly produce.
The IPCC dismisses the LIA, the alternative to their inane anthropognic theory, as a transient effect over 400 years in Europe only. Only ignorant boneheads could reach such a conclusion. They don’t normally offer straight answers like that, however, they usually couch them as vague probabilities based on a scale invented by the IPCC.
It is obvious that the IPCC is promoting anthropogenic causes of warming, which they give a high likelihood while dismissing natural processes by giving them low probabilities. The truth is, they have no idea whether their offerings have any degree of accuracy. If they did, there would be no need to offer their opinions using probabilities.
I fear you have an odd obsession with the IPCC. I don’t, I regard them as a load of charlatans who propagate political propaganda.
The reason you believe my comments are contemptuous, troll barry, is that they include a heavy dose of reality.
Gordon,
How am I obsessed with the IPCC when it was YOU who mentioned it?
It may be challenging to accept that reconstructions of temperatures prior to the instrumental record show warming and cooling at different times in different regions and different seasons, and that these do not all line up neatly in some temporal unity.
But these are the facts.
The fact of natural causes of climate change does not preclude anthropogenic causes of climate change. The LIA, whether a regional or global event, is no challenge to AGW.
The high probabilities of anthro warming against natural applies only for the late 20th and early 21st centuries. No one contends AGW was operating at any significant level (ie, by land clearing) prior to then.
You have a lot of work to do to make your remarks match reality, including the uncertainties. But even the least effort would keep you (maybe) from making stupidly ignorant statements like:
“the IPCC can only talk about human influences”
SOLAR MINIMUM STRIKES AGAIN
Rwandans grieved Thursday for lost loved ones and destroyed homes after powerful floods and landslides tore through the country killing at least 130 people and leaving many thousands homeless.
The government was still counting the cost as families prepared to bury their dead in the aftermath of a natural disaster caused by torrential rains in the steep and hilly country.
Rivers of mud swept away homes and other infrastructure and cut off roads in several parts of the country, particularly the Western Province bordering Lake Kivu where the worst devastation was reported.
[…]
East Africa often suffers from deadly weather during the rainy seasons, and Uganda has also suffered in recent days with six people reported dead in a landslide.
Last month, at least 14 people died after heavy rains triggered floods and landslides in southern Ethiopia, while hundreds of livestock perished and scores of houses were damaged.
In May 2020, at least 65 people died in Rwanda as heavy rains pounded the region while more than 200 people died in floods and landslides in the first four months of 2018.
Experts say extreme weather events are happening with increased frequency and intensity due to climate change — and Africa, which contributes the least to global warming, is bearing the brunt.
https://www.africanews.com/2023/05/04/rwanda-families-grieve-count-cost-after-floods-landslides-kill-130/
It’s pretty sad when alarmists have to promote their dumb theories of climate change on the backs of people suffering from natural disaster.
Winter is coming to Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/2MBt2FV/gfs-T2ma-aus-9.png
I recall watching a rugby game on TV from Sydney in winter. It rained a lot. I don’t know if they get snow in Australia other than cursory snowfall on the odd hill they refer to as Alps. 🦁 ☺
When I lived in Auckland, NZ for a bit, we’d sometimes get a nip of frost in the morning and by noon it was 60F (15C).
Having lived in real winters in Canada, I can’t imagine winter in Australia. At least, in Oz, if you get tired of the cold and damp, you can go north and find better weather in the same country. We don’t have that luxury in Canada.
Gordon,
People get caught in blizzards and die, from time to time. However, per capita, more Australians die from hypothermia in Australia, than Swedes in Sweden. How funny is that?
Even in the Northern Territory, the NT Govt. warns – “If your swimming be aware that most swimming holes are very cold and long exposure, even during summer, can lead to hypothermia.”
Yep. Even in direct sun, with shade temperatures over 45 C, you can still die of cold! Or, as some tourists have found, drinking too much water (not even cold water) can kill.
Dangerous stuff, water, whether frozen, cold, or warm.
re swimming in cold swimming holes, the hypothermia is compounded by alcohol consumption, same as hyperthermia in hot tubs. I have heard it’s dangerous swimming around fresh water crocs, not to mention venomous sea snakes.
“Even in the Northern Territory, the NT Govt. warns”
That’s where Mike Flynn lives too. Funny that.
Yes, winter tends to occur every year, even in Australia!
Funny, that.
This is not the end of snowfall in the mountains of Kalifornia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM KEEPS WINNING
Average temperatures in Afghanistan rose 1.8 degrees Celsius from 1950 to 2010, about twice the global average.
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-hunger-climate-change/31564617.html
https://berkeleyearth.org/policy-insights/
It was 0 C and now, it’s around 1.8 C
But it has wide swings in yearly of about 2 C,
if we get some global warming it’s temperature should be more uniform.
Right now global average temperature is about 15 C and 15 C is cold.
We have been and will remain in an icehouse global climate, but in warmer part of interglacial period global average temperature can be about 17 C- which is still cold.
If you move to Mars, the air temperature varied a lot more, but it’s close to vacuum and so the air is not cold.
Or if take an air cooled motor from Earth, it overheats on Mars- that is a slight problem- but you could live underwater on Mars- of course in water is 15 C, it’s cold.
gb…you’re not thinking of stowing away on one of Musk’s spaceships, are you?
I think mostly about ocean settlements on Earth- and pipelaunchers [which are related].
What I think is important is determining whether or not the lunar polar region have mineable water. And that possibility I become aware of in 1998. Before that, I was interested in possibility of mining water from space rocks. I am also interested in Quasi moons of Earth- and Quasi moons of other planets- Mars, Venus, even Mercury. I believe they all are have dust rings.
If Mars has mineable water, we could get Mars settlements, which requires ocean settlements. And in that situation- Venus orbits seems more interesting, than Mars.
But the Moon and Mars might not have mineable water. You just need one of them to have mineable water- and be able to live in Mars weak gravity well. And not have alien life which would complicate any possibility of anyone living there.
In the nearest term, I might want to travel sub-orbitally.
What kind of important about Starship, is what all launch companies do, when SpaceX can prove it works. There is lots interesting stuff happenning because of madman Musk. The space starts up, have been happenning before Musk- start up was said to way to turn large fortune into a small one- lots of people trying a failing.
The winds have change, people {perhaps dislusional] now imagine you could make a lot money doing it.
I like Stratolauncher, also. Many people think it’s doomed- but that’s “normal”.
Which reminds me, telescopes.
“Superfast sky survey
So what will these new instruments actually be, and what will they do? Of the four next-generation scopes preparing to revolutionize astronomy, the Vera C. Rubin Observatory should be the first to land on the scene. What sets the Rubin Observatory’s Simonyi Survey Telescope apart is not its size its 8.4-meter primary mirror would fit in comfortably at several current mountaintop observatories but its ability to image wide swaths of sky quickly.
Situated atop Cerro Pachn in north-central Chile, the Rubin Observatory should take just 15 seconds to deliver sharp images covering 9.6 square degrees of sky equivalent to the area of more than 40 full Moons, and nearly 5,000 times the field of Hubbles Wide Field Camera 3.
”
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/10/four-new-giant-telescopes-are-about-to-rock-astronomy
“First light Expected in August 2024”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory
Berkelely Earth are a load of lying alarmists. Judith Curry parted ways with them when they started lying.
Ok, but they give temperature of all countries in the world- and why I know Canada’s average temperature which is about -3 C.
It might include UHI effects, but at least they attempt to give a temperature. Show me somewhere else, that does [and is as handy].
And also why I know average land average is about 10 C and if average global temperature is about 15 C, then average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
And tropical ocean about 26 C, and remaining 60% is about 11 C which together equals 17 C.
UAH and NOAA/STAR.
P.S. The Tropics (if you use 30N to 30S for that designation) is 50% of the surface area of a globe/sphere.
Thus quartiles of our planet are
1. 90N to 30N
2. 30N to the equator
3. 30S to the equator
4. 90S to 30S
“P.S. The Tropics (if you use 30N to 30S for that designation) is 50% of the surface area of a globe/sphere.”
But tropics is 23.5 N and S, and therefore about 40% and rest world 30% N and S.
But it might be good to think of tropics in general sense as 50%.
A degree of latitude is about 111 km times 30 = 3330 km and for North and South x 2.
Or instead of using tropics, one might say the region which receives more most of the sunlight is between 30 degree latitude north and south. Or roughly 6660 times 40,000 km = 266,400,000 of 510 million square km.
Or we have term peak solar hours of anywhere which about 6 hours of the 12 hour of daylight whereas 30 N to S is peak sunlight region and in this region about 80% of area is ocean. And this ocean region is the tropical ocean heat engine.
But the 23.5 degree region gets most of sunlight, not sure how how 30 degree N and S “peak sunlight region gets but some number close 80%.
Or it’s silly to use solar panels in Germany.
Astronomically you would be correct but, for instance, the British met office uses 30N/30S as that division.
The observation about quartiles still stands.
The climate of Afghanistan has always been rated as arid. They simply don’t get much in the way of precipitation. More arid, less arid…it’s all dry.
As for your claim the temperature there has risen 1.8C, I say bollocks. It should have risen no more than Spain, Italy, Greece, and Northern California.
To be classified under ‘wee willy lies’.
C’mon, Bordo. Twas a quote.
Dry days. Drought. Extreme drought. All different levels of dryness.
Try not to be an absolute asshat.
wee willy tries to squirm out of the inference in his post, that drought in Afghanistan is related to anthropogenic causes.
After denying facts, Bordo goes for logic.
Will he succeed?
Stay tuned for Bordo’s Daily Limbo!
Says Whacky Wee Willy “After denying facts, Bordo goes for logic.”
Wee Willy Retard can’t actually produce the facts, or the denial, and can’t explain what “going for logic” means – if anything.
Nevertheless, seeing how Willard can’t even describe, let alone explain, the mythical “greenhouse effect”, he has to attempt to cloud the issue.
What a donkey!
Mike Flynn does not even realize that the fact that the average temperatures in Afghanistan rose 1.8 degrees Celsius from 1950 to 2010, about twice the global average is a fact.
What a silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Six days into the new month and the page has already turned totally retarded
About average.
Don’t be too harsh on Bordo, Eboy.
Just posting to offer an example of nested posts.
Good article on climate…
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/climate_v_wx
“The bottom line is large swings in day-to-day, month-to month and even year-to year weather does not necessarily imply large, rapid changes in climate. Weather, over time, will become part of the 30-year normal”.
Obviously, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc., are not necessarily indicative of climate change, especially not a global climate change, whatever that means. We are reading far too much into weather events and claiming them as climate events.
More wisdom on the Jet Stream from NOAA’s National Weather Service…
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/jet
Must be a different section of NOAA than their climate division. Just like NASA where their climate division, GISS, has not much in common with the science produced by NASA itself.
“Weather, over time, will become part of the 30-year normal”.
I’m shocked – shocked I tell you!
NOAA finally acknowledges that climate is the statistics of historical weather observations over an arbitrary time period!
I suppose that the SkyDragon cultists at NOAA will claim that they knew it all the time.
So much for weather being driven by “climate change”!
Yeah, they knew it all the time.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14833
barry,
Does your link quote NOAA admitting that weather is not driven by climate change, or are you providing irrelevant links, hoping that you can fool everyone?
You seem to be avoiding admitting that NOAA agrees with me writing “So much for weather being driven by “climate change”.”
Time for you change your story, I guess. I suppose you really meant to say something else, is that it?
Let me know.
NOAA have being calculating climate as the average of weather statistics for decades. That’s what the link shows, contrary to your boneheaded remarks.
Here’s an even earlier example.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14837
Please ask your nurse to help you remember what you say. It’s tedious having to remind you.
barry,
That’s not the question which you are trying to avoid. I wrote that NOAA seems to admit that “climate change” has no effect on weather!
You keep repeating what even NOAA has admitted for years – that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.
Idiots such as yourself seem to claim that “climate change” has some effect on weather, which is completely nonsensical,- by definition.
Go on, tell me that the statistics of weather have any effect on the weather!
Idiot.
NOAA says more than 90% of global warming in warming our cold ocean.
I would say, warming or cooling our 3.5 ocean is only way to warm or cool Earth’s global climate.
“More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
“The ocean is absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
NOAA –
“The ocean is absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.”
At least NOAA have stopped burbling about some mythical “greenhouse effect”, and now grudgingly admit that “human activity” generates heat.
As to this heat being “absorbed” by the oceans (never to be seen again) – a la K Trenberth, this is just complete nonsense. Oceans have cooled from initial creation at boiling point, and even the vast amounts of heat from mid-ocean ridges and thermal vents, cannot stop this cooling.
Just simple physics. Any delusional SkyDragon cultists who choose fantasy over fact are obviously in the grip of religious mania.
“they knew it all the time”.
***
NOAA is a big outfit, like NASA. NASA has GISS as their climate division and they appear to have nothing to do with NASA proper. I am guessing that NOAA employs dissidents as well who, for whatever reason, are allowed to express their own opinions, albeit misguided.
The links I provided are to their weather division, who seem to have integrity.
NOAA is affiliated with GHCN which has over 100,000 stations in their database but NOAA climate division uses less than 1500 surface stations globally to compute their fictitious temperature record. NASA GISS get their temperature data from NOAA as does Had-crut then both fudge it further.
There are divisions within NOAA, like the weather division I just linked to, who seem upfront about current science but the climate division not only fudges the temperature record it lies about it. They claimed 2014 at the hottest year ever, based on a 48% likelihood when UAH showed 2014 as being nowhere near a record.
An example of NOAA chicanery is them re-assessing the 1998 – 2012 trend AFTER the IPCC had declared it flat. NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a trend after their surface record had shown the same flat trend as the IPCC claimed.
I don’t know what to make of NOAA overall. They have Chris Landsea working in their hurricane centre and he has integrity. Yet, Karl, the leader of their climate division at one time knew how Mann et al had fudged the fossil record to eradicate declining temperatures and show a warming. Karl knew about it and said nothing.
Well, it’s better than some who said the heat was “lost” in the ocean.
Gordon,
As usual, little of what you said is rooted in any fact-based understanding. It’s clear from your post that you only give credence to people who challenge the mainstream consensus of AGW, simply because they do.
You favour NOAA/GHCN whenever it produces a cooler result than UAH, and you promote results born from climate modeling whenever the results suit your preference.
There’s no examination of the validity of evidence with you. You assign credence based on your beliefs. It’s pure bias confirmation, no investigation.
Bad argument, Barry, you need a pint of Foster’s lager.
BTW…what is the preferred pint down there these days? I don’t drink these days, just curious.
I don’t drink beer. It’s different preferences per state, and there is a lot of craft beer in the market, a lot more choices than before. I don’t know what is most popular.
Bad argument? No, you give credence to methods based on the results or who publishes them. This is very clear from what you have written here many times over the years.
As Gordo’s link noted, “climate” is the statistics of day-to-day weather, such as the daily calendar temperatures averaged over several years, called “normal”. Climate changes are the result of changes in weather patterns. Daily extreme events neither prove nor disprove climate change, but, over time, they impact the statistical comparisons between previous periods and recent periods.
swannie…”Daily extreme events neither prove nor disprove climate change, but, over time, they impact the statistical comparisons between previous periods and recent periods”.
***
That would be great provided the cooling events were included. They are ignored by alarmists.
I disagree. For my part, I would not be surprised to see more extremes at each end of the spectrum, especially during the NH Winter months. That’s because I think the tropic-to-pole circulation could strengthen, thus more warm air masses moving toward the North and then more cold air masses returning to complete the circulation. Time will tell.
Snowfall in the mountains in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Z6h2VRS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-07-085642.png
Link not found.
Yup.
Typical Robertson nonsense
” NOAA is affiliated with GHCN which has over 100,000 stations in their database but NOAA climate division uses less than 1500 surface stations globally to compute their fictitious temperature record. ”
Robertson not only is the dumbest, most ignorant poster on this blog; he is also a persistent liar.
*
NOAA is not ‘affiliated with GHCN’: the GHCN, USHCN and USCRN station sets are integral part of NOAA’s data.
Both Roy Spencer and John Christy have made heavy use of all that, and certainly will have, like me, a big, big laugh at Robertson’s ridiculous lies concerning these ‘1500 stations’, a lie based on a document posted by NOAA in 2009, and subsequently saved over the years by numerous Internet users into the Wayback Machine, and which he permanently repeats.
I also use to save documents into the Wayback Machine whenever I suspect their editors to silently modify them.
**
The very best of all is when Robertson also endlessly tries to claim I wouldn’t know what anomalies are, though he himself never downloaded and presented any anomaly-based data, let alone would be be ever able to construct anomalies wrt a reference period out of any absolute data.
All he knows about anomalies is NOAA’s simple text:
” A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. ”
That is, roughly spoken, about 20 % of what you have to know when you want to generate anomalies.
What anomalies really are he knows nothing about: it consists of removing what is named the ‘seasonal dependencies’, or, speaking the same language as Roy Spencer, the ‘annual cycle’.
This means that one can’t simply build a baseline as an average of all absolute values belonging to a given reference period.
You have to build separate averages for all time units you deal with: e.g. months or days.
Thus, for example, in a monthly time series, a January anomaly wrt the mean of a 30-year long period like 1991-2020 is constructed by subtracting the mean of the 30 absolute January values from the absolute January value just considered.
*
What Robertson also completely ignores is how to compare anomalies coming from different absolute contexts, and possibly based on different reference periods, e.g. an anomaly time series generated at NOAA wrt the mean of 1901-2000, a second series made by GISS wrt the mean of 1951-1980, and a third one made at UAH wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
He simply compares these anomalies altogether without asking himself why they differ by huge amounts, and hence stubbornly thinks
– that NOAA and GISS intentionally fudge their data, giving anomalies way higher than UAH’s,
and
– that when, being aware of this problem, I recompute all the anomalies such that they become based wrt the same reference period, I intentionally produce faked results.
Both is absolute nonsense! None of my former engineer colleagues would ever think like does Robertson.
*
An important point in anomaly construction is that when constructing an anomaly time series out of several sources (weather stations, tide gauges, atmospheric grid cells etc etc), you can’t simply average the absolute values of all your sources to a monthly or daily time series, then compute a baseline out of the average and finally the anomalies.
Rather, you must perform the anomaly construction for each single source (provided it has sufficient data in the reference period) and then average these single anomaly time series into a global or regional average.
This ensures that all anomalies are constructed with respect to the same context: anomalies generated e.g. out of the data of a rural station located at 2000 m altitude must be generated out of absolute data belonging to the station itself, and not out of some arbitrary mixture of stations located anywhere.
Here’s an example of a small job the lying genius Robertson could do in a few hours with his eyes closed.
*
It is an evaluation of all GHCN daily stations available in March 2023 at NOAA’s site:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
{ Caution: don’t click on the ‘all’ link: this results in a display of a directory with over 100,000 entries. }
Of all stations, about 40,000 have TMIN and TMAX data.
For the year 2022, 13364 of them were located in 2122 cells of a 2.5 degree grid (the maximum was in 2003 with 18821 stations in 2237 cells). Thus, about 70 % of the land surfaces were covered.
*
Before the monthly time series are generated, the data (absolute values and anomalies) are first averaged in grid cells to avoid distortions caused by over-representation. Some grid cells in the US include over 300 stations.
Then the latitude bands are averaged and finally a latitude weighting is applied – as with all evaluations (UAH’s included of course).
1. Absolute values
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mSmvQowCS1m0PE9_fckw2CO7JOZp3s0x/view
Linear estimates in C / decade
1880-now
Tmin: 0.18 +- 0.01
Tmax: 0.06 +- 0.01
1979-now
Tmin: 0.29 +- 0.05
Tmax: 0.33 +- 0.06
2. Anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XhA5BIxcVCeCkPn2xYXVkwK7-QfnWQ9Z/view
Linear estimates in C / decade
1880-now
Tmin: 0.11 +- 0.00
Tmax: 0.06 +- 0.00
1979-now
Tmin: 0.19 +- 0.01
Tmax: 0.27 +- 0.01
Tell us how exactly you use this to get all your forecast perfectly backwards
You tell us first why you can only make such stupid remarks, dachshund.
If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in your case that is zero.
Didn’t you understand?
I asked you to tell us why you can only make stupid remarks, Dachshund – and not to produce more of them.
I predicted cooling 5 years ago, It has been cooling from then on,
Why didn’t you predict it ???
Did you still not understand?
I asked you to tell us why you can only make stupid remarks, Dachshund and not to produce more of them.
1. You never predicted anything, but solely pasted alleged ‘predictions’ made by others.
2. Nothing is easier than ‘predicting’ a cooling from the highest point of a time series. Any 12-year old would understand that.
If it was so easy why didn’t you predict it ,
So why five years ago you were posting your charts with straight warming lines extended to the future ???
Because, according to Blinny, everything is always getting warmer.
Binny,
The future is unknowable.
Why would you think otherwise? Even the IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Maybe you could appeal to the authority of Albert Einstein, who refused to accept Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He said he was convinced that God does not roll the dice.
You accuse me of wanting to distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate. Go on then, choose one – Einstein or Heisenberg! Einstein was wrong – and nobody at all is incapable of being wrong at times.
You refuse to believe the IPCC about the impossibility of predicting future climate states. Why do you choose to distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate other SkyDragon cultists?
You can’t name one person who believes that you can foretell the future, but you still fantasize that you are right, and everybody else in the world doesn’t realise how clever you are!
It’s OK, Binny , I’m just having a laugh at your expense. If you choose to be feel upset, offended, or insulted, it just shows how lacking in self-control you are.
Fool.
Every time Bindidork gets caught by simple question he can’t honestly answer he starts acting like a caged monkey and just throw zshit at everybody
binny van der klown…”It is an evaluation of all GHCN daily stations…”
***
How many times do I have to repeat this? Although GHCN has over 100,000 data entries, NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for the land/surface temperatures profile.
NOAA has slashed 90% of the GHCN records since 1990. They simply don’t use them.
They didn’t slash anything. Will you please stop telling this lie time and again, year after year?
For perhaps the 50th time, the majority of stations in the GHCN record do not update their data to GHCN. The reason there are so many stations at all is is because periodically NOAA acquires historical records that aren’t digitised, are not relayed to GHCN by the host countries, and are from stations that no longer exist.
The biggest historical data acquisition NOAA undertook was in the mid-90s, and THAT is why there are so many stations in the record prior to then. Many of those stations around the world no longer operate, so how on Earth are they supposed to keep collecting data from them?
Robertson
You are not only one of the dumbest posters here.
You are the worst liar of all them.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
A drought in Argentina continues to beat up soybean plants in a season to forget for farmers in the top exporter of soy meal and soy oil. The second-quarter harvest is estimated at just 29 million metric tons, the lowest since 2002, and could drop even further with no respite from the dryness in sight, according to the Buenos Aires Grain Exchange. The historical comparison shows just how punishing the drought has been, since 2002 predates Argentinas soy-planting boom of the mid-2000s, when the South American nation had 38% less acreage than today.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/a-non-stop-drought-is-pummeling-argentina-s-soy-plants-chart-1.1893966
If the world was warmer, there would be less drought.
But in our icehouse global climate, you going to have droughts, and the modern world what do is allow dams to be made.
Or the degree severity of effects of drought in Argentina is dependent on Argentina govt allowing enough dams to made and governing of the dams made.
It’s likely Argentina govt hasn’t been governing as well as it “should have”.
We have world of governments not governing well and it’s generally a matter comparison of bad to Worse. Or one ask how corrupt various
governments are, and Argentina isn’t known to be the worst, nor the best- and might call it, typical, and therefore bad.
So, they probably didn’t make enough dams and/or have mismanaged them.
Kansas has extremely severe drought conditions which would be bad news for the farming- unless govt did excellent job of having enough water- which probably is unlikely.
Though I can’t imagine what Kansas govt would do, other than prepare
for the worse drought.
> If the world was warmer, there would be less drought.
\_(ツ)_/
Instead of trillions wasted on Solar and wind farms, war, other pointless stuff, US govt could spend money {a trillion} on Greening the Sahara Desert.
Thereby warming the world and causing less droughts in the World.
I don’t know what more important, greening Sahara desert or exploring the Moon and Mars. BUT such exploration doesn’t cost much, so we can do both.
One way to do this {but not the only way} is work out global agreement on mining ice [sea ice] in the polar regions to bring frozen ice to Africa and Middle East.
And to do this, would require nuclear powered tugs.
This would align with the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as it’s peaceful use of nuclear energy done by at least one of nuclear powers.
Did You Know?
Water generally evaporates more quickly at higher temperatures:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection/
When it evaporates quickly, where does it go?
Computer, What is a Drought
Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-and-climate-change
Well, the +5000 year drought in Sahara doesn’t just end, it also reduces droughts elsewhere.
The ice can used to make liquid water, ice itself is also useful.
They can be “temporary” ocean settlements or vacation resorts.
And blocks of ice can useful, in general, in desert.
Did You Know?
Soil moisture is a function of both precipitation and evapotranspiration. Because potential evapotranspiration increases with temperature, anthropogenic climate change generally results in drier soils and often less runoff in the long term.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/
Wasted Wee Willy,
” . . . generally results in drier soils and often less runoff in the long term.”
Except when it doesn’t?
Well, that’s completely useless, isn’t it?
Did you know that Antarctica is the driest continent? Almost no precipitation. Not due to high temperatures, I assume. Go on, show how wrong I am, and how clever you are.
Only joking – you’re a fool.
In matters of uselessness we can only bow to you, Mike Flynn.
no need for increasing stupidity in the English language, evapotranspiration is evaporation. We don’t need the transpiration part. We are talking about plants sweating.
wee willy…”A drought is a deficiency…”
***
Like the deficiency in wee willy’s brain, which is a vast wasteland.
> We dont need the transpiration part
Bordo’s imbecility shines through:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evapotranspiration
Like I said, evapouration works fine, nothing to do with transpiration.
Breaking News
A group of warmistas secretly invaded Greenland a few weeks ago and started artificially melting huge amounts of ice there:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20230505.png
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/api/access/datafile/45137?gbrecs=true
Perun gives another weekly report:
Ukraine’s Planned Counteroffensive – force readiness, leaks, politics & expectations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIYC_WUSw4c
Summary, they have troops for counteroffensive, it’s not going to win
to war, it’s going go into 2024.
No one going to do a peace deal, Russia has unacceptable terms as viewed by most of World [including China].
But I would say if we had leadership, it could be done. Trump or lots others could do it. Rather interfering, it seem presidental race, could lead to some peace deal but probably not before 2024, but this war could end somewhere in beginning of 2024, but not due to any military victory but rather to different efforts at making an agreement to end the war.
gb…”its not going to win to war, its going go into 2024″.
***
It will go on till we in the West smarten up and tell the truth about what is going on in the Ukraine. Until we talk to the Russians in good faith about the situation rather than blindly supporting the Ukraine, this war will go on and Ukrainians will continue to die.
When has West {or anywhere] told the truth?
It seems you saying this war just goes on for very long time.
I think they will just run out of ammo before we could get the truth
about, just about anything.
Solar wind
speed: 450.8 km/sec
density: 20.91 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 99
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Updated 07 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.45×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.4% Above Average
48-hr change: -0.2%
Coronal holes have not changed much, but I imagine
they are fading and it seems Neutron counts will be going
well below zero. Or sun seems it will be getting more
active {as I thought it would}. All the sunspots have long distance
to travel before reaching farside, so, going get more spots coming from farside [probably- we will stay at 99 for awhile with others adding to it in coming days].
These sources are probably a bit more trustworthy than yours:
https://tinyurl.com/2kbbk845 — (d-c)
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
Ok.
But, https://www.spaceweather.com/
gives pictures and stuff:
https://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
Solar wind
speed: 477.2 km/sec
density: 7.69 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 99
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Updated 08 May 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.45×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Below Average
48-hr change: -3.3%
“There are no equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. Credit: SDO/AIA”
I see no new spots coming from farside- maybe tomorrow.
Neutron counts seem to a dip rather than a trend.
Solar wind
speed: 427.3 km/sec
density: 6.39 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Updated 09 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.31×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Below Average
48-hr change: -3.3%
Seeing two spot near equator coming from
farside- spot number will go up soon.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
08 May – 03 June 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate throughout the
period with M-class flare activity (R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)) likely
over 08 May-03 Jun. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
I am expecting moderate to high, and the higher in June and July.
Solar wind
speed: 578.1 km/sec
density: 3.44 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Updated 10 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -2.1%
Solar wind
speed: 507.5 km/sec
density: 7.46 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 154
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Updated 11 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
48-hr change: -3.1%
Hmm. Why is Neutron Counts so low. I didn’t expect this
low until another month or two.
It would seem to indicate a lot sunspot on the farside, which indicate the higher solar activity is coming faster than I thought.
I was expecting the Parker Solar Probe would reach perihelion
at highest solar activity:
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
Now, looks like might happenned before it gets there. Could be good news for probe: 36 days 3 hours.
Solar wind
speed: 458.5 km/sec
density: 4.70 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 134
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Updated 13 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.80×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
48-hr change: +1.0%
Don’t see any spot coming from farside and
and lots leaving to farside.
Though they have detected large sunspots/very active
large region on farside. But it seems short term
going to get less sunspots.
And so, May sort of doing what thought it would,
we will wait to see this farside sunspot coming
in a few days.
Goodbye Climate Alarmism: The Age of AI Alarmism Has Begun
“Biden has just appointed Harris to promote responsible AI in my opinion the opening salvo in an attempt to install fear of AI as a replacement for the failed climate alarmist movement.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/07/goodbye-climate-alarmism-the-age-of-the-ai-alarmist-has-begun/
But about the space, optimism?
Czech Republic latest nation to sign on to NASA’s moon-focused Artemis Accords
“The non-binding agreement establishes a set of guidelines to guide cooperation when it comes to space exploration in the Artemis Program.
“The Artemis Accords guide us towards a future of optimism and promise,” said Jennifer Littlejohn, acting assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs.”
…
“More countries are expected to sign on to the accord in the coming months, NASA said Wednesday.
Last month, the space agency announced the four-person crew to fly the Artemis II mission, which will orbit the moon.
The astronauts are scheduled to fly by the moon aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft before returning to Earth in the mission’s most critical phase so far. The mission, which is slated to last 10 days, could lift off sometime next year.”
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/05/03/czech-republic-signs-nasa-artemis-accords/5681683147524/
linked: https://instapundit.com/
By accident I saw upthread a comment posted by E. Swanson, with as text:
” RLH, The UAH v6 SoPol data is seriously flawed, since the UAH v6 LT weighting curves peak at about 4 Km and the ice sheet elevations over the Antarctic reach that altitude. In other words, the UAH SoPol data isnt just atmosphere, but also has a strong surface fraction. ”
*
Sorry: I have to insist on what I already wrote last year, namely that with the beginning of revision 6.0, the UAH team decided to stop remote sensing for the LT layer and replace it with a calculation based on a mixture from MT, TP and LS.
*
The reader is invited to read UAH’s thread posted at that time (April 28th, 2015):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Therein you find in section 2:
Major Changes in Processing Procedures with Version 6
among lots of technical explanations:
The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
*
I have shown last year in November that UAH’s LT data in revision 6.0 is, regardless which part of the Globe is considered, absolutely identical to a time series generated out of MT, TP and LS data according to the formula above.
Example: the Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
Therefore, claims that UAH would be still scanning O2 microwave emissions till down to the surface are unfounded, as are concerns that geological formations such as in Antarctica, Greenland, the Himalaya or the Andes could cause distortions.
“UAH team decided to stop remote sensing for the LT layer”
***
You are wrong. It states right in the article they still use the AMSU units. In fact, you have confused what it says in the article about the new equation.
Bindidon,
The new LT is a combination of 3 channels, each of which reach the surface (in that O2 molecules are emitting in the readable frequencies near ground level). The curve for channel 4, for example, is still very broad and bulgy where it intersects with the surface.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sheldon-Kusselson/publication/252235249/figure/fig9/AS:668690320195591@1536439604279/AMSU-weighting-functions.png
Whether UAH is able to winnow out the near-surface emissions in the processing is another matter, but it would seem from the “new” LT curve on the page you linked, the combination still includes near-surface O2 radiance, as the “new” LT curve is broad and bulgy where it intersects the surface.
Perhaps I don’t get your meaning?
You got Binny’s meaning fine, Bary, he think UAH have discarded the AMSU instruments and are now using a formula to guess at the temps. I asked him earlier where they get the data for the equation and he had no answer.
No, Bindidon is well aware that AMSU instruments are the devices used to record radiance from O2 molecules to infer temperature. Perhaps he’ll clarify what he means.
Strange, then, that NOAA agrees with the approach that UAH uses.
You have TOTALLY missed the point here.
gb…”if we had leadership, it could be done. Trump or lots others could do it”.
***
Any leader with a spine and half a brain could do it.
Bindidon, I think that you don’t understand the importance of the weighting functions, as have been repeatedly discussed. They represent the fraction versus altitude of the measurements by the MMSU/AMSU. They are given for v6 in Figure 7 of your reference.
The old TLT thru v5 relied on the scans from MSU3/AMSU5, which is the same data set as is used to calculate the TMT series (Christy et al. 2002). The TLT processing algorithm was first described in Spencer and Christy (1992b), J. Climate, 5, 858866.
T2R = 4*[T4+T5+t8+T9]/4-3*[T1=T2+T10+T11]/4
Where T1…T11 are the brightness temperatures measured at scan positions 1 thru 11.
“claims that UAH would be still scanning O2 microwave emissions till down to the surface are unfounded, as are concerns that geological formations such as in Antarctica, Greenland, the Himalaya or the Andes could cause distortions”.
***
The sats are located well above land features such as the Himalaya where the altitude of channel 5’s centre frequency is located only halfway up some of the Himalyan giants. However, channel 5 can scan as high as 30 km.
You’d have to consult Roy on the details. I realize that UAH cuts of emissions near the surface to prevent interference from ground-based microwave sources but I would think, considering the relatively small area area of the Hilmalaya, compared to the overall surface area, that the amount of microwave radiation may not be an issue.
E. Swanson and barry (Robertson is too ignorant and opinionated to follow such a discussion)
I have perfectly understood what you mean.
Firstly, I have of course to admit having been a bit optimistic re. the influence of the lowest O2 emissions on the computation of MT out of all AMSU sensings.
Thus, yes, yes! I have to reconsider my somewhat naive position above, concerning biases created by geological formations.
But… this is not what I primarily discussed.
*
What I discussed were just the 100% matching facts that
– (1) in April 2015, Spencer, Christy and Braswell unequivocally wrote:
The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
and that
– (2) all LT data I have processed or generated last year for comparison have shown identity of the LT data with the data generated out of the weighted average of MT, TP and LS according to the formula above.
To be 100 % clear: with ‘all data’ I did not only understand the 27 zonal/regional summaries contained in the four usual ‘ncd~c’ files, but also
– (2.1) any portion of the 2.5 degree grid data, e.g. Nino3+4’s region (5S-5N — 170W-120W) and even the single grid cell encompassing the University of Alabama at Huntsville
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+University+of+Alabama+in+Huntsville/@34.7251606,-86.6507763,3295m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88626bf4d43d52b5:0x7bfb2dd5d27d92e7!8m2!3d34.7251606!4d-86.6404712!16zL20vMDNqYzF0?hl=en
– (2.2) the absolute data time series, reconstructed for each of the four atmospheric LAYERs (lt, mt, tp, ls)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
out of their anomaly grid (the files ‘tLAYERmonamg.YEAR_6.0) together with their 12-month grid cell baselines (the files tLAYERmonacg_6.0).
You see later on a few links to all that in an attached comment below.
The average deviations were about 0.005 C (maximum 0.02) and were most likely due to the fact that UAH’s zonal and grid data have only two digits after the decimal point.
Here are the 12-month 2.5 degree grid cell baselines generated out of the 9504 active grid cell values for LT and the weighting of MT/TP/LS:
Jan: 263.179 | 263,162
Feb: 263.269 | 263,252
Mar: 263.427 | 263,411
Apr: 263.843 | 263,826
Mai: 264.448 | 264,431
Jun: 265.099 | 265,081
Jul: 265.418 | 265,401
Aug: 265.233 | 265,216
Sep: 264.637 | 264,620
Oct: 263.945 | 263,927
Nov: 263.406 | 263,389
Dec: 263.191 | 263,174
*
What of this above did you not understand?
Wouldn’t there inevitably be greater differences between LT data and the weighted average of MT/TP/LS if LT data were the result of a dedicated sensing?
I can confirm your absolute global average calculations for each month. I get those exact same values when processing the grid. That gives me confidence that my calculations are correct as well.
Bindidon, I think you missed the point of my last post. You previously wrote:
The earlier version of the LT, thru v5, was the result of a calculation using the data also used to produce the TMT. It was NOT data from a separately measured layer. The surface influence for the old TLT v5 vs. the new LT v6 can be seen in the theoretical weighting functions presented by Roy’s Figure 7. As Roy noted:
Those curves are calculated starting with a surface “height” [altitude] of 0.0, i.e. sea-level. For higher elevations over land, the influence is greater, particularly so over the Antarctic, Greenland and the mountains of the Himalaya or the Andes.
RSS still uses the old UAH calculation for their TLT, thus they exclude the high elevations. The latest NOAA STAR v5 appears to exhibit a surface influence close to the UAH v6, but the altitude of peak weighting is lower and close to that of the older UAH v5. As a result, the influence of those high altitude areas will be similar to the RSS TLT and is the reason for RSS exclusion those regions.
I submit that NOAA STAR should adopt the same exclusions in their TLT processing.
E. Swanson
I have perfectly understood what you mean. It’s all correct!
You, on the other hand, still don’t understand what I’m talking about.
test m
Re: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483194
I was thinking maybe this global climate cargo cult is all about hating the Russia. Russian can’t possibly use solar panels.
It’s the left eats their own, sort of thing.
I don’t dislike the Russian {or Chinese, North Koreans, etc] I just dislike their governments.
Though I am not fond of any govts {also}.
One big thing I like about settlements on Mars, is they sort of have to create better govt, or everyone, just dies.
Where Venus orbit could have a fairly crappy govt and still do fine.
gb…”NOAA says more than 90% of global warming in warming our cold ocean”.
***
That’s the old Trenberth dodge, making Trenberth the modern Artful dodger.
In the Climategate email scandal, Trenberth lamented it a travesty that global warming had stopped because, according to him, they lacked the instrument sensitivity to separate it from natural warming.
C’mon, Bordo.
First of all, it has nothing to do with Da Paws.
Second of all, it’s not what you call “the CG scandal.”
Why do you always end up making stuff up?
wee willy lives in a different galaxy. In our galaxy, Trenberth made his statement in the middle of the 15 year period the IPCC claimed as a flat trend. Therefore he noticed it long before they admitted it in 2012.
Secondly, it was revealed in the Climategate email scandal, and his admission would never have come to light had not the hacker exposed them. I’d like to know why alarmists feel the need to hide such information. Does the hoi polloi not have a right to know?
Bordo continues to make things up:
https://www.desmog.com/2019/11/18/3-climategate-myths-have-not-aged-well/
Yet another contrarian that did not age well, a bit like Bordo.
> Yet another contrarian
…canard, that is.
desmogblog???…get serious wee willy. The site funded by a convicted felon.
Swenson’s quote was exactly what he said. the rest is damage control.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“This discrepancy was due to the limitations of our observational systems, particularly in the deeper oceans.”
Go on, tell me how the “limitations of our observational systems” have changed.
Trenberth was caught out admitting an inconvenient truth. His several later attempts to deny saying what he did make him look look like he is either a fool or a fraud. Incompetent at least.
Neither Trenberth nor you can even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you?
Carry on trying to defend the indefensible.
Truth isn’t indefensible, Mike.
What are you braying about?
Wily Wee Willy,
Neither Trenberth nor you can even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you?
Mike,
Perhaps you should reconsider your overall stratergery:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482092
Cheers.
“Go on, tell me how the limitations of our observational systems have changed.”
Thousands of ARGO submersible buoys monitoring both the mixed layer down to 700 metres and the deep ocean down to the abysmal plane at 2000 metres.
“Thousands of ARGO submersible buoys monitoring both the mixed layer down to 700 metres and the deep ocean down to the abysmal plane at 2000 metres.”
Over how many square miles/km? At what density is that?
C’mon Wee Willy,
Mutilating the English language makes you look juvenile, not sagacious.
Here’s what Trenberth wrote –
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Later on, as is usual with SkyDragon cultists who are caught out, he claimed he really meant something else entirely. Obviously needed some lessons on how to convey his thoughts in English.
Trenberth is delusional, in any case. A sample –
“The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries.” No it can’t Kevin. “Heat” is not something that can be “stored” or “trapped”.
Carry on being delusional, Willard.
swenson…”Heat is not something that can be stored or trapped.”
***
Thanks for clarifying that for the alarmists. That principle was well understood in the mid-1800s by Tyndall and Clausius but these days, heat is seriously misunderstood.
Without the Sun there is no heat. We see the effect of that in the Arctic and Antarctic every year. Doesn’t matter how deep the ocean, without the Sun things get very chilly.
It seems volcanic heat can stored in deep oceans.
In terms global climate, lots of cold polar waters can be stored in deep ocean.
It seems in past Earth’s climates heated salty water could fall into the deep ocean. And we some of it happening in modern world, but I never seem any kind of estimate or amount that occurs in our present world.
It’s said submarine say 100 meters below the surface can be strongly effected severe storm on the surface. But generally there not much science in our global warming cargo cult.
No one seems to know what Venus temperature would be if it was at 1 AU distance from the sun.
I was also just thinking what if Earth was at 1 AU but it had a lot more of an eccentric orbit. What would Earth average temperature be- or would it be warmer or cooler?
And maybe because Earth does get closer and further from the sun, it’s somehow related to mixing the ocean???
Anyhow, generally for a long time, I have considered mixing the ocean as way to warm Earth. It seems rather obvious to me.
gbaikie,
Water is obviously a liquid, with peculiar properties. However, warm water is less dense than cold water of similar composition – salinity etc.
It floats to the surface, in other words, where it stays – until it cools, contracts, and sinks.
Ocean currents are caused by convection – heating from beneath, combined with chaotic fluid dynamics.
Trenberth’s “hidden heat in the oceans” speculation demonstrates his abysmal knowledge of the relevant physics. Not to worry, though, scientists at the National Science Foundation refused to accept Archimedes’ principle for several years, believing that when sea-ice melted, sea levels would rise!
At least, after six years of denial, the NSF finally posted ” . . . we regret the error.”
If you can’t believe the NSF and the US Office of Naval Research, who can you trust?
Maybe we should look at the motion of the Royal Society – Nullius in Verba – Take nobody’s word for it!
Swenson
In other times on Earth you have a part of tropic with large and shallow ocean- which get a lot warmer and a lot saltier and it’s connected to the rest of the deep ocean.
This will give very salty water flowing at bottom of shallow ocean out into less salty deeper ocean.
We get this on fairly small scale around middle east- Red Sea and Persia Gulf. So the scale one could 10 or 20 times bigger than that.
gbaikie,
As far as I know, the Red Sea is saltier than normal is due to water flowing into it and evaporating, rather than the other way round.
However, you are right that if the increased density due to salinity exceeds the decreased salinity due to temperature, such water will sink. Unfortunately, the physical phenomenon of diffusion results in salinity dropping to be equal to the surrounding environment.
I wasn’t aware of the following (from a dive site) –
“Whereas in other seas the temperature ranges between 5 to 7 C, the Red Sea has a temperature of 20 C even at a depth of 1,000 m. It is caused by a trench along the sea floor, formed by plate tectonics, whose volcanic activity heats up the water. The surface temperature averages at 25 C and can easily reach 32 C on the coasts and reef flats.”
Lake Tanganyika is also hot due to geothermal heat. The geothermal activity is evidenced by a 220 kw geothermal power plant close to the lake. SkyDragon cultists probably think Lake Tanganyika is hot due to “climate change”, or something equally silly.
Are you trying to resurrect your silly idea that our actual global warming is caused by the inner core of the Earth, Mike?
Wandering Wee Willy,
In a fit of delusion you wrote –
“Are you trying to resurrect your silly idea that our actual global warming is caused by the inner core of the Earth, Mike?”
I certainly haven’t said such a thing, which is no doubt why you can’t quote me. As to “Mike”, I doubt you could quote him, either.
The inner core of the Earth is cooling. What mental defect would lead you to believe that the Earth would get hotter because it is cooling?
Are you quite mad, Willard?
Mike, Mike,
Are you really gonna play dumb about your volcanoes bit?
Mike Flynn,
Do you recall the email number by any chance?
I do.
Willard,
Bully for you.
Do you have any better examples of your intellectual brilliance?
If somebody memorizes the Bible, does that make them smarter than somebody who claims to remember some sort of “number” associated with an email? You, for instance?
C’mon Willard, at least claim you can remember something useful. The description of the GHE, perhaps?
You might be an idiot, but at least you’re useless.
So you do not recall the email number, Mike.
Fine.
Nobody expects silly sock puppets to have any attention to detail.
Keep braying!
Wee Willy Winkie,
You wrote –
“So you do not recall the email number, Mike.”
If you say so, irrelevant donkey, if you say so. Why would anybody but you bother to remember an arbitrary number of no relevance whatever? You are definitely strange, Willard.
How are you getting on remembering the description of the GHE? Slipped your mind at the moment? Gee, best take those memory lessons again. Maybe you can “remember” some more fictitious “email numbers”, but it won’t help you with creating a description for a mythical “greenhouse effect”.
Have you any more “numbers” to present? What other nonsense can you boast about “remembering”?
Do tell everyone – they are no doubt waiting with bated breath! Or not.
Mike, Mike,
Do you have the email number?
If you have it, you could remind readers of it.
But we all know why you won’t do that.
Long live and prosper.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a surfeit of trollish stupidity) –
“Mike, Mike,
Do you have the email number?
If you have it, you could remind readers of it.”
Why do want to know? Which number are you referring to?
Why would I want to “remind readers” of anything? Who cares about an email “number” which you can’t even specify! If you could, you would no doubt wave it around to the delight of the cheering multitudes.
You’re a dimwit, pretending you have a secret number which is so secret that you cannot divulge it! Good luck with your fantasy. You might be able to find somebody who cares, but it’s unlikely to be me.
Have you also a super-secret description of the GHE that you are not going to divulge?
You’re a fool, but at least you’re delusional.
TL:DR, Mike.
Have you found the triple point of water yet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”A group of warmistas secretly invaded Greenland a few weeks ago and started artificially melting huge amounts of ice there…”
***
see the warming over Greenland…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Map.png
go a but southeast and see the same amount of cooling.
Go back a year and the patterns are different.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/April2022/202204_Map.png
In fact, go back a month and it’s different…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/march/202303_Map.png
Temperature anomalies in the Arctic are always moving. Why?? Until you can explain that there’s no point braying about anthropogenic warming.
For some reason, in April 2023, March 2023 and April 2022, there has been a warming anomaly parked over Greenland. However, we must remember that a 2.5C warming anomaly can be on top of seriously cold temperatures. Whether it’s enough to cause melting is not clear.
It is known that he North Pole suddenly warms to 0C in mid-winter while surrounding areas are -50C. Why?? Is anthropogenic warming that selective?
Oh Noes, what a dumb ass.
Not only dumb, but also incredibly, absolutely humorless.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
From an article –
“Temperatures on Greenland havent been this warm in at least 1,000 years, scientists report.”
So its still colder than it was 1000 years ago?
Crikey! Needs a lot more heating!
No real scientist would say anything that dumb. The Vikings were farming Greenland 1000 years ago. Suddenly, alarmists are claiming Greenland has warmed to the point you can farm but nowhere around there can farm.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place#greenland
Yeah, no farming in Greenland.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://natur.gl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ENG-Synthesis-Report-on-Agriculture-in-GL.pdf
Little Willy, bob, please stop trolling.
> Water is obviously a liquid, with peculiar properties.
The things one learns reading Sky Dragon cranks!
What other substance could be used as a set point for freezing and boiling at terrestrial STP? That is essential for life yet you can wash your socks in it? You can sail on it and swim in it.
“What other substance could be used as a set point for freezing and boiling at terrestrial STP?”
The ‘set points’ for freezing and cooling are BASED on the phase changes in water. You make it seem like the set points pre-existed and presto, water fit the bill.
barry,
Care to try answering Gordon’s question? No?
I wonder why?
Only joking. I know why – you don’t know.
It’s a rhetorical question, lame-brain.
barry,
Do all delusional SkyDragons waste time making pointless comments about rhetorical questions?
Were you trying to imply the question was not rhetorical at all, by saying “. . . you make it seem . . .”?
Thermometer scales like Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur, all use the freezing point and boiling point of water as calibration points – for good reason.
Just accept that water has interesting properties, and is used for calibration for good reason. Trying to make people look stupid to disguise your ignorance won’t increase your IQ.
You are so stupid you believe that the changing statistics of historical weather observations (climate change), can somehow change future weather observations! Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Dimwit.
swenson…”Thermometer scales like Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur, all use the freezing point and boiling point of water as calibration points for good reason”.
***
Not only that, the density scale (not the one used to measure wee willy’s IQ) is based on the density of water as is the calorie, the true measure of heat.
Yep, you’re wrong.
Well, that’s authoritative!
Why?
Because nothing happening now can change future observations. Those observations will be taken or not and the results will be what they will be.
The rest of your post is straw man argument. When you make a point that doesn’t caricature a point of view, I might then be able to take it seriously.
barry…”You make it seem like the set points pre-existed and presto, water fit the bill”.
***
That’s exactly how it worked. The set points related to the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water pre-existed and did fit the bill. Once those set points were established by humans, it was a matter of how many degrees to insert between them…100 for the Celsius scale and 180 for the Fahrenheit scale.
Kelvin was worked out a bit differently, it being based on the triple point of water at freezing. However, the number of degrees in Kelvin between measuring points is the same as in the Celsius scale. They obviously did not want to re-invent the wheel.
BTW…this is all pointed out by Planck in his book on heat.
The temperature scales were set TO the different phases of water AND with fahrenheit, to the temperature of the body. These scales were NOT devised and then magically fit with water phase changes. The fahrenheit scale was revised because it didn’t cleanly hit 180F for the point water boils.
You have this incredibly arse up.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/sciences/how-did-we-end-up-with-both-fahrenheit-and-celsius-scales
I am no longer astonished that you get basics like this completely wrong.
Water actually does possess unique properties. An entire branch of chemistry is devoted to water. There is a philosophical question here. Do minerals only dissolve in water because water is special, or do minerals only exist because of water? I think I know the answer. As for the melting and boiling points, only the melting point is a truly reliable physical property. Boiling point depends on pressure, and therefor, the location on earth and the weather. The concept of dew point is also of interest in temperature measurement.
Tim,
You’re quite correct about boiling points. A spot of philosophical fun – when does water commence to boil, and how could you reliably measure the “boiling point”?
Putting a container of water on a heat source is hopeless – a rolling boil indicates anything but thermal equilibrium! The bottom water is hotter than the top (otherwise there would be no convection), the steam bubbles in the water are above the boiling point (otherwise they would be liquid), and so on.
Just stick a thermometer into the water, and pretend it’s 100 C? Good enough for Government work, anyway.
tim s…”Do minerals only dissolve in water because water is special, or do minerals only exist because of water? I think I know the answer”.
***
Likely has something to do with water’s ability to dissociate into H+ and OH- ions.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Obviously, delusional SkyDragon cultists have no idea about water, and its peculiarities. They think that melting sea ice causes sea levels to rise (they don’t realise that frozen water is less dense than liquid water), they don’t realise that water warmed by sunlight does not sink, but rather floats on the surface, and so on.
Like you, they don’t know much at all.
Mike Flynn,
Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.
wee willy chimes in with a term he fails to understand but which sounded good from his authority figure. He failed to mention that the Kelvin scale is based on the triple point of water near 0C, which is the point we have been making. That is, the freezing point and boiling point of water are set points in our thermometer systems.
The triple point of water is neither a freezing point nor a boiling point of water.
So it’s not the point you were trying to make.
bobdroege,
So what is the point he was trying to make? You don’t believe that commonly used temperature scales are based on the freezing and boiling points of that wondrous substance dihydrogen oxide?
You and that other idiot Willard can twist and turn all you like, but neither of you can actually describe the GHE which you both seem to believe provides heat without energy (or is that vice versa?). You cant say what it is you believe, can you?
Carry on about talking about irrelevancies – the triple point of water, as you say, does not occur at 0 C, or 32 F (for those primitive countries still using it).
Why bother mentioning it? Idiocy? Delusional triple point fixation? Trolling practice?
Carry on.
“You dont believe that commonly used temperature scales are based on the freezing and boiling points of that wondrous substance dihydrogen oxide?”
No I don’t, fancy that!
Not anymore they are not.
“By international agreement, between 1954 and 2019 the unit degree Celsius and the Celsius scale were defined by absolute zero and the triple point of water.”
From here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius.
Bumbling Bobby,
Maybe you could put some thought into telling me something I don’t already know.
Why do you think I agreed with you regarding the triple point of water not occurring at 0 C?
You still can’t describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, can you? Maybe you could quote the ridiculous Wikipedia “description” if you are singularly gullible and can’t see anything wrong with it.
Feel free to look foolish.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.”
No. Why should I? You obviously can’t be bothered, so why should I waste my time.
I do as I wish, you idiot. Don’t blame me for your learning disabilities.
Mike Flynn,
So you don’t care to try answering the question.
No?
I wonder why.
Only joking?
We all know why – you don’t know.
Cheers.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You idiot, you didn’t ask a question, did you?
Go on, try again – give me your best gotcha! Watch me laugh at your idiocy!
I am happy to let others make up their minds about your ineffective attempts to troll.
I won’t bother asking you for a description of the GHE, because I know you don’t have one.
Carry on being an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
There is a question in
“Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.”
If you can’t see it, that’s just par for your ignorant course.
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“There is a question in
“Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.””.
Don’t be coy or shy, fool. Just spit it out.
You can’t, can you? If you know the triple point of water, you aren’t asking any sort of question – you’re just trying to be unhelpful, by not telling people what it is.
You need to learn how to be a troll, if you can’t even describe the mythical GHE. Only joking, accepting reality requires less effort – you don’t have to do anything at all!
I leave spitting to Sky Dragon cranks like you, Mike.
All you need is to admit you have not the email number.
This way we will all know you rely on secondary sources.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For E. Swanson and barry, re. LT vs. MT/TP/LS
See the comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483451
See also how NOAA/STAR now supports UAH.
Blindsley Hood
This is known to us.
Could you stop endlessly pushing your little egomaniacal blah blah?
We are currently discussing completely different things.
If you can’t contribute technically to that stuff, what about keeping outside?
So you agree that RSS is now an outlier.
Could you stop endlessly pushing your little egomaniacal blah blah?
We are currently discussing completely different things.
If you cant contribute technically to that stuff, what about keeping outside?
Are you disputing that RSS is now an outlier, especially in the early record.
Yes, UAH and STAR are now more aligned, so RSS is the outlier from those data sets. Now can you please take your off-topic obsession to a thread where it is being discussed?
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
You’ll find a graph of different temperature anomaly datasets adjusted to a common baseline.
RSS tends to follow the surface datasets. UAH tends to be low.
If anything, UAH is the outlier.
Not according to NOAA/STAR v5.
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472
“Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach”
Cheng-Zhi Zou, Hui Xu, Xianjun Hao, Qian Liu
“We present a new version (v5.0) of the NOAA Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) mid-tropospheric temperature (TMT) time series. “
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
From the paper you linked.
“The new record yields a trend of 0.14 K/decade during 19792021 with an even greater rate of warming after the year 2002 (0.22 K/decade)”
That is a larger rate of warming than UAH since 1979. d
It also suggests that it UAH is not an outlier, then UAH has warmed at around 0.22C/decade over the last 20 years. Would you agree?
That’s not what the image says.
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
Just for fun, I plotted the data. Linear trend since 1979 is 0.13C/decade.
Linear trend since 2003 is about 0.18C/decade. The warming rate has accelerated, but UAH is still warming slower than STAR.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2013/to:2023/every/trend
RLH, Your graph is for the differences between the TMT data sets. EMan’s comment was a reference to the actual TMT time series, as it appears in the STAR paper, not the TLT time series. Perhaps you should plot the TLT series instead, as we all know that the TMT understates warming.
Do try to pay attention next time.
” That’s not what the image says. ”
The graph show the differences from Star v4.
The rate of warming for Star v5 is 70.9% higher than for Star v4.
The rate of warming for RSS is 51.2% higher.
The rate of warming for UAH is 4.5% higher.
How do you get from this to “UAH is not the outlier”?
“The graph show the differences from Star v4.”
and RSS.
“How do you get from this to ‘UAH is not the outlier’?”
Because the UAH v6 – STAR v5 is closer to 0
“Do try to pay attention next time.”
And the TMT series produces how much percentage wise of the TLT series?
RLH, Yes, the STAR TLT is close to their TMT. But, does that prove that they successfully removed the stratospheric component from the TMT, which is the goal of the effort?
As I’ve said many times before, the LT figure is implied by the ratio of MT and TP data. In both UAH and STAR.
“does that prove that they successfully removed the stratospheric component from the TMT, which is the goal of the effort?”
Try reading their paper and see.
RLH, In reply to your question above, <a href="https://app.box.com/s/l2g3kcxx4a1n6q9bay95wpvyi8cx42b3"HERE's something I've been working on.
Notice the small contribution from the TLS and the fact that the TUT has a negative impact, given that the TUT has a warming trend
Sorry for the bad html there.
Here’s the link again.
“greater rate of warming after the year 2002 (0.22 K/decade)
Care to calculate the global cooling that has been going on since 2016?
TMT * 1.430 = 0.136
TUT * -0.462 = -0.008
TLS * 0.032 = -0.007
Combined = 0.121
You have to go to 3 figures to get the other corrections. TMT is by far the bulk of the difference.
“The graph show the differences from Star v4”
So that is why it says STAR v5 in multiple lines in the graph /sarc
Read the Y axis. It is labelled Difference in Temperature.
There are four lines. The coloured lines are the differences seen between Star v4 and Star v5, RSS or UAH.
The dotted line along the origin is Star v4.
None of the lines actually plot Star v4, Star v5, UAH or RSS data.
They all plot the DIFFERENCE between STAR v5 and the other sources, with UAH being the smallest of them. Thus STAR v5 and UAH agree quite well, especially in the earliest period, where RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.
RLH,
“RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.”
That is a complete fabrication.
You are trying to push the idea that RSS uses an inferior processing method for the TLT data (and other layers), and you can’t even correctly describe their methodology.
You’re not just slightly incorrect, you are hugely incorrect. Of course RSS apply many corrections for satellite drift and other biases. The main difference you are obsessed about is how data from NOAA14 to NOAA15 satellites is handled. Both UAH and RSS use data from both, and the main difference is that UAH uses a few years LESS NOAA14 data than does RSS.
But you – YOU say “where RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.”
Because you don’t have the concentration to say anything other than sweeping BS statements like this.
You are not remotely qualified to judge the validity of the various methods when you don’t even understand them. I am not qualified either, but at least I can understand plain English from the various methodology papers. Which is how I know your ideas are vacuous.
RLS, as his usual approach, cherry picked one column of data from my analysis of the NOAA STAR TLT v5. What about this column?
—————-SH
—————-Trend T 2001
TMT * 1.430 = 0.081 0.259
TUT * -0.462 = -0.003 -0.033
TLS * 0.032 = -0.008 0.001
TLT Combined = 0.071 0.227
RLH isn’t interested in the big jump in trend after 2000. A similar difference appeared in the Global Ocean data. Are these the result of some data processing error, either by STAR or by me? He isn’t at all curious, since the global results match UAH and his denialist world view.
“Are these the result of some data processing error, either by STAR or by me?”
STAR must be wrong then, because they disagree with RSS.
“You are trying to push the idea that RSS uses an inferior processing method for the TLT data (and other layers)”
Tell NOAA who agree that UAH was more accurate in the early record.
Barry: Any comment of why STAR agrees so well with woodfortrees?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
Graph shows RSS and UAH. Woodfortrees is a website, not a temperature record. Your question makes no sense.
Woodfortrees does provide a combination dataset of 2 satellite and 2 surface records, and here is the result.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45/plot/wti/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.19
“Woodfortrees” is smack bang between RSS and UAH.
RLH,
Any comment on why you lie that RSS does not make any corrections to satellite data?
I can’t contribute much except to say that I can confirm the calculations you did for the absolute global average temperature by month. I’m actually glad you did it as it gives me confidence that I did it correctly as well.
What’s fun is now that you are processing the grids you can play around with different weighting functions and see how it alters the results. You can even use different weighting functions for different regions.
For E. Swanson and barry, re. LT vs. MT/TP/LS (2)
Here are some comparisons I made last year using UAH’s 2.5 degree grid.
1. Nino3+4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
2. The cell encompassing UAH
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view
3. The reconstruction of the absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vcJFlZkO8CX6ji0T212NHZ1ZpIvMGgJN/view
*
I can’t imagine that these amazing resemblances could have happened by accident.
Thank you very much, bdgwx.
Let me add however that it is not my intention to play with weighting variants.
Here are some more weighting functions.
From Zoe et al. 2023:
TTT = 1.15*TMT 0.15*TLS
TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TTP + 0.032*TLS
From Fu et al. 2004:
TTT = 1.156*TMT 0.153*TLS.
Note that TTT is the “total troposphere temperature” or sometimes it is called a TMT-corrected temperature. The intent with it is to remove the stratospheric contamination.
Note that TTP is called TUT in the STAR dataset.
Thanks.
I withdraw my previous comment, and will generate today evening ‘TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TTP + 0.032*TLS’.
Our garden has absolute priority!
Hey Bindidon,
I’m not exactly sure what you’re driving at, perhaps because I didn’t follow the whole conversation as it developed. I’ll keep reading and learn some more.
What if don’t find mineable water on the Moon?
Meaning, you go to 5 to 8 places in southern lunar polar region where you imagine there is could be mineable lunar and don’t find
any or don’t find enough. And do couple trips to northern lunar polar region, and again, nada.
It seems what NASA does, is start it’s Mars crew exploration of Mars.
But what does all the other countries which are focused on the Moon?
It seems other looking for mineable water, you explore Lava tubes {caves} on the Moon. If there are any in polar regions, I would focus on those, but more interesting ones could be no where close to lunar polar regions.
Another aspect is if launch costs [from Earth] lower enough, you could make rocket fuel without needing water. Roughly large scale mining of H2 and more 40% of mass of lunar surface is oxygen- which oxidized with AL, iron, silicon, etc. So, mine iron which can sorted because it’s magnetic. Remove iron, and sort the rest.
But launch cost lowering a lot in next 5 years- isn’t likely.
I guess you just focus science things- but that could just back looking for caves- if can find a cave goes to any significant depth- it’s going be pretty important in terms of science.
entropic…”Thousands of ARGO submersible buoys monitoring both the mixed layer down to 700 metres and the deep ocean down to the abysmal plane at 2000 metres”.
***
That in no way proves Trenberth’s claim that heat which is allegedly missing in the atmosphere is being stored in the ocean.
It does raise a good point, however. If the Argo buoys submerge then surface occasionally to take air temperature how accurate can a thermometer reading be after being under water and surfacing with water flying everywhere? Not to mention sea spray.
Gordon,
As I understand it, ARGO floats – float!
In other words, they travel with the water which surrounds them, at any given depth while maintaining neutral buoyancy.
I wonder if the operators realise that oceans are heated from beneath, and that ocean currents can run in opposite directions at different depths. Any “profile” is nonsensical without spatial location of the measuring instrument at the time of measurement.
Meaningless measurements obtained at great expense.
Here’s a statement of ARGO objectives –
“The primary goal of the Argo program is to maintain a global array of autonomous profiling floats integrated with other elements of the climate observing system.”
The goal of ARGO is to maintain ARGO.
“Meaningless measurements obtained at great expense.”
Measurements? I don’t need no stinking measurements. I ‘know’ all I need to know, sez our resident science hater/denier, Swenson.
There are two ways of calculating the increase in ocean heat content. The first uses Argo temperature data. The second uses the rise in sea level as thermal expansion increases the ocean volume.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3A1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg
Rate of increase is 10^22 Joules/year.
The energy imbalance between incoming radiation from space and outgoing radiation is driving global warming and ocean heating.
The imbalance is 1 Watt/metre^2. This results in a net heat uptake of 10^22 Joules/year.
Trenberth has found his missing heat.
EM,
Trenberth’s “missing heat” cannot be found, because it’s, well, missing!
The nonsense about “thermal expansion” is just, well, nonsense. Warm floats, and cools at night. Sunlight does not heat the ocean depths, and mixing is rubbish. Any warmer water released into the depths floats, and loses heat to its surroundings, until it is exactly the same temperature as its environment.
Oceans are heated from the bottom, and the volume of new sea floor being created by mid-ocean ridges “. . . are able to change sea levels positively or negatively by about 985 feet (300 m) from present values . . .”, according to one source. Nobody knows for sure.
On the other hand, other researchers point to other factors affecting ocean volume, concluding “This mechanism could explain why continental freeboard has remained approximately constant since the Archean despite probable increases in continental area.”
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
I see now why you do not link to your sources. Let’s give the full quote:
“Changes in ridge volume are able to change sea levels positively or negatively by about 985 feet (300 m) from present values, at rates of about 0.4 inch (1 cm) EVERY 1,000 YEARS.”
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/plate-tectonics/sea-level-changes-supercontinents-and-life.html
You’re citing tectonic changes of millenia while speaking of less than 20 years of ARGO floats.
You cut the sentence short at EXACTLY the point where it would start to change the meaning you want to convey. You dishonest PoS.
And I thought that you claimed that 20 years worth of data was not statistically significant.
That’s Barry’s MO. When I told him his authority figure, the IPCC, had admitted a flat trend over 15 years from 1998 – 2012, Barry intimated that 15 years is not significant. He is oblivious to the claim that CO2 warming should have no flat trends of that length, that the more it increases the faster the warming.
Your comment is not even tangentially related to mine, RLH. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? No, I think rather you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder.
Gordon, you can’t even get your facts straight. “Significant” is not the same as “statistically significant,” for just one example. CO2 warming can have flat trends of longer than 15 years if natural drivers combine against it, and depending on the rate of atmos CO2 increase over the period. On a pure statistical level, the variability in global temperatures means that statistically significant trends of a similar value to the variability won’t emerge for at least 25 to 30 years.
The ‘claim’ that CO2 warming should have no flat periods of 15 years is unfounded, and the examples given by the usual suspects are simply cherry-picks that start with a high temperature anomaly.
Gordon,
“Barry intimated that 15 years is not significant.”
No, the IPCC when referring to this period said it was not statistically significant, nor representative of long term trends.
I’ve quoted that for you many times, but you can’t keep your facts straight and espouse that I ‘intimated’ this context.
So you’re happy to quote the IPCC on the flat trend, but trash them for what they say about it. Your insight is duly discarded.
I see Swanson has already mentioned sea level.
The reason we know categorically that the oceans are taking up heat is because sea level is rising. Unless someone has a likelier candidate? Is it a change in overall salinity? The force of gravity getting weaker, perhaps? The basins between continents getting narrower? Aliens on the bottom of the oceans playing a practical joke?
barry,
Maybe you could learn some geology and physics, and read a few peer reviewed papers from real scientists.
Your fantasies about knowing “categorically” that your dreams are valid substitutes for fact are just cultist beliefs, founded on nothing.
My response to Entropic Man above may not suit your delusions, so feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. You may wish to quote my exact words if you don’t want to look like a deranged cultist building strawmen, or not, as you wish.
Have fun.
You said nothing substantial either to Eman or myself. Only hypostheses can be falsified and you have offered none, as usual, just bile and waffle.
If you think you’ve said something substantive, prove me wrong and state clearly what it is. What, for example, do you think is the specific mechanism/s for rising sea level over the last 100 years?
barry, please stop trolling.
bdgwx
As promised: here are two comparisons of UAH 6.0 LT anomalies for the Globe:
– (1) original LT versus UAH’s weighting (1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
– (2) original versus weighting by Zoe et al. (1.430*MT- 0.462*TP + 0.032*LS)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11SFfVcuOjFPa8ak_Qgk-AvqpWULoMLPm/view
Linear estimates Dec 1978-Mar 2023, in C / decade:
– UAH weighting: 0.13 +- 0.006
– Zoe weighting: 0.12 +- 0.006
Who do you think needs your endless slicing and dicing of past temperatures ? It’s as useless as last week weather forecast.
We all already have the past temperatures, where is your forecast ???
Eben,
Binny is obviously a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
Why would he bother writing “As promised: here are two comparisons of UAH 6.0 LT anomalies for the Globe: . . . ” if he wasn’t?
These dummies think that comparing different numbers to each other for no good reason at all, is a sign of superior intelligence. Compared with a 2 year old child who cannot do basic arithmetic, I suppose they are.
Looking at historical data won’t help to predict the future of the atmosphere. They would do at least as well by examining the entrails of chickens. They could donate the rest of the chicken to the poor. At least somebody would benefit from their efforts to appear clever.
Hello, teethless but nonetheless ankle-biting dachshund.
Who do you think needs to read your endless, meaningless, reckless ranting against me?
Apart Flynnson and Robertson of course, who both never miss an opportunity to second bloody nonsense.
If you had a brain, you would understand that all people able to predict must base their predictions on the past’s analysis.
But you’ve got no brain, dachshund, and that’s why your supposed ‘predictions’ aren’t even worth the dustbin.
Where are your predictions ???
As usual: completely stoopid blah blah by arrogant ignoramuses.
Binny,
As opposed to your brilliant description of the “greenhouse effect”, I guess?
Only joking, you were so busy making silly comments that you mislaid your GHE description, didn’t you?
Feel free to prove me wrong. Or are you just another completely stoopid arrogant ignoramus talking blah blah?
The world wonders.
As you have proved, STAR now agrees pretty well (to within the last decimal place) with UAH, with RSS being the outlier.
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
Blindsley H00d
” As you have proved, STAR now agrees pretty well… ”
I never proved anything the like.
You on the contrary proved once more the horrifying level of your stubborn, opinionated egocentricity.
You aren’t interested in discussions: what matters to you is solely to show off with your egomaniacal Coolista blah blah.
Bliny doesn’t like facts (especially those that go against him).
Earlier, a delusional SkyDragon cultist congratulates another –
“I cant contribute much except to say that I can confirm the calculations you did for the absolute global average temperature by month. Im actually glad you did it as it gives me confidence that I did it correctly as well.”
Woo-hoo! Cultist 1 confirms that Cultist 2 can waste time with equal ability!
I eagerly await more cultists confirming their ability to waste even more time, effort, and money achieving precisely nothing at all!
[laughing at own attempt at humour]
Meanwhile – the people who just made the law to ban gasoline cars think atmosphere contains 5% of CO2.
https://youtu.be/bJfrKNR3K2k
And data slicer Bindidork thinks he can power his lamp with a cube of ice
(Nobel prize pending)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471866
Eben,
The usual ill-informed nitwit thinking that putting “right?” at the end of the sentence will stifle any laughter from the audience. The rest of the nitwits just followed along. They formed a consensus, so the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must be between 5 and 8 percent, right?
Averaging the consensus would surely produce a percentage accurate to 0.00001 percent, right?
Apologies for any typos. I’m laughing just a bit, but I feel sorry for people who allow dimwits like these to make laws.
Life goes on, right?
> As I understand it, ARGO floats – float!
You heard it first at Roy’s, the best Sky Dragon cranks honey pot!
Woeful Wee Willy,
You didnt realise that, fool?
You must be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, reduced to lame trolling attempts because you can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
Is that your excuse for not realising that ARGO floats are a waste of time, effort, and money in relation to endeavouring to predict the unpredictable?
Carry on being an incompetent fool.
“The best Sky Dragon cranks honey pot!”
That’s so, sweet.
How often do the individual Argos floats measure the profile temperatures each month?
Are you hoping your minions will dive into google for you? Or is it possible you would look this up yourself?
They cycle once every 10 days, in the same parcel of water they float in.
If you have done that analysis already, what is the presumed accuracy given that frequency and dispertions?
P.S. Thank you for thinking I have minions.
RLH,
it’s worse than you thought. The rising float may ascend through different layers of ocean flowing in different directions at different speeds – none of which is recorded by the float.
The measurebators in charge of the ARGO program don’t seem to realise that the fluid dynamics of the ocean are chaotic in any case.
All well and good, measuring random temperatures to 0.005 C, but what’s the point? Data for data’s sake, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
“If you have done that analysis already, what is the presumed accuracy given that frequency and dispertions?”
No, I haven’t read the documentation and memorised the analysis done by qualified people. So do tell us, and hopefully get to your point without dragging it out like a cheap cliff-hanger. If you have something to say, try not to suck all the attention in the room be doling it out in tiny portions.
“Deployments of Argo floats began in 1999, and the 3,000-float goal was reached in November 2007. “
ARGO is an acronym of 4 letters.
What is a profile temperature, and a profile temperature of what?
The only accuracy made for Argos is that is of the individual sensors. No accuracy of sampling measurements is given considering the relative sparsity in distribution and 10 day sampling period.
“ARGO is an acronym of 4 letters.”
That makes it more accurate does it?
“What is a profile temperature”
Do you not know how ARGO floats work?
Are you saying an acronym makes something less accurate?
No.
So you must be saying that you forgot about all the concerns you had about what satellites really measure back in the days where UAH was the outlier, Richard.
Are you saying that NOAA don’t now agree with UAH?
So you’re saying you want me to find it back for you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
The sun has cooled a little for the last 3 years.
3 weak La Ninas as a result of lowering global temperature.
Several years of uptick in Arctic Sea Ice area in extent .
PIOMAS also increasing.
The second pause extending to 8 years despite an El Nio at the start.
UAH shows this very well but the close to earth surfaced homogenised airport temperatures continue to go up.
–
Using the worst cherry picking, personal experience in Southern Australia, it has definitely been cooler and colder and wetter than usual these last 3 years.
Hopefully the penny drops soon.
Natural forces causing no warming over 8 years = multidecadal warming cancelled?
Impressive!
All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to ‘natural’.
I’m certain that you are alone in that opinion.
Did I miss the /sarc off that comment? That is your position, not mine.
“Scientists have pieced together a record of the earths climate by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate, such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the earths orbit around the sun. This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.”
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
So more than 100%.
Keep hoping for less, Richard.
Is > 95% more than 100%?
Likelihood cannot be more than 100%, dummy.
You said it, not me.
What you think I said and what I said are two different things, Richard.
One can earn 100% of their salary by being a professional better while having a few bets making up for more than 100% of their actual profit.
RLH,
let’s see – you’ve ;ied that I’ve said anything or care about any el Nino that may form this year.
You’ve lied that I think CO2 is the only thing that could cause warming.
Any other false views you’d like to ascribe to me, or are you happy to tell only the 2 lies about what I think?
So now you won’t agree that > 95% is down to CO2.
Could you be less clear, please? I almost understood you.
‘All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to natural.’
“That is your position, not mine.”
RLH erects quite a tall strawman, there.
So now you wont agree that > 95% is down to CO2
As you know, we all agree that natural cyclic phenomena such as ENSO, PDO, etc affect global temperature.
They just don’t explain the recent warming trend.
entropic…”RSS tends to follow the surface datasets”.
***
And we know the surface data sets are fudged. Speaks for itself, RSS sold out, leaving UAH as the only legitimate global temperature database.
NOAA and STAR now agree with UAH.
Realclimate did a post on the difference between the satellite and surface records in January.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_obs_base1981-1990-600×492.png
You’ll notice that the surface temps are bracketed by the satellite temps. RSS is above the surface temps and STAR and UAH both below.
Qualitatively, the most simple reading is that the surface data sets are more ‘mature’ than the satellite sets – there seems to be less structural uncertainty.
But there’s no definitive answer. What they all have in common is near perfect correlation on year to year variability, and all have a rising trend over the same period. Apart from that the difference in trends is larger between the satellite data sets than the surface data sets.
Here’s the article.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/a-noaa-star-dataset-is-born/
As both you and realclimate agree, NOAA/STAR and UAH agree quite well, with RSS being the outlier in the satellite data sets.
And this is interesting why?
Because RSS was the last hope of the warmistas like you.
RLH reveals the reason for his infatuation with the UAH LT data and the recently updated STAR v5. Since these data report a lower trend, i.e., temperature increase, he insists that they must be correct and the RSS data is wrong. Of course, his assertions ignore the scientific explanations for the differences. He has provided no evidence that UAH or STAR more accurately capture temperature changes in the atmosphere than the RSS data analysis.
It is strange how STAR and woodfortrees agree so well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
What about looking at this chart?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/rss/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/offset:-0.356
It shows a 60/50/39 month CTRM comparison of the two.
The similarity of the recent slopes is interesting, to say the least…
Alternatively you could do
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-global.jpeg
and
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
Or if you want a 5 year filter
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/rss/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/offset:-0.45
Which do you think gives differences that are like
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
THAT’s what you’re interested in? Some Punch and Judy climateball fight?
Fuck me, you’re shallow.
Climbing down to your level is what gets me in trouble.
Don’t flatter yourself. You keep assigning views to me that I don’t hold in order to have a fight. You’ve done all up and down this thread.
You told me repeatedly I “require” an el Nino this year when I haven’t said anything about that in this or any other thread.
You trashed the very people you relied on last year when I linked for you – out of collegial friendliness – an update to the work you were so interested in last year (extended la Nina).
You said I think, “All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to natural,” when I have many times here referred to natural long-term climate drivers, such as the Milankovitch cycles, insolation, volcanoes etc.
And now you tell me I’m vexed about RSS recently becoming an outlier among 3 satellite datasets.
These fantasies you project onto me come from your need to win a dust-up on a blog. Why? Is your life so terrible that you must concoct these stories in order to feel like a winner?
barry…you’ve got the religion. You react vehemently to any critique of anthropogenic warming, valid or not.
When I posted about the announced 15 year flat trend by the IPCC, you called me a liar. When I posted a link to the actual IPCC words, rather than apologize, or even acknowledge the truth, you claimed a 15 year trend was not significant.
Same with NOAA, when I posted they were now using less than 1500 surface stations globally you called me a liar. When I posted their actual words you tried damage control on me rather than acknowledge the words.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want a collegial friendliness you need to participate.
None of what you’ve said just now is true.
You don’t even remember.
I said that the word ‘hiatus’ wasn’t used in the IPCC. You found it in the technical report. That’s what you are failing to remember. I never disputed the 15-year trend, and in fact many times gave the actual value (0.05 C/decade), as well as the uncertainty (+/- 0.5). I’m doing this all from memory, don’t even have to check anymore after correcting you so many times on it.
Your memory on the 1500 stations is completely faulty.
I will continue to call you a liar every time you say that NOAA deliberately deleted, slashed, or cut thousands of stations from their repository.
When you posted their actual words there was no mention of NOAA deleting anything. I explained what happened. About 50 times now. And you still refuse to modify your view to the facts, which are recorded in the methods paper describing how historical station data was added, and none deleted. And that is also reflected in the same NOAA article that YOU link to, and which you always seem to edit out of your mind when you read it.
Here it is again to refresh your terrible memory.
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
No mention of deliberate slashing, deleting or cutting, and mention of the addition of historical data, as well as the fact that, at the time, only 1500 stations were accessible on a monthly basis.
Everything I’ve told you, too, and with more detail, over the past 5 years or so.
While you continue to lie about it.
Here, for the 30th time, is the methods paper that explains where the 6000+ stations came from, and how they were added to the record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
Maybe you’ll read and understand it this time.
“Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them…”
You also do not regard people you quote when they say that 1878 and 2016 as basically the same.
Do you think the last 7 days is of importance?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
That’s not the topic here, you obsessive-compulsive. Buzz off.
With emphasis:
> Some long-timers might even recall the rather tumultuous history, involving over-confident claims of precision, the discovery of systematic biases because of orbital decay, corrections, independent replication and more errors, more corrections, etc. This history should temper any claims now that the structural uncertainty has finally been beaten down, but its worth digging in a little deeper to see where it comes in.
Those were the days.
These are dumb claims made by alarmist trolls. There is no evidence that UAH sat data has been compromised at any time. Any errors were within bounds and promptly dealt with.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.nature.com/articles/29267
Stop ranting and start reading.
I am not interested in hearing double-talk from the like of Wentz. He was with RSS when they and UAH conferred on the problem and worked out a solution. It was agreed at the time that the error was well within the margin of error stated.
If Wentz wants to come back years later with another version, he can’t be trusted. RSS has sold out to NOAA.
As for you, dragging up this dirt while posting on Roy’s site, it makes you the rat you are by nym.
If you don’t like UAH data, offer your real reason for posting here instead of being such a spineless rat.
Do you agree with the STAR treatment of the various satellites?
“If Wentz wants to come back years later with another version, he can’t be trusted.”
And that’s why we can’t trust Spencer and Christy. As you persuasively argue, if they come back with another version (6.0), they can’t be trusted.
Good for the goose, good for the gander, ammiright?
Gordo has gone full denialist again, ignoring the historical background of the climate change problem.
Willard’s comment was from a paper in NATURE dated 1998. At the time, the UAH TLT time series was the only game in town using satellite data and that data presented in the IPCC 1995 report was heavily influenced by the cooling effects of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. Frank Wentz, who founded RSS, pointed out a flaw in the UAH work, which UAH later agreed was a problem and corrected.
I’m beginning to think that Mystery Gordo is channeling James Inhoffe. I’m reading Inhoffe’s 2012 book, finding his perspective of the other side of the politics back then to be quite interesting.
So do you agree with what NOAA/STAR says?
Eben reminded us of Bindidon’s effort to use ice for his light bulb! I had forgotten that nonsense.
Then Ent displays his ongoing inability to understand “energy balance”. He’s still confusing flux with energy — “The energy imbalance between incoming radiation from space and outgoing radiation” Flux is NOT energy. A flux imbalance has NO meaning. Flux does not have to balance. No matter how many different ways this is explained to the braindead, they can’t understand.
Of course these two are joined by E. Swanson, worthless willard, barry, bob, and bdgwx to contribute more nonsense.
So, it’s time for another simple physics problem:
Assume Earth is actually radiating 390 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. Further, to keep things simple, assume Earth is radiating at 1.0 emissivity. Flux is NOT energy, so What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?
Not one of the cult will be able to answer correctly, as usual.
“What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?”
3.910^24 Joules/year
IHTFP
3.9 * 10^24 Joules/year
That’s incorrect, Ent.
It’s wrong for several reasons. But I can tell you’re trying to calculate the emission from somewhere in the atmosphere. The question is about the emission from the SURFACE.
You get to try again, but you still won’t be able to get it right because you don’t understand how to convert flux to energy.
Prove me wrong.
If you know I’m wrong, you must know the correct answer.
Prove it and show your working, child.
I’ll give the correct answer at some point. I want to allow plenty of time for your cult to respond. We haven’t heard from the usual suspects like Bin, barry, Norman, Nate, bob, or bdgwx. Of course we won’t get an answer from worthless willard.
The point of this exercise is to show that your cult doesn’t understand the basics. You just regurgitate what your cult HQ puts out, with no understanding. You are always claiming a “1W/m^2 imbalance”: The imbalance is 1 Watt/metre^2. This results in a net heat uptake of 10^22 Joules/year.” That’s cult nonsense. Flux does NOT balance!
You don’t even know how to balance energy, as you’ve just demonstrated.
I’ll side with Entropic Man, because as usual Clint R knows not.
The Earth emits what it emits, it doesn’t matter what the surface is emitting, it’s what gets to space that counts.
Energy in equals energy out or the Earth heats up or cools down.
Yeah bob, I suppose most of the cult will give the same cult answer. I just like to verify, from time to time.
You are the one chanting things over and over again, that leads me to believe that you are the one in a cult.
Flux does not balance
Ohm mady paddy won
Flux does not balance
Aleluja mon de bong passe
If chanting helps bob, here are some more you can add:
Fluxes do NOT simply add
Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere
Orbiting is NOT spinning
Ice cubes can NOT boil water
Learn those and I’ll give you some more. Chanting is a form of memorization, and memorization is a primitive form of learning — perfect for a cult…
Clint R,
Keep chanting or learn some physics.
Your choice.
” Eben reminded us of Bindidons effort to use ice for his light bulb! ”
Like the teethless but nonetheless ankle-biting dachshund aka Eben, Clint R is a 100 % liar.
I never and never wrote such nonsense.
While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
When the cult calls me a liar, I know Ive won again.
Thats why this is so much fun.
Anybody can see that you utterly distort what I wrote, which has nothing in common with stalker Eben’s dumb remark:
” Eben reminded us of Bindidon’s effort to use ice for his light bulb! ”
Thus, yes, Clint R: you are a liar.
No distortion, Bin. Thats your direct quote:
While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
For emphasis — While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp…
I guess you will have to resort to playing games with semantics and definitions now, huh?
Got the simple physics problem solved yet?
Again: you completely distort what I wrote.
Anything above 0 K emits radiation, Clint R.
For emphasis: … the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
That was what I wanted to say, and you know that.
You always pervert what others write.
No wonder: you distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate anything.
E.g.: the science developed since centuries by physicists, mathematicians and astronomers.
Let’s review — You claim I’m distorting your words because I quoted you, but your words weren’t what you “wanted to say”!
You can’t blame others for quoting you, Bin. Unless you’re a braindead cult idiot..
198,900 X 10¹² Watts
At least youre on the surface, barry. So youre ahead of Ent and bob. Poor Bin is still arguing with his own words.
But you have a minor mistake and an egregious mistake — discussion later, in case troll Nate, bdgwx, Norman, or the worthless one wants in. I would venture none of them do, however.
Just letting you know in advance that I won’t be answering further questions until you have answered mine. You are in deficit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479149
Happy for you to take the answer to the other thread and keep this one clear for whatever you’re interested in.
I remember that, barry. You were taking my words out of context and trying to pervert the meaning. That’s what you do. You even attempted it with Newton. I know all your cult tricks.
You’re finished here. You’ve already proved me right. You can’t even find the energy emitted by Earth’s surface given the flux. None of your cult can. You don’t know the science, you just rely on twisting and perverting reality.
Did you ever answer the “honesty” question? Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
[PUP] You claim I’m distorting your words because I quoted you
[ALSO PUP] You were taking my words out of context and trying to pervert the meaning.
See how worthless you are willard?
I already stated I know all your cult tricks.
You have no correct answer to the energy question, as I predicted. Dang, it gets boring always being right.
Pup, Pup, Pup.
You have not done the Pole Dance Experiment.
You have not done the Garden Hose Experiment.
And you suck at playing riddles.
Why have you been trolling this website for so long?
As I said, Clint, I’ll resume answering your questions when you answer mine fully and honestly instead of dodging and deflecting, as you did again just now.
Can’t answer the “honesty” question, can you barry?
As I stated, you’re finished here. You already proved my point. You’ve got NOTHING.
Already answered that question. You’re in double deficit.
…when you answer mine fully and honestly instead of dodging and deflecting
See barry, you’re not getting it.
You have NO credibility. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
You can’t see it in yourself, but look at worthless willard. LIke you, he has NOTHING. He just trolls here constantly, misrepresenting others, trying to pervert reality. A 12 year-old could do his job.
That’s you. Once you lose credibility, it’s hard to get it back, if ever.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
The silly Clint quizzes remind me of Charades with our toddlers.
Subject: animal.
Inevitably we’d fail to guess, then learn it was a half-eagle half-lion half-dinosaur.
Inevitably the attention-deprived Clint-child will inform us what his fake science is. No fun will be had.
Troll Nate didn’t even attempt to answer the simple physics problem.
No surprise.
Pup,
Forgot to mention the Shower Experiment.
You owe me big time.
My answer is correct. Total energy emitted for the whole surface is the energy emitted per square metre multiplied by the surface area in square meters. It’s trivial to work this out.
No barry, your answer is WRONG.
All will be explained after I’m convinced the other cult idiots have had a chance to answer. We know they’ve all seen it by now, it’s only a matter of them trying to come up with a response. They can’t think for themselves, so not likely.
There’s bdgwx, Norman, Nate, E. Swanson, Folkerts, Ken, and probably a few others I’ve overlooked. None will have the correct answer.
Darn, I’m going to be right again…
No, you’re not. Here’s a calculator for you.
https://calculator.academy/power-per-square-meter-calculator/
Correct answer coming soon, barry. Until then, keep proving your incompetence.
No harm done.
[BOB] The triple point of water is neither a freezing point nor a boiling point of water.
[MIKE] You can twist and turn all you like, but neither of you can actually describe the GHE.
So much art.
Who is Mike?
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1259280
You can’t be that dumb.
Who is Mike?
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519008
You can’t be that dumb.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 9, 2023: Goodbye boreal forests.
Alberta Under State of Emergency as Hundreds of Fires Spread:
https://youtu.be/yMuLlG1jd6E
Western Siberia in Flames, Emergency Declared as Wildfires Take devastating Toll:
https://youtu.be/5xVTE_lgwWQ
“Goodbye boreal forests.”
In the long run you are right. As warmer and drier conditions spread northwards the Southern edge of the boreal forest dries out and burns.
The forest does not regenerate as forest. The burned areas become grassland, steppe in Asia and prairie in North America.
In the past 40 years or so in which climate loonies have been spreading their gospel, I have seen little evidence of what you claim in Canada.
They had a major fire in Fort McMurray recently which burned part of the town. It interested me mainly because I had been in Fort Mac quite a bit as part of my work in the Tar Sands. I recall driving though many kilometres of boreal forest to get there while driving north from Edmonton, Fort Mac being well north of the southern edge of the forest.
There is little evidence, if any, that boreal forest is converted to prairie as the forests die out due to drought. As you move north through any of the Canadian provinces that extend north, the trees begin to get progressively thinner and smaller in the inland regions. I would say that has far more to do with a lowered amount of sunlight per year than climate change.
Do you really think Alberta has never seen such fires before over the eons? Have you ever been to Alberta and seen the severity of lightning storms in that province?
This has nothing to do with climate change. Alberta has not had time to dry out after last winter, especially in the boreal forests as you call them. They are nothing more than swamps with a few skinny trees and there are 5.5 ***MILLION*** square kilometres of them in northern Canada.
I used to laugh at the idiocy of eco-alarmists who claimed the Tar Sands projects were endangering wildlife. The acreage of the projects is a spit in the ocean compared to the overall land surface area in which they are found yet the eco-loonies begrudge them even that. They whine about ducks dying in tailings ponds and most of the eco-loonies would likely eat a free duck dinner in a second given the opportunity.
> The acreage of the projects is a spit in the ocean
C’mon, Bordo.
One can see them from space:
https://youtu.be/kYA4btIYSgw
You can’t be that dumb.
It’s still a spit in the ocean compared to 5.5 million square km. I don’t think you understand how large Canada is.
C’mon, Bordo.
I crossed Canada. What about you?
Have you driven far enough north to actually see the boreal forest? Having walked in real forests in BC, I find it amusing to call that scrub and swamp a forest.
C’mon, Bordo –
Canada’s tar sands are “roughly” (H/T Roy) the size of Florida:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-big-are-canadas-oil-sands-infographic/
You can’t be that dumb.
Yeah…but you can be that dumb. All the Tar Sands companies operate out of an area just north of Fort McMurray. When people claim to work in the Tar Sands that’s the general area they are talking about.
We know there are tar sands deposits going over the Pole into Russia but when you capitalize it as Tar Sands, that means a small area north of Fort McMurray. All the major companies like Suncore, Syncrude, etc., work out of that area.
We can process the rest after exposing the eco-loonies as the idiots they are.
Come on, Bordo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming
Your minimization is ludicrous, and do not get me started on what it does to freshwater reserves.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…
“What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?
3.910^24 Joules/year”
***
You have offered the energy amount in joules, but that is a measure of work, not energy per se. So, what energy do you mean?
Not taking a shot, just found this quote from Planck reenergy and entropy interesting…
From his Nobel Prize speech in 1920…
“Now what one measures are only the differences of entropy, and never entropy itself, and consequently one cannot speak, in a definite way, of the absolute entropy of a state. But nevertheless the introduction of an appropriately defined absolute magnitude of entropy is to be recommended, for the reason that by its help certain general laws can be formulated with great simplicity.
As far as I can see the case is here the same as with energy. Energy, too, cannot itself be measured ; only its differences can. In fact, the concept used by our predecessors was not energy but work….”
***
I’m going to say more about this is a separate post re Planck’s definition of entropy as adapted from Boltzmann rather than Clausius, who invented the concept of entropy and defined it absolutely. Boltzmann had no business redefining the meaning and broadening the inference by means of probability functions.
With regard to energy, we have no means of measuring it, we don’t even know what it is. All we can do is measure the difference in energy levels using other phenomena like work.
Woke up today working out something related to heat and work. I just posted a quote from Planck in which he stated essentially that we cannot measure energy, just the difference in energy states. Essentially, we can do work to lift a mass vertically, representing two states of potential energy, and performing kinetic energy to do the lift, but we cannot measure the energy directly. We can only measure the muscular exertion required over a distance.
We are talking about a force applied over a distance. What we call kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2, is actually a force but the source of the force is never described. Potential energy in this case, P = mgh, describes the potential energy available if the mass fell over a distance h in our gravitational field near the surface.
In other words, even though we refer to KE and PE as energy, they are both described by forces, one a force in action and the other a pending force. Both energies in this case are referencing gravitational force.
How about heat? I know there is a difference of opinion on this but for now, give me benefit of the doubt that it is related to the motion of atoms. In a solid, that motion is the vibration of atoms and their vibrational extent increases when some form of energy is added. I call that energy heat but anyone can call it what they want.
How about mechanical energy? I just described it, a mass is moved over a distance. The difference between thermal energy and mechanical energy is that heat deals with the internal atoms and their motion while mechanical energy deals with the motion of the entire mass. I am not talking here about gases or liquids.
How about Joule’s experiment in which he agitated water mechanically and found a relationship between the amount of mechanical energy input and the rise in heat in the water. It’s now called the mechanical equivalent of heat, hence the reference to heat in terms of joules rather than calories. Otherwise, the 1st LOT would not work since you can’t have heat in calories and work in joules.
So, what’s happening in Joule’s experiment? He used a small paddle to agitate the water molecules and the water temperature rose. The same thing happens when the molecules are agitated by adding heat. Therefore, Joule reasoned there is an equivalence between thermal and mechanical energy. The 1st law relies on that equivalence but is it correct to call the 1st law a law of conservation of all energy when the only energies involved are heat and work?
How about electrical energy? There is somewhat of an equivalence between it and heat as well. When electrons are forced through a conductor by a power source (EMF) they are reacting to a potential energy difference between the negative and positive power source terminals. As the electrons move though the solid atom lattice of the conductor, they are continually colliding with other particles in the conductor, causing heating.
There is a complication here too since it is claimed the electrons transfer heat through a conductor.
I think it is overly simplistic to use the word ‘colliding’. Some scientists claim electrons form clouds in a conductor which is a bit silly. They actually move atom to atom since there are no spaces between atoms through which they can move or form clouds. Not only do they move atom to atom, they move between the outermost orbital bands.
As the electrons move through the conductor, they create another form of energy called magnetic energy. It seems to be a property of the charges carried by the electrons. The EMF produces an electric field around the conductor and the electron charges produce a magnetic field. They combine to form electromagnetic energy.
However, there is no relationship between that EM and the heat generated in the conductor, that I am aware of. This is no longer a case of Bohr’s quantum theory where EM is generated by electron transitions. Or is it?
barry…”Realclimate did a post on the difference between the satellite and surface records in January”.
***
That’s enough to dismiss it right there. Realclimate is run by geologist Michael Mann and mathematician Gavin Schmidt, who now heads NASA GISS.
Mann was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal, interfering with peer review and as author of ‘the Trick’, a device used to hide declining temperatures. He made misogynist statements about scientist Judith Curry when she began to abandon the alarmist meme.
Schmidt was working for James Hansen when GISS announced 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% probability. When news came out about Mann’s Draconian ‘trick’, Schmidt defended him.
Come on, Barry, ho could you quote from the alarmist trash bucket called realclimate?
Yes, Gordon, I’ve already pointed out that you assign credence based on the results or the personalities, never on examination of the methods.
The point there was to see the different temp records lined up, which you can also do yourself at woodfortrees. But the STAR satellite temp record isn’t available there, so this was the first page I came across that just graphed the lot together.
IOW, realclimate’s take doesn’t really matter for the purpose. But good on you for reflexively trashing them without bothering to work out that it was irrelevant for the purpose of posting the graph.
“Ive already pointed out that you assign credence based on the results or the personalities…”
***
Not so. I assign credence based on integrity. I think realclimate lacks integrity. Swenson sums up Michael Mann best and anyone who would partner himself with someone like Mann, is suspect.
It’s impossible to judge anyone’s integrity without direct experience or clear, irrefutable evidence.
My Dad looks at the news and people on television and judges them all the time. “I don’t like him,” he says of someone he’s never met and now sees talking to an interviewer.
My Dad does understand the scientific method, majored in philosophy. He knows that his views are ill-informed, but he still holds to them strongly. He’s able to recognize his biases and has learned to live with them.
You’re like my Dad, except you don’t seem to have the insight to realize that you ARE biased.
Your judgement on integrity isn’t rooted in any hard observation. It’s all narratives in your head
When Steve Mosher wrote his book slamming the CRU emails and their authors, you would have characterised him as a person of integrity. But when he dug into the work behind the emails he changed his mind, and suddenly you became interested in ways to dismiss him. That he had worked in marketing gave you just what you needed to write him off.
Your ‘judgements’ of validity and integrity are based solely on your biases. From these you weave stories that you present as reasoned analysis.
barry, please stop trolling.
In the upside down world of trolls, Barry’s on-point posts are labelled trolling.
…please stop trolling.
from a quote by RLH earlier…
“it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.
***
I realize this quote was not offered by RLH as proof of anything, just part of a debate.
The 95% idiocy gives this away as an IPCC claim. The IPCC offers a 95% confidence level, based on their own weird scale, but can supply no dirct proof of an anthropogenic cause, hence the guess.
By the same token, they supply no proof the current warming is not re-warming from the Little Ice Age. In fact, they try to discredit the LIA as a phenomenon local to Europe, when there is plenty of proxy evidence and anecdotal evidence suggesting it was global.
> “The Trick”, a device used to hide declining temperatures
Bordo can’t be that dumb. It’s been 15 years and he can’t confuse the trick with the other meme. Let’s see if he can recall it.
Furthermore:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-59176497
That’s Moshpit, a Black Hat guy who would not admit that if he did not have to.
I have no interest in what Mosher has to say. We all read the emails and saw the chicanery going on at the highest alarmist levels. They are all evil scumbags.
Nothing you apologists say will ever change that. I have noted that you offered no rebuttal to the emails.
Come on, Bordo.
Mosh is the guy who got the emails.
Remember the ones you have not really read and just made a scene about them?
Yeah, the emails.
He read them all in one night.
The guy has some kind of photographic memory.
That would be be Steven Mosher, who claims to be a “scientist” but who is actually a Bachelor of Arts with an English major, would it?
The same guy who claimed to be an “aerospace engineer” (he wasn’t) and an “open source software developer” (he later said he really meant he supported the idea of open source software)?
Most of his career appears to involve marketing, and he markets himself very effectively to gullible cultists like Willard.
More of an Asshat guy than a Black Hat guy, perhaps. Depending on time and place, Steven’s CV has proven to be very flexible – if contradicting itself from time to time. Maybe his memory is flexible as well.
All in all, a perfect “authority” to whom Willard is likely to appeal.
I gathered that Mosher was a dingbat but did not realize how much. Thanks for expose.
Mike Flynn,
Where did you see Mosh claiming that he was a scientist, again?
Something tells me you do not know the guy very well.
Weepy Wee Willy,
His LinkedIn profile claimed he had been a “Scientist” with Berkley Earth since March of 2013.
We seem to agree that Steven Mosher is not a scientist of any sort, despite being described as such by Berkeley Earth.
What kind of photographic memory do you claim he has? In 2010 he wrote “As a former data analyst for Northrop Aircraft , former statistican and former software engineer . . . “.
He can’t even seem to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even his fantasies are inconsistent. He wrote to a Parliamentary Committee “As a former data analyst for Northrop Aircraft , former statistican (sic) and former software engineer . . . “.
Really?
Believe what you wish.
Wait, Mike –
Are you suggesting you found evidence that Mosh was indeed a scientist and you refuse to share?
That is quite sad.
“Thats Moshpit, a Black Hat guy who would not admit that if he did not have to”.
***
After what Swenson revealed about him, he likely saw a business opportunity and like a typical opportunist saw no problem changing sides.
As ever, you assign credibility based on the results, never on the validity of the methods. You are nothing but politics.
I was at climateaudit in 2007 watching Mosher, John V and a few others piecing together the US temp record as Anthony Watts’ surfacestatons.org project published the stations they thought were good quality. Mosher was determined that there was something wrong the official records and he and the others spent months working out a better method to piece together the weather station records as they came through.
Mosher was a natural to join with Richard and Elizabeth Muller, Judith Curry and Robert Rhode, most of whom were critical of the mainstream view of climate change, to construct a new global temperature record based on the criticisms of the methods of the major temp records.
As with the climateaudit attempt, the Berkeley Earth team corroborated the official temperature records.
The only other skeptic group I can think of that actually did the hard work and constructed a global temp record with new methods, was Jeff Condon and Roman M at the AirVent.
Like the other attempts, this one corroborated the Had.CRU temp record.
Roy Spencer, another skeptic, also corroborated Phil Jones’ surface record.
These skeptics did the work. That’s why they don’t get quotation marks around the word skeptic.
The people who dismiss their efforts are ‘skeptics’, who never did a lick of actual work to test anything. They are all political animals.
Mosh followed the evidence and it changed his mind. ‘Skeptics’ follow the politics and don’t have minds of their own.
barry,
Maybe you are missing the point.
Eight billion people generate a lot more heat than no people. Over the last 150 years, the amount of energy used per capita has increased by a factor of 100 or so, and the population has increased by some 600%.
All energy use results in conversion to low temperature “waste” heat. Thermometers demonstrate this increase in heat over the years.
Anthropogenic global warming, if you like. Nothing to do with any nonsensical “greenhouse effect”.
Are you seriously trying to deny reality? I know you won’t like what I am saying, but if your best figures show increases in nighttime minima, greater in areas of population density, industrial use, and so on, then you might be hard put to come up with an alternative explanation.
Or you can just deny physics and reality, and preach SkyDragon cultist beliefs – based on a GHE which none of them can actually describe!
Does Berkeley Earth agree with NOAA/STAR?
Does it really matter?
Thermometers respond to heat. If different bodies come up with different answers to a “global average temperature (stupid and pointless term, but no matter), how do you know any of them are correct? What difference does it make anyway?
Some fools believe that they can predict future climate states! Silly, aren’t they?
“Thermometers respond to heat.”
Thermometers respond to local heat. Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a ‘global average’ air temperature from ground to space. The first 2km or so is known to be a daily chaotic value.
“you need a lot more of them than we have”
I don’t buy it.
Is that just a hand-wave? Show us what you calculated to arrive at that conclusion, RLH.
How many samples do you think you need to take in the first 1-2km, chaotic surface boundary layer?
For sampling theorem see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Show us what you calculated to arrive at that conclusion, RLH.
rlh…”Thermometers respond to local heat. Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a global average air temperature from ground to space. The first 2km or so is known to be a daily chaotic value”.
***
Agreed. I approached the prof in my probability and statistics course to ask him if Gallop polls were accurate. He replied, “Oh, no you don’t, what do YOU think”? I offered my opinion that the polls were inaccurate. He asked why. I offered that the sample sizes were far too small to be representative of the population.
He agreed.
It’s the same with NOAA using less than 1500 reporting stations to cover the land surface. With Gallop polls, pollsters massage the results to the point they can offer a confidence level that is far too high for their massaging theories. Same with NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut.
NOAA manipulates the data using interpolation of measured stations to arrive at synthesized temperatures for intermediate stations then homogenize the real and synthesized results to offer an average that excludes colder temperatures.
Not only that, 1500 stations to cover the global surface area is ridiculously small. As I pointed out in a previous post, it averages 1 thermometer per 100,000 square km over land and 1 thermometer per 90,000 sq. km over the oceans.
Anyone who thinks such a system can offer anything near an accurate global average is off in la la land.
Nate: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484256
“How many samples do you think you need to take in the first 1-2km, chaotic surface boundary layer?”
Poor attempt to evade MY question, RLH.
Since YOU made the specific claim that “Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a global average air temperature from ground to space.”, I asked YOU to show us how YOU arrived at that conclusion.
Show us your numbers, and the calculations you did to justify this conclusion.
If you can’t, then we will understand that your claim is simply more blather, not based on anything at all.
It’s not a question of ‘liking’ what you say.
Distill down to points and hypotheses.
1) Cause of global warming is “waste heat” due to growing human population.
2) Evidence is increased nighttime temperatures.
To test:
1) Quantify waste heat and see if it accounts for global warming
2) Quantify waste heat for cities to see if this accounts for the changing diurnal temperature range in urban areas
3) Check to see if nighttime temperatures are also rising faster than daytime in rural areas – because GH warming is also supposed to cause nights to warm faster than days
THIS is what my mind does when you postulate something. Your contribution is not remotely fearsome, bub.
As i’ve already looked at this stuff, I can sum up:
Waste heat is orders of magnitude too small to account for global warming over the 20th century.
Waste heat gets closer to changing diurnal heat budget, but still way too little to account for the total change.
Rural areas are also warming faster at night than during the day.
Caveats: these changes are not uniform around the world. Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range. This goes for some cities and more rural areas.
Observation – a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we don’t see that.
Can you confine your reply to the technical?
amending:
“Waste heat gets closer to changing urban diurnal heat budget, but still way too little to account for the total change.”
“Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range.”
Do they have the same CO2 change as the others?
Why do climate deniers keep erecting the same tired strawman that there are no confounding variables in this GHG gas emission experiment?
“Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range.”
So any change in CO2 over time does not have an effect on them then.
So now you admit that other confounding factors can have a larger effect than CO2.
Of course there could, dummy.
We all know about the ice ages and the time Antarctica was a *tropical* paradise.
Remember when you objected that Antarctica was not in the tropics?
The Antarctic is not currently in the tropics.
It never was, Richard.
“Tropical climate” is a freaking figure of speech.
Also, you’re dodging the fact that you already know that your strawman is full of straw.
Just as you (U) are also.
“Around 450 million years ago parts of Antarctica were actually north of the equator, and the continent only arrived at its present position at the South Pole within the last 70 million years or so.”
Do you admit that a uniform warming is not an actual prediction of AGW for Earth?
“Fifty five million years ago, there were more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” said Professor Stephen Pekar, of City University of New York. “That heated the world enough to melt all its ice caps. Sea levels would have been almost 200ft higher than today.”
You should check that out.
Could you also check out why some cities do not exhibit this diurnal range change due to UHI? You’ll find some in Brazil.
Here’s a reference top get you started RLH:
Assessment of Urban Heat Islands in Brazil based on MODIS remote sensing data
https://www.academia.edu/download/65023593/Versao_Final.pdf
barry, all that blathering ain’t science. You don’t get to make up your own science to match your cult beliefs.
The true “waste heat” is the thermal energy absorbed and emitted by CO2 (15μ photons), That level of energy is so low it can’t raise the temperature of Earth.
You STILL don’t understand the basics:
1) Sun warms Earth (It’s the Sun, stupid.).
2) Sun provides more energy that Earth needs.
3) Earth’s systems work to rid Earth of any extra energy (Thermodynamics works.)
4) Earth maintains a temperature in a fairly constant range.
grammie clone pretends he knows how he climate system works, writing:
Of course, he leaves out the fact that CO2 is one of only a few pathways to cool the upper atmosphere, radiating thermal IR radiation to deep space. But CO2 also radiates in both directions, so it warms the layers below and, repeated layer by layer, warms all the way down to the surface.
Wrongo, Swanson. I’ve mentioned CO2 cooling Earth many times. You’re just now catching on, which shows how effective I am. I’m even able to teach an ignorant, immature troll some basic physics!
CO2 emits to space, but the emission back to Earth cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Ice cannot boil water. CO2’s 15μ photon has even less energy that the WDL emission from ice.
So no warming from CO2.
> cooling the Earth
The upper atmosphere, Pup.
You and your silly equivocations!
” CO2s 15μ photon has even less energy that the WDL emission from ice.”
Yeah, but CO2 gas is not a blackbody, so the Wien Displacement Law does not apply.
But the surface is perfectly capable of absorbing that particular wavelength of photon.
Clint will ever deny that long wavelength photons carry energy and have no problem warming things.
But he could check by sticking his balls in a microwave oven.
nate…”Clint will ever deny that long wavelength photons carry energy and have no problem warming things”.
***
You were referencing microwaves as in a microwave oven. Many of the microwave ovens have power sources of 1500 watts. They are equivalent to the 1500 watt rings on an electric stove.
Clint is arguing that ice lacks that power and he is right. Doesn’t matter if you have an iceberg or a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan breaking off the Larsen ice shelf, radiation from the ice lacks the power to warm anything that is warmer than ice.
That’s the key, the 2nd law. Radiation from a colder source cannot warm a hotter object, by its own means. And ice in contact with a warmer object cannot transfer heat to it, by its on means.
You can extract heat from ice and use it, as in a heat pump, but that process will not occur naturally. It is simply not possible for ice to heat anything naturally that is warmer than ice.
That goes for the atmosphere as well. Heat cannot be transferred from GHGs in a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that caused them to warm in the first place.
He was clearly speaking of photons. To long in wavelength they cant warm, he claims.
And clearly wrong.
That’s not the ‘waste heat’ Swenson introduced to this discussion, Clint, so if you have a problem with that go complain to him.
Gordon,
Every man and his dog has confirmed that the radiative emissions of ice cubes alone cannot raise an object to a higher temperature than the ice.
But this is a red herring to the discussion of the GHE and the 2nd Law. And you know it. In your own words:
“…prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.
That’s why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287494
This is EXACTLY what Tim, Nate, bobroege, Swanson and others have been saying all along. It is on this point that you are in disagreement with DREMT, Clint, Swenson etc.
I wouldn’t say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
Just a reminder that the 2LOT determines what actually happens in the world with heat transfer and other things.
How that is described in words doesnt change what happens, nor whether 2LOT allows it to happen.
“the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature.”
At least DREMT now acknowledges that the radiation from the heat source can be a partner in causing the increase in temperature.
A step forward, perhaps, toward understanding that 2LOT is not violated.
…wouldn’t say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
“Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically “blocking” the radiation from the BP. ”
Weirdly, somehow, some people express incredulity that opaque plates are opaque to IR light.
“GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation”
And people seem incredulous that an opaque non-reflective plate would ‘abso.orb radiation’, and thus warm, and radiate IR radiation back toward the source, as the SB law requires.
Then they are incredulous that what is radiated back would be abs.orbed by an identical opaque, non-reflective plate.
IOW they are incredulous of what must occur according to ordinary physics and common sense.
Too bad incredulity is not a valid argument.
…say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
“prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.”
This is quite a logical and factual statement by Gordon. And it agrees with Bill when he stated that the moving the GP behind the BP would result in the BP warming, because it is reducing heat loss.
It shows that when his comrades are thinking logically, and for themselves, DREMTs erroneous notions are rejected.
…it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
Barry,
You wrote –
“Observation a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we dont see that.”
Who suggested that the Sun causes temperatures to rise at night? Certainly not me.
You haven’t managed to contradict a single thing I said.
If you feel like providing some calculations, go for it. I believe it’s impossible, but prove me wrong if you think you can.
Just saying “waste heat is magnitudes too small” without demonstrating that it has no effect on heat measuring instruments in the vicinity is unconvincing.
If you have another suggestion for some method of increasing nighttime minimum temperatures (if this is the case), please provide it.
You can’t can you?
Swenson,
I follow the silver rule with you. “Do unto others as they do unto you.”
Because you never provide corroboration in the form of references to research and the like, I don’t feel obliged to improve the courtesy. That would be a lop-sided affair where your words are taken as verified without actually being verified, and I do the labour of furnishing you with substantiation.
If you want a discourse where we substantiate what we say, then you know what to do. You initiated the waste heat claim – you may now corroborate your view.
Which I have definitely contradicted.
I asked you to be technical in your reply. You have the opportunity to be the one to upgrade our conversation.
barry…”Observation a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we dont see that”.
***
Barry…if you are going to get technical on us, you need to start from a technical basis.
For one, what is waste heat? First we have to establish what is meant by heat, when you use the term waste heat you have presumed everyone understands and agrees on what it is. That has lead to inane theories by alarmists that upwelling and downwelling infrared energy is heat and can be used to over-ride the 2nd law.
Do you mean anthropogenically produced heat?. If so, how do you measure it accurately and distinguish it from heat produced naturally? And are you claiming such heat is contributing to global warming? If so, can you explain the mechanism?
The skeptical argument is not about a variable warming from the Sun, we are not arguing that global warming is a result of a variation in solar output. We (some of us) are arguing that the Sun is currently re-warming the planet following 400+ years of the Little Ice Age.
When Swenson introduced the notion of waste heat to the discussion, why do you imagine it is incumbent upon me to define it?
You ‘skeptics’ just waffle out a bunch of assertions and then demand proofs against. That’s not how a technical conversation works.
The claimant must first substantiate the claim, otherwise it’s worthless.
This is more of a whine than a reply, Barry.
It’s a statement of fact. ‘Skeptics’ demand proof and never provide any.
barry…how about the proofs we skeptics have supplied that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. Or that the GHE or AGW are not possible in the atmosphere? Or that the IPCC are a load of political liars?
Or that a flat trend occurred between 1998 and 2012 and that NOAA uses less than 1500 thermometers globally to measure surface temps.
Or that UAH sat data is not measured at one altitude (4 km) but can measure from the surface to 30 km?
Just scratching the surface here.
Blather is not proof, nor corroboration.
Against NASA, Newton, Cassini and modern astronomy and astrophysics (much cited by ‘spinners’), the non-spinners have cited Tesla (and DREMT cited some due from the 19th century that researchers at the time considered a crank and serial pest).
No proof given that the GHE is not possible. A paper by 2 unqualified people was offered (G&T), with a third of the paper explaining how a real greenhouse works, against dozens of papers and dozens more other scientific sources explaining the GHE (eg, Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, Manabe and Wetherald 1965)
‘Skeptics’ can’t even define what the IPCC is properly, let alone ‘prove’ that anyone running the institution is a political liar.
The trend between 1998 and 2012 is not disputed (0.05 C/decade +/- 0.5 – per Had.CRU, mentioned in IPCC AR5). So that’s a false controversy.
NOAA uses thousands of weather stations to calculate its global temperature record. It did so back in 1997, and has even more now. I just supplied upthread the 1997 methods paper detailing how many are used, and have a few times cited more recent methods paper with more stations. Your ‘evidence’ is a web page that you say you need to “read between the lines” to to arrive at your erroneous conclusion. Your ‘proof’ is the distorted lens through which you view the matter.
I have been telling YOU for ages that AMSU instruments measure a deep swathe of the atmosphere, while you have claimed that the instruments can isolate surface radiance to yield a surface temperature – a claim which you have wisely abandoned.
Skeptics have provided so little to corroborate their views that I can remember all of it.
barry, no citations are necessary for the moon discussion. It’s just a simple perception shift from thinking that “orbital motion without axial rotation” (OMWAR) is as per the “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the below GIF, to thinking that OMWAR is as per the “moon on the left” (MOTL):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Axial rotation” is then separate to that motion.
It’s as simple as that. OMWAR is as per the MOTL.
Not interested. Bye.
Yeah, it wasn’t really for your benefit, anyway, barry. Just for anyone reading that might have an open mind.
[GRAHAM] barry, no citations are necessary for the moon discussion
[ALSO GRAHAM] Yeah, it wasnt really for your benefit, anyway, barry
Every single time.
Yes, you try to pretend there is some inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none.
“inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none”
ever. By definition. For a narcissist.
…you try to pretend there is some inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none.
And so once again Gaslighting Graham about something he learned before he was six years old.
plays dumb
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And just to contextualize what happened here – the topic was Steven Mosher and his change of mind regarding the CRU emails and what he wrote about them.
Then out of the blue Swenson started talking about waste heat, saying that I’d “missed the point.”
Ironically, it was the other way around.
Having suddenly changed topic expects me to ‘prove’ his claim wrong.
The intellectual depravity of ‘skeptics’ causes them to think that their statements are rolled gold that others have to work to disprove. Somehow they didn’t get the life memo that if you make the claim it’s on you to corroborate it.
Just the arrogance, you know?
barry, please stop trolling.
An interesting short paper by Clausius on the 1st law, the 2nd law, and entropy.
Note…wrt to radiation, he is espousing the theory of the day (1865), that heat flowed through space via an aether. That problem was not clarified till 1913 when Bohr discovered the relationship between EM (radiation) and electrons in atoms. Bohr discovered that heat did not flow from a body via radiation, it was converted to electromagnetic energy and dissipated in the process.
Planck offered a good question. Does the radiated energy move as a beam or as an isotropic, spherical source. If you think about it, light emitted from a star must be beam-like since isotropic radiation would mean beaming it back into the star. Furthermore, since only surface atoms radiated EM/light, the emitted light, at beat would only form a hemisphere.
https://web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/Clausius1865.pdf
(From upthread.)
Question: Assume Earth is actually radiating 390 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?
As predicted, the cult was unable to answer correctly. They don’t understand the basic science.
Ent and bob both went with 3.9 * 10^24 Joules/year. That figure results from multiplying 240 W/m^2 by 510 (10)12 m^2, and then multiplying by the number of seconds in a year to convert to Joules. But, its WRONG.
barry got the surface right, but missed the important point 198,900 X 10 Watts. That figure comes from multiplying 390 W/m^2 by 510 (10)12 m^2, leaving the answer in units of Watts. But, it’s WRONG.
Bin, Swanson, willard and Nate responded, but couldnt provide any answer.
So as predicted NONE of the cult idiots know how to calculate the energy from a surface, given the flux. But, it gets worse.
Their cult doesn’t even know how to do it. Their cult headquarters — IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc. don’t know how to do it.
The flux MUST be matched with the exact surface area. The surface area used by the cult is the surface area of a sphere with diameter equal to Earths diameter. But, that is NOT Earth’s actual surface area.
Earth’s actual emitting surface area has been estimated to be at least 40% larger. Think mountains, valleys, cities, and even oceans.
Using the conservative estimate of 40%, Earth has an effective emitting surface area of 510(1.4)(10)^12 m^2. Then the energy emitted is 390(510)(1.4)(10)^12 = 278.46(10)15 Joules/sec
The cult divides solar resulting in the bogus 240W/m^2. So they claim Earth receives 240(510)(10)*12 = 122.4(10)^15 Joules/sec
Notice Earth’s surface is emitting more than twice what the cult claims Sun provides.
That’s what is known as “cult nonsense”.
Where did I respond, Pup?
I don’t think I responded to your silly puzzle, and I won’t until you do the Garden Hose Experiment.
When will you?
Well the Earth is not emitting from its surface, so you have that fact going for you.
Bobby,
All matter above absolute zero emits radiation. Have you redefined the Earth’s surface as “antimatter”, perhaps?
Swenson,
“All matter above absolute zero emits radiation.”
What has that to do with anything, especially the Greenhouse Effect which I have described for you several times.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Well the Earth is not emitting from its surface, so you have that fact going for you.”
Are you really that ignorant, or do you really think that the surface does not emit radiation?
You have never described the GHE in any way that accords with reality. All you do is claim that you have done it many times. Appealing to your own authority is not terribly convincing, in my opinion.
Others can make up their own minds.
“You have never described the GHE in any way that accords with reality.”
Your failure to understand the Greenhouse Effect does not mean it is not reality.
Don’t keep me in suspense, Bob, where does it emit the radiation from?
If you don’t know Gordon, then I can’t help you.
Blundering Bobby,
You can’t help anyone, unless they need instruction in becoming complete (or even incomplete) idiots.
Maybe you could demand $50 per lesson?
Anybody who took up your offer would be showing that didn’t need your help to be an idiot.
True?
The lying sociopath speaks more drivel.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“The lying sociopath speaks more drivel.”
I note you didn’t accompany your unsupported ad hominem assertions with obscenities.
What’s wrong?
Swenson Mikey Flynn captain of the Dunning Kruger society.
I note you don’t have any support for your ad hominem attacks either.
I can prove you are a liar though.
And lying is one of the seven symptoms of a sociopath.
Other symptoms seem to fit as well.
I would advise professional help.
Clint R’s cult:
” Earths actual emitting surface area has been estimated to be at least 40% larger. Think mountains, valleys, cities, and even oceans. ”
Where is your source for that estimate, cultist Clint R?
Maybe you search for something valuable, beginning at WGS84 which is, unlike dumbies like you, used by all people busy with Earth’s real surface?
https://earthhow.com/shape-of-the-earth/
*
And by the way: stop finally to stalk me with your megadumb ice cube syndrome I have nothing to do with.
Could you calculate the power of a lamp that would use the energy of an ice cube?
Maybe a rontoWatt, for example?
How long will you bore us with your ice cubes, backwards flying airplanes and OMWAR idiocies?
Bindidork surely doesn’t like to be reminded of his idiotic posts exposing his lack of knowledge of fizzix .
I want one of his ice powered lamps for Christmas as a back up when my power goes out in again the winter storm
Oh the toothless dachshund trying again to bite…
Come back here when you’ll finally have understood how incompetent you are…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1373291
The solar cycle 25 just perfectly recreated the first peak of the cycle 24, But he tries to claim I was wrong on something,
Nice try Bin der Klaun , pretty funny
https://i.postimg.cc/XvYfXmDn/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
BTW , note how he tries to divert from his idiotic ice powered lamp claim ,
Try harder Bidenito try harder
” Another data point moving sideways extending the flat line to 7 month
https://i.postimg.cc/FzMbvJcK/Clipboard011.jpg
I see some Solar scientists, the ones that predicted very high SC25, starting to signal the arrival of the Solar maximum already, this is only two month after I and Ren first called it,
that is very surprising , I didnt expect them to come around so quickly. ”
You are such a poor liar, dachshund…
It’s not so long time ago that you claimed SC25 would keep sideaways for the next two years:
” It will go sideways more or less for the next two years”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1372090
Don’t try to kid us here!
You are so wrong with your Zharkova lover attitude!
Don’t get ahead of yourself, two years is not up yet by far
I think your ice powered lamp is too dim to see the calendar and your shaizze throwing aim is way off.
Binny,
Still convinced you can predict the future?
Maybe you could concentrate on harnessing 3000 Watts emitted by ice to run a 2400 Watt heater, with plenty left over for TV, computer, lights and so on.
If you think I’m being stupid, maybe you could explain why – using your vast knowledge of flux, power, heat, temperature, quantum electrodynamic theory, and SkyDragon cult teachings.
Or you could just accept reality – you can’t make a thermometer hotter by wrapping it in something colder, and you can’t predict the future by dissecting the past.
Mind you, you don’t actually to be able to anything at all, do you?
Just another ineffectual deluded SkyDragon cultist, pretending to be clever.
Poor Bin. He’s so confused he can’t even make a coherent comment.
“Shape of the Earth”, ice-powered lamps, WGS84, and rontowatts, he’s all over the board!
It probably has something to do with his being braindead…
Clint R
Please don’t say you are serious with probably your dumbest claim yet. Most of your posts are full idiot and zero science and absolutely NO supporting evidence.
I am not sure how you can be this incredibly stupid but I guess you manage. Again maybe you are not a human but an AI bot. I hope so. If humans have reached your level of stupidity we are doomed.
YOU: “Earths actual emitting surface area has been estimated to be at least 40% larger. Think mountains, valleys, cities, and even oceans.”
Who estimated this and why? If you use your idiot math the Earth’s surface would be 714 trillion m^2. If you had a sphere with this area its radius would be 7,538,000 meters. 7,528 kilometers. Current Earth radius is 6,371 kilometers. You would have to add almost 1,200 kilometers to the current radius. Not sure what mountains or valleys add that much additional area.
Good lord man you are a drooling idiot. How did your mind get so devoid of thinking?
Even if you use the Earth emitting atmosphere you only gain about 10 kilometers so your logic is off by a factor of 100. I suggest since you posted this idiot material you put yourself on a ban and quit posting until you learn how to think.
norman…The surface area of the Earth normally given, 5.1 x 10^6 km^2, is found by multiplying the radius squared at the Equator by 4pi. It is a calculation not an actual measure of the true surface area.
When you consider the undulation in the surface, ranging up to 8 km above sea level on Everest and below sea level in other areas, Clint’s estimate that the calculated surface area is 40% less than the actual area is apt.
However, 5.1 x 0.4 = 2 approximately, so his actual surface area would be around 7.1 million km^2, not the 7.1 trillion km^2 you claimed, which would be 7.2 x 10^12 km^2.
Norman, Earth’s emitting surface area is NOT the same as the surface area of a perfect sphere with Earth’s radius.
You’re living on your “flat Earth”.
Flat Earth? That’s NASA’s basis for their stupid “energy budget”.
The delusional SkyDragon cultists cant acknowledge night time, where temperature falls, and as Fourier said hundreds of years ago “During the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its primordial heat.”
According to Fourier and reality, the Earth has cooled since its creation.
According to assorted cultists, it hasn’t.
“Earths actual emitting surface area has been estimated to be at least 40% larger. Think mountains, valleys, cities, and even oceans”.
***
Good point there Clint.
It’s similar to my argument about thermometers. The land surface, on average, is covered by 1 thermometer every 100,000 sq. km. The oceans is worse, with 1 thermometer for every 90,000 sq. km.
I have noted repeatedly that in my vicinity of the world we vary from a rain forest climate on the coast to a desert climate some 150 miles NE. In the desert climate, summer temps are often 20C warmer than on the coast and in winter, sometimes 20C colder.
How can such diversity be covered by 1 thermometer every 100,000 sq, km? Furthermore, changes in altitude are essentially ignored by the surface telemetry. We have a mountain range running right past us at 3500 feet and nary a thermometer in sight.
Are mountain tops not on the surface? Apparently not. Bolivia is one of the highest altitude countries on the planet and according to chiefio, they are not monitored for temperature. Same in California. They have the Sierra Nevada mountains, currently with the highest snow pack in a long time, yet there are only three thermometers used in California, all of them near the warm Pacific.
Clint, you seem to be missing a key idea. Your concern about mountains and canyons is misplaced.
Consider an extreme example — I dig a ditch 1m wide, 10m deep and 10 m long. The surface area of dirt on the sides, ends, and bottom of the ditch is 2 x 10×10 + 2 x 10×1 + 1 x 10×1 = 230 m^2. (and much larger than that if you count all the little bumps and indents). If the sides are those blackbodies you imagine emitting 390 W/m^2, then the total emitted by all those bits of the earth’s surface would be 89,700 W.
But 89,700 W is not a useful number. Most of that 89,700 W is simply going sideways and hitting other sides of the ditch, where it gets re-absorbed. The only energy truly emitted from the the earth that is not re-absorbed by the earth is the 3900 W emitted from the top 1m x 10 m top of the ditch. That 3900 W is all that really matters for energy balance of the earth.
The same goes for the sides of valleys or mountains or buildings. 4*pi*r*2 is the useful number for energy balance. Even if 40% higher is correct for all the slant areas of the earth, it is not a useful number for energy balance. Just like the sides of that ditch are not important.
Was going to make the same point about radiation being bounced around or reabsorbed by a rough topography, and all that matters is the radiation heading skywards.
Wasn’t sure what point Clint was leading to, but it seems he went sideways to the familiar complaint that the Earth’s surface emits more radiation than the sun gives to it.
The absolute surface area emission was a red herring.
Tim,
Energy balance is a load of nonsense. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and as long as it is hotter than its surroundings, will continue to do so.
If you have reasons to believe that the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth, I would be grateful to hear them.
Your fantasy ditch digging, bizarre assumptions that all radiation is emitted normal to a surface, changes nothing. Hot things cool. Cold things warm.
Accept reality – if you can’t even describe the GHE, why do you think people will believe it exists?
Or deny reality, if you find it more comforting.
Swenson,
First, I should really say “energy imbalance”. There is CLOSE to energy balance over the course of a year. But there are imbalances from day to night; from region to region; from season to season. The IMbalance is what warms up the earth during the day and cools it at night. The Imbalance warms up a region in the spring and cooks it in the fall.
“bizarre assumptions that all radiation is emitted normal to a surface”
Say what!? I never assumed anything like that. The 390 W/m^2 coming from the top is energy NOT emitted emitted normal to the surface. The bizarre misunderstandings are mind-boggling sometimes.
“if you cant even describe the GHE … ”
I have come to accept that you can’t or won’t understand the science related to the greenhouse effect. I can easily describe it, and have many times. Your lack of understanding is on you.
Tim,
When you wrote “Most of that 89,700 W is simply going sideways and hitting other sides of the ditch, where it gets re-absorbed.”, back radiation, sideways radiation, blue and green plates which radiate parallel beams at each other?
If you believe that an object radiates in all directions, regardless of frequency, fine.
Your “energy imbalance” is demonstrated by the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Are you pretending this is not true?
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? Like the average delusional SkyDragon cultist, all you can do is claim a description exists. How hard can it be to copy and paste it? Too hard for you, obviously. Or are you just trying to be as unhelpful as possible?
You can’t even provide a link to a description of the GHE which agrees with observed fact!
Dream on, laddie.
tim…”…all the slant areas of the earth, it is not a useful number for energy balance”.
***
Clint is not talking about energy balance AFAIK. He is talking about the actual area available to receive solar energy.
No he’s not.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483827
I amended my comment below after realizing that.
Folkerts invents an “extreme example” to pervert reality.
And troll barry ambles along side like Sancho Panza, as they chase them windmills.
That’s a good point about the topography making a larger surface area.
But that doesn’t matter for calculating earth’s radiation budget.
The figure for Earth’s emission (in W/m2) is empirically observed. Since the 1970s satellites have routinely measured ground emissions, and the average over countless measurements corroborate the value that theory predicts.
The surface of a sphere emitting at 390 W/m2 is the same temperature as the surface of a sphere twice the size emitting energy at the same rate – 288K.
Whether the Earth emits 390 W/m2 over 510*10¹² m² surface area or 714*10¹² m², the heat budget is the same.
barry,
How does your “heat budget” account for the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years?
Is it due to a GHE that you cannot actually describe?
Or are you spouting nonsense for no particular reason?
I await your well thought out answers.
test
barry…”The figure for Earths emission (in W/m2) is empirically observed. Since the 1970s satellites have routinely measured ground emissions, and the average over countless measurements corroborate the value that theory predicts”.
***
We realize you believe that to be true, but can you prove it? Having worked in the electronics/electrical/computer fields, I know of no instrument that can measure individual frequencies over a wide spectrum emitted from the surface. Radiometers are not designed for that but to respond to averaged bulk spectral frequencies.
To do what you claim would require sophisticated filters to measure individual frequencies. Even then, inter.preting the source would be virtually impossible. For example, the claim that CO2 absorbs so much surface radiation cannot be measured. It’s a guess.
In electrical engineering studies we were given ‘black boxes’ that had two inputs and two outputs. We had to figure out what components were connected between input and output. You figure it out using measurement between terminals and injecting signals wile observing the outputs.
The atmosphere represent such a black box to surface radiation. A flying instrument would represent the output measuring device but how does one tell what is happening in-between to affect the ground signal? How do you determine the ground signal for the entire Earth’s surface?
Here’s one way. If you are an alarmist, you presume CO2 acts in a certain way. However, if you are wrong, then your claims are wrong. That’s what we are seeing with graphs claiming to show the spectral absor.p.tion of surface radiation by atmospheric gases.
Again troll barry confuses flux with energy. The same flux over a larger area amounts to MORE energy emitted, not the same.
The funny thing is they can’t learn. That’s why this is so much fun.
Nope, you didn’t understand what I wrote.
Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive power is different.
Two spheres of different sizes will also receive the same W/m2 from the sun as long as they are the same distance from the Sun.
Absolute power is a red herring for this purpose.
Still wrong, barry.
Now youre apparently confusing power with flux. But its so messed up its hard to tell.
Barry,
You wrote –
“Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature.”
No they won’t – not if they are different materials. For example, ice can emit 300 W/m2, at a temperature lower than 0 C.
A metal surface at 100 C can also radiate 300 W/m2!
Temperature may have no relation at all to emitted flux value. That’s why delusional SkyDragon cultists think that they can get away with pretending that adding and subtracting “fluxes”, has meaning. It’s about as meaningful as adding and subtracting temperatures.
Argue all you want, wriggle, slither, do what you want, I’m right.
Maybe you meant to say something else, but were too incompetent to figure out what to say?
Flux is energy passing to from or through a surface. Total flux is the total energy, measured in Watts/joules etc, and specific flux is the energy per unit area – W/m2 for this discussion. Earth’s radiation budget is calculated with the latter. Your interest in the former is a red herring, for the reasons laid out above.
“No they wont not if they are different materials.”
Of course. Clint has already set the condition that the emissivity is 1 and we’ve proceeded on that assumption.
barry…”Flux is energy passing to from or through a surface. Total flux is the total energy, measured in Watts/joules etc, and specific flux is the energy per unit area W/m2 for this discussion”.
***
A problem we have in our discussion is a lack of precision. That leads to generalities which are partly correct and partly wrong. I may sound nit-picky but I am pushing myself to go deeper into the theory and to try visualizing it better.
Energy cannot be measured. I just posted a quote from Planck who confirmed that. That is obvious in the sense that scientists try to express EM flux in watts, which are a measure of mechanical work. If you express EM flux moving through a plane it has no measurement other than a unit indicating the number of flux lines per area, which describes only ho the field is changing in that area. It cannot be expressed in w/m^2 till it does work on something, or produces heat in something.
When you see EM flux expressed in w/m^2 it is nonsense. EM flux can only be measured when it is absorbed by a body and converted into another form of energy. That energy cannot be measured either but it drives something that can be measured. EM can drive nothing on its own.
For example, if I cut a magnetic field with a conductor, it induced a current in the conductor. The electric current can be measured but it can only be expressed in watts if it runs through a resistor. Otherwise, it is measured in charges/second as coulombs/second = amps.
If I ran the induce current through an ideal inductor with no resistance, the current would build a magnetic fieldwhile it was building but the moment the conductor stopped moving, the field would collapse. No power would be created and no w/m^2 would be measured. In space, w/m^2 is meaningless.
Flux itself is misleading. When I studied introductory electronics we were introduced to magnetic lines of flux and I visualized them as real lines moving through space. That was wrong, we have no idea what the magnetic field looks like and we have no idea what magnetic energy is.
When Newton developed the word fluxion, he was referring to a rate of change of a field, not to something physical. He was describing how a field might change at an instant of time. To me, that’s what flux means, the rate of change of a field.
Of course, if the field is not changing, as with two magnets end to end, you have a constant flux field and you can’t measure them in w/m^2. You would use a term like Gauss, which is one line of flux/cm^2. The more lines of flux in that cm^2, the greater the field strength of the magnet.
There are no lines there, however, the Gauss is a fictitious concept.
“A problem we have in our discussion is a lack of precision.”
Yes, often enough. It doesn’t help that the meaning of technical terms are not so cut and dried as we’d hope. Between countries, even between states and universities, physical terms are interchanged. And it gets more complicated when referring to terminology use across time. A familiar example here is that Clausius refers to ‘heat’ being exchanged between hot and cold and cold bodies, when what he clearly means is radiation.
So I guess we would do well to unpack what we mean better and be less hasty.
“We realize you believe that to be true, but can you prove it?”
I’ve learned from the ‘skeptics’ here that I don’t have to prove anything I say. It’s your job to disprove it. So go ahead.
It’s the other way around, Barry. The theories you defend are the new kids on the block, why should we try to disprove what has never been proved?
barry,
One problem I see, is that you point-blank refuse to say anything at all that can be disproved.
For example, you don’t describe the “greenhouse effect” at all, let alone in any way that would enable it be examined. You refuse to say what adverse effects (if any) result from returning to the atmosphere the CO2 and H2O which nature removed and stored as fossil fuels.
Go on, say something that can be shown to be false. Maybe you could start by claiming measurements show that the Earth has actually heated up since the surface was molten, due to “heat trapping” and “energy imbalance”!
You really are a simple soul, aren’t you? You say nothing, and then demand others “prove” you wrong!
I’ve described the GHE many times, as have the others here, Swenson, as well as given empirical evidence for it. No idea why you continually pretend this hasn’t happened but I’m done taking your bait.
“You say nothing, and then demand others prove you wrong!”
Pure projection. That is YOUR MO.
Swenson May 10, 2023 at 5:05 PM
“prove me wrong if you think you can”
Swenson May 9, 2023 at 3:13 AM
“prove me wrong”
Swenson May 9, 2023 at 5:54 AM
“demonstrate that I am wrong.”
Swenson May 8, 2023 at 3:21 AM
“correct me if I’m wrong.”
Swenson May 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM
“Go on, show how wrong I am, and how clever you are.”
Swenson May 4, 2023 at 4:15 AM
“feel free to prove me wrong”
Any corroborating links or references to go with these requirements to prove your claims wrong?
Nope, not one.
barry, if you believe you have provided a description of the GHE, how hard would it be to provide it again?
The ONLY descriptions Ive seen either violate the laws of physics or just claim the atmosphere is insulation. In neither case, can CO2 heat the planet.
Are you saying that the descriptions you’ve never seen from me violate the laws of physics?
No barry, I’m saying what I said. Quit trying to misrepresent my words.
(I found your links below.)
Gordon,
You believe you are exempt from having to corroborate your criticisms of AGW.
That is the supreme hubris of a non-critical mind.
No one is exempt in a serious discussion.
But as long as you and DREMT and Clint and Swenson refuse to do the right thing I feel in no way obliged to pick up the slack. I may or may not provide references, and none of you lot have a leg to stand on to criticise me.
You want references? I’m all for that, but you have to play ball.
barry, if you could please stop bringing my name into your petty disputes, that would be great.
Fuck off.
barry has obviously lost it.
Maybe the last easy physics problem was too much for him?
Reality always wins.
You mentioned my name in three different comments without me even having contributed anything to this month’s discussion at that point. I’d rather you stopped trying to bring me into it.
barry…”You believe you are exempt from having to corroborate your criticisms of AGW”.
***
Unless you have been away on another planet and missed it, I have been presenting my scientific rebuttals of AGW for at least 10 years on Roy’s site. I have gone into detail using the Ideal Gas Law and to the atomic level in quantum theory to establish that the GHE and AGW cannot exists any more than at a trivial level.
Feel free to link me to the scientific references that corroborate your views, Gordon. I don’t see you do that often if at all.
While you’re at it, could you help Clint find a reputable physics text that corroborates his ever-shifting view that radiation from two equal sources arriving at a surfgace don’t add?
And please help DREMT find a reputable physics text that supports his view that the BP either does not absorb GP’s radiation, or if it does, is not affected by it.
I’d try to give you something more concrete to work with, but Clint changes his mind, and DREMT doesn’t seem to quite know what’s going on in his theory.
While you’re at it, how about a standard astrophysics text that states the moon is not spinning?
I don’t need to rehash the arguments, just looking for these reputable references ‘skeptics’ have supposedly donated to the conversation.
barry, you’re still focused on the wrong thing (and since you insist on continuing to bring me into it, I will comment on it). You don’t need to worry about finding “a reputable physics text that supports [my] view that the BP either does not absorb GP’s radiation, or if it does, is not affected by it.” You will never find any reference talking about blue and green plates. You don’t need it, though. Whatever happens to the “back-radiation” from the GP to the BP, it cannot result in the BP warming. That would violate 2LoT. You don’t need a “reference” to understand that. You just need to follow the argument already outlined here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
…don’t need to rehash the arguments, just looking for these reputable references
You see, Gordon, DREMT says “You don’t need a ‘reference’… You just need to follow the argument”
‘Skeptics’ don’t need to provide references, so why should I pony up when they request them?
barry misrepresents, again. I’m not saying, “you don’t need to provide references”, full stop. I’m saying that for the specific argument of mine that you mentioned, no references are required.
…so why should I pony up when they request them?
…I’m saying that for the specific argument of mine that you mentioned, no references are required.
…why should I pony up
…saying that for the specific argument of mine that you mentioned, no references are required.
clint…”The flux MUST be matched with the exact surface area”.
***
I mistook your surface area calculation for the amount of surface area able to absorb solar energy. With surface radiation there are other issues. You have the emissivity of the material emitting and with a piece of granite you could have a dozen different elements making up the granite emitting from the same location. Same with sand.
Material radiating from a shaded area, hence a different temperature, will radiate at a different frequency. In essence, the flying instrument will see a plethora of frequencies, none of which can be identified as to source.
As for sat telemetry, it can measure only what it can see. Since the CO2 spectrum is overlain by the WV spectrum, there is no way to separate the two spectra. Clouds laden with water will interfere as will WV in the atmosphere.
The graphs we see showing the spectrum of surface radiation are fabricated. No flying instrument could possible see the surface like that. The energy budget graphs are fabricated, there is no way the amount of radiation showing two way radiation is measured. Keihle/Trenberth admitted they are fabricated.
Then there’s the problem with directivity as mentioned by Tim. If portions of the surface are not radiating vertically, they cannot be seen by a flying instrument directly overhead.
Gordon, you came in at the end of the discussion, not understanding the conditions of the problem.
Then, your keyboard got another case of diarrhea.
you don’t want to mess with me Clint.
in other words, the post to which you refer was intended as support for your argument, If you want to put me on your nasty list you will regret it.
Sadly, you make yourself a mess Gordon. For every time you say something brilliant, you say something stupid. The cult always points out your stupid ones, which you seem to always ignore, meaning you can’t learn and improve. You remain ineffective.
But that’s why this is so much fun.
You are right Clint, it is a lot of fun. When you turn on those who have supported you it’s a real hoot. The alarmists won’t be able to contain their glee.
Hey, maybe they can recruit you.
Or, maybe you’d like to elaborate on what I say that is stupid, but no, you know I’d make a fool of you in a way that no alarmist can.
Yet more proof that the skeptics here do argue amongst ourselves, despite claims that we never do.
This is the first time to my knowledge that Clint and Gordon have disagreed. Gordon clearly thinks it is.
This is a sad interaction. Clint’s contempt doesn’t leave a mark on his opponents.
Gordon, who is turning on who?
…you don’t want to mess with me Clint.
If you want to put me on your nasty list you will regret it.
> For every time you say something brilliant, you say something stupid
Pup definitely does not know how to count.
Clint R has made similar comments to Gordon a few times. Nothing new.
Yes, several of us Skeptics have tried to help Gordon. We want to see him improve.
He’s indicated he was having a “bad hair day”. Maybe it’s turned into a week?
Make that a decade, Pup.
You ought to know, you witnessed it all.
barry…”This is the first time to my knowledge that Clint and Gordon have disagreed. Gordon clearly thinks it is”.
***
We had a major disagreement on the definition of heat recently and settled it amicably. from my perspective, we agreed to disagree.
I have never been able to abide anyone talking down his/her nose at me. That’s what this is about. I have spoken to you amicably until you started talking down your nose at me. Some people tend to wither under such an assault but I have always stood up to it.
heat pump used to extract heat from ice. Note… this cannot occur naturally (by its own means)…
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-31506073
Gordo, If you had half a brain, you might have noticed that the article is about using LIQUID water from a large thermal reservoir at 8C as the low temperature energy source to a heat pump. Heat pumps aren’t new and we mechanical engineers have known about this for more than a century. Your comment that “extracting” this thermal energy can not occur naturally is also nothing new. But, this has nothing to do with the heat transfer of thermal IR radiation from a colder to a warmer body.
Gordo, If you had half a brain, you might have noticed that the article is about using LIQUID water from a large thermal reservoir at 8C as the low temperature energy source for heat pumps. They take the water from a fijord at Drammen Norway, 40 miles west of Oslo, water which is constantly being exchanged with water from the North Sea via tidal currents. During Winter, that water will be considerably warmer than the air temperatures in the area.
Heat pumps arent new and we mechanical engineers have known about this for more than a century. Your comment that extracting this thermal energy can not occur naturally is also nothing new. But, this has nothing to do with the heat transfer of thermal IR radiation from a colder to a warmer body.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Cooling is the new warming
https://bit.ly/3pxk829
Why does Earth absorb the most energy and Venus absorbs the least?
gb…start with the fact the surface temperature of Venus is 450C.
Might be better to start where the most energy from the sunlight is
absorb.
It is thought most energy from the sunlight in regards to Venus is absorbed in the upper atmosphere.
Whereas most the sunlight in regards to Earth is absorbed beneath the surface of Earth’s ocean.
As most of Earth surface is ocean and it’s surface [1 mm depth] is very transparent to sunlight.
With Earth, most of sunlight in absorbed in top couple meters of the Ocean’s surface.
With lunar surface most of sunlight is absorbed in the top couple 1 to 2″ inches of it’s fluffy surface- and when sun at zenith this top of surface can heat to 120 C, while 1 meter below that surface it can be -30 C.
This roughly tell you that Venus at Earth distance from the sun, would still absorb most sunlight in upper atmosphere and still reflect a lot of sunlight and emit more then absorbs until it cooled so emitted the same amount as it absorbs. And it would absorb, less than our Moon and would have longer day than our moon- it would be colder than our moon, but would have greenhouse effect- or would have a more uniform global temperature- so, not going to get 100 K or colder like our Moon gets.
The acid clouds would rain out, and CO2 condense into liquid, but 3-4 atm of N2 would not condense out. So end up with 6 atm atmosphere.
And like Earth, would be lousy place to have solar panels- other than day would be long, but of course the night would be longer. If you followed the sun, the solar panels would work.
barry…”A paper by 2 unqualified people was offered (G&T), with a third of the paper explaining how a real greenhouse works, against dozens of papers and dozens more other scientific sources explaining the GHE…”
***
G&T = Gerlich and Tscheuschner
Gerlich taught thermodynamics math to students at a university level and in their paper he lays out math that would give Barry a nose bleed. Tscheushner worked in a thermodynamics lab. They are the only two of whom I am aware who have actual experience in thermodynamics, besides Pierre Latour, who have published papers on AGE theory.
The critique of the G&T paper, offered first by Arthur Smith, with a PH.D in physics, whose only experience in physics was working as a librarian, had zero experience in thermodynamics. His argument focused entirely on one statement by G&T that the GHE was fraudulent.
His entire paper was on the 33C alleged temperature difference between an Earth with no oceans or atmosphere and an Earth with both. He addressed no other points in the G&T paper and later, his paper was demolished by an independent author.
The second ‘attack’ on G&Ts paper came from Eli Rabbet (Josh Halpern) et al, and once against Smith was a co-author. They made an absolute fool of themselves revealing a clear misunderstanding of the difference between heat and infrared, which caused them to misunderstand the 2nd law. G&T tried to straighten them out on it by pointing out the 2nd law only allowed a heat transfer from hot to cold.
Rabbett et al replied that if heat could be transferred only one way it would mean in a system of two bodies, one hotter than the other, that one body would not be radiating.
Come on, Barry, if you don’t understand the idiocy in that statement you are lumping yourself in with them.
I made myself read that disastrous paper all the way through – something I imagine zero ‘skeptics’ actually did. It contains quite a few of the misinformed drivels skeptics pump out.
From memory: G&T make no reference to standard GHE texts like Ramanathan and Coakley, Manabe and Wetherald etc, and instead cite papers from 50 years before. They seem to have no clue about any research done on the topic beyond 1940. I think Plass was their most recent cited paper.
They describe upwelling and downwelling radiation as ‘heat’ in both vectors – a very strange and misbegotten understanding from people supposedly conversant with thermodynamics.
They talk a great deal about conductive heat transfer in gases. WTF?? This is of no consequence to the greenhouse effect.
And as I said before they devoted way too much useless time in their paper describing how a real greenhouse works.
there is terrible syntax in the paper. And there is reference to ‘skeptics’ and quotes from climate personalities.
The work is shoddy, and much left unexplained (we’re still waiting for part 2).
Smith and Halpert were not the only ones to rip it apart.
It appears to be the bible for ‘skeptics’, who treat it with seemingly no skepticism whatsoever, despite being a paper that no other substantiates.
Ah, these maverick views.
Just went back to the paper and rediscovered that their cranky opus isn’t peer-reviewed.
But hey, who cares about quality control, ammiright?
“Rabbett et al replied that if heat could be transferred only one way it would mean in a system of two bodies, one hotter than the other, that one body would not be radiating.”
I call BS on this.
Please corroborate this claim of yours.
It’s in the rebuttal to the G&T paper by Halpern et al. However, there’s no need to go that far, Halpern, aka Eli Rabbett, set it out for us with his blue plate – green plate thought experiment. That’s the basis of his experiment, that EM transfers heat both ways, with the cooler GP transferring heat to the hotter BP.
… Please corroborate this claim of yours. I reckon it’s BS, from all I’ve seen Halpert write on the subject.
I agree with Barry that the G&T 2009 paper is deeply flawed. At 115 pages, it’s almost a book and includes lots of extraneous stuff about the history of the Greenhouse Effect. They don’t get to the meat of their claim until around page 77, leading to Figure 32, where their caption says:
swannie…you omitted the best part of your quot above…from the same page you quoted…
quote from Rahmstorf, an uber-alarmist…
“Some sceptics state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.
G&T response…
Rahmstorfs reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of net energy flow. The relevant quantity is the net heat flow, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly…”
My note…it’s not only incorrect to apply the 2nd law in two directions, heat simply cannot be transferred from cold to hot, by its own means, no matter the situation. G&T stated that better in their response to the first rebuttal by Halpern at al.
Furthermore, in Rahmstorf’s statement above, he refers to a radiative exchange between bodies of different temperatures. No such exchange occurs, a truth backed by basic quantum theory.
Gordo, G&T’s 2009 paper does not provide any evidence to prove their assertions, which is the same as your lack of physics. For years now, you can not explain how a surface with a black body (or one which is nearly so) could differentiate between thermal IR radiation from a warmer body and that from a cooler body. You seem to think that IR reflected by a cooler body would be absorbed, but that the emissions from the cooler body would be “ignored” or simply disappear.
But, it’s your ignorance which is profound. The caption from G&T’s figure specifically describes “a machine”, not the climate system. Clausius in his writing also discussed machines, which are devices for converting energy from one form to another. No conversion is perfect and entropy always increases with any system.
Rhamstorf is perfectly correct in describing how radiative transfer works. G&T demonstrate that they have no idea about radiative transfer, which is ALWAYS about a net transfer of radiative energy.
The direction of heat flow is determined by the NET flow of energy, which, far from being an obscure term, is a standard phrase used in standard physics textbooks on radiative transfer.
This language has been quoted and cited here many times. G&T are simply ignorant of radiative transfer, which is why they spend so much time in their document talking about conduction of heat through atmospheric gases.
From MIT, standard physics text on radiative transfer:
“The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is…”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Another page from MIT on radiative transfer between 2 planar surfaces:
“The net heat flux from 1 to 2 is”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
From a university physics textbook on radiative transfer:
“The balance of radiation into and out of the object depends on how well it emits and absorbs radiation. When T2>T1, the quantity Pnet is positive, that is, the net heat transfer is from hot to cold.”
(And in this text ‘heat’ and ‘radiation’ are used interchangeably – different unis have differences in the way they use the language)
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/1-6-mechanisms-of-heat-transfer
From an engineering textbook on radiative transfer:
“The general equation for the net rate of exchange of radiant heat between two non-blackbodies is:”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
An online training service on radiative transfer:
“the net radiation heat exchange between a surface of area AI and temperature TI and a surface of Aj and temperature Tj is given by:”
https://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/cworks/c_radiation_exchange_between_surfaces.htm#
I can go on and on finding references for this standard of radiative transfer.
But G&T believe that “net energy flow” is an obscure notion.
They are simply ignorant. Their un peer-reviewed paper is dross.
(By the way, ‘skeptics’, this is how you corroborate a point)
barry, you can find a lot of nonsense on the Web. But when the nonsense violates the basic laws of physics, you should know to ignore it. Otherwise, you will get confused and believe that ice will boil water.
These are university physics texts, Clint. From MIT no less.
You know, the kind of references you are unable to provide for your nonsense about radiative energy from two sources not being additive on a surface.
barry, MIT is not much different from other institutions these days. Fifty years ago, “MIT” meant something. Now, it’s just another WOKE cult center.
That’s why you see people here like Mark Shapiro “PhD-physics”, who can’t even describe your GHE, let alone correctly identify the energy of a photon.
Things are changing so fast we can’t even keep up. Fifty years ago, intelligence was measured by how much a person knew. Now, it’s measured by how many “smart” devices you can use.
You have to have an understanding of the actual science, and be able to think for yourself.
Yes, the paper is littered with irrelevancies and no refutation of the GH effect. I flicked through it again last night. they attack ENCYCLOPEADIA descriptions of the greenhouse effect. Who does that in a serious research paper – unless the paper is about encyclopaedias.
It’s as if they’ve never published scientific research. And guess what?
I was also reminded how much the ‘skeptics’ rely on that paper for some of their favourite arguments. That’s why their arguments hit a wall on questioning and then they come up empty-handed. G&T never really finish off their critique amidst all the red herrings.
barry, please stop trolling.
Earlier, barry attempted to claim that fluxes are proportional temperatures, by writing –
“Of course. Clint has already set the condition that the emissivity is 1 and weve proceeded on that assumption.”
barry has multiplied himself, and become a mythical “we”. Either that, or he is the self-appointed representative of an anonymous and reclusive secret group.
Unfortunately, barry has now shot down the NASA fools who publish pretty pictures of a flat earth, where Sun, sky, earth and water, all absorb and emit energy measured in W/m2, but cunningly omit the fact that Clint R has defined all this matter to have an emissivity of 1!
It is interesting to see barry appealing to the authority of the anonymous Clint R.
Barry is obviously unaware of the fact that “black bodies” do not exist. The Sun, at 5600 K or so, has a spectral output similar to the theoretical spectrum of a “black body”, however nothing on Earth has a natural emissivity of 1. Nothing.
All his attempts to deny reality are not too successful, are they?
Does barry believe that thermometers surrounded by CO2 show lower temperatures if the CO2 is removed, or is that a silly notion? Who knows? He certainly won’t tell anybody what he believes!
Cunning?
You might say that Barry is a cunning linguist. Wot say?
Fellas, it is Clint who set the condition of the imaginary blackbody Earth. If you have a problem with that, go and whine to him about it.
The rest of the commentary was unrelated dross.
barry,
As long as you keep admitting that your comments have no connection to reality, that’s fine.
Clint R realises that black bodies do not exist on Earth. If you want to prefer fantasy to fact, and imagine you can use W/m2 in the real world, to measure temperatures, you need to be prepared to be laughed at.
Of course, you are not prepared to make such a stupid assertion, because you have to resolutely refuse to state that you believe anything at all – and then demand people to “prove you wrong”!
Go on dimwit, tell everyone how your supposedly oft-described “greenhouse effect” cooled the Earth over the past four and a half billion years.
Do you speak on behalf of the other Marching Morons (fellow members of the SkyDragon cult), or do you spout evasive nonsense on your own behalf only?
“Clint R realises that black bodies do not exist on Earth.”
And yet he posited a blackbody Earth when he set his challenge.
ClintR” “Assume Earth is actually radiating 390 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. Further, to keep things simple, assume Earth is radiating at 1.0 emissivity.”
As I said, if you have a problem with the blackbody Earth in Clint’s challenge, whine to Clint about it.
barry, I never used the word blackbody in my problem.
Quit misrepresenting me.
Oh my God. You don’t realize that only blackbodies have an emissivity of 1.0?
Oh hahahaha. And you think you’re an expert do you?
You’re STILL misrepresenting me.
Are you saying you DO know that only blackbodies have an emissivity of 1.0?
barry, I never used the word “blackbody” in my problem.
Quit misrepresenting me.
Are you going to keep going with this because you have NOTHING?
I didn’t misrepresent you, Princess. Swenson quoted me correctly:
“Clint has already set the condition that the emissivity is 1 and we’ve proceeded on that assumption.”
It was Swenson that correctly identified that this is a blackbody. It’s all in his post that begins this thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484490
You made a blackbody Earth. That’s what 1.0 emissivity means.
So don’t be a disingenuous PoS. And stop huffing, Princess. No one is impressed.
barry, I never used the word “blackbody” in my problem.
Get over it.
Riddle me this, Pup –
Take a figure with three sides. Calculate the sum of its angles.
How much do you get?
The backsliding begins. Then comes the moving of the goal posts. Then the fake physics. Finally the playing-the-victim card is dealt.
You’ve got barry nailed, Nate.
Don’t forget his profanity, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Hey, Pup, a customer is asking for you in the third aisle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484780
“misrepresentations, and false accusations.”
No, the playing the victim card comes last, after everyone has debunked your silliness.
Try to get it right.
Pup did the same thing last month, Barry.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…”NOAA uses thousands of weather stations to calculate its global temperature record. It did so back in 1997, and has even more now. I just supplied upthread the 1997 methods paper detailing how many are used, and have a few times cited more recent methods paper with more stations. Your evidence is a web page that you say you need to read between the lines to to arrive at your erroneous conclusion. Your proof is the distorted lens through which you view the matter”.
***
If you knew as much about science as you claim, you would not need to misquote me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“NOAA Weather Stations
Determining Global Temperature
The U.S. Climate Reference Network consists of 114 stations, including this one in Tucson, Ariz.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
…The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month”.
***
My reference to reading between the lines was the NOAA ridiculous justification for slashing the number of stations.
quote…”However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions”.
Only a blithering idiot would fall for that nonsense and apparently you swallow it whole. What the heck good do digitized record do for current temperatures?
————–
“I have been telling YOU for ages that AMSU instruments measure a deep swathe of the atmosphere, while you have claimed that the instruments can isolate surface radiance to yield a surface temperature a claim which you have wisely abandoned”.
***
They have the ability to measure right to the surface. It is UAH who has decided not to go that low due to microwave interference generated from the surface.
Sorry, could you quote the line where NOAA says they slashed, deleted or otherwise deliberately got rid of the data from thousands of stations?
Thanks.
“Same with NOAA, when I posted they were now using less than 1500 surface stations globally you called me a liar.”
They have never used less than 1500 stations. The 7200 they had in 1997 remain in the database and are still used to construct the long term temperature record. There are even more now, more than twice as many, and the number that update once a month has increased to around 3000.
How hard is it to understand that the acquisition of the 6000 weather stations’ data was from a project of gathering historical records – a one-time data collection of thousands of stations that did not and do not update regularly to NOAA? Which results in the number of stations dropping off directly after that mid 90s data-collection project ended.
Why don’t you understand this, Gordon? Why is there a blind spot in your mind whenever I say this? And why won’t you read the paper that describes exactly how those thousands of weather stations were added to the database?
At least respond to this from the 1997 methods paper:
“Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them…”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
barry, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bumbling barry, in a fit of fantasy, wrote –
“I’ve described the GHE many times, as have the others here, Swenson, as well as given empirical evidence for it. No idea why you continually pretend this hasn’t happened but Im done taking your bait.”, and then spent a fair of amount of time and space explaining why he wasnt going to provide any support to contradict a single fact I presented.
Barry the buffoon cannot describe the GHE – merely claims he has done so many times.
He also wrote –
“Any corroborating links or references to go with these requirements to prove your claims wrong?
Nope, not one.”
Blundering barry just asserts he is right – about what, he can’t exactly say, but it doesn’t matter, because he isn’t going to provide any support for what he not prepared to state.
An exceptionally cunning move, or stupidity writ large?
Others can make their own decisions.
As soon as you support your claims with references I’ll return the favour. That’s the deal. I checked the whole thread – nope, all your assertions are uncorroborated.
It wasn’t hard to find recent times I’ve described the GHE – you were present at and responding to these posts, so your memory is extremely faulty.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442197
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442454
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1360529
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1360600
The issue isn’t that you might disagree with these – the issue is that you keep lying over and over that I haven’t described the GHE.
Please desist with this lie.
And when you are asked to provide links for your claims, please provide them. When you have shown that you are willing to to do, then so will I. That’s the deal.
barry, the first link has already been debunked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442215
I don’t plan to debunk everything you can find on the Wed. If you believe you have a non-debunkable description of the GHE, I’ll be glad to comment on it. Let’s see your very best one — the one you most believe in.
Thank you for reminding me of this simple refutation of Sky Dragon crank nonsense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442244
Thanks for confirming I have written descriptions of the GHE, Clint. I know it’s too much to expect that you will correct Swenson next time he says I haven’t.
barry, what you appear to be missing is Swenson is asking for a description that can not be easily debunked.
You haven’t provided such.
You really must stop being a lying dog, Clint. It’s ugly every time.
Reality always makes you mad, huh barry?
Clint has made it clear that he is posting ridiculous things to seek attention, negative attention. Enabling him to then toss ad-homs grenades back at people, to irritate them.
It is the essence of trolling.
Clint just tells these silly stories about other people, even his confreres. Swenson has always said that no one can describe the GHE. He didn’t speak of the quality of these descriptions in his comment above because he doesn’t believe anyone has offered any. Even when I linked some of my old ones he denied they were descriptions of the GHE.
Princess just lies with gay abandon.
barry, when someone asks for a description of the GHE, it goes without saying they’re asking for something that will hold up against science and reality. They’re not asking for cult nonsense.
In essence, it’s like you’re trying to use a doorknob as “proof” of your bogus GHE.
Provide something that can withstand proper scrutiny.
Still lying about what Swenson asked for, Clint? I’m getting used to your shameless deceit. It’s reassuringly familiar.
Barry buffoon,
Surely you are not stupid enough to claim that this linked comment from you comprises a description of the greenhouse effect, are you?
“IR absorbing gases slow the rate at which IR escapes to space from the surface. Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must heat up until rate of outgoing energy = rate of incoming energy.”
No wonder you were too embarrassed to post your “description”, rather than a link! Your other links comprise another link to a YouTube video, and vague nonsense about the atmosphere and IR radiation.
Do you accept that the Earth has cooled from an initial molten state or not?
You might not accept that the Earth, despite receiving four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, has cooled, making a mockery of your nonsensical attempt to turn fantasy into fact!
Maybe you could agree that you cannot actually describe a “greenhouse effect” which includes reference to the Earth, the Sun, the surface, the atmosphere, CO2, and all the rest of the things that delusional SkyDragon cultists are involved?
Of course you can’t.
You have attempted to describe the contents of your fantasy, poorly.
You havent even explained why the surface temperature drops at night! Not enough “IR absorbing gases” at night, do you think?
If this is the best you can do, you are not only a buffoon, you are are a blundering, bumbling, buffoon!
swenson…”Barry buffoon, …Surely you are not stupid enough to claim that this linked comment from you comprises a description of the greenhouse effect, are you?
IR absorbing gases slow the rate at which IR escapes to space from the surface. Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must heat up until rate of outgoing energy = rate of incoming energy.
***
Barry thinks this nonsense has been validated by experiment or observation. I have pointed out several times that the absorp-tion of surface IR by GHGs is not only insignificant, it has no effect on the rate of surface heat dissipation.
The theory is built on the incorrect assumption that the IR blocked by the glass in a real greenhouse can somehow warm the air in the greenhouse. R. W. Wood proved that wrong in 1909 that it is the lack of convection provided by the glass that leads to the warming.
Besides that, the heat dissipation at the surface takes place before the IR reaches the GHGs, therefore something else is affected the rate of dissipation. Newton knew about that mechanism in the 1600s when he proposed his law of cooling. He knew the rate of dissipation depended on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment, in this case the entire atmosphere.
It is the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface-atmosphere interface that determines the rate of heat dissipation. The atmosphere at that point is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. therefore it is N2/O2 controlling the rate of heat dissipation and not trace gases like CO2 and WV.
Ergo, by the time GHGs enter the problem, the rate of heat dissipation has already been determined.
> it has no effect on the rate of surface heat dissipation.
And where have you validated that claim by experiment or observation, Bordo?
C’mon.
Swenson,
Yes, they are all descriptions of the greenhouse effect, some with more details than others. And they are just a handful of the many I’ve written.
So please stop lying through your teeth that I haven’t offered a description of the greenhouse effect, there’s a good chap.
You’re welcome to challenge them. But I’m sure you’ll understand that I’ll call you a liar every time you repeat the lie you’ve been repeating.
barry, your “descriptions” don’t “hold water”.
I don’t have time to debunk all the nonsense you can find on the Web. Just provide your favorite GHE description/definition, the one you most believe in. I’ll be happy to comment.
Thank you again for confirming that I’ve described the greenhouse effect. I’m saving your comment for Swenson the next time he lies that I’ve not done so.
Again, thanks. Your help has been unvaluable.
Just remember that what we’re looking for is something that is scientifically substantive. So far, you haven’t provided such.
Here you go, Clint, 2 seminal papers on the GHE.
Manabe and Wetherald 1965
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe67.pdf
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978
https://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/460/2017/10/pr15.pdf
The 2nd paper uses empirical measurements of the spectral absorp.tion of atmospheric gases to determine radiative transfer through layers of the convective atmosphere.
That, by the way, is how you reference stuff in a serious conversation.
And that is what ‘skeptics’ never do. Especially you Clint. I don’t believe you’ve cited any actual scientific references for years, just blathered in a cite-vacuum.
barry, your mission is to provide a viable (scientific and substantive) definition/description of your cult’s GHE. Do you offer these two sources in that endeavor?
As I’ve stated, I don’t plan to debunk everything you can find on the Web. If these two sources fully support your beliefs, then so state. I don’t want to debunk them to then have you come up with more.
Do you agree to rest your case on these two sources?
barry,
You linked to a couple of nonsense papers, neither of which even contain the term “greenhouse effect”.
Is this more delusional SkyDragon cult methodology – pretending to describe the greenhouse effect by not using the term “greenhouse effect”?
Can you describe the “greenhouse effect”, not just link to silly papers which don’t even mention it?
How hard can it be? Only joking, you havent got a description, have you?
I’ll help you a bit. You could start like this – “The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon which . . . “, and then describe it in terms which allow for independent observation, measurement, documentation, etc.
Too much for a delusional SkyDragon cultist like you (or any of the others, obviously).
You can run, but you can’t hide.
You boys could behave like grown-ups and give a proper critique of the 2 papers I’ve offered.
This ever-growing list of conditions is childish, and you can bet your silly butts that I’m not going to jump through ever-tightening hoops while you duck and weave.
I’ve got a question for you, Clint. You might be interested too, Swenson.
Why do people who agree with the GHE belong to a ‘cult’? What makes this so inevitable, to your mind?
barry, your question is just an attempt to dodge the question — Do you agree to rest your case on these two sources?
You won’t risk relying on those two sources. You don’t have any source that you will rely on, because you really know your beliefs won’t hold up.
Now, to your distracting question:
Why do people who agree with the GHE belong to a ‘cult’? What makes this so inevitable, to your mind?
The religious avoidance of reality is typical of a cult. Also evident is the zealous effort to support their false beliefs. Notice how often the cult resorts to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. The cult calls people “liars”, incessantly.
Ok, so it’s a combination of things.
Just to confirm – belief that AGW is a real thing doesn’t by itself make anyone a ‘cultist’. Is that right?
“Notice how often the cult resorts to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.”
You and Swenson demonstrably tee up the most insults and misrepresentations, per square cm of space on the page. Proof that you are the cult, or at least trolls.
barry, please stop trolling.
In a state of diversionary confusion, barry the bumbler wrote –
“You believe you are exempt from having to corroborate your criticisms of AGW.”
As I have pointed out, if thermometers did not reflect increased temperatures as a result of human activities, they would not be fulfilling their function.
Are you implying there is some other reason for anthropogenic global warming – that is, increased temperatures due to human activities?
Of course not. You are a bumbling delusional SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
Carry on continuing to be as slippery and non-committal as the rest of the cult members.
I believe you are mentally impaired. Very little of that made sense. How old are you, if I may ask?
barry,
Don’t blame me because you can’t actually contradict anything I said.
You can’t even say what doesn’t make sense to you, can you?
All your “beliefs” plus $5 will buy you a $5 cup of coffee. Your “beliefs” are no substitute for facts, except in your own mind.
Bumble on.
It is impossible to contradict something that is incoherent.
Actually, don’t bother. I’ve seen a few more unhinged replies upthread and your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.
You are hardly ever around, Barry, don’t flatter yourself. Swenson is humourous and has a sharp wit. He gets under the skin of those who take themselves too seriously.
Are you kidding? Swenson is a sour drudge who repeats the same 4 hackneyed ideas with complete disregard to ongoing conversations. He has the sense of humour of a mallet.
Yes barry, Swenson consistently points out the flaws in your false beliefs.
You don’t appreciate his humor, but others do.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 11, 2023.
As the Earth’s climate warms due to human activities and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the ocean is rapidly losing its oxygen.
As seawater temperature rises it not only holds less dissolved oxygen, but also affects ocean circulation patterns responsible for distributing oxygen-rich surface waters to deeper layers which can lead to reduced oxygen supply to lower depths.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-ocean-oxygen-levels-dip-fish-face-an-uncertain-future
You’re watching this too, right?
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 11, 2023.
As the Earth’s climate warms due to human activities and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the ocean is rapidly losing its oxygen.
As seawater temperature rises it not only holds less dissolved oxygen, but also affects ocean circulation patterns responsible for distributing oxygen-rich surface waters to deeper layers which can lead to reduced oxygen supply to lower depths.
https://tinyurl.com/2s4yxfmy
You’re watching this too, right?
Low oxygen levels in ocean water??? Drivel!!! That’s the same as claiming the CO2 levels in water are too high.
Please corroborate your opinion, Gordon, that CO2 levels in seawater have not risen, and oxygen levels have not decreased.
barry, please stop trolling.
Not only did the responses to the latest simple physics problem confirm my predictions, but we moved into new levels of perversion. Now the GHE cult has gone “flat Earth”. Will we see a “cult merger”?
That’s why this is so much fun.
The problems you offered were juvenile and unsolvable at your level of understanding of physics. The fact that you offered them reveals your arrogance and immaturity.
Welcome to trolling, Gordon.
So far, you’re not very original. In fact, you sound like Norman.
Maybe with time you will improve.
Pathetic response. Man-up, take responsibility for your idiotic behavior.
Wrong Gordon, that was a great response — short, to-the-point, and based on reality.
You should try it.
Are you ready to get back to science rather than us entertaining the alarmists?
I never left science, or reality.
[PUP] Assume Earth is actually radiating 390 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. Further, to keep things simple, assume Earth is radiating at 1.0 emissivity.
[ALSO PUP] I never used the word “blackbody” in my problem.
🤦
Clear, concise, and consistent. It doesn’t get much better, yet poor barry STILL can’t understand.
That’s what “braindead” looks like.
Pup fails truthfulness, consistency, and relevance.
Pure trolling.
Not that I am using the word *troll* here.
Agreed worthless willard, you are trolling — pure trolling, as you admitted.
Here’s some reality for you:
[barry} Fellas, it is Clint who set the condition of the imaginary blackbody Earth. If you have a problem with that, go and whine to him about it.
[Also barry] Of course. Clint has already set the condition that the emissivity is 1 and weve proceeded on that assumption.
Reality always wins.
The fact that Pup has not used the word *blackbody* is irrelevant.
The fact that he clings to this irrelevant claim is untruthful.
The fact that he STILL fumbles over a simple definition shows how inconsistent our Sky Dragon crank Riddler is.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Here’s barry-
“Fellas, it is Clint who set the condition of the imaginary blackbody Earth. If you have a problem with that, go and whine to him about it.”
Here’s you –
“The fact that Pup has not used the word “blackbody” is irrelevant.”
To whom? barry? You? To anyone at all?
Does anybody care what you think?
Mike Flynn,
How do you call an object radiating at 1.0 emissivity, again?
You’re an idiot, right?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
clint…”several of us Skeptics have tried to help Gordon. We want to see him improve”.
***
Now you are pushing it into the realm of ignorance. I have endured your murdering of physics only because you have expressed skeptical views, but I could have jumped in and made an abject fool of you.
You are no different than Norman, reading a textbook and offering your own misinterpretations. Worse still you accept verbatim, nonsense from modern authors about heat, that it is not energy.
I have offered rebuttals to your ignorance about heat to which you have had no reply. I told you you’d regret it if you messed with me and that was no idle threat. From here on, be very careful what you write because I’ll be here to point out the ignorance in your views.
At least, I’ll be here as long as Roy endures the two of us. He banned you once and you had to grovel to get back in with a different nym. The moment you groveled I had you number and it has been me propping you up, not the other way around.
I have dug you out of several holes when you made idiotic comments you could not back up. I know that because you came back later using the very explanations I had offered on your behalf.
Yes Gordon, now you must make up crap.
Not much of a future, but you’ve chosen it.
Be scientific, outline the so-called crap. I’ve been carrying you, it will be fun watching you flounder without my backing.
Start with your second sentence, Gordon. Where is an example that you “have endured your murdering of physics”?
As you know, I don’t tolerate directionless rambling and troll tactics. Behave like a responsible adult or I’m gone.
“Behave like a responsible adult or Im gone”.
Promises, promises. Don’t let the door smack your butt on the way out. Of course, you’ll show up with a different nym.
Gosh Gordon, you can’t even support the first of your crap.
You’ll do good as a troll.
Still here, Pup?
> He banned you once
Come on, Bordo.
Only once?
Gordon
Clint understands basic physics, but CHOOSES to misrepresent it.
YOU understand very little. You would think that when NO ONE agrees with you most people would think that something is up.
Your “understanding” of physics led you to claim that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
Your “understanding” of geometry led you to claim that the area of a grid box on the earth’s surface defined by latitude and longitude is independent of latitude.
Ant, where did I ever “choose” to misrepresent physics?
aq…nice ad hom argument, unfortunately no corroboration.
Clint has been a leader in this forum while you have been a follower. Most alarmists try to lead from the rear. The alarmist MO is regurgitating misinformation from authority figures.
As for me, I really don’t care how I come across. If you had half an ounce of understanding in physics you would come after me for everything I claim. You’ve had the opportunity many a time but you have nothing. Heck, I can rip my own arguments better than you can.
If I understand so little about physics/science why is it you cannot offer scientific rebuttals to what I have claimed.
Your responses are typified by the current response….ad homs and sniping.
Come on, Bordo.
Here is an ad hom argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485177
Nobody rebuts your rants because they are best ignored. You need to vent. At least it does not kill anybody.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…your responses to my revelation re NOAA slashing their reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500 is predictable. You wonder why I don’t acknowledge the stations they have documented.
Since when do reputable institutions use old data in their books to represent current conditions? Obviously, only institutions who use old data to rewrite (fudge) the current and past temperatures.
The fact is Barry, as admitted by NOAA, they currently use less than 1500 stations to cover the entire land surface.
Could you please corroborate that in 2023 NOAA uses less than 1500 stations?
This is from the 2018 v4 update to GHCN monthly data, which is the source for the official global temp record from NOAA.
“In summary, GHCNm v4 is made up of more than 25 000 land-based station records, an increase of 18 000 stations from versions 2 and 3.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/24/jcli-d-18-0094.1.xml
So please show where you get the idea that NOAA in 2023 only uses 1500 stations.
Bordo challenges Pup:
About time he stops enabling our sockiest puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
re the G&T paper…several questions have been made as to its authenticity but it seems those people have missed the point of the paper. The motivation is in the Preface and stated as…
note…I have edited the style to fit this blog and to emphasize the points covered in the paper…
“Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified.
By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation [blackbody theory…my note] are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero,
the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified”.
That is, the point of the paper, according to G&T, is not to disprove the GHE per se, but to falsify the current theories by examining them and falsifying them.
Whenever I have read G&Ts paper I have skimmed the very first chapter on thermal conductivity of air and its isochoric diffusity. It explains mathematically what I have been trying to explain using the Ideal Gas Law.
G&T arrive at the same conclusion I reached using the IGL but they did it systematically, based on the sceince of thermodynamics, allowing no room for debate…
“It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 0, 03 % and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by 0.07 %. These numbers lie within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other uncertainties such as rounding errors and therefore have no significance at all”.
No significance at all!!!
Someone earlier slammed G&T for having no expertise is thermodynamics even though they experts in the field. Yet, there you have proof from experts that CO2 in the atmosphere has literally no effect at all on warming. Where are similar analysis from alarmists?
They have no expertise in radiative transfer, claiming that net radiative exchange is “an obscure concept.”
But it is a standard meat and potatoes concept in radiative transfer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484956
Gordo gives a stunningly stupid comment about G&T’s claims:
Gordo, the conduction in the mixture of gasses we call air is a very small part of the heat transfer, except at the surface interface with the air. The entire heat transfer from the atmosphere at the surface out to deep space is via the mix of convection and radiation. Above the tropopause, convection is minimal, leaving only radiation HT to cool the air above.
You have bragged that you’ve been posting on Roy’s site for some 10 years. Your comment shows that you have learned nothing about the GHE during those 10 years. You keep trolling along, regurgitating your same old errors, in spite of all evidence which proves that you are wrong.
swannie…”the conduction in the mixture of gasses we call air is a very small part of the heat transfer…”
***
G&T are talking about thermal diffusion, not thermal conduction. If heat is spread from a CO2 molecule to 2500 surrounding N2/O2 molecules it does it through diffusion, not conduction. That would obviously man heat transfer via collision but no one has quantified it as far as I know. G&T did that.
You don’t need to know the mechanism, just the laboratory measurements which obviously led to the equation supplied by G&T. That’s the science, experiment and measurement that has lead to a relationship showing the relationship in a gas between molecules making up a certain portion of the mix.
G&T established the diffusivity using the molecular weights of CO2 versus the molecular weights of N2 and O2 and the relative concentration of each gas. It is interesting to me that the Ideal Gas Law provided an equally significant relationships, albeit far less accurate.
Gordo tries to wriggle out of his claim of “proof”, writing:
sorry, Gordo, they also wrote “conduction”. They also wrote”
That would appear to be a statement about the statistical significance of the measurements. In any case, the issue in that section of their paper was thermal IR radiation heat transfer and such measurements have little to do with that, AIUI.
As opposed to negative claims made here about the analysis of G&T, they do a very professional job of introducing the subject and the inherent problems. It’s obvious to me that anyone with negative things to say, without expounded on those things scientifically, are simply skimming the writings of G&T without considering what they are saying and trying to rebut them scientifically.
Even though I have read through the paper several times, I have not taken the time to go into the more difficult math. Nor have I taken the time to fully appreciate the well ordered presentation of G&T. I am only as far as 1/2 in the first section and even them they have disproved the AGW theory using the properties of air that make it impossible for CO2 to effectively warm it.
The rebuttal offered by Halpern et al was seriously amateurish from a POV of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, that amateurish POV is prevalent with climate alarmists.
It’s been awhile since looked at G&T, and I don’t remember much about it.
But there is no theory nor author of any greenhouse theory.
Some idiot says CO2 causes 33 C of warming which I don’t think anyone
takes seriously.
It seems everyone else seems thinks CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas- which seemed to be about right cause no one can measure it’s effect.
Which is quite disappointing cause we living in Ice Age.
It seems the real deal, is people are scared we going to get colder, as it’s known we are heading towards a glaciation period.
But I don’t think a glaciation period is very scary.
A glaciation period is very similar to last 5000 years of cooling- or it’s gradual cooling.
Anyhow, we have two greenhouse effect, the ocean and the atmosphere.
And it seems people are too stupid to understand this.
The more significant greenhouse effect is the ocean.
The surface temperature of the ocean controls, the global average temperature.
The ocean warms and the land cools.
The ocean covers 70% of the planet’s surface.
Anything covering 70% of planet’s surface would control the global average surface air temperature.
But a further “clue” is the ocean average temperature is about 17 C and land average temperature is about 10 C.
And land temperature swing wildly between day and night and ocean surface doesn’t.
Because 70% ocean remains warm, it prevents land from becoming colder [as 70% of surface’s temperature controls global air temperature- it’s as though believers don’t believe there is a global air temperature, or something].
Also rather obvious thing, is Heat engine of the world is the tropical ocean [NOT tropical land] and this heat engine heats entire world.
The tropical ocean currents heat Europe, and the Gulf Stream adds about 10 C to Europe’s average temperature.
Not sure how many clues are needed.
No body wants the ocean not to warm Europe by 10 C. And no body wants the world’s average temperature to lower by 1 C.
And apparently, the average temperature of 20th century was about 14 C- no body wants to return to 20th century temperature and no one wants to return to temperatures of Little Ice Age.
Everyone seems to want heat their homes in winter.
Europe was in panic they wouldn’t have enough fossil fuels last winter.
A disappointed in the bad lying.
“Some idiot says CO2 causes 33 C of warming which I dont think anyone takes seriously.”
I think the only idiot saying that is you.
It’s the entire greenhouse effect including water vapour, the primary ‘greenhouse’ gas, that makes the surface 33C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
If you’re going to write off the mainstream view, at least get it right.
barry, the bogus “33C” nonsense comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
It’s about as stupid as comparing to the Sun — Earth is 5767C colder than Sun!
Did someone put the pea back under your mattresses, Princess?
barry, are you here to learn about science, or troll for your cult?
If you don’t like that we talk of a sphere, Princess Pup, you can always take a set of points that are all at the same distance from a given point in three-dimensional space.
“Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler. ”
What is the greenhouse effect?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
Link at top of google search of: greenhouse effect theory
So there is the idiot, I don’t think anyone agree.
But Google doesn’t regard it, as disinformation.
“Its the entire greenhouse effect including water vapour, the primary greenhouse gas, that makes the surface 33C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.”
Of course the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, but idiot thinks CO2 causes water vapor.
So you don’t think that warming the planet causes greater evaporation? Oh dear.
AQ,
Of course not, fool. The least amount of water vapour occurs in the coldest regions – Antarctica. Here’s support “The relative humidity of air at the South Pole is often as low as 0.03%”.
Due to excessive warming, you think? I don’t .
“a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects”
This ia an absolute red flag that you are looking at a junk science document. NO ONE CLAIMS the atmospheric greenhouse effect operates like a glass greenhouse.
This simply should not be in a credible research paper critiquing the GHE. But they spend pages on it. Refuting something that no one claims.
“(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet”
Of course there are.
“(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly”
They fail to demonstrate this.
“(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical”
Nonsense, it’s a standard in radiative transfer theory.
“(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero”
Conductivity is irrelevant to the GHE. It’s absolutely bizarre that they spend any time on this. Convection and radiation are the only processes of any significance transporting heat between the Sun, the surface and the atmosphere. This is a ridiculous line of argument in the document.
“the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified”
Not even close.
These guys completely ignore the seminal GHE papers from the mid to late 20th century. They demonstrate zero understanding of atmospheric physics and radiative transfer.
They attack ENCYCLOPAEDIA descriptions of the GHE, for crying out loud.
It’s no wonder that their paper was never peer-reviewed – or failed to pass peer-review. It’s a pile of crap. And thi is obvious from the bizarre entries in even the first few pages. CONDUCTION through gases?? Really?
” CONDUCTION through gases?? Really? ”
Yes, barry, I always get a big, big laugh when I see such nonsense.
Real engineers know it better:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Air, atmosphere (gas): 0.0262 W/(m K) at 25 C…
barry…”This ia an absolute red flag that you are looking at a junk science document. NO ONE CLAIMS the atmospheric greenhouse effect operates like a glass greenhouse”.
***
Duh!!! Then why is it called the ***greenhouse*** effect. Come on, Barry, even you are surely not that stupid.
I am still awaiting a scientific explanation of the GHE from you but all I ever see is you waving your arms and spouting nonsense.
THE GHE is most definitely based on greenhouse theory, even though it is wrong. Lindzen confirmed that is his own paper. Somehow, modern alarmists interpreted Tyndall’s work to mean real greenhouses are warmed by trapping infrared energy. That is why the trapping of infrared energy from the surface by so-called GHGs is believed to causing warming in the atmosphere. That theory is wrong as well.
G&T, using the Wood’s experiment from 1909, are establishing that real greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection. In other words, the glass prevents heated air from rising. There is no equivalent means of blocking convection in the atmosphere.
—
“the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly
They fail to demonstrate this”.
***
That’s because you have failed to read their paper correctly.
—-
“there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet
Of course there are”.
***
An equally stupid comment. Where are they? S-B can’t calculate an average surface temperature, all it gives is a very clumsy guestimate.
—–
“the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical
Nonsense, its a standard in radiative transfer theory”.
***
Theory is not physical. The creator of the energy balance nonsense, Keile-Trenberth, admitted they did not base it on physical evidence.
—-
“Conductivity is irrelevant to the GHE. Its absolutely bizarre that they spend any time on this”.
***
The only thing bizarre here is your ignorance of what they are claiming. Obviously, you have skimmed the paper and leaped to conclusions.
—
“They attack ENCYCLOPAEDIA descriptions of the GHE, for crying out loud”.
***
Your disrespect for two experts in thermodynamics knows no bounds. Gerlich taught thermodynanics at the university level and Tscheushner is employed in the field of thermodynamics at a university.
All you are doing here is perpetuating the lies that underlie the alarmist cause, whatever it may be.
Apparently Gordon believes that “puppy love” is all about puppies.
“If it’s not then why call it ‘puppy love’?”
Gordon doesn’t believe anything, he gained insight into the futility of beliefs long ago.
If wee willy made the same effort he might get it that puppy love has nothing to do with love but is about infatuation, typical of the immature mind. It also has nothing to do with the post above, leaving Gordon to wonder where wee willy’s mind is centred. Surely, and hopefully, he is not infatuated with puppies and using his post as an excuse to indulge his fantasy.
My apologies to wee willy for confusing him with AQ, a demented puppy lover from Perth. It’s more likely he is into joey love, snatching them from the pouches of bewildered mother roos.
Come on, Bordo.
Were I to say that you are a brainless fart, I would not trying to suggest that you have no material body or that farts usually think. I would simply be suggesting that you are boring and inconsequential, except perhaps for your smell.
Language is a social art.
Apparently someone needs to introduce you to the concept of metaphor.
When a celebrity is called a star, you may not realize it, but this does not mean that they are a ball of gases many thousands of kelvins hot.
When we speak of noble gasses, it may surprise you to learn that they do not actually possess any honourable qualities.
An accordion effect in physics makes no music.
Did you know that the butterfly effect can occur without butterflies?
And – hold on to your hat – not only are there no actual bells in a bell curve, it’s not even a solid object.
No one who isn’t completely ignorant confuses the mechanics of a glass greenhouse with the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect.
G&T are apparently so ignorant that they spend pages of their atrocious work trying to unconfuse people who are indeed that ignorant.
And here you are, defending this appallingly shallow argumentation.
“Your disrespect for two experts in thermodynamics knows no bounds.”
Oh please. You are the KING of trashing experts. Unclutch your pearls, Miss Marple.
These guys are patently NOT experts in radiative transfer or or the GHE, which is why they bang on about conduction in gases.
“Your disrespect for two experts in thermodynamics knows no bounds.”
Meanwhile Gordon has disrespect for thousands of experts, who disagree with these two outliers.
Such as :
“The rebuttal offered by Halpern et al was seriously amateurish from a POV of thermodynamics.”
sez noted Thermodynamics authority Gordon.
“By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects”
STRAWMAN alert. No serious climate scientist is suggesting the Earths atmosphere is just like a greenhouse.
There is some overlap in that convection is confined by the glass in a greenhouse. Confection is confined to the troposphere, and heat can escape the troposphere only by radiation.
“(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet”
Assertion without evidence. GHE models certainly produces surface temperatures which can be averaged.
“(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly”
Red herring. The point is to find the surface temperature, which turns out to warmer than the radiative temperature of the Earth.
“(d) the formulas of cavity radiation [blackbody theorymy note] are used inappropriately”
Assertion without evidence. Modtran shows how things are calculated and it is using correct theory.
“(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,”
I dont know what this means? 1LOT is not valid?
“(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero”
In atmosphere physics, thermal conductivity is negligible.
“the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified”
The STRAWMAN that the atmosphere is just like a real greenhouse is easily knocked over..
Robertson is such an incredibly dumb liar.
The document he endlessly tries to misinterpret has been written and posted by NOAA during their GHCN V2 era (after December 2009 of course), and was saved on the Wayback Machine by numerous Internet users:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
The first time was on 2010, March 23:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
*
If Robertson had ever processed any NOAA data, like did Roy Spencer and John Christy many times since years, he would see that there is no relevant difference between NOAA’s official data published e.g. on their ‘Climate at a Glance’ site and what he obtained.
And he of course would never have lost half a word about this dumb ‘1500 stations’ lie.
*
But people like Robertson claim to have been an engineer but are unable to process any data, and hence can only discredit, denigrate, and… lie.
binny van der klown reads an article from the NOAA site that admits they slashed global surface reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500 and claims it is wrong due to the posting date. Then he goes on to call me a liar for being the messenger.
With idiots like Binny leading the alarmist charge, there is hope that we will be done with climate alarm idiocy soon.
El Nino SST pattern developing:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_pacific-sat_sstanom_d1.png
NOAA has just raised the probability of El Nino starting in May-June-July from 62% to 82%.
And for the first time, their probability of returning to La Nina this year has fallen to zero (from 1% previously).
Nate, you do understand that El Niño is a recurring natural ocean oscillation? There is evidence it has been happening for thousands of years. It has NOTHING to do with “global warming”, as described by your cult. If fact, it has to do with Earth’s ability to cool itself.
Where did he say it did? It is deniers who assert that the lower temperatures as a result of La Nina were an indicator of a cooling climate, as has been happening here both explicitly and implicitly every month for the past three years. We compare only El Ninos to other El Ninos and La Ninas to other La Ninas.
But thanks for explaining that cooling after a super El Nino does not qualify as a “pause” in CLIMATE change.
Where did he say it did? It is deniers who assert that the lower temperatures as a result of La Nina were an indicator of a cooling climate, as has been happening here both explicitly and implicitly every month for the past three years. We compare only El Ninos to other El Ninos and La Ninas to other La Ninas.
But thanks for explaining that cooling after a super El Nino does not qualify as a “pause” in CLIMATE change.
Ant, in case you aren’t aware, Nate is a hard-core Warmist. Everything he sees or hears is “proof” of global warming. Add to that the fact that he can’t understand the basic laws of physics, and voila, a “braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll” emerges.
Everything being equal, a La Niña would return global temps to those of the previous La Niña. But, there are complications, such as OTHER ocean oscillations. This time, we had the added complication of the Hunga-Tonga eruption. And who knows how long H-T effects will last?
Here is the balloon data above Colorado, Hawaii and New Zealand:
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/ozwv/WaterVapor/
Please locate this extra stratospheric water vapour for me.
Is an ignorant guy like you, who denies science like the computation of the lunar spin, even a bit better?
Ant, are you implying:
1) All the H-T water vapor has been dissipated, or
2) The localized balloons haven’t found the remaining water vapor, or
3) You don’t understand any of this?
I haven’t implied anything. I am simply giving you an opportunity to support your claim that there are CURRENTLY elevated levels of water vapour in the stratosphere. You are free to introduce me to another data set if you like. If you don’t have any supporting data then you are guessing.
Ant, where did I “claim that there are CURRENTLY elevated levels of water vapour in the stratosphere”?
From this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1481303
If water vapour levels are not elevated then there is no process by which the eruption can currently be causing warming.
Of course you will again assert that I “don’t understand the science”, without being able to explain this science yourself.
BTW – the balloon data shows no discernible increase at ANY time since the eruption.
Sorry Ant, you must have provided the wrong link.
There’s no such claim there.
Care to try your luck again?
Good – so it’s settled. There has not been a rise in stratospheric water vapour levels since the eruption, and you have provided no other process by which the eruption could warm the planet.
If there is such a process, here is your opportunity to explain “the science”. Shoot.
AQ perfectly pegged it.
One of such science deniers, troll Clint, flails at comic relief.
I like it when troll Nate and Bin gang up on me. That shows how effective I am.
Neither can address any science.
Clint admits his main purpose is to troll.
Making scientific sense is clearly not a priority.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 12, 2023.
Global SST showing the decadal averages along with the year 2023: https://imgur.com/a/V16PXPG
Reality bites.
Are you sure you haven’t taken data from the tropics? This pattern of two annual peaks is seen in the tropics, not globally.
Antonin Qwerty
Indeed!
And the first decade starting in 1982 instead of 1981 lets me think for example of NCEP Nino3+4 data.
Data from HadISST1 SST:
Decade: Globe / 30S-30N
1981-1990: 17.76 / 25.89
1991-2000: 17.87 / 25.98
2001-2010: 17.97 / 26.07
2011-2020: 18.07 / 26.18
Processed out of
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
Antonin Qwerty
I have to backtrack, we are both wrong. I had overlooked the 60S-60N in the graph.
HadISST1 SST’s decadal averages for this lat zone are
20.10
20.21
20.30
20.41
Now I see why every one of your predictions was wrong, that explains it all
Hello, toothless ankle-biting dachshund.
What about a listing of all what you did wrong?
The list will be short, of course: because apart from posting youtube nonsense and denigrating others, you simply do… nothing.
You are like the lunar spin deniers: none of them would be able to process any data (especially not that of lunar crater observations), but all of them know the Moon doesn’t spin.
“Lunar crater observations”!!!
Bin, any movements you observe of lunar craters is due to orbital motion. You STILL don’t understand any of this. The fact that you don’t have a viable model of OMWAR, should tell you something.
But, it doesn’t because you’re braindead.
Troll Clint R
” Bin, any movements you observe of lunar craters is due to orbital motion. You STILL dont understand any of this. The fact that you dont have a viable model of OMWAR, should tell you something. ”
*
Why don’t you tell that to dachshund Eben, who also understands that the Moon spins about its polar axis?
Is Eben also a braindead cult idiot?
Eben was confused about Moon at one time. I’m not sure if he’s changed his opinion or not. But, he sure knows what a phony you are. That means he’s on the right track.
Troll Clint R
” Eben was confused about Moon at one time. Im not sure if hes changed his opinion or not. ”
You obviously don’t have the balls to ask him.
It’s Bindiklaun spinning like a top
Does ankle-biting dachshund Eben confirm that he agrees with the existence of Moon’s spin about its polar axis – or does he suddenly lack the courage to do so?
Bindiwrong wants me to join him in his never ending Flat Moon circular ass debate
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
Dachshund, you are a coward.
The figure is self explanatory. But just to be clear, if you are a climate science denier, I don’t give a f&%k about how clever or insightful you think your arguments are, how thoughtful your “gotcha” questions appear to you, or how unquestionably convincing you think your graphs are.
Who the heck are you texting this aggressive stuff to?
What exactly is your problem? Are you seriously referring to Bindidon and I as deniers?
What “problem” are you referring to?
Both Bindidon and yourself deny reality – for example, neither of you are prepared to explicitly agree that the Earth has cooled since its creation.
Is this denial a problem for you?
A better question is this, who is using the name of a Russian actor as a nym? I doubt that someone with such a name suddenly began posting here.
Good grief, Bordo.
Ivanovich is not a family name.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So, nobody will model Venus at Earth distance.
How something else?
What if you could mechanically mix the ocean so the surface of ocean was average temperature of ocean {3.5 C}.
So rather than having average surface ocean temperature of about 17 C, it became, an uniform surface temperature of 3.5 C?
So, what immediately happens, is you stop, Earth’s global heat engine
and 70% of Earth surface, no longer warms the global surface air temperature.
Also when have cold ocean and warm air above it, it causes fog.
So, entire ocean is covered by fog, and land is no longer warmed by the ocean.
Fog clears in day or so and what is temperature of land which had average global temperature of about 10 C?
Nights on land gets colder, and following day is colder, and within a week, average land temperature drop below 0 C.
An important factor is the season, let’s say it’s equinox, and say spring, March 20th.
And say polar oceans don’t have sea ice, and have surface temperature of 3.5 C, also. But we leave all land ice. So, we have warmed the polar ocean by quite a bit. And arctic ocean is not the coldest ocean it’s same temperature as all the oceans. And we have gotten rid of Gulf Stream- and I guess have also stopped all other ocean currents.
And in week, gotten rid of a lot clouds. And all land is drying out and global water vapor has lowered, significantly.
Wiki:
“The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is an ocean current that flows clockwise (as seen from the South Pole) from west to east around Antarctica. An alternative name for the ACC is the West Wind Drift. The ACC is the dominant circulation feature of the Southern Ocean and has a mean transport estimated at 100150 Sverdrups (Sv, million m3/s), or possibly even higher, making it the largest ocean current. The current is circumpolar due to the lack of any landmass connecting with Antarctica and this keeps warm ocean waters away from Antarctica, enabling that continent to maintain its huge ice sheet.”
The idea is to make ocean have uniform temperature- and not to stop currents, but we are deciding to make these water uniform- or interfering with cold water falling. But these waters were in summer and not doing anything with ice shelves {land ice}, just polar sea ice, and every summer it’s ice free in regards sea ice, so it seems it wouldn’t much effect upon this current. But winter is coming and Antarctica will getting colder- and there is no warm waters to “keep away”- unless 3.5 C, is “warm waters”.
Or it would seem to be quite different if started from the other equinox.
swannie…” the conduction in the mixture of gasses we call air is a very small part of the heat transfer, except at the surface interface with the air”.
***
I put this down here because several posters in different places have confused the proof by G&T with conduction through a gas. They were taking about ‘diffusion’ of heat through a gas, which is a reference to the alarmist claim that heat created by CO2 when it absorbs surface IR can raise the temperature of the entire air mass.
This is the first time I have seen a formal explanation of the process of diffusion worked out mathematically. I did not even know such a measurement was available otherwise I would have posted it long ago. In lieu of that, I offered a highly theoretical application of the Ideal Gas Law to arrive at the same conclusion.
The thing that really bothers me is my failure to read into math that was right in front of me, at the front end of the paper, and skim over it. As far as math is concerned it is simple yet I failed to follow the meaning. It boggles my mind to see what alarmists make of it.
I see references to the vague concept of ‘thermalization’ wherein it is inferred that heat created by CO2 can somehow spread to other gases via collision. G&T have laid it out using the thermodynamics properties of gases, based on their relative masses, and proved once and for all that the amount of heating offered by CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere is not even worth considering.
Gordo again fails to understand the well proven fact that CO2 does radiate thermal IR and those emissions from the atmosphere represents a major fraction of the energy leaving the atmosphere toward space. If G&T were correct, this could not occur.
ES,
Everything above absolute zero radiates IR. Radiates IR in proportion to its temperature, even.
No special mention of CO2 in any relevant physical law or principle of which I am aware.
You can’t even describe your mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you? Is it the greenhouse effect that cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years, or some other greenhouse effect?
Maybe the one that peer reviewed papers assert that works in reverse to cool the Antarctic?
All a bit confusing, don’t you think? Pick one, and try and describe it. Breathe out as much CO2 as you like while you do it.
Fool.
Problem is, Swannie, you can’t prove what you claim. Even worse, neither can the IPCC.
At 0.04% of the atmosphere, it makes no sense that most of the heat converted to IR and radiated to space is based solely on CO2 emissions.
As G&T so brilliantly pointed out, the amount of heat diffused to other molecules in the atmosphere by CO2 is so small as to be negligible. Why should it be any different for CO2 radiation to space? Is it not obvious that the bulk of surface radiation goes directly to space, completely avoiding GHGs?
Gordo wrote some words, including:
Sorry about the confusing post.
And, I forgot to add my usual question for Gordo:
So far, Gordo has produced no detailed reply.
I already told you, Swannie, it’s gravity. Gravity orders the air molecules to produce a negative pressure gradient and the negative pressure gradient decreases the temperature in step.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules. If you reduce the number of molecules, the KE drops in proportion, hence the heat.
Simple actually, but I understand you difficulty with simple concepts like the 2nd law and the difficulty you are having figuring this out.
If you buy into the lapse rate explanation it will make it more difficult. The lapse rate cannot explain why the air pressure at the top of Everest is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level. The temperature is also about 1/3rd at top of Everest. Of course, temperature is affected by sunlight when it shines but not at night.
The current temperature at the top of Everest is -22C. Somewhere below, along a similar longitude, at Katmandu, at 1400 metres, the temperature is +22C.
I realize it is difficult to correlate temperatures to altitude like this because there are convection issues on top of it. However, it gives an idea of temperature difference with altitude.
Lapse rate theory would have us believe it gets cooler with altitude due to the effects of temperature alone, as heated air parcels rise. That fails to explain the pressure decrease and the relationship of pressure to temperature in a gas.
Gordo pontificates another pile of crap, ending with:
As Prez Biden might say, “Come on Gordo”. The air is a big ocean of a compressible gases. The pressure versus altitude relationship is the direct result of the effects of gravity on that mass of material. The pressure increases with depth, just as happens with water. In addition, the tropospheric air isn’t an ideal gas, but includes water in all of it’s 3 phases. Are you really that stupid???
The temperature profile versus pressure height is a separate situation, involving both convection and thermal IR radiation, as the Sun’s energy input moves thru the system and then exits to deep space. Your comment is just another effort to ignore what happens above the Tropopause into the Stratosphere, where convection is capped and the lapse rate turns POSITIVE. As the air lifted via convection stops rising, it must be cooled in order to later sink and complete the convection loop. The only mode of cooling left is IR radiation via greenhouse gasses.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
barry…”Here you go, Clint, 2 seminal papers on the GHE”.
***
Both papers you cited are based on models. There is still no physical explanation for the GHE.
They are based on spectral measurements of atmospheric gases at many different pressures – done thousands of times in labs (the HITRAN database is one source for these observations). There are plenty of empirical observations underlying the mathematical computations for the greenhouse effect.
There are also, separately, many observations of the effect.
Such as the increase over time in downwelling radiation from the atmosphere in the specific spectral bands associated with CO2 (and other GHGs).
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
And the spectral darkening of atmospheric radiance in the bands specifically associated with CO2 (and other GHGs) as seen by satellites over time, corroborating the above.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Observations of declining stratospheric temperatures – a prediction of GHG surface warming predicted before it was observed.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/papers-on-temperature-trends-in-stratosphere/
If all that is too much to take in, here is a 2015 paper with direct observation of the ‘greenhouse’ effect at specific monitored locations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
And here is a more recent one that does this globally.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
I look forward to a detailed critique with evidence that you have actually read the papers, rather than a post full of rhetorical blaqther.
barry, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bumbling barry claimed he had linked to a couple of descriptions of the GHE.
I responded as follows –
barry,
You linked to a couple of nonsense papers, neither of which even contain the term greenhouse effect.
Is this more delusional SkyDragon cult methodology pretending to describe the greenhouse effect by not using the term greenhouse effect?
Can you describe the greenhouse effect, not just link to silly papers which dont even mention it?
How hard can it be? Only joking, you havent got a description, have you?
Ill help you a bit. You could start like this The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon which . . . , and then describe it in terms which allow for independent observation, measurement, documentation, etc.
Too much for a delusional SkyDragon cultist like you (or any of the others, obviously).
You can run, but you cant hide.
Hahaha. Just a few posts upthread you are decrying the use of the term ‘greenhouse’ effect, and in this post you are askance that it is missing from formal research papers on the matter.
Typical contrarian contrariness.
barry, please stop trolling.
Some fool wrote –
“NO ONE CLAIMS the atmospheric greenhouse effect operates like a glass greenhouse.”
Direct copy and paste from NASA just now –
“How does the greenhouse effect work?
As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse!”
Of course, the ignorant fool who shouted “NO ONE CLAIMS . . .” can’t actually describe the greenhouse effect himself, but doesn’t believe the experts at NASA either.
The IPCC tries to describe the greenhouse effect, and throws “The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside.” Into one “description”, for no reason at all, apparently, claiming that the greenhouse effect is analogous but different.
Crystal clear to delusional SkyDragon cultists, complete evasive nonsense to anybody looking for a scientific description of the greenhouse effect.
However, the IPCC 2021 summary states that the greenhouse effect operates “much like [. . . ] the walls of a greenhouse . . .”, so the anonymous fool is at odds with both NASA and the IPCC.
Three lots of idiots who not only can’t describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, but can’t even agree on what it is not!
No science in evidence.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Direct copy and paste from NASA”
Would you mind providing the link, or should I do it for you?
Cheers.
His dishonesty won’t permit him to admit that he took that quote from a site devoted to explaining science to pre-teen kids. Although I understand why he would feel the need to frequent such a site.
So, you think it’s OK to lie to pre-teen kids in the name of science?
Given that you are incapable of understanding the real science, what chance do you think those kids have of understanding it?
But at least they understand why the moon has phases.
I doubt that you understand why the Moon has phases, if you did, you would understand why it cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Don’t forget – YOU were the one who claimed that the moon’s phases were caused by the earth’s shadow.
And now you indicate a belief in a connection between the moon’s phases and whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis.
Can it get any worse. I suspect so.
AQ,
I am quite happy for people to form their own opinions.
If others think it’s OK to lie to kids, or think that children are incapable of understanding physics, that’s their right.
Albert Einstein wrote “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, then you don’t understand it yourself”. Other eminent physicists have expressed the same idea.
You are free to disagree. You can’t describe the greenhouse effect except to say it has nothing to do with greenhouses. That’s not much use, to children, or anyone else.
Now you can address the IPCC 2021 summary – more lies for children?
Idiot.
Here, Moron Mike –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485301
Cheers.
wee willy…rather than attacking the messenger why not try discussing the science for a change?
Weird Wee Willy,
I assume people can find it for themselves, but if you believe they can’t use Google, feel free to post a link.
Very well, Mike.
In return, I will assume that you’re an asshat:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are free to assume anything you wish. You may assume that you are not an idiot who can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, and you may even be able to find other idiots who agree with you.
It’s a pity for your credibility that you can’t actually describe the greenhouse effect, but you can spend time defending idiots at NASA and the IPCC who claim the greenhouse effect has something yo do with greenhouses, when you seem to imply that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses!
All a bit confusing, wouldn’t you agree?
Maybe you could obviate the confusion by describing the greenhouse effect in a scientific fashion. Only joking, that would be impossible – CO2 heats nothing!
Keep whining.
Thanks, Mike.
It’s easy to assume you’re an asshat. You reinforces that assumption every day.
Don’t you feel a bit stupid faltering on an analogy even kids can get?
Shirley not.
Willard
“Shirley not” …
Do you think perhaps Flynn has been spending a bit too much time “inflating” Otto Pilot?
By “Otto Pilot” I of course mean each one of his buddies in denial.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Thanks, Mike.
Its easy to assume youre an asshat. You reinforces that assumption every day.
Dont you feel a bit stupid faltering on an analogy even kids can get?
Shirley not.”
“You reinforces that assumption . . . “? Does I? Is English your second language, Willard, or are you just sloppy?
What are you babbling about? barry (or some other idiot) shouted “NO ONE CLAIMS the atmospheric greenhouse effect operates like a glass greenhouse.” I pointed out that NASA and the IPCC certainly do, and all of a sudden you are claiming that a greenhouse is a valid ” . . . analogy even kids can get”?
Or is it an invalid analogy, perhaps? You can’t say, because you can’t describe the GHE anyway.
Go on, tell me the atmosphere is like a greenhouse, then come up with some nonsense showing that idiots who support the GHE don’t even understand the principles behind greenhouses.
NASA, lying to children (or speaking through mid+boggling ignorance, stupidity, or both), say “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter.” Pig’s arse, it does – using an expression from a friend with a greenhouse. Are NASA’s lies due to to malice or mental aberration?
You tell me. You seem to support lies, irrelevant analogies, and rejecting reality in favour of fantasy, but I’ll listen to your idiot explanations without prejudice.
Off you go now, give it a try.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Willard
“Shirley not
Do you think perhaps Flynn has been spending a bit too much time “inflating” Otto Pilot?
By “Otto Pilot” I of course mean each one of his buddies in denial.”
You can’t describe the GHE, nor can Willard, so you resort to homosexual allusions – presumably to show just how clever you are. You succeeded – not very clever at all.
Maybe you and Willard should get together and indulge each others’ homosexual masturbatory fantasies! Do you think that between you, you might be able to come up with a valid description of the GHE, or do you think the exercise might just result in you coming?
You really are an idiot of the lesser grade. You need to lift your game.
Just in case you didn’t realise, Im having a laugh at your expense.
Carry on.
> Does I?
Yes, Mike. By the dozen.
The IPCC quote Swenson elided:
“This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.”
You’re a deceitful chappie, Swenson.
Well done finding a web page – for kids – that almost says the atmospheric greenhouse effect operates exactly like a glass greenhouse.
Your disingenuousness really has no bounds, does it?
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”They have no expertise in radiative transfer, claiming that net radiative exchange is an obscure concept.
But it is a standard meat and potatoes concept in radiative transfer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484956 ”
***
At the link above you go into serious pseudo-science. You claim…
“Rhamstorf is perfectly correct in describing how radiative transfer works. G&T demonstrate that they have no idea about radiative transfer, which is ALWAYS about a net transfer of radiative energy.
The direction of heat flow is determined by the NET flow of energy, which, far from being an obscure term, is a standard phrase used in standard physics textbooks on radiative transfer”.
***
The argument presented by G&T is this…the 2nd law has nothing to do with radiative transfer, it is about heat transfer. In fact, there is no such thing in physics as a radiative transfer, in a real, physical sense. One has to ask the simple question, what is being transferred?
Is it infrared energy? No. Infrared cannot be transferred because that would require converting it to another form of energy…heat. It makes no sense to talk about radiative energy being transferred.
Is it heat being transferred? No. Heat cannot move through air, without the entire air volume moving, or through a vacuum, yet IR can do both easily. Heat is not transferred physically from a hotter object to a cooler object. The process requires heat conversion to IR then back again at the target.
Rahmstorf is claiming essentially, the 2nd laws is not contradicted as long as a net radiation exchange is positive. It is this ‘net radiation’ that G&T claim is obscure, and it is. I just explained why. There is no such thing as a ‘net radiation’ and Rahmstorf’s explanation of it is obscure.
Any textbook, whether from MIT or not, that claim heat can be transferred both ways by radiation contradicts the 2nd law. The equations offered to that effect are garbage, for the simple reason they cannot be demonstrated by experiment in a lab.
There is no way to measure a two-way transfer of heat, especially between bodies of different temperatures. Perhaps Barry can explain how it is possible.
I have spent a fair amount of time using basic quantum theory to reason why it is not possible. The basis of that argument is Bohr’s theory of the interaction between electrons and EM in an atomic orbital. In essence, it is not possible for an electron, emitting and absorbing EM, to be in two places at the same time. It simply cannot radiate the required EM energy at a higher temperature and frequency and be available to absorb EM energy from a cooler source.
That explanation is also related to energy in general. No known energy can be transferred, by its own means, from a source of lower potential energy to a target of higher potential energy. Work has to be done to move from a lower potential to a higher potential. That is basic physics and it is being denied by Rahmstorf and the MIT textbook.
So you quoted me demonstrating that G&T are wildly incorrect calling the NET exchange of energy an ‘obscure term’, and then ignore that point.
And they are ignorant of the term because they are ignorant of radiative transfer, pure and simple. their learning seems to have been limited to conduction, which is why they apparently don’t understand that radiation is a two-way process (while heat is a 1-way process). This is the massive flaw in their understanding of the GHE.
Your new point?
“In fact, there is no such thing in physics as a radiative transfer, in a real, physical sense.”
Of course there is. Radiation is emitted and absorbed by objects within sight of each other constantly, and radiative transfer is a mature branch of science taught at university level – which is where I got the quotes from.
“Radiative transfer (also called radiation transport) is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The propagation of radiation through a medium is affected by absorp.tion, emission, and scattering processes. The equation of radiative transfer describes these interactions mathematically. Equations of radiative transfer have application in a wide variety of subjects including optics, astrophysics, atmospheric science, and remote sensing.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer
Here is MIT’s course on the subject.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/2-58j-radiative-transfer-spring-2006/
Your defense of G&T is driving you to more and more absurd positions.
barry, please stop trolling.
Something for Swenson from G&T…p. 74/115…
“At long relaxation times, the heat flow from the Earth’s core is an important factor for the long term reactions of the average ground temperature; after all, according to certain hypotheses the surfaces of the planetary bodies are supposed to have been very hot and to have cooled down. These temperature changes can never be separated experimentally from those, which were caused by solar radiation”.
Gordon,
Rough mental calculation based on measured heat flux within the crust, without any sunlight, surface around 35 K – give or take. Heat flow through the crust varies quite a bit, and crustal “hotspots” wander chaotically. A bit of a mystery. A few hypotheses, some more likely than others.
My calculation seems close to that of GHE supporters who claim present surface temperatures are about 33 K hotter than they “should be”. As you have seen here, the delusional SkyDragon cultists, along with such otherwise intelligent people as Carl Sagan, don’t seem to accept that the surface was once molten, and has since cooled.
No “faint young sun” required. No “paradox”.
Nobody’s going to care much, are they?
“My calculation seems close to that of GHE supporters who claim present surface temperatures are about 33 K hotter than they”
Show us your ‘calculation’.
Swenson once again reveals his supreme ignorance.
He doesnt understand that temperatures don’t add like that.
A flux of 0.09 W/m^2 indeed radiates from a surface at 35 K according to the SB law.
A surface @ 255 K radiates 239.74 W/m^2, which can be replaced by sunlight.
If we add the Earths heat flux of 0.09 W/M^2 to this we get 239.83 W/m^2 W/M^2.
A surface @ 255.03 K radiates this total flux according to the SB law.
IOW the surface T would rise 0.03 K, not 33 K!
No wonder Swenson cannot comprehend any explanations of the GHE.
Hey ren – could we get your weekly update on the progress of the SOI …
Sorry Bindidon – I thought I had replied regarding the double peak in the temperature graph.
I did notice the 60-60 after I posted, but I am still surprised by the pattern.
Firstly, 60-60 contains 87% of the earth’s surface, compared to 40% for the tropics. Does the missing 13% really make that much difference?
Also, the only latitude that should have two peaks separated by 6 months is the equator. The further we move from the equator (while staying within the tropics) the closer those peaks should be to each other, until right at the tropics they should merge and stay as one peak all the way to the poles.
So I would have expected that when taking an average even only over the tropical latitudes that the average separation of the peaks would be somewhat less than 6 months. Yet this graph has peaks which are almost 6 months apart.
Do you have any thoughts as to why?
I’m just seeing your comment, will think about it.
Antonin Qwerty
I won’t add SST data to my daily panoply just for looking at what you mean.
But…holá! It is even visible in HadISST1 SST’s monthly data, as we can see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AWv0JjxM9ajnSS-2affEGyF5QZ7OwBTm/view
The double peak in the Tropics cannot be overlooked.
Thus you are right: the comparison to
https://imgur.com/a/V16PXPG
lets Arkady Ivanovich’s plots look more like the Tropics than like an average of the 60S-60N latitude bands.
But why are the absolute 60S-60N temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17oMOxmfW1RZqiIHfsv8c5bnpzJ5GH89s/view
looking like those indicated in his chart?
Strange things happen these days, ah well ah well.
Not sure I understand your first graph. Aren’t they anomalies? Anomalies shouldn’t display any seasonality. Removing seasonality is the whole point of using anomalies. Am I misinterpreting something?
Antonin Qwerty
” Arent they anomalies? ”
No.
Had there been any, I would have written ‘anomalies’ and not ‘departures’. I used these to strengthen the dual spike you mentioned, which is nearly invisible when showing absolute data.
To make it clear: 60S-60N
12 month array of 1981-1990 averages of absolute temperatures, mean of them, 12 month array of absolute departures from the mean.
19.67 | -0.42
19.73 | -0.36
19.81 | -0.29
19.89 | -0.21
20.02 | -0.08
20.23 | 0.13
20.53 | 0.43
20.73 | 0.63
20.63 | 0.53
20.28 | 0.18
19.92 | -0.17
19.72 | -0.38
20.10
Sorry, typical Excel and Office Calc problem: you see on the spreadsheet values differing from what they really are.
Rounding gives the reality:
19.67 | -0.43
19.73 | -0.36
19.81 | -0.29
19.89 | -0.21
20.02 | -0.08
20.23 | 0.13
20.53 | 0.43
20.73 | 0.63
20.63 | 0.53
20.28 | 0.18
19.92 | -0.17
19.72 | -0.38
20.10
I am still missing something. You seem to be saying “departures of the mean from the mean”, which sounds like it should be zero.
Antonin Qwerty
Correct. It’s the eternal problem with these ‘recursive’ uses of terms.
The first mean is the mean of the monthly absolute SSTs for 1981-1990 (first array column).
This time for the Tropics (30S-30N):
25.66 | -0.23
25.76 | -0.13
26.00 | 0.11
26.18 | 0.29
26.22 | 0.33
26.03 | 0.14
25.83 | -0.06
25.69 | -0.20
25.82 | -0.07
25.88 | -0.01
25.86 | -0.03
25.73 | -0.16
25.89
Displaying them gives you
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17oMOxmfW1RZqiIHfsv8c5bnpzJ5GH89s/view
To enhance the nearly invisible double peak in the red 30S-30N plot, I build, for 30S-30N and for 60S-60N, the mean of the first array column and then for each month the difference between this 1981-1990 average and the mean of these 12 averages (25.89 resp. 20.10 C), giving the second column and the departure graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AWv0JjxM9ajnSS-2affEGyF5QZ7OwBTm/view
Here we can better see by how much the two latitude bands differ.
By the way, it’s amazing to observe that the 30S-30N bands experience their lowest value in the same month as the 60S-60N bands have their highest. I never have seen that until now.
OK now?
Gordon,
Could you please corroborate that in 2023 NOAA uses less than 1500 stations?
This is from the 2018 v4 update to GHCN monthly data, which is the source for the official global temp record from NOAA.
In summary, GHCNm v4 is made up of more than 25 000 land-based station records, an increase of 18 000 stations from versions 2 and 3.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/24/jcli-d-18-0094.1.xml
So please show where you get the idea that NOAA in 2023 only uses 1500 stations. You do have a reference for this, don’t you?
But barry…
The answer is 100 % trivial.
Not only NOAA as the owner and provider of all worldwide GHCN station data is belying us by collecting and administering ten thousands of stations but using only 1500 of them.
GISS, CRUTEM, JMA (for historical data) and all other worldwide users of NOAA station data do EXACTLY the same.
*
It’s so simple to ‘discover’ such ‘reality’, when you think that a moon cannot rotate just because it always shows the same face to its planet, isn’t it?
Dios mio!
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01573-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=29e7539c-eeff-484a-9d71-2e47ab13afa2&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=nature&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1683716237-1
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Thanks for the ‘Dios mio’.
Maybe you manage instead to explain us alleged ‘climate deniers’ why NOAA’s ‘Optimum Interpolation SST’ behaves in the 60S-60N region exactly like HadISST1 SST does in the Tropics?
Maybe it’s due to something like the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm they use for land stations?
There are many ignoramuses on this blog who denigrate NOAA, GISS, Met Office, etc etc.
I’m not one of them, and ‘Antonin Qwerty’ most likely won’t be either.
However, this is no reason to simply accept NOAA’s (or better: Menne’s) PHA as an irrevocable axiom that leaves no room for interpretation.
In all honesty, I can’t understand much of what you’re saying.
You may find this helpful https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/13/full-JCLI-D-20-0793.1-f7.jpg, or then again you may simply deny its veracity also.
How can one deny or not deny a graph with no title to explain what you are attempting to show?
I am sorry for taking for granted that you have some research ability.
Here:
FIG. 7. Global monthly mean SST time series from 2003 to 2018.
file:///C:/Users/Luis/Downloads/1520-0442-JCLI-D-20-0793.1.pdf
FIG. 7. Global monthly mean SST time series from 2003 to 2018.
Rather, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/13/JCLI-D-20-0793.1.xml
Ok, description of the greenhouse effect #23.
Picking a level of complexity is near impossible for a hostile audience. Too simple and there are complexities left unanswered, too complex and they’ll stop listening.
I go with simple explanations here, mainly because the rebuttals are rhetorical and usually a waste of time. So why spend time going into detail when the responses are dross? Better to be simple and work downwards through levels of complexities – if the critics come up with actually salient points.
So-called greenhouse gases (I want to assure Gordon that they are not actually tiny glass greenhouses) absorb upwelling radiation from the Earth much more strongly than downwelling radiation from the sun. (They also absorb radiation coming from the atmosphere) This property is confirmed in myriad laboratory measurements shining radiation of specific frequencies through gases – otherwise known as spectroscopy. There is more than one database with millions of these empirical measurements. HITRAN is the most well-known. This is not a disputable element.
GHGs to slow the rate at which radiation from the surface escapes to space, and much more effectively than they slow radiation from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth. Were there no GHGs in the atmosphere, the surface radiation would emit to space unimpeded, and escape the Earth system more quickly.
The radiation absorbed by the atmospheric gases is ultimately re-emitted in all directions, but especially upwards and downwards.
Adding more GHGs to the atmosphere increases absorp.tion of upwelling radiation more effectively than downwelling solar radiation, slowing the escape of surface radiation to space much more strongly than slowing incoming solar radiation to the surface (again an empirical fact based on millions of spectroscopy measurements – including from the atmosphere).
Analogously to insulation in a house, heat escapes the surface to space more slowly with more ‘insulation’ (GHGs) slowing the flow of heat outwards. Any object receiving a continuous source of energy (ie the sun) that has its rate of heat loss slowed must perforce get warmer. Same for donning sweaters on a cold day, same for closing the door on a heated room, the only difference is that the process in these analogies is radiative rather than convective.
Convection of course occurs in the atmosphere (troposphere), but so does the ‘greenhouse’ effect with gases opaque to Earth radiation strongly absorbing radiation in the peak wavelengths that Earth emits at.
‘Skeptics’ rightly point out that CO2’s absorp.tion of upwelling radiation in Earth’s peak emission band – 15um wavelength – is completely absorbed/saturated in the first few metres of altitude. This must be freely admitted.
It’s a wonder that these same ‘skeptics’ on a different day will tell you that CO2 is a trace gas that can’t have any significant effect…. but I digress.
The layer of atmosphere saturated in the first few metres itself radiates, and so radiation in the 15um region is emitted in all directions from this layer, downward to the surface and upward to layers where radiation at this wavelength is NOT saturated, until eventually it reaches a level, the ‘top of the atmosphere’ layer, where outgoing radiation matches incoming solar radiation, or the point at which, on average, there is radiative equilibrium.
We know that the point at which outgoing radiation matches incoming radiation is well above the surface of the Earth, and that beneath this altitude the atmosphere is successively warmer down to the surface. The difference between the temperature where radiation in = radiation out and the temperature at the surface is the scale of the analogously named ‘greenhouse’ effect.
We have myriad measurements over time of changes in upwelling and downwelling radiance in the spectral bands specifically associated with GHGs that corroborate the greenhouse effect.
We have convective radiative models that calculate line-by-line radiative transfers for the spectral bands across the spectrum absorbed by the atmosphere, based on the empirically measured spectral properties of atmospheric gases.
We have confirmation of the enhanced greenhouse effect from the cooling of the stratosphere, to Winters warming faster than Summers (globally averaged).
The GHE is not only understood for more than a century, we have observational evidence of its existence and its enhancement with increased CO2.
The GHE is not some maverick view. I learned about it in high school 40 years ago. It is standard science. AGW is also well-established. The only legitimate questions remaining are how much global warming will happen per rise in CO2.
Coda:
This question is critical for 2 reasons.
1) We are about to have an atmosphere that has increased its CO2 content by 50% since pre-industrial times. When I started this debate in 2007, the rise was 38% since pre-industrial.
2) We only have one atmosphere. This heightens the risk. It’s possible that AGW is overblown, that effects may be more benign than the IPCC projects, and that the costs of mitigating may outweigh the costs of global warming. But if none of that is true, and the worst comes about, we do not have a second atmosphere to retreat to. We are conducting a geo-experiment of significant proportions and no one can guarantee the outcome, and we are inside the test tube with no means of escape.
There’s more to the story of saturation. Due to Doppler broadening (which I understand) and pressure broadening (which I don’t), CO2 doesn’t absorb radiation at only the one frequency, but in a band around that frequency. But the further you move away from that frequency the less is absorbed, until you get to a frequency where absorp.tion is not saturated. Increasing CO2 levels bulks up absorp.tion at all frequencies, thus widening the band of saturation. The idea is called Band Saturation, and the mathematics of it explains why the response to increasing CO2 levels is logarithmic.
Same basic question as upthread, barry.
Do you agree to rest your case on this latest description of the GHE?
Before I take time to show you the problems, I want to know you will stand by your comment and not take off on another side issue.
Prove you’re not in a cult. Put up something you will stick with, and when proven wrong, will admit it.
Do you mean the same way you admitted that NASA stated that warming from the Tongan eruption is only a possibility, would not start for three years, and might not be visible above the noise, after having used them as a reference?
Or do you mean the way you admitted that there is no source of data that shows any significant increase in stratospheric water vapour since the eruption?
I didn’t admit any of that, Ant.
Now conjure up some more crap to throw against the wall.
Exactly. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Ant, throwing crap against the wall isn’t much of a “point”.
But, you do what you must when you have NOTHING.
Of course it’s a valid point. You demand others ‘admit to being wrong’ but refuse to do the same yourself. Nor do you attempt to prove the links to sources which show you are wrong are themselves wrong, other than by blind assertion.
Ant, just keep throwing crap against the wall.
That makes it easy to ignore you.
This is you avoiding the issue by “taking off on another side issue”, and an invented one at that.
Everything you accuse others of doing you arrive at by looking in the mirror.
Easy to ignore.
Would you care to provide a subject for that sentence.
Or was the whole point to make it deliberately ambiguous?
barry,
I can’t see a description of the greenhouse effect in your comment.
I mean to be picky, because your rambling waffle doesn’t even explain why the surface temperature drops at night, let alone how the Earth has managed to cool over the past four and a half billion years!
As I said, it should be easy to describe the GHE, and start by saying “The GHE is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “.
Just being silly, and saying “Ok, description of the greenhouse effect #23.”, and then following by a farrago of nonsense doesn’t help.
For example, you write at length –
“Analogously to insulation in a house, heat escapes the surface to space more slowly with more insulation (GHGs) slowing the flow of heat outwards. Any object receiving a continuous source of energy (ie the sun) that has its rate of heat loss slowed must perforce get warmer. Same for donning sweaters on a cold day, same for closing the door on a heated room, the only difference is that the process in these analogies is radiative rather than convective.”
You obviously are unable to even specify a mechanism for the mythical GHE, and are forced to say something stupid like ” . . . must perforce get warmer.”, implying that the GHE causes the Earth to get warmer – which it hasn’t for the last four and a half billion years, and doesn’t at night, during winter, and so on.
Slow cooling is not heating.
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist who can’t even describe the GHE. the Earth has cooled since its creation, fool. The surface cools every night – showing graphically that every skerrick of radiation leaving the surface escapes to the cold of outer space.
Don’t agree? Bad luck – you’re obviously in denial of reality.
Swenson,
“I can’t see a description of the greenhouse effect in your comment.”
Yes you can, you’re simply denying it. Because you are a deceitful cretin.
barry,
Your attempts at mind reading are quite pathetic.
Do you mention in your description, for example, that the effect cannot be observed at night?
Or does your description include any notion of what the greenhouse is supposed to achieve?
Cooling, heating, both alternately – or neither?
Surely the greenhouse effect is supposed to have some effect – but you can’t quite seem to say what it is!
Maybe you should try for description #24, if you have already provided 22 different ones, which don’t seem to appear anywhere except in your imagination. Presumably, they are all different, and all similarly stupid and evasive.
Not terribly convincing.
Mike Flynn,
Mind?
Reading?
One thing you do not have and another you do not do?
Deceitful cretin.
Clint,
“Do you agree to rest your case on this latest description of the GHE?”
I’ve told you already that I’m not answering any more of your questions until you answer mine.
Here it is again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479149
You can link to your answer back there to keep this thread focussed.
barry, youre waffling again. Why cant you provide a description/definition of the GHE that you can stick with? If you cant stand by your beliefs, you need to find some beliefs you can stand by.
As to your other nonsense, until you can behave as a responsible adult, my answer will remain:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484072
“my answer will remain”
a deflection.
“So-called greenhouse gases (I want to assure Gordon that they are not actually tiny glass greenhouses) absorb upwelling radiation from the Earth much more strongly than downwelling radiation from the sun.”
Ozone is a so-called greenhouse gas.
The sunlight only shines on one side of the planet.
And most of sunlight goes to portion of that one side.
“GHGs to slow the rate at which radiation from the surface escapes to space, and much more effectively than they slow radiation from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth.”
Most of the sunlight passes the ocean surface. Ocean water is not regarded as a greenhouse gas.
process this
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqYpjr7T/Clipboard01.jpg
Now add the two Dalton cycles to the picture.
If you want to add something do it yourself you Twerp
You really are an angry person aren’t you. EBENso angry wie Flynn.
AQ,
Well, that was an inept and incoherent comment, wasn’t it?
Did you have a moment of mental aberration, perhaps?
Twas not incoherent, Moron Mike.
Twas German.
” … do it yourself you Twerp ”
Oh the toothless, ankle-biting dachshund gets aggressive again.
What he writes sounds to me like young German neo-fascists usually talk. No wonder: His posts are full of rubbish like ‘circle ass debate’, ‘szhit’, looking like ‘Boehse Onkelz’ and the like. Typical for this corner.
*
Back to the figure of interest: the Dalton cycles are SC5 and SC6, and so does a comparison to SC24/SC25 look like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yA5-g5hR7eNyZoFfiR9cD_S-e0RxV42L/view
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/sty4ur5z
Indeed. And what is more important for their claims than sunspots is TSI:
https://chaac.meteo.plus/en/climate/tsi.png
(They haven’t quite captured the minimum for SS24/25, but it was still higher than the previous one).
In TSI, there is barely a difference between the last two cycles and the rest of the recent set. Unlike the Maunder and Dalton which stand out like a sore thumb.
If what they claim were correct, the late 1700s would have been at least as warm as today.
And still the surface cools every night, and the Earth has managed to cool since the surface was molten.
Maybe you can explain why the GHE alternately heats and cools? Or does it cool and heat alternately?
If you believe that, you are truly off with the fairies, laddie!
Oops – I linked to the wrong graph:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Clint R
A chance for you to correct your incorrect postion.
YOU: Earths actual emitting surface area has been estimated to be at least 40% larger. Think mountains, valleys, cities, and even oceans.
You made this statement above. Your own words. I wonder what was your source of such material. Can you provide it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtKhbbcc1Rc
An actual investigation has been done and with very good resolution the surface area of U.K. increases by less than 1% from a flat surface area. No where near 40&. When you make such statements you should provide some support for them. It sounded very stupid to me and it still does. You claim to have some science but when you throw out things like this it shows you care not at all about any real science. You come here to annoy and provoke people for some strange entertainment it provides for you. A real troll nothing more.
What did he make this statement in relation to? If it was flux, it makes no difference anyway … if he actually understood how flux is calculated. Add the dot product to the list of basic concepts he has never seen.
AQ,
You can’t even explain why the surface cools at night in spite of the GHE, can you?
That’s because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist!
Go on, use all the jargon you like – fluxes, DSWIR, ULWIR, back-radiation, energy imbalance and so on.
I’ll help to start your imaginary GHE explanation –
“The ground routinely starts to cool after the sun sets because it emits more radiation than it gains from the atmosphere. In other words, the temperature of the ground starts to lower because it runs a radiation deficit (more losses than gains).” – National Weather Surface.
No mention of the GHE, so you can add the GHE’s role – only joking of course, there is no GHE you dimwitted fool.
Carry on.
Troll Norman, the rules have been explained to you before. Drop the troll tactics and behave as a responsible adult, and I will teach you the difference between a “topographical surface area” and an “emitting surface area”.
Clint R
I do not want any of your “teaching”. I want you to provide your source that claims Earth’s emitting surface is 40% larger.
Most emission from Earth system is from the atmosphere and most of that is within 10 kilometers of the surface and it would be a fairly smooth emitter from GHG.
I guess you won’t provide the evidence. You never do. You are very far from reality or science. You live in a deluded cult of climate skeptics who just make things up.
I think one huge proof that you are a cult minded idiot is that you make a really stupid claim that the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus. I have asked you for evidence. You provide none. Just like with this 40% BS you make up you think your declarations make things facts. Here is a hard fact for you. Your declarations do not make things true. Mostly they just show how stupid you really are.
Clint R
How is possible to discuss science with you when you are given tons of real world evidence and your only response to all the valid data is “Another link he does not understand”
Then you make up stupid declarations and think they are true because you posted them. You think you can stop the Moon from rotating on its axis by posting “Ball on a string” thousands of times and ignoring the many intelligent and well reasoned arguments demonstrating it does indeed rotate on its axis one time per orbit.
You will never understand real science. You seem to enjoy the cult pseudoscience that you make up and peddle here and on other blogs.
All wrong, troll Norman. If you were a responsible adult i would spend the time to explain, but as you indicate, you reject learning about reality.
Clint R
Not wrong at all and again I do not want “your” explanation of anything. I consider you to be a stupid taunting troll who likes to annoy people for fun.
I want you to support your claims. You have not yet nor will you ever.
I asked you to provide the source of your claim that the Earth emits from an area 40& larger than then a flat surface. You have not provided this at all and you never will. You will divert and wiggle away like you always do and pretend you have some actual knowledge (everyone here knows you have nothing and never will).
You proclaims other posters have nothing even when they pile on several lines of evidence. You are the one with nothing.
Will you try to support your 40& claims or ignore it and pretend and divert? If you know this information to be correct than present your source. I am waiting. I know you won’t.
O will certainly reject made up nonsense you post. I do not reject learning reality at all. I reject your cult minded stupid posts that have zero reality. Show some evidence.
Sorry troll Norman, but that’s STILL all wrong.
You’re an immature, irresponsible troll, NOT a responsible adult. Why would I waste time explaining science to someone that rejects reality?
norman…”You think you can stop the Moon from rotating on its axis by posting Ball on a string thousands of times and ignoring the many intelligent and well reasoned arguments demonstrating it does indeed rotate on its axis one time per orbit”.
***
For one, the ball on a string demonstrates clearly that an orbiting body keeping the same face pointed at an axis, cannot rotate about it axis.
For another, an intelligent responder would immediately question the claim that the Moon rotates exactly once on a local axis wherein its time of rotation corresponds exactly with the its orbital period. If it differs by even a fraction of a second, over time the near face would no longer point at the Earth.
Upon further investigation, the responder would surely come upon the better explanation that the Moon is performing curvilinear rotation without local rotation. That explains the Moon keeping the same side pointed at Earth and every other condition associated with the Moon, including libration.
Troll Clint R
You still avoid giving a source for your 40% more emitting surface point. You will continue to do this with your total troll tactics of insulting me and ignoring the question. What is your source?
His “source” will be either his own imagination, some denial blog, or an out of context quote which he then proceeds to misinterpret.
For him it is always “proof” by assertion and quote mining and ad hominem.
Unlike Gordon, he KNOWS he is BSing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485532
Norman,
You wrote –
“Most emission from Earth system is from the atmosphere and most of that is within 10 kilometers of the surface and it would be a fairly smooth emitter from GHG.”
Not at night, according to the US Gvernment –
“The ground routinely starts to cool after the sun sets because it emits more radiation than it gains from the atmosphere. In other words, the temperature of the ground starts to lower because it runs a radiation deficit (more losses than gains).”
You see – the ground emits radiation. Maybe you believe that you know better than me and the US National Weather service. Others can make up their own minds, but my view is that you are a delusional,SkyDragon cultist idiot.
No GHE – the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Accept reality.
Swenson
Yes I know the surface emits radiant energy. But only a small part (Atmospheric Window) goes from Surface emission to space. The reest is absorbed by the GHG. The energy leaving the Earth system is primarily from the GHG in atmosphere. That is why I intentionally worded emission of “Earth System” not Earth surface.
About 16% of Earth’s surface emission goes directly to space the rest is all absorbed by GHG and clouds.
The Earth’s surface HAS NOT COOLED for 4.5 billion years. You are just wrong if you claim it does. The surface cycles with warmer and colder periods. Large ice ages that melt and regrow. We have been in this cycle for hundreds of thousands of years. Quit with the false narrative. It gets old after thousands of posts.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2Ffeatures%2FGlobalWarming%2Fpage3.php&psig=AOvVaw1zicsT9e2DuqrbflFa4PoB&ust=1684116168001000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCPikl-Lb8_4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
norman…”Yes I know the surface emits radiant energy. But only a small part (Atmospheric Window) goes from Surface emission to space. The reest is absorbed by the GHG”.
***
You have it backwards. Only a small amount, about 7%, is absorbed by GHGs. If you are going to talk science, you need to drop metaphors like ‘atmospheric window’. There is no such thing and the metaphor is used to confuse people
Norman demonstrates he is off with the fairies again. He writes (or shouts) –
“The Earths surface HAS NOT COOLED for 4.5 billion years.”
Well, yes, it has, apparently. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a valid scientific consensus that the Earth is still more than 99% glowing hot, sitting in space, slowly cooling.
It has no more chance of spontaneously heating and cooling, any more than a pot of water sitting in the Sun alternately boiling and freezing, for no good reason!
Norman doesn’t like simplicity. When faced with reality “The ground routinely starts to cool after the sun sets because it emits more radiation than it gains from the atmosphere. In other words, the temperature of the ground starts to lower because it runs a radiation deficit (more losses than gains).”, Norman introduces diversions which are irrelevant, of course. He can’t deny that the surface cools at night without looking demented.
The surface cools – and no GHE blathering prevents it.
Norman links to a NASA page which, of course, makes no mention of the initial state of the earth, but guesses that some parts of the surface have become hotter and colder – hardly surprising. Antarctica was fertile at one time, and the Sahara was cooler. Weather patterns change chaotically.
Here’s NASA, quoting a peer reviewed paper “Mechanisms for the removal of such a large amount of heat appear inadequate to prevent substantial melting, and it is assumed that the Earth was completely molten, i.e., a magma ocean at one time early in its history.”
Norman will no doubt whine about this, but he cannot come up any alternate scenario which explains current geophysical science.
He’s an idiot. The Earth’s surface has cooled – no longer molten. Dr Spencer (and others, I might add), are looking at reasons why some thermometers have been getting hotter as humanity’s energy consumption increases.
The reason seems fairly obvious to me, but others may have different views. The facts won’t change in any case.
Reality is.
Gordon Robertson
You make unsupported declarations as well. You just pull things out of the air.
You are wrong. The GHG absorb a lot more than 7% of surface emission. They absorb nearly all of it. You can make such statements you can’t back them up with evidence. That is what science is about not that you or Clint R understand this. You say the word science but do not comprehend its meaning. It is an evidence based system of discovery. Ideas are proposed and then accepted or rejected based upon evidence. You have never accepted any evidence given to you
Swenson
No you are the idiot! I am talking about the Earth surface not the molten core. The surface of the Earth has warmed and cooled in over time.
Can you grasp difference between Earth’s core and surface. When you post you need to clarify what you are talking about or no communication is possible.
Norman,
You can talk all you like, but your reading skills seem defective.
A NASA quote from a peer reviewed journal again –
” . . .the Earth was completely molten, i.e., a magma ocean at one time early in its history.”
The surface. Which has since cooled, no longer being a magma ocean. You don’t have to believe it, if you don’t want to.
You keep implying that the entire surface, after cooling to a solid state, has subsequently heated, then cooled, then heated . . ., without giving any cogent reason why it should do so, seemingly in contravention of known physical laws.
Maybe you can just start shouting again, while you continue to reject reality.
Carry on.
norman…”I wonder what was your source…”
***
No source is required.
The current surface area is a simple average based upon a mean Earth radius at the Equator applied to the formula for the surface area of a sphere. No one has bothered to measure the actual surface area although they claim to be able to tell the ocean level from satellites.
Gordon Robertson
I know you still defend the idiot Clint R (not sure why he tossed you aside like a rotten fruit). But in defending this idiot you miss my point. If you or he makes some wild claim you need to provide some support. I will say you do attempt to support your wrong science better than he does. He makes a stupid claim like the emitting Earth surface is actually 714 trillion m^2 instead of 510 trillion m^2 yet he will not provide a source for this and when I confront him he goes into full retard diversion tactics.
Why you need to defend this terrible behavior is unknown to me. He is an asshole 100%. Arrogant, rude and stupid and be comes here to belittle and taunt people to annoy them. Why do you support this clown?
norman…”I know you still defend the idiot Clint R (not sure why he tossed you aside like a rotten fruit)”.
***
When you have been around this planet long enough, Norman, you have the opportunity to learn that these little spats are meaningless compared to the overall scheme of things. My friendship with a lifelong buddy started as a near street fight over a woman.
I have lost no respect for Clint’s zeal to understand science. Obviously there was some stress between us and we both vented. No big deal, I have moved on from that encounter.
Same with you. We have our spats and I speak unkindly of you at times, but there’s no venom behind it. In fact, crazy as it may seem, I value our exchanges because it makes be dig deeper to explain my theories. When I do that, it helps to clarify my understanding.
Come on, Bordo.
Stop being a carpet, stand to Pup trolling.
wee willy…does it bother you that skeptics have the maturity to overlook their differences and move on?
Bordo,
Here you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485867
Wrong again, troll Norman. I never claimed that.
I offered to explain it to you, if you could behave like a responsible adult. The offer still goes.
Bindidon wrote –
“Oh the toothless, ankle-biting dachshund gets aggressive again.”
Binny’s version of “science”.
For anyone trying to imply that the GHE is really like a “blanket”, keeping us all warm and toasty, here’s a snippet from the evil Chinese (only joking) Hong Kong Observatory website –
“The amount of temperature falls at night-time is related to cloud cover, wind strength and humidity. Maximum cooling occurs under clear skies, light winds and dry conditions. The effect of cloud on ground temperature is akin to wrapping with a blanket to keep our body warm. Thus, under cloudy conditions the overnight temperature drop is less than that under clear skies.”
Blanket. Temperature still drops. No magical GHE warming.
GHE believers are obviously delusional.
Once upon a time, Mike went camping In his backyard.
He brought his blanket in the tent with him.
During the night he realized that the blanket was not keeping as warm as when he was in his bed inside. So he concluded that the blanket effect did not work.
What a moron!
THE END
Once upon a time, Willard was an idiot.
He still is. No end in sight. Apart from his bell end, that is, when he plays with it.
As Swenson has pointed out several times, a blanket won’t keep a dead body from cooling.
This is a real energy budget problem. The human body requires nourishment to maintain it body temperature. If it is given no nourishment, the body will begin to cool naturally after a certain period of time. Meantime, if we decide to sleep outside with only a blanket, even in a tent, the body will lose heat more rapidly than it will in a bed in a house with additional sheets and blankets.
The GHE/AGW theory suggests that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can act as a blanket to trap heat. Such a blanket for that purpose would be threadbare and offer no insulating effect whatsoever. Besides, heat is the energy of moving atoms and no gas can trap another gas.
Would you like to be the subject of that experiment? I’ll provide the blanket.
AQ,
is that really all you’ve got? Hoping for the death of someone who doesnt accept your fantasy?
I know Binny would like to torture people to death if they disagree, or inflict slow death by disease on them, so am I right in assuming that all delusional SkyDragon cultists share your genocidal aspirations?
I know you can’t provide a valid description of your mythical GHE, but wishing death to your opponents is not going to change physical laws.
Thank goodness you have no power at all, and your influence on those who do, is precisely zero!
Phew! Thank goodness for the incompetence, ineptitude, and stupidity of SkyDragon cultists.
Blankets “warm” nothing. They just reduce the rate at which energy is lost by objects which are already warm.
Did you have to put a lot of work rising to the level of idiot, or did it come naturally?
Moron Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
No thanks. Your blanket would like be riddled with fleas from you using it to cuddle up to sheep.
Sorry Gordon – I don’t cuddle up to AGW deniers, religious people, or Trump supporters. You have me confused with one of your friends.
Bordo,
Has it occurred to you that you’re doing exactly what you would call butt kissing?
C’mon.
“As Swenson has pointed out several times, a blanket won’t keep a dead body from cooling.”
Yes, it is typical for moronic ‘skeptics’ to remove the heat source from the analogy and then claim some kind of victory.
And to overlook that a blanket will slow the cooling of the dead body, which is half of the point.
Swenson is king of the red herrings.
Blundering barry,
You wrote –
“And to overlook that a blanket will slow the cooling of the dead body, which is half of the point.”
No overlooking at all. See that word “cooling”? That means a drop in temperature, not a rise. If you have changed your thinking, and believe that the GHE is responsible for cooling, go ahead.
If that’s the case, why do think a GHE is necessary? Cooling has been known since mankind (and its predecessors) existed.
Maybe you meant to say that the GHE makes corpses hotter, by magic. Blankets certainly won’t, will they?
Time for a rethink, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Your comments are getting dumber and dumber.
Why do you think human intelligence is necessary?
Moron.
“See that word ‘cooling’?”
See the phrase “half of the point”?
Typical moronic ‘skeptics’ removing the heat source from the analogy and claiming victory.
Does a sweater keep you warmer, Swenson, or are you dead?
You are missing the point, Barry. The body was warm while alive but even when covered with a blanket, after death, it cools. The blanket will never re-warm it.
I may be wrong but I think that is Swenson’s point. A blanket does not cause anything to warm, it simply slow the rate of heat dissipation by conduction while preventing convection from cooling bare skin.
According to AGW theory, GHGs act like a blanket to ‘trap heat’. As I have pointed out, CO2 at 0.04% would offer no more protection than a few threads on a threadbare blanket. That’s besides the point that heat cannot be trapped by either a blanket or the atmosphere, unless, of course, the blanket is made of something solid through which air molecule cannot move.
I get Swenson’s ‘point’ Gordon, but what you don’t get is that it is a red herring.
A blanket is not a source of heat, and yet your skin warms up when you cover yourself with one. This is our analogy for the greenhouse effect when people say it violates the 2nd Law. No ‘heat’ goes from the blanket to the skin, and no ‘heat’ goes from the atmosphere to the surface. Both slow the rate at which the surface they enshroud cools. And both examples have heat sources, which Swensons needs to erase to make his well-known and useless ‘point’.
Put two blankets on and your skin gets even warmer. Add more GHGs and the surface gets even warmer. Because the cooling rate is further slowed.
Of course if there was no energy coming to the Earth’s surface, this ‘greenhouse’ effect would not occur. Just as a cadaver will not get any warmer with a blanket.
But there IS energy coming to the Earth, and the dead body is rotten with the smell of herring.
barry, please stop trolling.
Once upon a time, Mike quoted from this website:
https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/education/weather/meteorology-basics/00004-what-is-radiation-cooling.html
Since he is a moron with an iPad, he has no idea how to copy-paste links or create HTML markup.
Aw diddums!
wee willy…”The effect of cloud on ground temperature is akin to wrapping with a blanket to keep our body warm. Thus, under cloudy conditions the overnight temperature drop is less than that under clear skies….”
***
One apparent problem with this statement right off the bat. Unless the clouds are right at the surface, there is no way they can affect the rate of surface cooling.
Newton’s law of cooling makes it clear that the rate of surface heat dissipation is due to the difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with the surface. Of course, normally, they would be in thermal equilibrium. However, since heated surface air rises, cooler air from aloft rushes in to replace it while forcing it upward.
Seems to me the rate of heat dissipation at night is related to the temperature of the cooler air above the surface. If it’s warmer, and replaces warmed air, the surface won’t cool as fast. Also, it depends on the temperature to which the surface was heated during the day. If, for whatever reason, it keeps it’s heat longer, that could contribute to the surface cooling more slowly.
It seems the problem is far more complex.
Gordon: “Unless the clouds are right at the surface, there is no way they can affect the rate of surface cooling.”
Also Gordon: “Thats why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.”
Clouds block heat dissipation due to radiation. The effect is only partial, unlike the complete field of view with the GP, but the principle is exactly the same. Clouds are opaque to upwelling Earth radiation.
barry…”Clouds block heat dissipation due to radiation”.
***
Not true. Surface heat is dissipated before the radiation reaches the clouds. It is dissipated in the same action that produces the IR and does not exist above the surface unless convection is involved. Once converted to IR, there is no heat to dissipate.
IR is not heat. It has none of the properties of heat. It has a frequency and is an electromagnet field which heat lacks. IR has no mass yet heat cannot exist without mass.
You cannot compare this to the GP/BP thought-experiment. It’s not clear to me what Eli Rabbett intended with the thought experiment, whether it was meant to take place in a vacuum. We do have to consider, based on his response to G&T, that he believed heat can be transferred by two bodies of different temperatures in both directions. That is the basis of his GP/BP thought experiment.
He believes that radiation from the GP can warm the BP, even though the GP is cooler. He is, in effect, offering the AGW theory in the form of a thought-experiment.
However, Swannie designed his experiment to work in a vacuum, so let’s go with that. According to Swannie, the BP is heated externally and radiating inside the vacuum. He designed the experiment so that the GP could be hoisted up later and when in place near the BP, he noted the temperature of the BP rose. He used the reasoning of Eli that the BP temperature rose because the GP, at a cooler temperature, was radiating heat to it.
I offered another reason for the BP warming. When radiating freely in the vacuum, it is cooled by radiation in all directions. However, with the GP raised, the GP blocks radiation from one side of the BP. That decreases the ability of the BP to dissipate heat therefore it warms. The warming comes from the hat source, not the GP.
Clouds have nothing to do with the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. If anything, they can be modeled as small lakes of water and I have not given any thought to what that means.
Gordo the not-an-engineer, repeats his delusions:
1. The BP in the bell jar initially receives a nearly constant energy input. It then radiates that thermal IR radiant energy from both sides. But, the bell jar is also radiating toward the BP from all directions. The temperature of the BP represents the net flow of IR energy into and out of the BP.
2. Raise the GP into position next to the BP. It had been exposed to the IR radiation from the Bell jar while also radiating energy toward the bell jar in near steady state.
3. Once hoisted next to the BP, the GP receives an increase in IR energy from the side facing the BP, so the GP’s temperature increases.
4. The BP now is receiving more energy from the GP side, so the BP’s temperature must increase to enable it to radiate this increase.
5. After some time, this back and forth reaches steady state and both temperatures no longer change.
No, Gordo, the “ability of the BP to dissipate heat” does not decrease, it increases, since it’s temperature increases. The rate of energy supplied by the heat source remains the same, mol. Your repeated display of your ignorance doesn’t change the physics.
“However, with the GP raised, the GP blocks radiation from one side of the BP. That decreases the ability of the BP to dissipate heat therefore it warms. The warming comes from the hat source, not the GP.”
I think this is a reasonable description, as long as Gordon realizes that the GP has warmed to higher T than the surroundings (jar), and thus the heat loss (dissipation) from the BP to the GP is reduced.
Heat loss from BP Q = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4) is now reduced, because Tg is higher than T (bell jar).
And indeed, with this reduced dissipation of heat, the BP warms. And the warming came from the heat source.
Once warmed, however, the heat loss from the BP is restored to its original value. The system reaches a new steady state.
Nate,
Gordon is describing the GPE exactly as we do. Here’s a longer quote, and the link to the post.
What in fact was happening was the green plate interfered with the radiation form one side of the BP, blocking off half its ability to dissipate heat. Therefore it warmed.
What Swannie failed to acknowledge is that prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.
Thats why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287494
Gordon understands the GPE!
But as soon as you move the principle to Earth he denies it.
Yep sounds right.
Gordon,
“Surface heat is dissipated before the radiation reaches the clouds. It is dissipated in the same action that produces the IR and does not exist above the surface”
Well now you’ve contradicted yourself.
“No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation”
So BP’s heat dissipation exists beyond its surface due to radiation, but Earth’s heat dissipation does not exist beyond its surface because it becomes radiation.
Brilliantly argued, Gordon!
And I think Gordon should be well aware that the surface T cools more on clear dry nights than on cloudy or humid nights. He can look up T data verify.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Since he is a moron with an iPad, he has no idea how to copy-paste links or create HTML markup”
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
You have no idea how to describe the GHE in any valid way.
Others may decide for themselves who is the deranged SkyDragon cultist.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote – something I did not read.
Moron.
Wonky Wee Willy,
I am so glad to see you responding to something you didn’t read.
Carry on demonstrating your idiocy.
By the way, have you managed to describe the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling, or does the GHE only work in bright sunlight and when it’s warm?
Fool.
Moron Mike,
I’m glad you’re glad, moron.
Have you ever realized that by your moron logic the Sun can’t warm the Earth?
Probly not, for you’re such a moron.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
aq…”Due to Doppler broadening (which I understand) and pressure broadening (which I dont), CO2 doesnt absorb radiation at only the one frequency, but in a band around that frequency. But the further you move away from that frequency the less is absorbed, until you get to a frequency where absorp.tion is not saturated. Increasing CO2 levels bulks up absorp.tion at all frequencies, thus widening the band of saturation. The idea is called Band Saturation, and the mathematics of it explains why the response to increasing CO2 levels is logarithmic”.
***
Why do you blindly accept this theory without questioning it? None of it is written in stone, it is highly theoretical and cannot be explained subjectively because no one has the slightest idea what is going on at the atomic level. Therefore, the explanations are left to quantum theorists who offer nothing more than abstractions based on mathematics.
You claim to understand Doppler broadening which is nothing more than a reference to gas molecules moving rapidly in all directions. If the molecule is emitting a certain frequency, that frequency/wavelength will be altered due to the relative motion between the emitting molecule and the observer.
But wait, are we not required to believe that all light moves at a constant velocity? If that’s correct, why is it emitting different frequencies at different velocities? Obviously, based on the Doppler broadening theory, the same frequency of EM is altered based on its velocity. The same proponents of this theory bray that means a time dilation as well.
On to pressure broadening. I see two ways of looking at this and that requires not focusing on a single CO2 molecule but on a bazzillions of them at different altitudes above the surface. If the molecules are all emitting at a specific line frequency then at different altitudes, hence different pressures/temperatures, the actual frequency of that radiation will change due to altitude.
I don’t think that is the particular meaning of pressure broadening, which has a slightly different meaning. Pressure is dependent on the number of atoms involved. If you have a large number of atoms/molecules in a certain space, the number of collisions between them will be far greater than if thy are at different pressures. Atmospheric gases at different altitudes offer that variation in pressures.
Colliding atoms/molecules are not like colliding particles or masses. Nothing actually collides because the charges in the electron field repel each other. In a molecule like CO2, you have 2 oxygen atoms forming a linear dipole with a carbon atom in the middle. The carbon atom is surrounded by two layers of electrons as are the O2 atoms. That’s going to present a stronger negative field to other CO2 molecules approaching before a collision. We must bear in mind, however, that there is only 1 CO2 molecule for 2500 N2/O2 molecules.
No one has any idea how these molecules collide and the entire theory of pressure broadening is reduced to equations based on theories of ever-increasing idiocy. Having said that, suppose two molecules come close and their electric/magnetic fields interact. The question arises as to how that affects the orbitals of the electrons.
Does a collision compress the orbitals? If it does, it means the energy levels, between which the electrons move, change and that means the frequency is affected. I am not going to touch it any more than that because the theories involved are too incomprehensible to make objective sense.
I am only trying to point out that your theory above about saturation is based on far-reaching theories which came from manipulations of mathematical equations. Despite their braggadocio about quantum theory replacing Newtonian theory, none of them have the slightest idea what goes on at the atomic level. It’s time some scientists admitted that and got back to direct observation.
Physicist, David Bohm, who was an expert in quantum theory, pointed out that both quantum theory and Newtonian theory with regard to atoms has reached the ends of their respective roads. He suggested we back up and look anew. He said that at least 20 years ago and thus far we are still stuck with our heads in the sand, or in a dark place.
You again show your utter lack of understanding of rudimentary science? Why do you have so much trouble comprehending what you read?
It is NOT about the light emitted by the molecule. It is about the light emitted by the earth’s surface. Those photons do NOT have different velocities, and no one claims they do. It is the CO2 molecules that have different velocities. So they see different WAVELENGTHS of approaching light, NOT different velocities. ie. the wavelength AS SEEN BY THE MOLECULE is what determines whether the photon is absorbed.
I won’t be reading what you wrote on pressure broadening because you don’t have a habit of getting ANYTHING right, and I don’t want to pollute my mind before reading up on this again.
This work has all been tested experimentally. You saying the opposite does not change that fact.
It’s funny how you ask why we blindly accept physics, then at the end you blindly accept the words of ONE physicist – one who believed Yuri Geller actually bent spoons with his mind.
AQ,
You don’t seem to realise you have no clue at all.
You wrote –
“So they see different WAVELENGTHS of approaching light, NOT different velocities. ie. the wavelength AS SEEN BY THE MOLECULE is what determines whether the photon is absorbed.”
Dimwit. CO2 at absolute zero absorbs photons of any level at all.
You may not believe that all matter above absolute zero continuously emits infrared radiation – and you can’t stop it, no matter what you do. As a matter of fact, you can raise the temperature of CO2 (or any other gas at all), by the simple expedient of compressing it!
Oh dear, CO2 can be made to emit photons of any required wavelength by vigorous squashing! Go on, show everyone your “understanding of science” by explaining how CO2 can interact with photons of any wavelength at all, and emit photons of any wavelength at all.
Off you go now, and gnash your teeth down to stubs. I’ll just sit here laughing.
> CO2 at absolute zero absorbs photons of any level at all.
How do you know, Mike?
Have you witnessed it?
With your absolute zero intelligence?
Cheers.
Swenson, you got a lot of garbage in your post.
For one:
“Dimwit. CO2 at absolute zero absorbs photons of any level at all.”
Yeah, that’s why Nuclear power plants and Research Cyclotrons use CO2 for shielding.
Oh snap, they don’t, because it only absorbs photons of certain wavelengths.
“You may not believe that all matter above absolute zero continuously emits infrared radiation and you cant stop it, no matter what you do.”
Here is a puzzle for you, take one gram of CO2, and calculate the temperature that that one gram would only have enough energy to emit one photon of microwave frequency.
“Go on, show everyone your understanding of science by explaining how CO2 can interact with photons of any wavelength at all, and emit photons of any wavelength at all.”
Well, no one has that understanding of science, not even you, in fact, I’ll pay you the 50 bucks if you can show that is true.
You can’t, because you are drooling in your Maypo again.
bob…could you cut back on the bs? CO2 as shielding on a nuclear plant. Last time I looked, they used lead and special plastics.
What exactly does CO2 have that can block radiation from a nuclear plant?
🤦
That was the point, Bordo.
Cmon.
Yeah Gordon,
You have to read the next sentence.
Water and concrete are the most popular choices for shielding.
aq…”It is NOT about the light emitted by the molecule. It is about the light emitted by the earths surface. Those photons do NOT have different velocities, and no one claims they do. It is the CO2 molecules that have different velocities. So they see different WAVELENGTHS of approaching light, NOT different velocities. ie. the wavelength AS SEEN BY THE MOLECULE is what determines whether the photon is absorbed”.
***
In your desperation, you offer the nonsense above while claiming I don’t understand science. Has it not occurred to you yet that science is done from the perspective of the human mind? What CO2 molecules see has nothing to do with science.
Then you murder Doppler. Observed frequencies of EM from a moving body are directly related to the velocity of the body wrt to a stationary human observer. Furthermore, wavelength, L = lambda, is directly related to velocity as in L = v/f. With sound, if you have a stationary observer observing a moving sound…
fo = fs(v/[v – vs])
Where fo = frequency heard by observer
fs = frequency of source
v = velocity of sound
vs = velocity of source
With light the speed of light is involved rather than the speed of sound.
Your point about the frequency seen by the CO2 molecule is interesting. However, I don’t see what that has to do with anything. When you talk about a CO2 molecule absorbing surface IR, you are talking about any one of the electrons associated with the two oxygen molecules or the single carbon atom. Those electrons do the absorbing.
It’s more likely the bonding electrons are doing the absorbing since it is the change in bond-lengths that cause the CO2 molecule to emit IR. If the bond is vibrating and/or rotating the only way to change the frequency is to excite the bonding electrons more.
I claim that because the inner orbital electrons likely respond to much higher frequencies. However, bonding electron can transition as well, and likely at a lower frequency in the IR spectrum.
According to Bindebil These are all wrong Zharkova lovers
According to NOAA/NASA and international experts: Cycle 25 will be similar in size to Cycle 24. Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130.
https://i.postimg.cc/N0f3N9q6/solar-cycle-25-prediction-noaa.jpg
WTH are “wrong Zharkova lovers”?
In fact – what is your point? What/who are you challenging?
Are you going to come back with another unthinking attack or are you going to answer the question?
Antonin Qwerty
Please don’t bother with the dachshund; like Flynnson, he never has anything relevant to say and therefore constantly stalks those whose meaning he dislikes.
He’s a Zharkova lover himself – simply because she’s been trying to convince people of an imminent Grand Solar Minimum for years, and that’s the kind of prediction he prefers.
And when mixing NASA and NOAA, he shows his lack of understanding:
– what would be the reason to challenge the NOAA/SSRC prediction? It’s perfectly reasonable, midway between the extremes (Zharkova and McIntosh).
– NASA on the other hand is way below, and predicts an SC 25 30 till 50% lower than SC 24 for the expected peak in 2025.
Well we’ve already gone past Zharkova’s prediction.
At the other extreme, McIntosh looked pretty good about 3 months ago, but is looking exceedingly unlikely now.
It’s hard to understand why he cares so much about predictions instead of just waiting to see how it turns out. None of them seem to have a clue, because no one understands the mechanism. When we pass the peak someone will rejoice in getting closest, without acknowledging that they simply got lucky. He certainly wouldn’t be able to explain why he favours Zharkova, unless he admits that it is simply that she is saying what he wants to hear. You have to wonder how she could possibly make a prediction based solely on PCA on the last 4 cycles – cycles that contain no information about previous low points.
aq…”Its hard to understand why he cares so much about predictions instead of just waiting to see how it turns out”.
***
That’s the very advice we skeptics have offered to climate alarmists. Try taking your own advice.
NASA thinks that, I am forced to say, that I agree with NASA.
We are already WAY past NASA’s forecast.
That is what NASA does.
SLS was suppose to be a few billion and few years,
and etc.
I think Cycle 25 will peak in 2023. Around July.
Solar wind
speed: 484.6 km/sec
density: 6.64 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Updated 14 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.88×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
48-hr change: +3.0%
So June and July will be much stronger than May [or Jan]
then going fall faster than it when up. And it wouldn’t have a twin
peak, it will have dead cat bounces. But peak is this year, Neutron counts will get well below -5% and Thermosphere will get a lot warmer, but probably won’t get Hot.
Solar wind
speed: 455.2 km/sec
density: 7.16 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 109
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Updated 15 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.73×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.8%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
https://www.spaceweather.com/
I was expecting more spots coming from farside by
now, and not seeing any.
The highest numbered Sunspot is 3306, and 3/4 quarter the way to farside- or it grew while at nearside.
There are two little spots, unnumbered in southern hemisphere on other side of nearside, they might grow and get a number.
Or they might fade instead.
And unnamed spots are near equator.
Anyways need a lot more spots to make May as strong as I thought it could be.
If not, it might be more like 24, a twin peak situation- or what think will happen in June and July, won’t happen.
We will see what happens.
Solar wind
speed: 491.8 km/sec
density: 7.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Updated 16 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.59×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.9%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
The tiny spots appear to gotten further apart and given
3307 number but have got bigger
Also have two tiny coronal hole at equator.
And no sunspots appear to coming from farside.
“SOLAR FILAMENTS OUTNUMBER SUNSPOTS: If there is an explosion on the sun today, it might not come from a sunspot. Unstable magnetic filaments pose the greater threat. This photo from Michael Borman of Evansville, Indiana, shows at least 20 dark filaments scattered around the solar disk:”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Just to be sure sky dragon cranks get the reference –
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1290293/bio
Except for Mike Flynn, for he would need to click on a link, read the page, and understand what is being written without playing dumb.
Shirley that is not possible!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
This latest exposure to reality produced a much bigger response than I expected. The cult’s ineffective flak is the indicator. Their precious “energy balance”, which tries to erroneously balance flux, is once again shattered. They can’t even match emitted flux to surface area!
Poor troll barry struggles to understand flux. Here, he’s completely confused, still:
Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive power is different.
The two areas will STILL have the SAME emissive power. Poor barry doesn’t understand the difference between power, flux, and energy.
That’s why this is so much fun.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484435
Confirmation bias strikes once again!
Well played, Pup!
Do the Shower Experiment.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Confirmation bias strikes once again!
Well played, Pup!
Do the Shower Experiment.”
Is that your description of the GHE?
Far too erudite for me.
Tee hee.
Moron Mike,
You moronically say –
“Far too erudite for me.”
That’s because you’re a moron.
Could you please stop being a moron?
Or not.
Cheers, moron.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Confirmation bias strikes once again!
Well played, Pup!
Do the Shower Experiment.”
Is that your description of the GHE?
Far too erudite for me.
Tee hee.
Only a moron would repeat their comment and expect something different, Moron Mike.
Pace Einstein, if I remember correctly the quote you are find to regurgitate every month or so for the past ten years.
Cheers.
It just gets worse.
If you double the area of a surface while not changing the flux (energy per unit area), then you double the total energy emitted by that surface in a specified time (Energy = flux times area), so you double the energy emitted per second, ie. power.
I should point out that I referred to energy flux. If I had referred to power flux, which I probably should have given the topic at hand, then there is no need to bring time into the calculation. But the result is still the same.
You’re as confused as barry, Ant.
Two objects are identical except one has twice the surface area. Both are at the same temperature.
The smaller object is emitting 400 W/m^2. Even though the larger object has twice the surface area, it is STILL only emitting 400 W/m^2.
Let me quote Barry’s comment again:
“Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive POWER is different.”
NOT flux in W/m^2.
POWER in …… aaaaahhhhhhhh ….. W.
Why did you provide an answer in W/m^2 ?
Read the sentence CAREFULLY again …. you feed in a flux and out pops a POWER.
Are you having trouble with “per”?
Let me assist.
It cost you $2 per m^2 to paint a wall.
How much does it cost you to paint 3 m^2.
Now take your time – don’t rush. Save a few neurons for tying your shoelaces.
It just gets worse.
barry was only confused about power, flux, and energy. Now you’re confused about in and out (emission).
Next time will be your third attempt — the “charm”. I bet you STILL can’t get it right.
Prove me wrong.
You’re still confused, Pup.
Start with something simpler –
How do we call a thing that has an emissivity of 1?
Nowhere did I mention or imply emission or absorp.tion.
The only times I used “in” I was talking about what units a quantity is measured IN, and the idea of feeding a number INto a calculation.
But you already know that. You are desperately searching for an escape clause.
Anyway – let me restate what you got wrong:
Barry made a statement about POWER.
I continued to make statements about POWER.
You tried to challenge his statement by making a statement about FLUX.
So only YOU are confused between power and flux.
But don’t worry Clint – Flynn will come to your rescue and “save” you. He recognises when a buddy has got himself into trouble.
Ant: “…you feed in a flux and out pops a POWER.”
Ant: “Nowhere did I mention or imply emission or absorp.tion.”
Also, radiative flux is POWER/Area.
Yes? Your point? That explains why FLUX does not depend on area while POWER does. Power = Power Flux times Area.
“Feed in flux” means feed a value of flux into the calculation (and out of the calculation pops the power). This applies equally to emission and absorp.tion.
You really are clutching at straws now, and they are slipping through your your fingers.
AQ,
Is all this diversionary irrelevance an attempt to disguise the fact that none of you SkyDragon idiots can even describe the GHE, let alone explain its role in nighttime surface cooling?
You might as well continue to blather about irrelevant nonsense, and confirm your inability to accept reality.
Carry on.
My “point”, Ant, was neither you nor your cult understands radiative physics. Flux does NOT balance. Flux is NOT energy. Two identical objects, different only in size, will be emitting the SAME flux. The power emitted is NOT different. It’s the total energy that differs.
Don’t fret, you’ve got a lot of company. Braindead is a fairly common disorder these days, as we see here.
Pup, Pup,
The point you keep evading is quite simple –
Flux and power and interchangeable units.
If you mind them properly, what can be said of one can be said of the other.
If you don’t mind them properly, anything goes.
So mind your units.
When will you do the Shower Experiment?
I see my prediction came true. Are you going to let him “save” you, or are you going to man up and admit you confused Power with Flux?
You know, most people would prefer to bite the bullet and own up to a mistake rather that pretend that they have the worst comprehension on the planet. False pride is a funny thing.
AQ,
you wrote –
“I see my prediction came true. Are you going to let him “save” you, or are you going to man up and admit you confused Power with Flux?
You know, most people would prefer to bite the bullet and own up to a mistake rather that pretend that they have the worst comprehension on the planet. False pride is a funny thing.”
You obviously have no connection to “most people”.
You are too deluded to admit you can’t even describe the GHE, let alone describe its role in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years!
All you can do is try to annoy people, but you are so incompetent that you can,t even do that, can you?
Presumably all your bizarre, yet strangely irrelevant, notions about “fluxes”, is an attempt to justify delusional SkyDragons at NASA and elsewhere using W/m2 in nonsensical “energy balances”, which purport to prove that the Earth did not cool, that cooling at night cannot occur, and that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 increases its temperature!
Do you believe in a GHE? Can you describe it? What is its effect?
Carry on being an idiot. Maybe if you squint your eyes really, really, hard, you can turn fantasy into fact.
Carry on.
Power is just energy per unit time.
So if the emitted energy is doubled by doubling the area, then so is power. Duh.
.
.
.
If a 20 m^2 surface emits 400J of energy in 10 seconds,
then the emitted POWER is 400J / 10s = 40 J/s, or 40W.
So the POWER FLUX is 40W / 20 m^2 = 2 W/m^2.
Alternatively … the ENERGY FLUX is 400J / 20m^2 = 20 J/m^2.
So the POWER FLUX is 20 J/m^2 / 10s = 2 W/m^2 … same answer.
.
.
.
A 40 m^2 surface at the same temperature and made of the same material will emit 800J of energy in 10 seconds (something which you have conceded to).
So the emitted POWER is 800J / 10s = 80 J/s, or 80W.
So the POWER FLUX is 80W / 40 m^2 = 2 W/m^2.
Alternatively … the ENERGY FLUX is 800J / 40m^2 = 20 J/m^2.
So the POWER FLUX is 20 J/m^2 / 10s = 2 W/m^2
.
.
.
ENERGY FLUX has not changed.
POWER FLUX has not changed.
Emitted ENERGY has doubled.
Emitted POWER has doubled.
.
.
.
If you wish to challenge this again, please point out PRECISELY which part of that calculation is incorrect.
AQ,
As you say, doubling something means multiplying it by a factor of two.
Is this supposed to demonstrate how clever the average delusional,SkyDragon cultist is?
Has any of this any relevance to a GHE which you can’t even describe, or are you just trying yo appear clever?
Do you imagine that W/m2 measures temperature? Do you imagine that you can meaningfully add energy fluxes to each other, regardless of the temperature of the emitter?
If you do, you are quite mad.
Maybe if you explain what you are trying to communicate, at least I can point out precisely where you are in error.
Shouting out things like –
“ENERGY FLUX has not changed.
POWER FLUX has not changed.
Emitted ENERGY has doubled.
Emitted POWER has doubled.” Is not particularly helpful.
To the matching morons, AQ and barry buffoon,
Some witless donkey wrote –
“Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive POWER is different.”, and some other witless donkey believed it.
For the benefit of assorted dimwits, I will repeat that a surface with a temperature of 100 C can emit precisely the same W/m2 as a surface with a temperature of 0 C.
Now, shouting the word POWER, doesnt necessarily give you any.
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of power “In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time. In the International System of Units, the unit of power is the watt, . . . ” which will do. Look at your quoted nonsense, and tell everyone that you can’t see anything wrong with it, if you want to confirm your idiot status! Pay attention to the word “time”.
You idiots have no clue at all, do you?
No wonder you can’t explain the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling. You don’t have the mental capacity to understand the difference between heating and cooling.
Carry on playing with each other.
A surface of 1 metre squared emitting at 400 W/m2 is emitting a total of 400 Watts.
A surface of 2 meter squared emitting at 400 W/m2 is emitting a total of 800 Watts.
400 W/m2 = 400 Watts for every square metre.
I don’t know what is wrong with you, Clint, but you’re being exceptionally dumb here. You quoted me:
“Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive power is different.”
You are having trouble with the language, perhaps? Let’s have a look at definitions.
“Emissive power (E) of a material at a certain temperature is defined as the rate of radiation emitted through a unit area of the material.”
https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/define-emissive-power-and-coefficient-emission-class-12-physics-cbse-5f836f27ed668270c0d2ea0a
TOTAL emissive power = rate of radiation emitted over the entire area.
“Total emissive power is defined as the total amount of radiation emitted by a body per unit time.”
https://testbook.com/question-answer/the-total-emissivity-power-is-defined-as-the-total–5e4af7cef60d5d41d3cc578c
I don’t think I need instruction from you about terminology, but you definitely need a refresher.
Bumbling barry,
This is your attempt to explain why the surface cools at night, is it?
Or are you just trying to appear clever by waffling about irrelevancies?
Others can form their own views, but mine is that you can’t describe the GHE because you are a delusional SkyDragon idiot.
You can run but you can’t hide.
barry, you always get confused by things you find on the Web.
Let’s try the simplest example I can think of. Consider a simple plate, one square meter on each side. If the plate is fed 1000 Watts, say from an electric power source, it will be emitting 500 W/m^2 from each side.
It will NOT be emitting 1000 W/m^2. You do not get to add flux. You’re adding the energy, thinking you are adding flux. The plate is emitting 1000 Joules/sec. That is correct. Emitting 1000 W/m^2 is incorrect.
Understanding how to use the terminology will help to keep you from nonsense like ice cubes can boil water.
Power — Watts
Energy — Joules
Flux — Watts/area
There is nothing wrong with your calculation.
But that is not the sense in which adding of fluxes is used.
Consider turning on one hotplate and putting two saucepans on it, thus sharing the energy between the saucepans. That is what you are doing.
Now consider using two hotplates to heat one saucepan. THAT is the sense that is meant.
AQ,
Consider putting two saucepans of water on one block of ice.
Now consider using two blocks of ice to heat one saucepan of water.
All the ice is emitting 300 W/m2 (only slightly less than the “back radiation” calculated by “climate scientists”).
Now consider what any of this nonsense has to do with the mythical GHE.
You can’t, can you?
You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, obviously.
You are agreeing with me, Clint, but are either unaware or uninterested that you are.
“You’re adding the energy, thinking you are adding flux.”
Nope. I definitely added flux to get total power.
A = area = 1 square metre
You: 1000W = 500 W/m2 X 2A
Me: 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 Watts
Total emitted power is flux times area. Simple.
You’re trying to win an argument that doesn’t need winning.
Bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“You are agreeing with me, Clint, but are either unaware or uninterested that you are.”
In that case, why are you so intent on flogging a dead horse?
You have decided what the facts are, according to you. Why go on about it? Aren’t you sure of your facts?
A bit strange.
Moron Mike,
You ask –
“why are you so intent on flogging a dead horse”
Perhaps you should ask that to Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1486044
Cheers.
barry…”A surface of 1 metre squared emitting at 400 W/m2 is emitting a total of 400 Watts”.
***
400 watts of what? Potatoes, nerf balls, cows? A watt is a measure of work. What is doing the work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
Gordon
The JOULE is the unit of work (or energy).
The Watt is the unit of POWER or work/energy per unit time.
When will you learn some basic physics.
UAH Global for Apr 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropics for Apr 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
Oh dear – looks like you’ve never heard of the concept of overfitting.
AQ,
Oh dear – it looks like you believe you can read minds.
The usual delusional SkyDragon cultist practice of making an assertion, but being too clever to actually support it!
Have you explained the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling yet? Do you think you need a thicker blanket (that seems to be the current SkyDragon delusion, doesn’t it)?
Why don’t you try trolling? Maybe you could could annoy somebody, but I doubt it.
Good luck.
[laughing at inept wannabe troll]
Mike Flynn,
Overfitting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
Nothing to do with minds, be they of a cycle nut like Richard or of a moron like you.
Long live and prosper.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oh dear, it looks like you believe you can read minds, also.
Previously, you replied to a comment of mine which you claimed you didn’t read.
Do other delusional SkyDragon cultists share this mysterious power of yours, or were you just lying? Given the choice between believing that you can read minds or tell lies, I know which one I would pick, but I’ll be polite and ask you. Can you read minds?
Moron Mike,
It’s OK if you continue to be a moron.
Please, do continue to be a moron.
Moron.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oh dear, it looks like you believe you can read minds, also.
Previously, you replied to a comment of mine which you claimed you didn’t read.
Do other delusional SkyDragon cultists share this mysterious power of yours, or were you just lying? Given the choice between believing that you can read minds or tell lies, I know which one I would pick, but Ill be polite and ask you. Can you read minds?
Moron Mike,
Moron.
Bad luck to anyone who wishes to argue otherwise.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oh dear, it looks like you believe you can read minds, also.
Previously, you replied to a comment of mine which you claimed you didnt read.
Do other delusional SkyDragon cultists share this mysterious power of yours, or were you just lying? Given the choice between believing that you can read minds or tell lies, I know which one I would pick, but Ill be polite and ask you. Can you read minds?
Overfitting: “the production of an analysis that corresponds too closely or exactly to a particular set of data, and may therefore fail to fit to additional data or predict future observations reliably”
Except that I use Vaughan Pratt’s 60/50/39 triple pass (cascaded) method for the 5 year plot.
Indeed, Richard. You use his filter mindlessly.
Which means there is no mental probing behind the concept of overfitting.
Which was the point.
Are you saying that VP filter use is ‘overfitting’?
No Richard, I am saying that Moron Mike got the concept of overfitting wrong.
Why do you always keep asking questions to deflect toward your pet topic – is it the egocentrism?
See? *That* is a theory of mind!
RLH, indeed you are over-fitting, in the sense that you are fitting the noise.
We know that the signal of interest, climate change, is a long term trend over multiple decades.
We know the ENSO noise has 2-5 year correlation time.
You are allowing your SG curve fit to undulate on 3-5 year time scales, thus you are fitting the noise.
“We know that the signal of interest, climate change, is a long term trend over multiple decades.”
So long that it does not require any cyclic trend that covers 150 years or more? Like, say, 1878 to 2023?
“So long that it does not require any cyclic trend that covers 150 years or more? Like, say, 1878 to 2023?”
What does that have to do with you fitting noise on 3-5 year time scales?
Show us your 150 y cyclic trend.
Are you saying that Vaughan Pratt does not know what he is talking about?
Who is Vaughan Pratt, and where would I find his name linked to that polynomial of at least degree 8 on the graph which YOU have initialled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Pratt
and his contributions to filters (CTRM – cascaded triple running mean)
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
Oh dear – you link to bloggers.
Please link me to HIS paper. I want to read HIS words on when it is and is not appropriate to use his method.
P.S. That is for a triple, cascaded, running mean filter.
12,10,8
60,50,39
Read his contributions on Judith’s blog/thread. I would love to see your mathematical proof he is wrong.
“Vaughan Pratt (born April 12, 1944) is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, who was an early pioneer in the field of computer science. Since 1969, Pratt has made several contributions to foundational areas such as search algorithms, sorting algorithms, and primality testing. More recently, his research has focused on formal modeling of concurrent systems and Chu spaces.”
He also does triple pass, cascaded, running mean filters.
No, how about you point out where he states that his filter can be used meaningfully for extrapolation purposes.
AQ, RLH is enamored by the CTRM filters and insists that CTRMs are the best “filter” to use. One should read the Greg Goodman post on JC’s blog, including the comments (which I have not done).
But, there are other smoothing filters which perform nearly equally well, such as cosine filters. And, RLH’s CTRM’s do not use the exact ratio if each successive cascaded centered running mean, so there’s going to some “leakage”, i.e., distortion, IMHO.
One problem with smoothing filters is that the actual data for climate, such as the MSU/AMSU data, is “sampled”, (i.e., grouped) into monthly batches, which is a man made artifice based on an arbitrary division of the real 365.25 day year. One of the known forcings is the lunar month cycle of 29.53 days, which introduces aliasing into the data sampled in monthly tranches.
Another problem with data smoothers is that some of the data is the result of episodic events, such as volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions act as impulses with an exponential decay and applying smoothing to the resulting weather data spreads the impulse into dates on both sides of the filtered series, creating the visual impression that is misleading, IMHO. For example, look at the UAH LS stratospheric data for the globe and run a smoothing filter over it.
ES: Do you agree that CTRMs produce less distortions than SRMs?
For LS Global Apr 2023 see
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah_ls.jpg
RLH, As I pointed out above, your graph shows that your smoother converts the impulses from the volcanic eruptions into wider blobs. The 5 year curve gives the viewer no information about the causes of the bumps in the curve. What’s the point? Why not just use trends and be done with it?
RLH, HERE’s another way of visualizing the data. This is from the NOAA STAR v5 TLS after converting it to seasonal data. I’ve added an H7 filter, which closely follows the data, but smooths the short term peaks. The impact of the laarge volcanic eruptions is quite clear. As I noted earlier, your S-G filter leaves nothing of interest.
Darned, the file wouldn’t load. Try this instead:
https://app.box.com/s/7gnza1xap51gglofgx6y0ptvhuvdryak
“Why not just use trends and be done with it?”
So you think that an infinite bandwidth OLS trend is the ultimate choice? Do you believe that nature follows straight lines?
P.S. I can produce short term filters as well if you like. Mine is predicated on a minimum of 5 years to be well outside the yearly cycle.
“the causes of the bumps in the curve”
I make no observation about the cause of anything. Just what the major sinusoidal components are.
The individual points show the instantaneous departures such as volcanic eruptions. No possible filtering will show that.
P.S. There are no lines between those points for which you have actual data. Just lines you like to draw which show visual weight. My old stats prof would have your ears for that.
RLH wrote:
Weather is chaotic with variations which may appear sinusoidal but which aren’t strictly so. I recall decades ago of one analyst who found evidence of the lunar cycle in numerous records. ENSO is an “oscillation”, not a fixed period cycle. Sun spots also do not exhibit a regular repeating period. The Thermo-Haline Circulation may also exhibit oscillations.
I could have plotted my data as points on the graph, but those data do represent samples of continuous processes. I could have also plotted the filtered results the same way, but I was attempting to show how the filtered results match the original data without as much broadening of the filtered curve as yours when compared with the source data. You might notice that Roy connects both his data and the 13 mo centered MA with lines, so why not complain about that to him?
“Weather is chaotic with variations which may appear sinusoidal but which arent strictly so.”
Years of signal processing says that all signals, including pulse ones, can be represented by an appropriate treatment of a set of sine waves. (Think Fourier).
All natural signals are likely to be repetitive as well.
“13 mo centered MA”
A 13 month centered SMA (Simple Moving Average) has quite a lot of distortions in its output. I have mentioned this many times before, both to Roy and others. Of course you do not consider Vaughan Pratt to be in the slightest bit knowledgeable.
“All natural signals are likely to be repetitive as well.”
Evidence?
Where do you get this strange idea?
RLH wrote:
Yes, but only if the signals are cyclic. How can a Fourier analysis model a system with large, randomly timed impulses mixed with other signals which may (or may not) be periodic?
If you can reproduce the UAH or STAR Stratospheric data using only Fourier analysis, go for it.
RLH,
Aside from the improbable SG projection, the other problem with these plots is that the 5 y filtered data ends in 2017. A 5 y window ending today should be centered on 2.5 y ago, which is late 2020.
“A 5 y window ending today should be centered on 2.5 y ago, which is late 2020.”
For a single running mean filter, that would be true.
A 60/50/39 month triple, cascaded, running mean filter ends at (60+50+39)/2 months ago.
I use 5 pass, cascaded, S-G filter to fill in the gap.
P.S. A simple, single, running mean filter produces lots of distortions. Mainly due to beating a square wave sampling methodology with the continuous signal.
“A 60/50/39 month triple, cascaded, running mean filter ends at (60+50+39)/2 months ago.”
OK so 75 months ago. And your SG projections extends to today.
So we will need 75 more months (6.25 y) of data to see if your running mean matches to your SG projection.
IOW you are projecting 6.25 y into the future? And expecting that have predictive value?
When I compared the S-G projection to the full kernel VP it was quite accurate. Got any proof that I was wrong?
“you are projecting 6.25 y into the future?”
With a least square fit to the current data, just as S-G requires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
“your running mean”
“your running mean”
You mean VPs, triple, cascaded running mean.
“Savitzky and Golay’s paper is one of the most widely cited papers in the journal Analytical Chemistry and is classed by that journal as one of its ’10 seminal papers’ saying ‘it can be argued that the dawn of the computer-controlled analytical instrument can be traced to this article'”
Its a tool that can be used wisely or not.
“improbable SG projection”
So you produce what you think is a reasonable 5 year S-G projection then and lets see how it differs. Remember to use a least square fitting algorithm as S-G does.
Stop the data earlier, say thru 2012. See how the projection then compares to what actually occurred, ie the actual 5 year smoothed data.
I think I have said elsewhere that the projections using S-G are variable in their accuracy. If the new data is consistently high or low compared to the central line then the actual outcome will be different. Like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf is how I characterized it I think.
See how these 2 graphs compare.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah_lt.jpg
“Like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf is how I characterized it I think.”
Exactly, a caterpillar exploring noisy data. Not useful for predicting the trend.
We already have a neutral period baked in, and El Nino forming. Thus your downward headed caterpillar is misleading you.
In essence, your projection is assuming a historically oscillatory noise process, which repeatedly crosses the mean long term trendline, now switches to a non-oscillatory process, no longer returning to the mean trend.
If I had money on this 6 year projection, I would bet on the noise continuing to be oscillatory, and the mean historical trend line continuing.
As usual, Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ presents 60/50/39 CRTM and S-G outputs which both do not fit what is usual.
*
1. Like all centred running means, a centred 60/50/39 CTRM starts 30 units after the time series’ begin, and correspondingly ends 30 units before its end.
The numbers ’60/50/39′ above are due to Vaughan Pratt’s cascade sequence computation for the best possible 3-phase running mean:
1.0 1.2067 1.5478
Pratt also found best possible sequences for cascade running means with more phases.
*
2. Blindsley H00d’s Savitzky-Golay (S-G) output might be the output of a Savitzky-Golay filter, but it is NEVER and NEVER a 60 month output with a 30 month half-window on each side (caution: S-G has also a running window but unlike running means, it starts its filtering output at data begin and ends it at data end).
*
This is how I learned to use CTRM and S-G:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H-ee2ASeq4GNCKNRVoZu6T6zIBvCu3OS/view
“Like all centred running means, a centred 60/50/39 CTRM starts 30 units after the time series begin, and correspondingly ends 30 units before its end.”
As usual Blinny is completely wrong. Only a SRM starts and ends at 30 months from the ends. A CTRM like VPs of 60/50/39 starts and ends at (60+50+39)/2 months from the ends (just as mine do).
“Savitzky-Golay (S-G) output might be the output of a Savitzky-Golay filter”
It is. But just like VP, I use a cascaded version of it in 5 stages in order to bring it into line with a correspondingly windowed CTRM. (A simple 1 pass S-G leaks way too much high frequency signals as can be seen in Blinny’s graph).
Blinny for all his bluster cannot produce any output (along with the methods) that differs at all from mine.
From NASA Zhharkova’s lovers to Bindidork
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/blogs/15562-solar-activity-and-next-maunder-minimum.html
Hmm, that old NASA prediction seems fairly. It seems it predicting peak at beginning of 2024. And I think it will be 6 months earlier.
It says curve goes as high as just under 260 sunspots.
I think it will under that curve peak. I guessing about 180.
Or Jan was 143.6 and it will about 40 to 50 more than that.
So, both June and July will be +160 and one of them could be as high as about 190.
And NASA for Jan predicted about 220, about 80 higher than 143.6- of course, Jan was highest, and take Dec thru April it’s about 120.
Re:
Solar activity may peak 1 year earlier than thought. Here is what it means for us
By Tereza Pultarova published 25 days ago
https://www.space.com/sun-solar-maximum-may-arrive-early
“The sun may reach the peak of its current activity cycle in 2024, one year ahead of official predictions, new research suggests.”
And:
“A team of researchers who had previously released an alternative solar cycle prediction that turned out to be more accurate than official forecasts by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently published improved estimates of the current solar cycle’s strength and progress.
The team’s finalized forecast for the current cycle expects it to peak in late 2024, one year earlier than NASA and NOAA had predicted.”
First one {above} peaked in beginning of 2024 perhaps “NASA and NOAA” later “improved it”. And:
“The cycle, the team thinks, will reach about 185 monthly sunspots during its maximum and thus be somewhat milder than what the team originally forecasted.”
Other than being about year later than my guess, I agree, roughly.
But it seems either of them- would be a fairly weak Max cycle 25, but I guessing, it will be much weaker.
“Hmm, that old NASA prediction seems fairly ….”
Fairly WHAT?
Good.
Considering how early NASA gave it.
It seems to me, it’s unlikely I will guess what sun going to do in next 6 months, but I trying have some degree of faith.
But for me, it’s more about the topic of space exploration than any effect upon our icehouse global climate- and in near term I am hopeful the Parker Solar Probe will survive it.
For many years, I have thought the Sun is one of most important body to focus on in terms of space exploration.
“The Maunder Minimum’ is the name given to the period from 1645 to 1715 when the number of sunspots storms’ on the sun became almost zero.
The period is named after the solar astronomer Edward Walter Maunder (1851-1928), who was working at The Royal Observatory at Greenwich when he discovered the dearth of sunspots during this period”.
***
I have seen this claim a couple of times. How did Maunder manage to ‘discover’ the dearth of sunspots between 1645 and 1715 when he was not born till 1815? I presume someone else made the observations and Maunder discovered it later.
There were two peaks of coldness in the Little Ice Age and I am trying piece together how they relate to these minima. The Dalton minima was the period 1790 – 1830 and there is evidence from the Scottish Highlands that a famine occurred in the 1790s due to an inability to grow crops due to the cold weather. One year during the Dalton minimum is referred to the the year with no summer.
We are likely due for another minimum and I think it is far wiser to prepare for such an event rather than waste time preparing a defense against a non-existent climate change.
The year without a summer was due to the eruption of Tambora, not due to solar activity.
Gordo, the effects of Tambora were added to another eruption just before. The Little Ice Age included some relatively large eruptions, perhaps with greater frequency than during recent history. The eruption of Kuwae (~1452-54) produced a very large sulfate spike in ice core data and massive social disruptions were reported to follow.
More recently, the largest eruption in the 20th century was Katmai on the Alaska Peninsula which blew in 1912.
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/katmai
https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-alaskas-great-eruption-1912-explained-centennial-reports
If you want to worry about a return to another Little Ice Age, consider that there have been some really really big volcanic events in the Western Pacific region. Another Year Without Summer would seriously stress the global food supply for a couple of years. And now the population of India is larger than China.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Hmm, that old NASA prediction seems fairly .”
Fairly WHAT?”
Actually, he wrote “Hmm, that old NASA prediction seems fairly.”
If you can’t even quote him correctly, what mental defect leads you to believe he would deign to answer your idiotic SHOUTED gotcha?
You are an idiot.
ENSO anomalies for week ending May 13
1.2 … +2.4
3 ….. +0.9
3.4 … +0.5
4 ….. +0.2
Last 7 days
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
How about properly reading the title.
It says anomaly CHANGE.
It is the CHANGE in the anomaly over the previous 7 day period.
Here are their actual anomalies:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
“It is the CHANGE in the anomaly over the previous 7 day period.”
Agreed. It was getting colder, overall.
Oh really? So why does their own ENSO 3.4 graph look like this:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Are you suggesting we won’t get an El Nino?
In the last week the 30 day SOI has dropped from -1 to -6, and the 90 day SOI has also now dropped into the negatives.
Are you suggesting that the image I posted is wrong in its data?
“Oh really?”
Are you suggesting that there is more red than blue?
In ENSO 3.4, most definitely.
Are you suggesting that the graph I posted is wrong in its data?
As has been pointed out continuously, the world is somewhat bigger than ENSO 3.4.
Where have I referred to the world in this thread?
All I was doing was posting an update on ENSO. I was not making any comment or implication about global climate. How about not looking for a fight where there is none.
ENSO does not stand alone. It is fed my many things that extend beyond its boarders.
Like ENSO is determined by what happens off the South American coasts where blue is the predominant color https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png.
A 7 day change is primarily noise on a an ENSO process that has persistence time scale of 6 months or more …nothing to get excited about.
Globally, no change in last 7 days.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
1 degree drop since April 11th
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrglob.png
More of nothing to get excited about..
Change in last 7 days (better?)
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
Still growing colder overall, the feeding grounds for ENSO even more so.
Coolistas look at noise and see cooling.
Warmistas claim that trends since the 1900s mean that further warming in the future is inevitable.
Make that OLS trends.
“Warmistas claim that trends since the 1900s mean that further warming in the future is inevitable.”
Wrong. Totally wrong.
Check out what I said to you 9 months ago.
“But none of the regulars here say that. We tell you the opposite.
Which Nate has pointed out above, I’ve reconfirmed, and Bindidon has called you a liar.
Even after you have been told this many times, you do exactly what I predicted a few hours ago.
“But don’t worry, in a couple of days you’ll be complaining about people predicting the future from regression lines. Again.”
And like clockwork, you did.
I’ll predict something else. You will, once again, fail to provide any quote from anyone here supporting your demented notion that anyone here predicts future temps from linear regressions of observations.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1350016
You’re like a robot that can’t be reprogrammed. Pull the string and you just keep repeating the same nonsense that you’ve been told is nonsense.
What will it take to rid you of this false notion, RLH?
“Warmistas claim that trends since the 1900s ”
are actually relevant to the topic of Climate Change, YES.
Do you really not understand that 1 week variation in regional sea surface temperature is weather, and not CLIMATE relevant?
‘Warmistas claim that trends since the 1900s mean that further warming in the future is inevitable.’
This totally misrepresents what is being done by Climate Science as simply extrapolation of past behavior.
On the contrary, what Climate science is actually doing is using verified atmospheric physics, and climate modeling based on that and tested against historical data, to predict further warming in the near future.
Earlier some moron wrote:
> Pay attention to the word time.
Does that moron know what is a Watt?
Since that moron does not know how to copy-paste links, allow me to help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
Is that too hard for Sky Dragon cranks to get?
Diddums!
“Pay attention to the word time”
Where did s/he say it?
Not far from here.
Not on this page.
Indeed on this page.
The phrase “Pay attention to the word time” occurs just twice on this page (both of them in the above).
The sentence “Richard still ignores how Roys parser works” is true.
> Pay attention to the word time.
Looks like you are quoting something that has not been said on this page.
Looks like Richard still ignores how *Roys* parser works.
Roy’s parser does not alter the simple words in a sentence. Please give a reference to where that quote came from.
Richard has yet to discover that he can search for strings like “Pay attention to the word.”
I looked for that string (and its subsets) already
Please give a reference inn this page to where that quote came from.
I am sure you can find it, Richard.
Just like I just found your 2023-08 exchange with Barry.
As expected, barry and Ant cannot understand the simple example. I’ll try one more.
barry’s statement is what this is all about: “Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive power is different.”
He is comparing energy, believing he is comparing fluxes. The two different areas will both be emitting the same W/m^2. But there is NO flux other than that.
To understand, let’s use temperature, instead of flux. Both areas will have the same temperature. There is not a different temperature even though the two different size plates are emitting different energy.
For clarity, barry’s statement should read: Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive energy is different. (The emissive power, radiative flux, is the same for both areas.)
A = area = 1 square metre
You: 1000W = 500 W/m2 X 2A
Me: 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 Watts
This should have made moot any quibble on terminology. Man, you are desperate for a win.
For clarity, barry’s statement should read: Two areas of different sizes emitting the same W/m2 will have the same surface temperature while the total emissive energy is different. (The emissive power, radiative flux, is the same for both areas.)
“Emissive power (E) of a material at a certain temperature is defined as the rate of radiation emitted through a unit area of the material.”
https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/define-emissive-power-and-coefficient-emission-class-12-physics-cbse-5f836f27ed668270c0d2ea0a
TOTAL emissive power = rate of radiation emitted over the entire area.
“Total emissive power is defined as the total amount of radiation emitted by a body per unit time.”
https://testbook.com/question-answer/the-total-emissivity-power-is-defined-as-the-total5e4af7cef60d5d41d3cc578c
These were literally the first hits when I googled the terms. See:
https://i.imgur.com/KLtBXzK.png
Because terminology is variable in the sciences, the same phrase also includes per unit area depending on which source you check.
But this quibble should have ended with these simple equations.
A = area = 1 square metre
You: 1000W = 500 W/m2 X 2A
Me: 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 Watts
We’re saying the same thing.
Wrong barry. We’re NOT saying the same thing.
You keep confusing “energy” with “power” and “flux”. You can’t learn because you keep finding sources on the Internet you don’t understand. And, you will keep doing that for days, if not weeks. So I have to end this nonsense here.
Someone has to be the adult in the room.
You realize we’re using different terms to say the same thing, right?
A = area = 1 square metre
You: 1000W = 500 W/m2 X 2A
Me: 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 Watts
If you can point out anything wrong with the above then you have a salient point.
barry, please stop trolling.
As expected Pup is squirming.
Let me try a very simple riddle –
How do we call an object with an emissivity of 1?
I bet he will not respond.
Too busy trolling, mayhaps.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Roy, don’t know if you have seen this video which appeared on Facebook today. Do you see anything like this in your readings? I guess the seasons might mask it…
https://youtu.be/BuTQptKN5vM
Do you understand the timescale for such a change?
Even at the fastest rate of decline we are talking of a drop of less than 0.05C per century into the glacial period.
And we are heading in the opposite direction.
Timescale??? Proof that you re indeed living on another planet. He is talking now.
And no, we are not moving in another direction, we’ve had insignificant warming the past 25 years.
Average UAH for 2nd half of 90s: -0.03
Average UAH for 2020s so far with 3 La Nina years: +0.21
I guess you must also be calling Dr Spencer a liar.
Which years contain significant El Nino?
Why, the 2nd half of the 90s of course!
Which is why that gap is not representative of climate change.
Finally you understand why another strong El Nino is required to unbias that comparison.
Where do you get the concepts that El Nino and La Nina equally cancel one another?
Perhaps you’d care to suggest where I said or implied that.
“Finally you understand why another strong El Nino is required”
Now EXPLAIN how that implies that “El Nino and La Nina EQUALLY cancel one another”.
“Where do you get the concepts that El Nino and La Nina equally cancel one another?”
The Nino 3.4 over 10 year periods cancels (averages) to 0 with standard deviation 0.16.
The Nino 3.4 over 20 year periods cancels (averages) to 0 with standard deviation 0.07.
https://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/ONI_NINO34_1854-2023.txt
Confirms my view that the IPCC are serious liars and cheaters. Of course, aq and other idiots support their lies.
Yes – it’s called confirmation bias.
Wiki: Solar cycle 25
“Solar cycle 25 is the current solar cycle, the 25th since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It began in December 2019 with a minimum smoothed sunspot number of 1.8. It is expected to continue until about 2030.”
Lower in page:
“To calculate the 13-month smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, which is commonly used to calculate the minima and maxima of solar cycles, a tapered-boxcar smoothing function is used. For a given month m m, with a monthly sunspot number of R m R_m, the smoothed monthly mean R s R_s can be expressed as”
[It might last until about 2030, but well before 2030 we “could” upset this particular metric and/or we decide/agree on some other metric. Or it might far longer then 2030- wild guess about 2035.]
Let’s back up and look at Wiki, cycle 24:
“It reached its maximum in April 2014 with a 23 months smoothed sunspot number of 81.8. This maximum value was substantially lower than other recent solar cycles, down to a level which had not been seen since cycles 12 to 15 (1878-1923).”
Not sure why picked 23 months smoothed [likewise clueless of 13 month
smoothed, either. But we going with. And back wiki cycle 25:
Zharkova, V. : “65 (80% of cycle 24)”
October 2014
81.8 times 80% = 65.44
Upton, L.A. and Hathaway, D.H: 78 (95% of cycle 24)
December 2018
81.8 times 95% = 77.71
Xu, J.C. et al: “168.5 +/- 16.3” [152.2 to 184.8]
and peaks I guess: “(2024)”
August 2018
I am not sure using the 23 month smoothed as other two- but it seems
very unlikely. And other two didn’t say the peak. Next 3 give same
way:
Bhowmik, P. and Nandy, D: 124 15 (20232025)
December 2018
Ozguc, A. et al.:’ 154 12 (2023.21.1)
December 2018
NOAA / SSRC: 117 23 (20232026)
April 2019
And next one goes back top two format:
NASA: 70 29 (3050% lower than Cycle 24 (2025)) but includes peak
June 2019
Then back to other format:
NOAA / SSRC (update): 115 10 (July 2025)
April 2019
Well that posted it didn’t +/- symbols {leaves a blank/ignore-
so look at wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25
To quote more from that:
Predictions
Widely varying predictions regarding the strength of cycle 25 ranged from very weak with suggestions of slow slide in to a Maunder minimum like state to a weak cycle similar to previous cycle 24 and even a strong cycle.[8][9][10] Upton and Hathaway predicted that the weakness of cycle 25 would make it part of the Modern Gleissberg Minimum.”
The strong is what copied above:
Xu, J.C. et al: 168.5 +/- 16.3 [152.2 to 184.8]
And it’s not really stronger than I guessing with a month of 190 spots in a couple month [unless what is meant average of a lot of months but as said unlikely mean 23 month average during peak.
So, none of these prediction are “wrong”, unless you think we have past the peak of solar cycle 25 Max.
But I believe in about 3-4 months, most could be wrong.
But just my guess.
There are some who say this peak was already the maximum
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqYpjr7T/Clipboard01.jpg
Well, I say it will be in about a month or two.
And now or in couple months is not a significant or
even “measurable difference”.
As we counting one side of sun and we don’t even see the polar regions.
Duration of being above say, 100 sunspots per month is more significant- such as 6 months of it, vs 1 year or more than 2 years.
So, we had 5 months of +100 sunspot. If we had just 6 months of it,
it could be well below all guesses.
Or lowest seems to be:
Bhowmik, P. and Nandy: 124 +/- 15 and peaking somewhere in 2023 to 2025.
Which I could call very vague, but allows very low solar activity and
also allows for just a low solar activity- which everyone else is
predicting.
Or May doesn’t pick up, it could a lot lower than that lowest prediction.
Of course if expecting double peak, like 24, even if highest month in the second peak is 120 sunspot a month, that more solar activity then I expect.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
15 May – 10 June 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate throughout the
outlook period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 23 May-02 Jun, with normal to
moderate levels expected for the remainder of the period.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
They are saying.
I thought [and said] they were wrong, but I am just guessing {as a sport}.
So March had 122 sunspots, and May will be less, as will June, July, and etc.
And April was 96 sunspot and May could equal exceed this, as could June, July, but Aug and later, it will not exceed April?
{nor will the rest of Solar Max?}
I was expecting large sunspots to coming from farside, but today [or yesterday] so far, it’s not happening.
I give it, 2 more days.
There is large spot coming from farside side so sunspot number which
106, will be going up in next 24 hours. But spots don’t seem to growing, and 3307 which were small, are remaining same and likely fade.
Solar wind
speed: 412.4 km/sec
density: 2.99 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 134 sfu
Updated 17 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.54×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.2% Below Average
Quite low activity for something close to it’s solar max.
See what happens tomorrow.
Solar wind
speed: 462.9 km/sec
density: 3.99 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Updated 18 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.6% Below Average
48-hr change: +1.3%
So, 3310 arrived from farside and numbered.
3307 might not fade {it grow, and whether equatorial
sunspots grow, is something I am interested in}. Also
got moderate size coronal hole near equator- another kind
of thing that pay attention- and Neutron count is -0.6%.
I was imagining May would becoming more active- and doesn’t
seem to be, though old spots may return and keep May sunspot
numbers, going sideways.
Anyways, even if June and July were to be quite active, it would not change anything in terms being in a Solar Grand Minimum.
What make slight difference, is having 1 year or more of sunspots
numbers and high solar activity for +1 year- which not many are predicting, nor am, I guessing. Or that would prove some predictions
wrong. Some prediction have been revised, and all “remain correct” so far.
My brass guess, can be disproven, but 2 days wasn’t enough to convince me. But I am getting more doubts about it.
Anyhow, Parker Solar Probe will be a perihelion, in 29 days and the Sun should/could be less active than last time it was at perihelion.
Goodbye Solar Snooze Big Flares are Back | Space Weather News 18 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSQYjH6D_YA
She says the big sunspots are coming back and 10.7 cm flux could
be 170 [or more] in 4 to 5 days.
If it was 190 [or more] it would give me more hope about my June/July guess, but 170 [or less] not so much.
I am still listening to it.
Solar wind
speed: 601.0 km/sec
density: 0.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 155
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Updated 20 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.63×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.5% Below Average
Lot’s spots came from farside, though lots
of spots will leave to farside, though more
could come from farside.
3307 number has faded
3310 looks big, but 3311 suppose to X-flare spot.
Solar wind
speed: 568.0 km/sec
density: 1.49 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 97
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 162 sfu
Updated 23 May 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.02×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.3% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.1%
Spots aren’t coming from farside
Rather then June and July getting more active and the possibly Thermosphere warmer than Jan, I will guess 21.02×10^10 W is roughly
as warm as it gets and Neutron Counts probably won’t get much lower than -3%. Sunspots will linger, but not grow much.
June will be sideway, July could fall off a lot.
Jan will be the peak of solar activity for solar Max 25
So, in terms of what is important Solar Max 25 didn’t provide enough solar activity to give low GRC levels for Mars crew mission, next couple decades will only be high GRC levels for crewed Mars.
But we could still do Mars crew just have lower GRC levels that crew would get. Such as traveling faster to Mars, a lot more rad sheilding
and maybe using Venus to get to Mars and get back from Mars.
This has little effect upon cargo, and cargo to Mars would most costs of crewed Mars mission.
The problem is potential public perception or political problems which could delay Mars exploration.
aq and others (like barry)…”Power is just energy per unit time.
The JOULE is the unit of work (or energy).
The Watt is the unit of POWER or work/energy per unit time”.
Insults omitted.
***
I predict that most people reading this will drift off after the first few sentence or rush off a reply without taking the time to digest what is said.
You claim that power is just energy per unit time but what does that mean?
Work = force x distance, or
w = fd = fs
Distance is normally written as, s….
Which is the average work done over a distance. If I want to know the instantaneous work being done I can write it as…
dw/dt = f.ds/dt = f.v, since v = ds/dt
This is the definition of power, therefore power is the first derivative of work, based on the equation w = fd. It means that power is the rate of doing work. Also, the velocity with which the work is done determines the level of work done.
What does it mean, especially related to fluxes of EM?
Work = force x distance was initially developed for mechanical energy, an energy that can be easily observed. That is not true for EM, an energy that can’t be seen in operation nor can it be measured directly.
Remember, energy cannot be measured directly, only its effect on something.
The horsepower was defined by James Watt as he witnessed horses doing work by lifting so much weight in a certain time period. Hence the name horsepower. Later, the watt, named after Jimmy, was defined as something like 1/746 HP.
Get my drift? Power and work were defined to measure actual physical processes that we can observe easily. However, as time went by and energy like electrical energy were developed, we needed a way to measure how much work could be done by electrical power. In other words, how did the work done by an electric motor rank against the same work done by a horse?
Again, this effect of energy can be measured.
When we talk about a 100 watt light bulb, we are talking essentially about how much work it would take using a horse to generate the same amount of power. The power of the bulb is based on the electrical power consumed, not on the actual EM output.
Let’s go back to EM. You talk about the amount of power generated by EM on a surface of a certain area. I think you may have said 40 watts, it doesn’t matter. By what standard is this power being measured? Since you have defined power as work per unit time, where is the work that is being done?
The truth is, EM is not capable of doing work in its state as electromagnetic energy. It certainly has the potential to initiate work, but it cannot do work as EM. How are you measuring power if it can do no work in real time?
There are those who confuse heat with EM. However, heat involves the motion of tiny masses called atoms which can do work. It takes work (electrostatic forces over a distance) to move them and as they vibrate they are doing work. Therefore, there is a legitimacy in claiming heat can be measured in watts, provided it is understood that the watt is only a work-equivalent measure of heat.
However, EM cannot be measured in watts, it only possesses the potential to do work. As long as EM drifts in space it is doing nothing.
Speaking of all this in terms of flux is meaningless. Flux is a reference to the ‘instantaneous’ rate of change of an EM field per unit area. It is not about the area of the surface from which it is emitted, flux is about the number of lines of it passing through an area in space, where the number of lines per unit area is a measure of field strength, not power.
For a more cogent discussion of these ideas, I suggest the famous Feynmann Lectures On Physics, chapter 4
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
There is definitely some overlap. For example, Feynmann says “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” This is in line with Gordon’s “Remember, energy cannot be measured directly, only its effect on something.”
What Gordon seems to miss is the grand, abstract idea of conservation of energy. Even though we don’t know what energy *is* and we can only know of it through its effects, we DO know that energy is conserved. There has never been an experiment that violates conservation of energy.
So for that lightbulb, we know that if 100 J of energy goes in in the form of electricity, then that 100 J of energy must go somewhere (or conclude that conservation of energy is wrong!). If the filament is hot and a steady temperature, then 100 J of energy must go out. The photons DO have energy. The rate photons leave the filament CAN be measured in watts (power). The rate photons pass thru a surface CAN be measured in W/m^2 (flux).
Gordon,
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux (or sometimes power flux density[1]), is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2”
I don’t see the problem with all of us agreeing on this standard and applying it in our discussions.
As I said way above, “It doesnt help that the meaning of technical terms are not so cut and dried as wed hope. Between countries, even between states and universities, physical terms are interchanged. And it gets more complicated when referring to terminology use across time. A familiar example here is that Clausius refers to heat being exchanged between hot and cold and cold bodies, when what he clearly means is radiation.
So I guess we would do well to unpack what we mean better and be less hasty.”
What would also be good is good-faith conversation instead of the entrenched point-scoring, but that usually seems to be beyond us. I had a good exchange with DREMT on last month’s thread, but nothing better for months prior and after.
barry, to pontificate about *good-faith conversation* with your history of trolling is ludicrous.
You need to clean up your act before you start preaching. You sound like Norman.
Clint, you realize that you’ve just trolled me here? You’ve added not one thing to the ongoing conversation, just ad hom. Heal thyself.
My comment was NOT trolling, barry. It was reality.
You have to take responsibility for your behavior here.
Your trolling is real, Pup.
It might be the realest thing you ever did.
Realer than your results of the Shower Experiment, that’s for sure.
Thanks for the confirmation I was on target, Pup.
barry…”It doesnt help that the meaning of technical terms are not so cut and dried as wed hope”.
***
I want to be clear that I am not trying to nit-pick by focusing on trivia. I am not even beefing about someone using w/m^2 as a measure of EM. The thrust of my intention is to caution about the use of terms that can be misleading as far as a deeper insight is concerned.
If you trace the use of the watt back to mechanical energy, you can demonstrate it by relating it to horsepower. Horsepower came from actually measuring the power of a horse lifting a weight. The amount of weight it can move per second is an actual measure of power. The power required to move 550 pounds by 1 foot in 1 second is a horsepower.
However, when we convert that to watts, where there are 746 watts in 1 HP. how do we apply that to something as intangible as EM? The scientist Joule managed to relate the work required to raise the temperature of water to the heat required in calories, forming an equivalence between heat and work.
That’s what much of the work of Clausius entailed, an examination of the equivalence between heat and work. He contributed the unit of internal energy to the 1st law, which is solely about heat and work. Clausius defined internal energy as partly internal work and internal heat. I accept that, not because he is Clausius, but due to the sense it makes to me.
EM is a different animal altogether and I think we need to be mighty careful when making claims about it. I don’t speak out of turn here, I have worked with EM much of my life.
I have no doubt about its ability to transfer energy from the Sun. It’s remarkable to me that heat in the Sun can be converted to EM, which has no apparent properties in common with heat, and then be converted back to heat at the Earth.
I’ll stop there for a second. I am not about to proselytize because I am not religious. However, does it not sometimes come across to you as quite remarkable that such a conversion is possible in the universe? I am not trying to piss anyone off by making such a claim, I am only trying to get people to look. Heat cannot be transferred through the vacuum of space as energy.
To me, it’s a little too cute that such relationships exist. Newton had no doubt about the cause and he was a brilliant scientist.
Think about it. Every form of matter consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. All light in the universe, as well as heat, depends on those little critters one way or another, yet they have the ability to produce not only heat and light, but to convert it back and forth between energy types in order to transport that light/heat over vast distances.
The thing about EM is it has no mass. Yet we insist on treating it as if it has mass by giving it momentum. We can’t help ourselves, we treat something with no mass as a particle and treat a particle like an electron as if it has no mass.
We humans are truly pathetic, despite the fact we were granted the ability to be intelligent. Whoever created the species had the last laugh by giving us intelligence and then crippling us by giving us a mind with the ego to bypass the intelligence.
I don’t delude myself into thinking I am intelligent, I only have the awareness to realize intelligence is there and I can be in touch with it, if I get my damned ego out of the way and look.
That’s all I am on about, I have a lot of questions and I refuse to accept answers that are plainly dumb. I don’t care about the source. I have enough experience at the university level to realize there are questions for which there are no apparent answers, and only highly trained and experienced people have gained the insight to those answers. That makes it difficult because we are forced to take their word for the answers.
I’ll jut go on asking dumb questions and making dumb statements as long as no one can offer sensible answers and prove me an idiot. A few people on this blog call me an idiot but no one has proved it yet to my satisfaction. When my g/f calls me an idiot, and its apparent, I laugh about it.
Science is frustrating much of the time and we all tend to hit out when frustrated. I have no problem being called an idiot, or ad hommed. Like you, I’d prefer an intelligent discussion.
Gordon: However, EM cannot be measured in watts…
Gordon: I don’t speak out of turn here, I have worked with EM much of my life.
Anyone that has had even a basic introduction to EM has used a Bird Wattmeter.
https://birdrf.com/Products/Test%20and%20Measurement/RF-Power-Meters/Wattmeters-Line-Sections/RF-Wattmeters.aspx
Gordon,
“The thing about EM is it has no mass. Yet we insist on treating it as if it has mass by giving it momentum. We cant help ourselves, we treat something with no mass as a particle and treat a particle like an electron as if it has no mass.”
Sorry Gordon, but we don’t “give” EM momentum, it’s a measured phenomenom.
Look up Compton scattering and try and bring your understanding of science into the 20th century.
A photons momentum is given by Planck’s constant divided by the wavelength.
bob, please stop trolling.
swannie…”One problem with smoothing filters is that the actual data for climate, such as the MSU/AMSU data, is sampled, (i.e., grouped) into monthly batches, which is a man made artifice based on an arbitrary division of the real 365.25 day year. One of the known forcings is the lunar month cycle of 29.53 days, which introduces aliasing into the data sampled in monthly tranches”.
***
Swannie…you should be a comedian. Now the UAH data is sampled. First you claimed it was all collected from a 4 km altitude, now you claim it is sampled, like a Gallop poll. Of course, you insist that heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
You completely overlook the fact that UAH data comes from satellite instruments that fly regularly around the planet collecting real-time temperature data. I fail to see how grouping the data into daily, then monthly groupings, affect the actual data collected.
Binny takes it one step farther. He claims UAH has abandoned the satellite telemetry and now uses only an equation to calculate surface temperatures. Has the paranoia of you alarmists no bounds?
Remember, the data as presented in the graph at the top of the page is averaged, and Roy has been good enough to smooth it using the red curve representing a 13 month running average. Thus, we can see at a glimpse how the atmospheric temperature at the surface is represented.
BTW…all temperature data is averaged, the surface record being based on two thermometer readings per day. The sat telemetry scans bazillions of data points per sweep of the AMSU antenna and covers 95% of the surface. Obviously, the receiving antenna and the processing amplifier works on averages as well. However, they are averaging an EM signal, not temperatures.
The sat data compares well with radiosonde data and it is representative of what I am experiencing in my part of the world. Based on my experience, I have no problem with the UAH claim that it has warmed ***on average*** about 0.13C/decade, even though it has barely warmed 0.2C the past 25+ years. All of that warming came with the 2016 super El Nino.
Looks like Gordo has no clue about “sampled data systems”. Those “bazillions of data points per sweep of the AMSU antenna” are captured and then those data are sampled every calendar month. Trouble is, there are different numbers of days in each “month”, each being one of our human devised aperiodic series of days. For a proper sampled data series, the time between each sample is a constant, which does not fit our monthly based time series. Months with more hours of collection (i.e., 31 days) will contain more data points than months with fewer hours (i.e., 30 or 28 days).
I hope you’ve been out and about enjoying the reported record high temperatures these past few days. Don’t worry, it’s just weather.
Where do you get the nutty notion that the data is collected for a month then sampled? This is not quality control for a battery company where they sample lots randomly to get an idea of the failure rate.
You sure have some strange ideas.
“He claims UAH has abandoned the satellite telemetry and now uses only an equation to calculate surface temperatures.”
I’m not sure how he reconciles that NOAA/STAR uses the same equations with different values.
Here you can see what a stupid perverted liar this ignoramus Robertson is:
” Binny takes it one step farther. He claims UAH has abandoned the satellite telemetry and now uses only an equation to calculate surface temperatures. Has the paranoia of you alarmists no bounds? ”
What a lie!
I did nothing else than confirm what Roy Spencer wrote in 2015, by showing on this blog a comparison of UAH6.0 LT data to a weighting of the UAH6.0 data for the atmospheric layers above LT, according to the formula given by Spencer himself:
UAH LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
And as I have shown upthread, the comparison between LT data and the weighting is valid not only for the Globe as a whole but for any part of it as well.
Each of the values in your equation, MT, TP, and LS are averaged and measured values which are measured by 3 channels on the AMSU units.
Come on, Binny, admit it, you are in a home for grumpy old men and you’re angry because they won’t let you out.
“UAH LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS”
Similar to NOAA/STAR but with different values. I suppose they are wrong also.
RSS does this too
“The TLT product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere extending from the surface of the Earth to an altitude of about 7000 meters.”
RLH, Both UAH and NOAA STAR use similar assumptions and calculations to create their equations. Those calculations must use some model of the lapse rate of the atmosphere, such as the US Standard Atmosphere. That model assumes a fixed lapse rate and a range of pressure heights for the tropopause, all of which happens to fit average mid-latitude NH conditions, AIUI. There’s no guarantee that these equations will give an appropriate fit for latitudes with tropical or polar seasonal conditions.
So are you saying that NOAA are wrong?
“That model assumes a fixed lapse rate”
That differs quite considerably in day and night.
https://geo.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/7343/Screen_Shot_2020-04-01_at_2.00.16_PM.png?revision=1&size=bestfit&width=641&height=457
from
https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Meteorology_and_Climate_Science/Practical_Meteorology_%28Stull%29/18%3A_Atmospheric_Boundary_Layer/18.02%3A_Section_3-
RLH, Please do tell us exactly how you think the UAH LT and NOAA STAR TLT weighting values are created. Your graphs are for some idealized set of conditions which is a completely different ball game.
My graphs are just visualizations of the data published by various sources.
ES: Please do explain why you think that RSS and its methods is preferable to both STAR and UAH?
RLH
No, they are not ‘just’ that.
You extrapolate that data using a method cherry picked to create an impending fall in temperatures.
Some more stupidity:
” The sat data compares well with radiosonde data and it is representative of what I am experiencing in my part of the world. ”
Yeah. Especially does Robertson experience at the surface what happens 4 km above!
*
Let us show him to what radiosonde data indeed well compares: not only with UAH’s LT but also… above and… below.
1. UAH 6.0 lower troposphere versus RATPAC-B radiosondes at 500 hPa
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
2. UAH 6.0 lower stratosphere versus RATPAC-B radiosondes at 100 hPa
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dx3Hf5LaTy-b2Qw9aboydfwPqCfcdgIs/view
3. GISS land versus RATPAC-B radiosondes at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfHL6QmRVxS-W8y2OjREIsx3jfnTz0YV/view
*
It is evident that the dumb liar Robertson will tell you that these are all faked graphs I made out of fudged data (except that of UAH of course).
Sources
RATPAC-B radiosondes
https://tinyurl.com/53cr73xe
UAH6.0 (all 4 layers)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
Land surface
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/
binny…”Especially does Robertson experience at the surface what happens 4 km above!”
***
Binny fails to grasp that we have a linear lapse rate between the surface and well above 4 km. Also, that channel 5 on an AMSU unit can easily measure to the surface.
Maybe, one day when he has the time, Roy will clarify this for us. Until then, I’ll leave you with your dumb idea that UAH has discarded the use of instruments and calculates the monthly temperatures using an equation with imaginary data.
Gordo, that equation is Roy and John’s equation used to produce the LT. The LT is not measured data, never has been since the first version appeared in 1992.
Then explain where the get the variables MT, TP, and LS. Do you think they make them up, or draw them out of a hat?
Gordo, So, as has been explained to you numerous times, the UAH (and the new NOAA STAR) are calculated from their versions of the MT, TP and LS time series. Those data series are also the result of numerous assumptions and “corrections”, for better or worse. They are no longer just “measured” data beamed down from orbit. On top of that, the equations for the LT and TLT are the results of complex calculations based on theoretical physics along with further assumptions.
RSS does things that are similar with similar results.
RLH, Come on, guy, get real!! RSS does not combine data from three channels. Their processing is in no way “similar”, though the goal may be.
Are you saying that NOAA got things wrong?
RLH,
The right/wrong binary view is childish. These are all estimates, all with obstacles to overcome that are not simple.
So NOAA/Star is wrong that also?
RSS does this too
The TLT product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere extending from the surface of the Earth to an altitude of about 7000 meters.
RLH, RSS uses the data from individual swaths to directly calculate the data which is binned into a grid, resulting in their TLT. That calculation is based on a version of the same theoretical physics as the others. Of course, RSS still needs to make the other adjustments for orbital problems and warm targets, etc.
“The TLT product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere”
Are you saying that NOAA
“The TLT product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere”
Are you saying that NOAA got it wrong?
RLH,
If you are asking right/wrong questions about products that are estimates with uncertainty built-in, then you’re not understanding the topic.
IOW, don’t bring a tennis racket to an opera.
“Especially does Robertson experience at the surface what happens 4 km above!”
Well lapse rate says that there is a direct relationship.
https://imgur.com/zVbFggm
RSS does this too
“The ‘TLT’ product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere extending from the surface of the Earth to an altitude of about 7000 meters.”
“There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India. The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in some may have been increased by British policies.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-27306-8
What has the 21st century to do with 1878?
An empire that extracted resources while letting people die, Richard.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…”Gordon,
Surface heat is dissipated before the radiation reaches the clouds. It is dissipated in the same action that produces the IR and does not exist above the surface
[Barry]Well now youve contradicted yourself.
[GR]No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation
[Barry]So BPs heat dissipation exists beyond its surface due to radiation, but Earths heat dissipation does not exist beyond its surface because it becomes radiation.
***
There are certain things in physics that are not understood. For example, Newton’s law of cooling. Newton claimed the rate of heat dissipation of a surface is proportional to the temperature difference between the surface and its environment. But why? What is it about temperature difference that mediates the rate of heat dissipation?
Based on your comment above, you seem to think it is contradictory for me to claim the EM already emitted from the BP means the heat is already lost but in this case we have a different mechanism in place. We have a GP in place, and nearby, emitting at the BP. Also, the heat lost by the BP is being replaced. That same heat will likely affect the GP when it is raised into place.
Before the GP is raised, the BP sees nothing but the walls of the bell jar in which Swannie’s experiment takes place. Since there is no air in the jar, we must presume the temperature of the jar’s glass walls are the environment. When the GP is raised, the BP now sees a plate with a different temperature on one side and the glass wall on the other side.
The GP is absorbing IR from the BP and as it does, it warms and moves toward thermal equilibrium. As the temperature difference drops, the rate of heat dissipation in the BP drops on one side, and the external heat source warms it.
It’s not clear to me what happens as two bodies with different temperatures move toward thermal equilibrium. The heat transfer stops but is the radiation affected as well? Complex.
99% of the air in contact with the surface is not emitting in the infrared band but it is emitting. Perhaps that is sensed and mediates the rate of heat dissipation.
At the atomic level of a surface, there are electrons emitting EM to space. As they emit, they drop to a lower energy level and cumulatively that translates to the body temperature dropping unless the dissipated heat is replaced. With the BP it is replaced, according to Swannie.
We know the GP, being unheated and at a lower temperature, cannot transfer heat to the BP. However, it may be that the heat source heating the BP is also heating the GP after it is raised into place. Both plates may reach a thermal equilibrium that is at a higher temperature than the BPs initial conditions.
With the surface of the Earth, you have molecules of air in contact with the emitting electrons. That should produce a thermal equilibrium unless the air in contact with the surface rises and is replaced by cooler air from aloft. As that air tends to equilibrium it rises as well and the cycle repeats.
Newton tell us the rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the temperature difference between the surface and the air, which is recycling between heated air and cooled air. In winter, the overturning should be greater therefore the surface cools faster. At night, as the atmosphere cools, the dissipation should be less.
Swannie’s BP/GP is more complex and it obviously depends on the material used for the GP, which I presume is metal, as well as its proximity to the BP. With the surface/atmosphere case we have no restrictions on the emitted IR but in Swannie’s experiment we have a further complication of shielding.
Metal will shield EM and stop it emitting. In the electrical and electronics field, a grounded metal can is used to shield EM. The danger with a shield, however, is the production of eddy currents in the metal as the EM is absorbed by the metal. The induced circular current will produce their own EM field and whether they interfere with the original is not clear to me.
Anyway, it is a phenomenon that is not well understood if at all, Therefore you can’t accuse me of double-talk when we are talking about two different situations.
In the GPE the emissions from the BP is “blocked’ (your word) by the GP. Because the BP is being heated by an external source, AND the rate of its heat dissipation due to radiation is now affected by the GP, the BP warms up.
The atmosphere is the GP, and it completely covers the surface of the Earth, similarly to the GP and BP being infinite plates.
Without an atmosphere there is nothing blocking the radiative heat dissipation from the surface of the Earth. With an atmosphere Earth’s radiative heat dissipation is affected by the atmosphere.
Convection is present in the atmosphere, and a tiny amount of conduction that is so little it is negligible. But this does not somehow prevent radiative transfer occurring, just as with the BP/GP. Convection is taken into account when studying the actual ‘greenhouse’ effect, conduction is usually disregarded.
The GP absorbs all radiation, the atmosphere absorbs certain frequencies of radiation more effectively than others, but the principle remains the same.
The GP radiates to the BP (and also to space). The atmosphere radiates to the surface (and also to space).
The GPE analogy works because the radiation mechanics are the same, the only radiative difference being that the atmosphere is not a blackbody – it is partly transparent to upwelling IR.
The Earth’s heat dissipation activity ends at the top of the atmosphere, not at the ground level. There is no magic heat shield between the surface and the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere.
In that case, the GP would need to completely surround the BP. It doesn’t, it just covers part of one side of the BP. The other side of the BP is free to radiate.
You are tied to the pseudo-science that CO2 acts like the GP, that it absorbs most surface IR, and radiates it back to the surface at a level exceeding solar input. Not only that, the back-radiated IR from a cooler source can be converted to heat by the surface that emitted it in the first place. That’s a perfect example of perpetual motion.
Barry, that theory is so far outside of science as to be roll-on-the-floor laughable. The guy who started this BP/GP thought-experiment, Eli Rabbett, was schooled by G&T on the 2nd law and he failed to grasp it. I know Swannie doesn’t understand the 2nd law, but it surprises me that you fail to grasp it either.
You’re not alone. There are many scientists out there today who fail to grasp the 2nd law and its simplicity, as stated by Clausius, who wrote the law. Today, I read an explanation of entropy that is so far wrong as to be laughable. It was explained by a Ph.D in bio-sciences.
For the definition of entropy, she wrote…”Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. It is an extensive property of a thermodynamic system, which means its value changes depending on the amount of matter that is present. In equations, entropy is usually denoted by the letter S and has units of joules per kelvin (J⋅K−1) or kg⋅m2⋅s−2⋅K−1. A highly ordered system has low entropy”.
Here’s the definition of Clausius, who invented the concept of entropy…
Entropy is the sum of infinitesimal transfers of heat at temperature, T. Clausius also supplied an equation for entropy as …S = integral dq/T. Do you see anything in there that measures disorder? If you integrate to get S, you get a quantity of heat. She even mentioned that entropy is measured in joules/degree K, exactly what the equation states.
Of course, there is a relationship between entropy and disorder but only because a positive entropy indicates an irreversible process. All such processes lead to disorder. However, there is nothing in the equation for entropy that indicates or measures disorder and when Clausius invented the concept, he aimed it at the 2nd law as a mathematical expression. That is, entropy is about heat and it measures heat.
Since T is a constant it can be pulled outside the integral sign as…S = 1/T(integral dq). Entropy is plainly a summation of infinitesimal quantities of heat as claimed by Clausius.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo doesn’t understand “perpetual motion” on which G&T base their conclusions.
The GP can not return ALL of the energy received from the BP unless the surface is a perfect reflector, which does not exist. And, given the surfaces are stated to be a black body, with both sides of the GP emitting, half the GP’s emissions go to the surroundings, i.e., deep space in Eli’s example.
If the GPE was an example of perpetual motion, turning off the energy supply would leave the BP at a constant temperature because of the back radiation. Even the case of a shield completely surrounding the BP, it would still cool to the temperature of the surroundings, once the energy supply stops. But, for the GPE model, there’s always an energy supply from an external source.
E. Swanson 8:02 am, Gordon doesn’t understand much more than “perpetual motion” stops when the energy input source stops inputting energy.
Gordon 12:48am is also incorrect writing: “Since T is a constant it can be pulled outside the integral sign as.. S = 1/T(integral dq).”
No. Gordon still hasn’t comprehended what Gordon has been told before: T is NOT constant wrt time & the eqn. for ideal gas entropy is really dS/dt = Q(t)/T(t) when the working rate is -p*dV/dt AND Cv is independent of temperature for a closed ideal gas system.
That eqn. for dS CAN be integrated but the solution is far beyond Gordon’s meager ability to understand entropy. S was named entropy by Clausius with the property that S(t) time derivative is Q/T.
—-
Gordon is also incorrect writing: “That is, entropy is about heat and it measures heat.”
Wrong. Only here the discussion is about universe entropy change for an ideal gas; the concept of Clausius’ entropy has a much wider applicability. Heat is only a measure of internal particle total KE at a given time.
Gordon,
“You are tied to the pseudo-science that CO2 acts like the GP, that it absorbs most surface IR”
Although it does absorb most of the upwelling IR, it doesn’t even have to. Al it needs to do is absorb some IR for the mechanism to work – exactly the same principle that you described for the GPE.
“and radiates it back to the surface at a level exceeding solar input.”
The BP in your description is emitting more W/m2 than it is receiving from the sun. It MUST if it becomes warmer with the GP introduced.
The Earth’s surface is emitting more energy per unit time to the atmosphere than the atmosphere emits to it, just as the BP emits more energy per unit time to the GP than the GP emits to it.
“Not only that, the back-radiated IR from a cooler source can be converted to heat by the surface that emitted it in the first place. That’s a perfect example of perpetual motion.”
Once again, you are contradicting exactly what you have described for the GPE, where the GP slows the rate of heat loss by the BP. There is no perpetual motion here because BP and GP warm until this system emits equivalent to input. Same with the Earth system.
The same radiative mechanism operates for GPE as the Earth’s climate system. You keep denying it, but you haven’t been able to explain why without contradicting yourself.
If the rate of heat loss from the surface to space is slowed, then the surface, receiving continuous solar energy, must warm up. Same as with the GPE.
barry, the 2LoT violation in Eli’s GPE solution has been explained to you. That should have been that, last month. Not sure why you are still talking about it.
Because that DREMT explanation was completely falsified by several commenters last month. Eli’s solution has no 2LOT violation as the original GPE solution clearly produces universe entropy which is required by 2LOT.
Ball4 troll, begone.
Barry, the fake 2LOT violation in the GPE was explained last month by the Ignorati, then thoroughly debunked by physics, common sense and even other climate skeptics.
Oh well, science deniers will keep on denying, no matter what.
…the 2LoT violation in Eli’s GPE solution has been explained to you. That should have been that, last month. Not sure why you are still talking about it.
Cult Leader grammie, I must have missed your post demonstrating your deeply insightful understanding of thermal IR radiation heat transfer. Could you point to your complete proof, based on physics, for all to see?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
“Inferences: Since the only energy flow not in config. A that is in config. B is the “back-radiation” transfer, this must be responsible for the transition from 244 K244 K to 262 K220 K. This would then have to be a heat transfer from cold to hot.”
Some people are determined to draw erroneous conclusions by misrepresenting a reduction in HEAT LOSS as a REVERSAL of HEAT FLOW.
The only change here is a reduction in heat loss from the BP to the GP upon changing from conduction to radiative heat transfer.
With the steady heat input from the heat source, the SUN, this results in a NET warming of the BP.
Similarly closing the flood gates on a Dam results in rising water level in a river-fed reservoir behind the Dam (eg Lake Powell fed by the Colorado river)
The erroneous logic used above would conclude the river water flow REVERSED and went UP HILL.
The reality is that the river flow was always downhill.
Oh well.
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Cult Leader grammie pups, That post was just a repeat of all the other false claims that “back radiation from the GP to the BP violates the 2nd Law and therefore can not happen.
Trouble is, it does happen, which invalidates all your posts of such bogus physics. The claims do not apply to thermal IR radiation heat transfer. That’s because a body whose surface will emit IR radiation at a particular wavelength will also absorb IR radiation at that wavelength. You clowns have agreed that reflected IR radiation will be absorbed, but refuse to accept the fact that wavelengths emitted by a BB surface will also be absorbed. The absorbing body only sees the radiation over a range of wavelengths, which carries no information regarding the temperature of the source.
So we have another example of the Cult’s speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth at the same time. So your “proof” is just more denialist BS.
No DREMT, again, your linked comment was completely falsified last month by several commenters. Eli’s solution does not violate 2LOT as universe entropy is produced by his original solution in compliance with 2LOT.
“Cult Leader grammie pups, That post was just a repeat of all the other false claims that “back radiation from the GP to the BP violates the 2nd Law and therefore can not happen.“
No, it wasn’t.
Actually, it was DREMT 9:09 am. EMR is NOT heat as you write in that already falsified link 7:26 am.
Bult Leader grammie pups gave no reply to my statements of real world physics. He can’t deal with facts, as usual.
Since you did not correctly represent my linked comment, Swanson, no further response was required.
Cult Leader grammie pups has again refused to discuss the physics of his denial. Instead, as he might say, grammie has left the room. In other words, he has admitted a defeat in this long running “debate”.
You have admitted defeat, Swanson, by failing to correctly represent my linked comment. For a discussion to proceed, you would first have to address something I am actually arguing.
Cult Leader grammie thinks he can set the agenda for the discussion after another empty assertion of “This would then have to be a heat transfer from cold to hot. Elis solution violates 2LoT.”
Grammie refuses to go beyond that bogus claim, since discussing actual physics proves him wrong.
It’s not an assertion, Swanson, it’s the conclusion of an argument. Since you obviously can’t fault the premises or the inferences drawn, you have to accept the conclusion, I’m afraid.
The premises and influences drawn by DREMT were faulted last month and thoroughly falsified by several commenters more astute than DREMT. There is no need to keep repeating proper falsification efforts once accomplished on the record.
DREMT incorrectly writes EMR is heat in the 7:26 am comment. Correctly, as Eli previously showed, EMR is not heat in Eli’s original 2LOT compliant GPE solution.
Cult Leader is afraid. Wonder why?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
“Since you obviously cant fault the premises or the inferences drawn”
Sure if one pretends that nobody has found fault with your faulty premises or inferences, then, in one’s mind, they don’t exist, and one’s argument remains pristine and untouched.
That’s how we recognize narcissism and delusional thinking.
Swanson has nothing. I remain the victor. Easy.
Cult Leader grammie declares victory, but remains so ignorant that he can’t see the difference between my “something” his “nothing”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
Swanson, the comment you keep linking to does not address my argument. So you can keep linking to it until the cows come home. You achieve nothing. I remain the victor. Easy.
DREMT’s argument has already been addressed & falsified by more astute commenters than DREMT last month so DREMT cannot remain the victor as DREMT never won the argument against Eli’s GPE solution which really is 2LOT compliant.
E. Swanson’s link also shows DREMT’s physics arguments related to GPE are wrong.
DREMT is “afraid” (DREMT term) & unable to man up and admit DREMT’s long running basic physics mistakes such as mistaking EMR for heat.
Why do I get trolled so much?
Perhaps because you refuse to address your errors in physics and your empty assertions without proof.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
So you agree I get trolled a lot. Good.
Maximum Troll grammie still refuses to face reality.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
Swanson keeps linking to a comment which does not address my argument, and which does not involve a correct representation of anything that I’m saying. I would consider that to be trolling.
Cult Leader grammi refuses to recognize the problem he has repeatedly presented.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488303
Swanson keeps on trolling.
Cult Leader grammie doesn’t know the difference between trolling and legitimate debate, since all he does is troll along, repeatedly spreading disinformation and bad science.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
“Why do I get trolled so much?”
DREMT forgets that he started off trolling Barry in this thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487384
“barry, the 2LoT violation in Elis GPE solution has been explained to you. That should have been that, last month. Not sure why you are still talking about it.”
So there’s your answer. Just stop trolling.
Then I responded to it and explained why your inference,
” back radiation from the GP to the BP violates the 2nd Law and therefore can not happen.”
is wrong.
Then Swanson explained why your inference is wrong:
“Trouble is, it does happen, which invalidates all your posts of such bogus physics.”
Then you falsely claimed that nobody addressed your inference.
And then you played the victim card.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
As Cult Leader grammie posts his other mantra (60 times this month so far), still trying to ignore reality.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
#2
Swanson, please stop trolling.
grammie still refuses to accept reality. That’s why he’s a Cult Leader.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
#3
Swanson, please grow up, and please stop trolling.
Three strikes and you’re out. Game over, moron. You had your chance.
#4
Swanson, please grow up, and please stop trolling.
” Binny fails to grasp that we have a linear lapse rate between the surface and well above 4 km. Also, that channel 5 on an AMSU unit can easily measure to the surface. ”
And this is the very best:
” Each of the values in your equation, MT, TP, and LS are averaged and measured values which are measured by 3 channels on the AMSU units. ”
“… in your equation… ”
It is not ‘my equation’: it is Roy Spencer’s.
And it is EVIDENT that the three layers above the LT are indeed subject to remote sensing. NO ONE, beginning with myself, would ever doubt such evidence.
*
How is it possible to keep so stubborn, so opinionated, so ignorant of facts?
It is possible: you just need to see how Robertson fails to finally grasp what his major mentor Roy Spencer explained in 2015 already:
” We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method.
The main reason we changed methods for LT calculation is the old view angle method had unacceptably large errors at the gridpoint level.
While the errors cancel for global averages on a monthly time scale, on a regional or gridpoint basis they can be large.
The errors arise because the different view angles necessary to calculate a single LT retrieval sample different geographic locations, for instance radiometrically colder ocean and warmer land. ”
” The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU 2,3,4 or AMSU 5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS ”
*
There is NO direct remote sensing anymore for LT since UAH6.0, basta ya.
And endlessly trying to denigrate those who understand this as ‘paranoid alarmists’ is simply disgusting.
Somebody touched Bindiclown’s chart, triggered him into another climate tantrum episode
RSS does this too
“The TLT product is a weighted average temperature of a thick layer of the atmosphere extending from the surface of the Earth to an altitude of about 7000 meters.”
So which LT calculation is more correct out of RSS, STAR and UAH?
No one knows. Every time there is a revision to methods the data and trends change, sometimes substantially (relative to, say, the surface temperature records). This should remind us that these estimates are a work in progress, as are the surface records.
These are estimates with incomplete information and many workarounds to address biases in the data. We never examination the methods in a granular way, we only do cursory analysis with tertiary information (the resulting data). No one here is in a position to determine the relative validity of any of the datasets – until one of us dives deeply into the methods and becomes armed with far more insight than any of us currently have.
Possibly Swanson has looked deeply into the matter (got a paper published about it, I believe).
You are joking, right? A guy who believes heat can be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body, in direct contradiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, has a paper published?
Then again, Michael Mann, who demolished science with his hockey stick fiasco, claims to have a Nobel prize.
Swanson has looked at the methodologies in far more detail than you ever have, Gordon. Which is why you think satellites accurately measure surface temperatures, and Swanson is in full agreement with Spencer and Christy that they cannot.
Roy Spencer: “For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered ‘window’ channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
Tsk, I’m sure you can work through gramma errors.
“The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-27306-8
“This Brief provides some answers as to why famines continue to torment humankind here in the 21st century….”
The 1878 event was caused by numerous things. Some of which caused millions of deaths.
Exactly.
And the intensity of the El Nino that happened then may not be inferred from the number of deaths.
Now the Brits are blamed for famine in a country who has done nothing to contain its population size.
This argument is no different than the current nonsense that white people are causing the problems of the rest of the world or that white men are the root cause of everything from climate change to who knows what.
Grow up, wee willy, your revelations are juvenile and a need for attention.
binny van der Klown…”And it is EVIDENT that the three layers above the LT are indeed subject to remote sensing.
GR…I did not know the TP was divided into LT and TP. The instrument for channel 5 only measures TP. from which LT was derived.
Later…
There is NO direct remote sensing anymore for LT since UAH6.0
[GR] There never was remote sensing of LT, it has always been TP only.
***
From Roy’s paper…
“The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU 2,3,4 or AMSU 5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
***
The LT was initially based on an extrapolation of temperatures to the surface based on channel 5 only (TP). That means the frequencies received by the AMSU units were received only by channel 5 and centred near 4 km altitude.
Roy states…”We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method”.
Duh!!! Binny thinks that means they scrapped the AMSU telemetry for the lower troposphere temperatures, which was never specifically covered, and which were calculated from the tropospheric measurements of channel 5. However, the same tropospheric numbers are still in the new equation as ‘TP’. That is the same channel 5 measurements as in the old method. All they have done is added measurements from channels 7 and 9.
Roy explained why. The old method was a look-ahead method in which the scanners had to penetrate a depth of atmosphere that changed with the scan. That meant applying different weighting functions for each scan depth. The new method does away with the issue by using data from other channels.
Another problem with the look-ahead method is this. As the scanners scanned the ocean and approached land, there was a dramatic change due to the interaction of ocean air with surface air. Apparently the new method reduces that or gets rid of it.
All in all, the product has improved and we are enjoying better and more accurate temperature readings.
Thanks to Roy and John.
Gordo is totally confused again. Lets go thru it all again, shall we?
The original version of the UAH LT was based on data from the MSU channel 2 with AMSU channel 5 included as these were launched. Those channels were also used to produce the MT. The LT was proposed as a solution to the problem of contamination of the MT with input from the Stratosphere, which was expected to introduce a spurious cooling trend into the data. In addition, UAH also produced a TP data set derived from the MSU3/AMSU 7 and a LS data set from MSU 4/AMSU 9.
With the latest version 6, UAH completely changed the processing for the MT, TP and LS channels. Then, they switched to a new approach to calculate the LT, combining the three channels with a weighted equation.
The MT and LT products have always included some surface emissions mixed in with the emissions from the atmosphere. Neither product has ever been intended to measure just the surface as the surface emissions can not be separated from the total radiant energy measured at each scan position. The surface emissions are different over land vs. water because the emissivities are different.
The rest of Gordo’s post is just more of his delusional physics.
I have quoted directly from Roy. You are an alarmist who believes heat can be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. Why should anyone accept your biased explanation for the UAH system when you have made it apparent you don’t like UAH, and take every opportunity to discredit it?
You are a blatant alarmist, Swannie, live with it.
Gordo’s reply is just another of his failures to admit his ignorance. What I wrote was not a “biased explanation for the UAH system”, it was basic facts. His entire post was full of errors, so, when challenged, he tries to change the subject and resorts to another blast of his usual mix of bad physics and ad hominems.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
> there is nothing in the equation for entropy that indicates or measures disorder
You heard it first at Roy’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/foundation/parametrizations/boundary-layer
“The boundary layer is defined as that part of the atmosphere that directly feels the effect of the earth’s surface. Its depth can range from just a few metres to several kilometres depending on the local meteorology. Turbulence is generated in the boundary layer as the wind blows over the earth’s surface and by thermals, such as those rising from land as it is heated by the sun, but also thermals associated with clouds. All this turbulence redistributes heat, moisture and the drag on the wind within the boundary layer, as well as pollutants and other constituents of the atmosphere. In so doing it plays a crucial role in modulating the weather (temperature, humidity, wind strength, air quality, etc) as we experience it, living on the surface.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-colonizers-caused-bengal-famine
Willard is just fascinated with the UK in history.
What an idiotic article. Do the idiots not understand that the eastern Indian border was under siege by the Japanese, who were attacking out of Burma? It was the British (and US) who saved India from the Japanese.
Meantime, as the Japanese attacked, the idiot Ghandi was trying to start a revolution aimed at hampering the British from defending India.
Had it not been for the British General Bill Slim, working with US General Joe Stillwell, India would have fallen to the Japanese. Then they would have known all about starvation. The first thing the Japanese would have done was torture Ghandi and any other dissenter.
This has to be one of your most stupid posts, wee willy.
Come on, Bordo.
> During the Japanese occupation of Burma, many rice imports were lost as the region’s market supplies and transport systems were disrupted by British “denial policies” for rice and boats (a “scorched earth” response to the occupation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Besides, that other authorities starved a population does not change the fact that the famine was in good part man-made.
Since Clausius invented the concept and the name of entropy why do you bother quoting an idiot who has obviously never read Clausius on the subject?
The idiot cannot even tell the difference between a differential and a partial derivative symbol. It used a lower case ‘delta’ in error, it should have been a simple ‘d’, the symbol offered by Liebniz to denote a differential.
At any rate, the entropy equation put forward by Clausius is…
S = integral dq/T
-the dq represents an infinitesimal quantity of heat transfer, not disorder. Disorder is merely a product of the irreversible process that produces the heat.
Whereas it is possible to measure and calculate the amount of heat transferred per process, it would be impossible to measure the infinite number of processes that represent disorder. And, how would you quantify it?
Here is a table of entropy values for different substances. Do you see anything indicating a measure of disorder?
https://www.drjez.com/uco/ChemTools/Standard%20Thermodynamic%20Values.pdf
Note that enthalpy (H) has units kJ/mol
entropy (S) has units J-mol/K
Gibb’s free energy (G) has units kJ/mole
Note the relationship…
delta G = delta H – T.delta S
Each part of the equation represents a quantity of heat, even though it is called Gibb’s free energy. Enthalpy is a measure of heat and entropy is a measure of heat.
‘T.delta S’ comes from the relationship delta Q = T. delta S, derived from the entropy equation of Clausius.
Stick with me, wee willy, we will edumacate you yet.
Thinking on this more, Gibb’s free energy is another game of semantics. The only energy available to do work is heat, so why is it not called free heat?
This dates back to the 1850 era when scientists started playing games with concepts like heat and energy. When Clausius entered his definition of internal energy for the first law, he wanted to include both internal heat and work in the equation. Thompson talked him out of it, advising Clausius to simply call it energy.
On the face of it, this was seriously dumb advice. Today, we have scientists who are thoroughly confused about the meaning of concepts like internal energy and entropy.
If you look at the 1st law, basically U = Q – W, it is telling you that internal energy is the difference between the heat consumed and the work done. However, on the RHS you have two different forms of energy, with different units of measure, and on the LHS you have internal energy.
Makes no sense, at least, it’s not clear. If you are adding energy as heat and losing at as work, the heat and work must be related to the internal energy in order to make the equation work. Therefore, there has to be a place for the heat to operate internally and for work to be output internally.
Consider a cylinder with a piston pushing down on air inside the cylinder. The face of the cylinder must exert a force on the gas and the gas must exert a force back on the cylinder face (Newton III). Therefore work is being done among the atoms in the cylinder face as well as amongst the atoms in the gas.
Not only that, the atoms making up the cylinder face are constantly in motion, vibrating constantly in step with the temperature of the cylinder. Plus, the cylinder does work on the gas and as the gas pressure increases, the gas atoms do more work. Obviously as the gas is compressed, it heats up.
All of this is internal energy, as claimed by Clausius but he was talked out of saying so. Fortunately, the name of Clausius went down i history while Thompson’s name drifted off to relative obscurity. He will be remembered by me as the scientist who talked Clausius out of stating the 1st law correctly with regard to internal energy.
It is ironic that Clausius named entropy as a form of energy (heat), yet today, idiots have misinterpreted the meaning of entropy as a measure of disorder.
Come on, Bordo.
The equation is pretty clear.
Entropy is the motional energy transferred divided by the absolute temperature at which the transfer occurs.
So you are once again stupidly wrong.
wee willy…”Entropy is the motional energy transferred divided by the absolute temperature at which the transfer occurs”.
***
Sorry wee willy, Clausius defined entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal transfers of ***HEAT*** at temperature, T.
The dq in S = integral dq/T is a reference to heat, not generic energy per se. Clausius introduced entropy as a measure of heat based on the 2nd law, a law about heat transfer only.
Entropy is about heat transfer.
Come on, Bordo.
Motional energy and heat are the same thing:
> where Q = motional energy (heat) that is transferred reversibly to the system from the surroundings and T = the absolute temperature at which the transfer occurs.
You never read anything, do you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 16, 2023.
The ocean has this huge ability to absorb heat.
Hold your arms out wide, that is the size of one cubic meter of air. To heat that air by 1C, it takes about 1,200 joules. But to heat a cubic meter of ocean requires about 4,200,000 joules.
By absorbing all this heat, the ocean lulls people into a false sense of security that climate change is progressing slowly.
The oceans have stored away the problem, but it’s coming back to bite us.
https://imgur.com/a/QFGLfze
The average ocean is about 3.5 C if ocean were to warm by .5 C and be about 4 C {which is impossible do, in terms of greenhouse gases- though possible from large volcanic activity or large space impactor- and either these events would be what is “worrisome”.]
But if warmed so ocean was about 4 C, how does in bite us?
We had oceans with average temperature of 4 C or warmer.
I think it’s even possible we did during the Holocene.
But it’s “accepted” the past interglacial periods had an ocean 4 C
or warmer, and sea levels 4 meter higher than present sea level.
There was other things different when ocean was 4 C or warmer- for instance, the Sahara desert wasn’t like our Sahara desert, it had a lot grasslands, and rivers and lakes and significant amount of forests. And this called the Africa Humid period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Or it’s said over 5000 years ago, the Sahara desert began getting drier- and got drier and drier over the thousands of years.
And it seems we don’t have warm the ocean as much as .5 C, to get
a wetter Africa, or .2 C “might” make the Sahara a lot greener than it is right now.
But similar to .5 C, it’s unlikely the ocean could warm by .2 C in mere decades of time.
But going back .5 C increase in average ocean temperature, other than perhaps greening the Sahara, what else could having 4 C do in terms of biting us?
Well, it would give us, summertime ice free polar sea ice. And one could argue it could give us wintertime ice free polar sea ice in the arctic pole and maybe even ice free sea ice in southern pole during the winter.
And these are “signs” of end of world climate change- this is CAGW.
But we had such “CAGW” though maybe not in the Holocene.
But other than green Sahara and ice free transport in the arctic, where is the bite?
“By absorbing all this heat, the ocean lulls people into a false sense of security that climate change is progressing slowly”.
***
Don’t be an idiot, it would serve you better to understand the nature of heat rather than offer up more alarmist propaganda. The oceans don’t absorb any more heat than the land surface. The only difference is that the oceans can circulate the heat, as can the atmosphere. So where’s your theory that the atmosphere is absorbing more heat?
Your theory comes from Trenberth, who lamented to fellow alarmists in a Climtegate email that the warming had stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why. After the emails were exposed, he quickly backtracked and came up with that stupid theory about the missing heat being hidden in the oceans.
Of course, you, being an idiot, believe that, not because its true, but due to your belief in authority figures and their fabrications.
That is a perplexing thought, that “The oceans don’t absorb any more heat than the land surface.” I’m not criticizing, but your words aren’t very helpful. The ocean’s heat capacity is twice that of land, and makes up 71% of the planet’s surface area.
For the record, the atmosphere has a heat capacity of ~1 kJ/Kg-C, the ocean ~4.2 kJ/Kg-C, and land ~2 kJ/Kg-C.
I would be interested to see your calculations.
Just to be clear, if you are a climate science denier, I don’t give a f&%k about how clever or insightful you think your arguments are, how thoughtful your “gotcha” questions appear to you, or how unquestionably convincing you think your graphs are.
The are approx 321,003,271 cubic miles of water in the oceans (most of which is at an average temperature of only 4C (39F)).
“The oceans heat capacity is twice that of land, and makes up 71% of the planets surface area”.
***
I am not a climate science denier, I am a pseudo-science denier, and since alarmist climate science is pseudo-science I guess that makes me an alarmist climate science denier. but not a climate science denier per se. I don’t deny the climate science of Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, which is based on good, objective science of integrity. I object to the extensive fudging used by the alarmists at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, to create the surface record.
My objection is to your inference that heat stored in the ocean is the reason we are not seeing evidence of anthropogenic warming the past 25 years. Your inference ignores the fact that the heat capacity of the oceans have remained the same over the millennia, as has the land heat capacity, yet you are now inferring the oceans are retaining heat produced by anthropogenic warming that is being claimed by alarmists as ‘missing’.
As I said, it’s a lame theory offered by Trenberth when he was caught out admitting to his cronies in secret that the warming had stopped, circa 2005. It was later corroborated by the IPCC that it had stopped following the 1998 super EN and the flat trend extended to 2012. When Trenberth was exposed in the Climtegate emails, he rushed out a damage control lie that the missing heat is hidden in the ocean.
Of course, the flat trend extended even further till at least 2015 when another super EN drove the global average up again. There was a big difference between the 1998 EN and the 2016 version. Following 1998, the global average immediately dropped below the baseline only to mysteriously rebound to 0.2C above the baseline. That is not immediately apparent on the current UAH graph since the baseline has been recently adjusted to reflect the 30 year definition of climate as the average of weather over 30 years.
After 2016, the effect of the 2016 EN hung around for years. The global average oscillated like a sine wave, producing at least another 0.2 warming and we are waiting to see how it turns out. I’d like to know how a trace gas like CO2 could cause such an oscillation.
That is 3 times since 1977 that we have seen unexplained step-jumps in the global average that definitely don’t fit the anthropogenic meme. The first, in 1977, was questioned by some scientists who wanted to erase it as an error. Further investigation by more enlightened scientists led to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
With regard to the UAH graph, I accept its legitimacy because it was produced by two scientist of high integrity, Roy Spencer and John Christy. The land surface graphs produced by NOAA, Had-crut, and GISS have been heavily doctored (fudged). All three have gone back in history and fudged temperatures to bring them in line with the anthropogenic meme.
When the IPCC announced the 15 year flat trend from 1998 – 2012, NOAA, who had shown the same flat trend till then, went back and fudged the SST to produce a small trend. Why??? They did the same when they announced 2014 as the hottest year ever but hid in the small print the qualifying factor, that they had made the claim based on a 48% probability. Not to be outdone, GIS mde the same claim based on a 38% probability.
Is that what you call valid science? I don’t, I call it unmitigated cheating aimed at politically qualifying the corrupt anthropogenic warming theory. And we know from experience how honest politicians are. The fat-assed suits who are politicians justify lying as a necessary evil but many of us think lying is not acceptable in science.
“The oceans don’t absorb any more heat than the land surface.”
I am glad to see you backtrack on your initial comment since it was pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience refers to any belief, claim, or practice that is presented as scientific but lacks the essential characteristics and methodology of genuine scientific inquiry. It typically lacks empirical evidence, rigorous experimentation, and adherence to established scientific principles. Pseudoscience often involves the misinterpretation, distortion, or cherry-picking of data to support unfounded or irrational claims.
Key features of pseudoscience include:
1) Lack of empirical evidence: Pseudoscientific claims are often not supported by verifiable evidence obtained through systematic observation or experimentation.
2) Absence of peer review: Pseudoscientific ideas typically lack scrutiny from the scientific community through peer-reviewed journals or reputable scientific conferences.
3) Non-falsifiability: Pseudoscientific claims are often presented in a way that makes them immune to being disproven or tested. They may rely on untestable or unfalsifiable hypotheses.
4) Confirmation bias: Pseudoscience tends to selectively focus on evidence that supports its claims while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence.
5) Overreliance on anecdotal evidence: Pseudoscientific claims often rely heavily on personal testimonials or anecdotal accounts as the primary evidence, rather than systematic, controlled studies.
6) Lack of predictive power: Pseudoscientific claims often fail to make accurate predictions or provide useful insights that can be tested and validated.
Examples of pseudoscience include astrology, homeopathy, creationism presented as an alternative to evolution, and various forms of alternative medicine that lack scientific evidence.
It’s important to distinguish between pseudoscience and genuine scientific inquiry. Science follows rigorous methodologies, employs critical thinking, relies on evidence-based reasoning, and subject to peer review, which helps ensure the reliability and validity of scientific knowledge.
Ark, don’t forget the bogus GHE and imaginary lunar spin, in your pseudoscience list.
Both have the same flaw of having no model that doesn’t violate the laws of physics.
Pure pseudoscience.
“Pseudoscience refers to any belief, claim, or practice that is presented as scientific but lacks the essential characteristics and methodology of genuine scientific inquiry. It typically lacks empirical evidence, rigorous experimentation, and adherence to established scientific principles. Pseudoscience often involves the misinterpretation, distortion, or cherry-picking of data to support unfounded or irrational claims”.
***
That a fine description of alarmist climate pseudo-science.
There has been no genuine scientific inquiry as the basis of alarmist pseudo-science. The IPCC can offer no concrete proof that a trace gas, produced by humans, is warming the atmosphere.
I recently quoted Gerlich and Tscheuschner on that. They calculated, based on heat diffusion in the atmosphere that any heat produced by CO2 while surrounded by 2500 nitrogen and oxygen, would produce an insignificant amount of warming of N2/O2. I came to the same conclusion myself after applying the Ideal Gas Law. to the atmosphere.
You see, we skeptics don’t sit by, idly twiddling our thumbs, mumbling pseudo-science, we actually practice science by trying to apply it. The IPCC, on the other hand, have failed to provide a scientific explanation of how a trace gas can cause the warming and climate change claimed by them.
I combed one of their reports recently, looking for evidence to support anthropogenic warming and here’s what I found…
a)19th century scientists claimed it is true…
b)Since the Industrial revolution (circa 1750), humans have been emitting more CO2. The planet began warming circa 1850, therefore it is likely the extra CO2 is causing the warming.
When presented with a counter-argument that 1850 also marked the end of the Little Ice Age, wherein global temperatures dropped 1C to 2C, and that the planet was rewarming, the IPCC ingenuously declared the LIA a phenomenon local only to Europe. They failed to explain how Europecould cool 1C to 2C while the rest of the planet was unaffected.
And you worry about pseudo-science. There is scads of evidence, both proxy-based and anecdotal, that the LIA was a global phenomenon. However, the IPCC are prevented from scientifically reviewing papers that do not support anthropogenic warming, in fact, they bar skeptics from offering papers which do so. So, the IPCC rejects the LIA as a viable argument against the anthropogenic theory, even though they approved it in their first review in 1990.
Arkady,
You are deluding yourself if you believe the oceans “absorb” or “trap” heat, for later release.
All else being equal, warm water floats. There is no surface heat radiating into the depths, hiding Trenberth’s “missing heat”.
As Richard 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.”
Try getting hot water to sink.
Try inducing convection currents by heating the surface.
Try boiling a pot of water by heating it from above.
You are an idiot, talking about “climate science”, and “denier”. Just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, rejecting reality. Try another pseudonym – your present one is not doing you any favors.
Fool.
Ocean surface heat can be transported to depth through a process known as oceanic heat uptake or oceanic heat transport. Several mechanisms contribute to this heat transfer:
1) Vertical Mixing: Vertical mixing involves the turbulent mixing of water masses from the surface to deeper layers. Turbulent processes such as wind-driven turbulence and convective mixing can carry heat downward. Wind stress and ocean currents generate turbulence, causing the exchange of heat between the surface and deeper layers.
2) Thermohaline Circulation: The thermohaline circulation, also known as the ocean conveyor belt, plays a significant role in transporting heat from the surface to depth. This circulation is driven by density differences caused by variations in temperature (thermo-) and salinity (haline). Surface waters that are cooled and become denser sink to deeper layers, carrying heat along with them. The sinking occurs in specific regions, such as the North Atlantic, where surface water becomes denser due to cooling and increased salinity.
3) Ekman Transport: Ekman transport refers to the net movement of surface water caused by wind stress. In the presence of a steady wind, surface waters are pushed by the wind, creating a spiral-like movement known as the Ekman spiral. This transport of water can lead to the displacement of warm surface water and the upwelling of colder water from deeper layers, which facilitates the transfer of heat downward.
4) Oceanic Waves and Eddies: Oceanic waves and eddies also contribute to the transport of heat from the surface to deeper layers. Large-scale oceanic features, such as mesoscale eddies and internal waves, can induce vertical motion and mixing, allowing for the exchange of heat between surface and subsurface layers.
The combined effect of these processes helps to redistribute heat within the ocean, leading to a more uniform distribution of heat over time. This redistribution is essential for maintaining the balance of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, influencing climate patterns and regulating Earth’s energy budget.
Arkady Ivanovich
“[GR]The oceans dont absorb any more heat than the land surface.
[ark]I am glad to see you backtrack on your initial comment since it was pseudoscience”.
***
No backtracking, your reply is out of context. I made it clear what I was arguing about, the insinuation you offered that anthropogenic heat is being stored in the oceans. I pointed you to the source of that bad argument, Kevin Trenberth.
My point stands as stated given the proper context. The oceans store no more ***anthropogenic*** heat than the land, given the relative heat capacities. The alarmist claim is that the oceans are storing the so-called missing anthropogenic heat, which is a crock.
Many of us have argued here that the oceans do store heat and that the heat stored helps to warm the land surfaces adjacent to the ocean. However, that heat storage is related to our position in the solar system, the properties of our orbital path, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, and the fact that the Sun provides solar energy for a good portion of the day.
If you alter any of the aforementioned properties in a negative direction, the oceans would react immediately by losing heat. They store it only because of an equilibrium condition that has developed over the millennia that has nothing to do with anthropogenic processes.
Ariady,,
Complete nonsense. Warm water floats.
Your “points” –
1. Warm water floats.
2. “Surface waters that are cooled and become denser sink to deeper layers, carrying heat along with them. ” Really? This would be heating by cooling? if the “deeper layers” are less dense, why are they not on the surface? A miracle of “climate science”, perhaps?
3. “. . . which facilitates the transfer of heat downward.” Oh yes? Where it cools, by losing heat to colder water, which warms, becoming less dense – and floats to the surface?
4. Complete nonsense. Warm water floats.
You can burble on about density and salinity. If you do, you will have to face the reality that solar ponds depend on high salinity to suppress convection, but eventually fail due to diffusion.
You finish with the following wishful thinking –
“The combined effect of these processes helps to redistribute heat within the ocean, leading to a more uniform distribution of heat over time. This redistribution is essential for maintaining the balance of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, influencing climate patterns and regulating Earths energy budget.”
The oceans are heated from below, whether you accept it or not. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night, in winter, at the poles, etc.
Your fantasies are not supported by reality. Maybe you should just shout loudly that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, and hope those more stupid than you believe it. There are still plenty of self proclaimed “climate scientists”, politicians, and journalists who are prepared to accept any sort of ridiculous nonsense. Obviously, not terribly bright.
Carry on.
“2. “Surface waters that are cooled and become denser sink to deeper layers, carrying heat along with them. ”
Really? “
Yes. Really. Dr. Roy’s ocean warming trend is listed as 0.11 C/decade, or about 0.5 C over course of the satellite data. While this number varies from place to place, let’s use this number for the north Atlantic, where the gulf stream dives down to the bottom of the ocean.
This cool sinking water is now 0.5 C warmer than it was before. Whatever heat was being carried down along with the water before, a bit more heat is being carried down now.
Your concerns are at least partially justified. If the water warms TOO much and density become TOO low, the gulf stream would no longer sink, disrupting global ocean circulation.
TF, I think your comments about the THC are a bit shallow :-).
AIUI, the sinking waters in the North Atlantic are reported to be associated with the sea-ice formation process, which rejects brine and increases the salinity of the surface water, which are then able to sink into the waters below. The locations where this is said to occur are rather limited, such as the Greenland Sea, the Labrador Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Dr. Spencer’s ocean data isn’t surface temperature and doesn’t break out the relatively small areas where sinking waters are said to form during the winter months.
There are shallow sills between Greenland, Iceland and Scotland, which marks the boundary of an area which has been called “the Arctic Mediterranean”. Any waters sinking there, including that in the Arctic Ocean, add to the deep waters which flow over those sills and sink to the deep layers of the North Atlantic. A similar pathway for deep water formation exists in the waters around Antarctica and those waters are actually denser than that which is sourced from the North Atlantic.
Model studies have pointed to the possibility that the THC will slow or even cease as a result of AGW. That’s caused by an increased outflow of surface waters from the Arctic thru the Fram Strait, waters which are fresher than that introduced to the GIN seas from the North Atlantic Drift current. There have been reports of a reduction in the formation of the NA deep water, a subject of considerable interest and continued scientific investigation, particularly by European investigators.
I haven’t read the latest IPCC WG1 reports, one might find the latest information there.
E. Swanson, I am not an expert, so I appreciate your calm, reasoned comments.
I found this in wikipedia:
“In the North Atlantic, seawater at the surface of the ocean is intensely cooled by the wind and low ambient air temperatures. Wind moving over the water also produces a great deal of evaporation, leading to a decrease in temperature, called evaporative cooling related to latent heat. Evaporation removes only water molecules, resulting in an increase in the salinity of the seawater left behind, and thus an increase in the density of the water mass along with the decrease in temperature. ”
That sounds like ice formation is at best only part of the cause in the north atlantic.
This is said about the Southern Ocean:
“… Meanwhile, sea ice starts reforming, so the surface waters also get saltier, hence very dense. In fact, the formation of sea ice contributes to an increase in surface seawater salinity; saltier brine is left behind as the sea ice forms around it (pure water preferentially being frozen). …”
This seems more like what you were describing.
TF, I think the sinking of the waters in the GIN is more complicated than your quote suggests. The surface waters of the Sub tropical North Atlantic are some of the most saline waters in the open ocean. This has been theorized to be the result of the formation of the Isthmus of Panama around ~3 million years BP, which blocked the connecting flow between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Fresh water was lost by atmospheric transport over the Isthmus into the Pacific, etc.
Anyway, by the time all the currents reach the GIN, fresh water is both lost thru evaporation and gained via precipitation and runoff from the surrounding land areas. Research about 20 years ago linked the sea-ice cycle with sinking, as reported in this paper about “convective chimneys”. Note the discussion of the Odden Ice Tongue, which has been absent in recent decades, perhaps due to climate change. The source waters for some sinking may now be over the continental shelf poleward of Siberia. Not an easy subject to study from my armchair perspective.
TF, I think the sinking of the waters in the GIN is more complicated than your quote suggests. The surface waters of the Sub tropical North Atlantic are some of the most saline waters in the open ocean. This has been theorized to be the result of the formation of the Isthmus of Panama around ~3 million years BP, which blocked the connecting flow between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Fresh water was lost by atmospheric transport over the Isthmus into the Pacific, etc.
Anyway, by the time all the currents reach the GIN, fresh water is both lost thru evaporation and gained via precipitation and runoff from the surrounding land areas. Research about 20 years ago linked the sea-ice cycle with sinking, as reported by Peter Wadhams in this paper about “convective chimneys”. Note the discussion of the Odden Ice Tongue, which has been absent in recent decades, perhaps due to climate change. The source waters for some sinking may now be over the continental shelf poleward of Siberia.
Oceanography is not an easy subject to study from my armchair perspective. Much of the research about the THC has been done by European investigators which can be hard to find.
Swanson, Tim, please stop trolling.
RSS Global for Apr 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global-1.jpeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frXSHs_3BOY
Rise of the Red Dragon
Julie Hartman is wrong.
We shouldn’t have isolated China.
First, it’s just stupid.
Second it’s going to war with Country.
Or I am not against isolating Russia- because it’s
doing an unlawful war.
One might argue China was doing an unlawful war against it’s
people, but that is like a civil war. And one avoid getting
too much involved in civil [internal] wars.
I might argue we tend to be too isolationist in terms other
countries civil wars, isolating as in the Cold War, is a bit
too far, unless a country doing things like the Soviet Union was
doing {and China didn’t do this}.
Instead US should have reformed it’s patent and copyright laws,
which sometimes considered almost sacred. But world has changed- these laws might somewhat worked hundred years ago, but don’t work
now, and certainly will work worse in the future.
An analogy is, would these laws work if Mars had settlements.
It seems to me, Martian might like patent laws, because one thing I like about things like Mars settlement is it should cause innovations.
But will Earthlings like it?
Or in more globalized world, they make less sense. And in spacefaring
civilization- even less sense.
Also, she had guest on, which said Mexico was going next superpower,
she wasn’t listening very well to this guy, and it seemed to me, that was unrealistic. But US could make Mexico and superpower, and heading in that direction would a really good idea. So maybe Mexico isn’t going a sole superpower, anytime soon, but it could better than say, France {which sort of superpower in some sense- in sense it has global reach]. So not just Latin America, but Africa and rest of world- including North America].
Anyhow same guest said, China is in BIG trouble- and unfixable, and rest world faces same problem, just not as bad as China.
Russia may have worse problem as compared to China- but less worse only in sense of Russia not having a large population.
Or Russia will be smaller scale problem the rest of world, needs to somehow, “save”.
Russia has always been this problem {problem of being a constant problem], as has China, a difference is Russia is more connected to Europe, middle east, and Asia, and China has been more isolated.
One thing demographer didn’t mention, is we are in the Space Age and in a space age, equatorial areas become more important.
gb…”Or I am not against isolating Russia- because its
doing an unlawful war”.
***
Whose law are the Russians violating? And which law did the Ukraine violate when they allowed armed militants to oust a democratically-elected president? The Ukrainian government failed to respect their own laws when they allowed the coup, then oppressed Ukrainians who fought back against it.
If we are so interested in laws, why do we have laws for the rich and different laws for the poor, laws for those on our side and different laws for those who oppose us?
It all a joke, don’t you get it?
“Whose law are the Russians violating?”
It’s not Russians it’s the Russia State.
States can violate laws.
In terms a State violating laws in regards to it’s
citizens {not State to State} these are called high
crimes. So, Canada and US govts have violated many high
crime- and very few have been prosecuted.
Anyhow, I am talking about State vs State- and if countries are
isolating Russia, then the politicians of those countries are saying
Russia is violating State to State “laws” or “agreements”**.
And as I said, roughly I am not opposed to it.
If knew all details- I likely would discover stuff which
a might be opposed to.
Unfortuately we don’t have the News, we have corporate news, not giving us, news.
Of course obvious example is the agreement related to Ukriane giving up it’s nuclear weapons.
But there is more than that one example.
swannie…”…as has been explained to you numerous times, the UAH (and the new NOAA STAR) are calculated from their versions of the MT, TP and LS time series. Those data series are also the result of numerous assumptions and corrections, for better or worse. They are no longer just measured data beamed down from orbit. On top of that, the equations for the LT and TLT are the results of complex calculations based on theoretical physics along with further assumptions”.
***
What’s this time series? You are really struggling to denigrate the good work done by UAH to make the product better and better, while RSS hides behind the skirts of NOAA.
Roy has explained the new formula well. It uses data from channels 7 and 9 on top of the old data from channel 5. You alleged earlier that I claimed the LT is measured to the surface which I have never claimed. I have fully accepted Roy’s explanation that UAH does not use measurements right to the surface because their is microwave interference from the surface that distorts the signal. However, channel 5 is capable of measuring right to the surface, if required.
I have acknowledged in detail that calculations are required. I went into that deeply with weighting functions, which appear to relate altitude/pressure to the O2 emissions, as weights. However, that must be converted to temperature and as RLH keeps pointing out to you, it is likely tied in with lapse rate.
I have acknowledged that the LT temps are likely calculated using interpolation. However, they are verified against radiosonde measurements.
The whole point is that UAH temperatures better reflect the environment in which we live. The NOAA, GISs, Had-crut fudged temperatures do not.
Speaking of ‘assumptions and corrections’, is it not a gross assumption that thermometers covering 100,000 Km^2 per thermometer can give an accurate global average? Can we ignore the blatant corrections done by NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut to the historical record?
You are backing a load of liars and cheaters yet you have the temerity to question the integrity of two outstanding scientists in Roy and John, who refuse to dabble in the cesspool of alarmist pseudo-science.
I guess I can expect nothing less from someone who claims heat can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
He’s not denigrating, he’s explaining.
Do you not realize that the changing methods for satellite global temperature records have included adjustments larger than any done to the surface data sets? UAH has some of the largest!
And this fact goes to your other point – if better coverage means a more accurate global temperature record, how is it that UAH (and RSS and NOAA/STAR) have such different results between versions?
I’m not denigrating UAH, either. But you’re fanboying UAH despite them facing the same issues as the other datasets, and making significant adjustments – which you seem to view as intrinsically bad.
You’re biased, Gordon. Blatantly so.
barry,
What is the point of any of the temperature datasets? All they can do is tell you what the temperature was, not what it’s going to be.
Do you agree or not?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1486687
barry,
Doing a Willard, are you?
If your irrelevant link contained a valid answer, you would have at least quoted (presumably) yourself.
But you didnt, so your posting a link, rather than an answer, shows that you are unable o4 unwilling to agree that the past is the past, and no guide to the future.
As usual, another delusional SkyDragon cultist, unable to state what it is they believe in – preferring to keep their beliefs secret, lest they be laughed at.
Just like the increasingly irrelevant US administration, which refuses to confirm or deny anything that might expose them to condemnation or ridicule! Gutless.
Click the link. I’m tired of repeating myself.
swenson…”What is the point of any of the temperature datasets? All they can do is tell you what the temperature was, not what its going to be”.
***
My point exactly. They call it the ***HISTORICAL*** data record and NOAA brags about how many records they have in it. What the heck good does it do us for current temperature data where NOAA advised us they slashed the number of surface reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Gavin Schmidt over at GISS whined they lack the funds to call around and verify the data globally and I am guessing that is the same with NOAA. They simply cannot handle any more than 1500 stations per month.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1486768
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Time to put Gordon’s “1500 stations” claim to bed.
Here is a description of the GHCN data:
https://tinyurl.com/GHCN-Desc
Note the four links under “Meta-data Inventories”, where they list all stations used by them.
I have condensed that list into one Excel file:
https://tinyurl.com/GHCN-Stations
The first worksheet shows temperature-measuring stations still operating in 2023. There are 11495 of them.
The second shows temperature-measuring stations which were closed at some time before 2023. There are 29335 of them.
The third shows stations which do not measure temperature (83415).
The fourth shows all stations, and the fifth the country codes that appear in the station ID.
The file is large – you will want to download rather than trying to use online.
AQ,
I assume you think that historical temperature records have magic properties.
Do you intend to predict the future by chanting your way through them?
You can’t think of a single reason why they could possibly be of use, can you? You cant even describe the GHE, so no amount of numbers or any type are going to be of use.
Idiot. Try SHOUTING sonething or other, if you think that will make you appear less stupid.
GHCN is not NOAA, NOAA owns them but hey do not use the overall database of GHCN. As NOAA claimed, they are using less than 1500 stations to determine the land surface temperature.
If you want the dirt on GHCN, NOAA, GISS, et al, it’s well-documented here…start here…
note—this site is very deep with links…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
or here…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
or here…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
or here…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
If you prefer video…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3NxkzUIE8&ab_channel=KUSINews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdrjvnxG6U&ab_channel=KUSINews
Gordon
I delayed responding because I was in an email exchange with Scott Stephens of NOAA.
Referring to this link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
he stated:
“The link you reference is old methodology and should no longer be referenced. NOAAGlobalTemp is now the operational dataset used to compute global land and ocean temperature anomalies.”
He added:
“The land part of the calculation for NOAAGlobalTemp uses the GHCNm dataset. Presently, that number is about 26,000 land stations.”
I asked him:
“Could I just clarify that this means you use ALL 26000 GHCNm stations, and that no stations are omitted (other than of course when a station doesn’t return a value for a particular month).”
His response was:
“The short answer is yes, but of course station ingest and availability vary month to month, and thus the numbers.”
He also provided me with a link which explained that the reason only 26000 stations are used instead of all 40000 is that only stations with at least a ten year contiguous record are included.
That is the ONLY reason for excluding stations.
In short, you are full of BS.
Who is Scott Stephens? For all I know, he’s the janitor.
When someone replies with an euphemism like ‘the short answer is’, that person is dodging the fact that he/she doesn’t really know. I mean, what else would you expect from NOAA where they declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability?
He is a meteorologist at NOAA.
Who is Gordon Robertson? For all I know he’s trench digger.
When someone bases their claim about NASA and GHCN upon an old link that doesn’t even mention GHCN then you know they have no idea what they are talking about.
EM Smith aka ‘chiefio’, one more of these ‘Zero. Nada. Zilch.’ bloggers, is one of those Robertson endlessly appeals to the authority of.
*
Robertson did never understand what happened to EM Smith in 2009.
This chiefio guy was so dumb that he didn’t even realize that NOAA’s people were moving lots of stations from the GHCN V2 directory to V3 at the very time he thought they were going to make all the stations disappear.
No wonder an idiot like Robertson admires such an absolutely incompetent blogger so much: for Robertson, the most important thing about a source of information is that it’s always contrarian, regardless its technical skill or credibility.
Two other head posts by Smith also typify his utter incompetence: the one about Bolivia and the one about California.
1. About Bolivia, Smith claimed that they would replace missing station data by data from stations having barely anything in common with what the Bolivian stations would have reported.
Then I collected within GHCN V3 all stations 500 km around Bolivia, computed their average and compared it to the Bolivian GHCN average with the data missed, certainly due to political reasons:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
2. Even today, though having been contradicted many times, ignoramus Robertson still repeats Smith’s umproven claim that NOAA and GISS would ‘have dropped all Californian stations located in the mountains’, and would have kept only those near the sea ‘to make the temperatures warmer’.
This was of course utterly wrong, but unfortunately, I lost the link to the comment I made long time ago concerning that stupid lie.
***
You see upthread that there is no chance that Robertson would ever admit how stupid his eternal 1500 station claim really is.
Exactly those people unable to prove their claims – due to their own lack of technical skill – are also those who never admit being wrong: but Robertson isn’t the only one ‘on board’.
*
Again and again: Robertson is also a coward because he never would dare to ask Roy Spencer about what data NOAA really uses: he intuitively guesses what Spencer would tell him.
binny…”This chiefio guy was so dumb that he didnt even realize that NOAAs people were moving lots of stations from the GHCN V2 directory to V3 at the very time he thought they were going to make all the stations disappear”.
***
More Teutonic Pferdescheie from Binny. Shovels it as fast as he can.
aq…did you bother to check the links to chiefio?
“As NOAA claimed, they are using less than 1500 stations to determine the land surface temperature.”
facepalm
Year after year you spout this utter nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487046
Gordon claims he is a mere ‘skeptic’ – he doesn’t realise how much of a true denier he is.
I made the effort to explore his claim by contacting NOAA, but he rejects that out of hand as a denier would. He would never even think of actually contacting NOAA. He refuses to even consider the possibility that he could be wrong, instead trawling through my comment desperately searching for a negative instead of searching with a level head. And of course he found one – with his BS claim about “the short answer is”.
He is just an unthinking fanatic.
AQ,
You really are a simple soul, aren’t you?
Do you really believe everything that NOAA says?
For example – “This deep water moves south, between the continents, past the equator, and down to the ends of Africa and South America.”
Some dimwits at NOAA have been looking at a globe on someone’s desk, and imagining water flows from North to South for no good reason at all! Have these idiots not realised that gravity does not operate North to South?
Maybe their grasp of physics and ocean currents is even more pathetic than yours. No wonder they prefer to waste time and taxpayers’ money looking at historical temperature records – which achieves precisely nothing at all!
The US Government version of a sheltered workshop for delusional SkyDragon cultists?
Try explaining the role of the GHE in surface cooling at night. Only joking, dummy. I know you can’t!
Carry on.
I reject what you found out because your contact failed to explain the NOAA claim that they slashed reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500. He could have linked you to a site that amends the ‘old’ claim. Until I see such an amendment, or someone at NOAA who can clearly explain the situation, I remain skeptical.
When Gavin Schmidt was asked a similar question at GISS, at least he claimed they did not have the budget to verify all the temperatures they receive. I am presuming that NOAA lacks the budget to process more than 1500 stations monthly. Why else would they slash the number of stations so drastically?
Gordon
As I stated, the old claim was never made about GHCN data. You made that claim. So there is no need to amend it.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
As I stated, the old claim was never made about GHCN data. You made that claim. So there is no need to amend it.”
Well, that certainly cleared something up!
What was it?
Idiot.
Earlier, Arkady wrote –
Pseudoscience refers to any belief, claim, or practice that is presented as scientific but lacks the essential characteristics and methodology of genuine scientific inquiry.
Indeed. Climatology is one such. Its apostles steadfastly refuse to even enunciate the things in which they believe – merely responding its worse than we thought to any requests for clarity.
Gordon,
NOAA uses GHCN monthly for their global temp record. This is the latest update to that inventory (2018).
“In summary, GHCNm v4 is made up of more than 25 000 land-based station records, an increase of 18 000 stations from versions 2 and 3.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/24/jcli-d-18-0094.1.xml
Your understanding of station count is not only wrong, it’s 13 years out of date. To quote from the web page you are always linking, “over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
NOAA has kept adding stations to the data set. You’re stuck in the past.
In the article I posted, they admitted to slashing the number of stations they use monthly from 6000 to less than 1500. Until I see evidence they have reversed that policy I am going with what they said.
You can go on about GHCN all you want but till I see direct evidence of the system they use to calculate their monthly averages, I remain skeptical.
God, Gordon, do you actually not know that NOAA uses GHCN monthly for its global data?
“Through the years, the main data sources for the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset have been the Global Historical Climatology Network – Monthly (GHCNm), which uses weather stations across the land surfaces, as well as the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), which uses ships, buoys, surface drifters, profiling floats, and recently other uncrewed automatic systems, over the ocean surfaces.”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/noaa-updates-its-global-surface-temperature-dataset
GHCN monthly version 4 has upwards of 25,000 weather stations in the database.
It’s like you are trying to be ignorant. The article you posted is 13 years old. This must a Guiness book of records for sticking fingers in the ears.
He thinks NOAA get to pick out individual stations rather than using the single figure that is fed to them by GHCN.
He doesn’t realize that in his 13 year old article, NOAA is talking about GHCN monthly. He thinks that the NOAA global temperature dataset uses a different database than GHCN monthly. It’s astonishing that this guy keeps pontificating about this subject without knowing anything about it. One paragraph in a web article for the public 13 years ago tells him all he need to know. It’s the most wilful ignorance I’ve ever witnessed.
I’m not convinced it’s even GHCN. It is not mentioned anywhere in the answer to that question.
And Scott Stephens from NASA who I emailed yesterday said: “The link you reference is old methodology and should no longer be referenced. NOAAGlobalTemp is now the operational dataset used to compute global land and ocean temperature anomalies.”
Noice.
The change is re methodology, updated versions of GHCN and ERSST, and the addition of other data. In 2010 NOAA was definitely using GHCN monthly for its global land component of the global temp record.
GHCN monthly has ALWAYS been the dataset used for land-based temperature data in NOAA official global temperature record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/ghcnm-transition
barry, please stop trolling.
barry, aq, binny and all others who base their theories on appeals to authority…
NOAA was investigated by the Trump admin and ordered to turn over data and other materials for audit and verification. They outright refused to comply.
Had-crut did the same with Steve McIntyre when he politely asked for their data for verification. Phil Jones asked why he should turn it over so someone could use it against them. Begging your pardon, Phil, why should that be a concern if your data is legit? Then he whined that he had lost it and it wasn’t even his anyway, so he couldn’t release it. Sort of a take on the dog at my ‘homework’.
In 2014, NOAA proclaimed it the warmest year ever, but in the small print, they claimed it was ‘likely’ the hottest year, based on a 48% probability. The shysters at GISS were using a 38% probability for the same claim. Meantime, UAH showed 2014 as nothing out of the ordinary, especially compared to 1998, 2010, and 2016.
NOAA fudged the SST to remove the so-called pause just prior to the Paris agreement.
Now you guys want me to accept NOAA’s word that the data is good and they use all the data in GHCN. GHCN used to be the historical network, meaning it was an archive. Now they have sub-divided it into GHCNd, the d meaning daily. But they don’t tell you what data they are using daily and how much. Is someone going to try telling me they process over 100,000 records per month, after verifying it?
Did aq ask his NOAA contact for the exact number of stations used in their monthly fudge sessions? Is there anything in the GHCN site info that states how many stations are used? All we get is double-talk about how large the database is.
“barry, aq, binny and all others who base their theories on appeals to authority… you guys want me to accept NOAA’s word”
Does this mean you are now dismissing the 13 year-old NOAA briefing you link to? Or are you going to tap your nose and tell us that THIS time they were telling the truth.
Your bias confirmation screams like a siren.
barry, please stop trolling.
More on NOAA’s chicanery.
https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/
Gordon,
It doesn’t matter how many records they have. They still don’t predict the future.
At least some staff at NOAA accept reality, in relation to the difficulty of even predicting tides at a specific location. Here’s just one example –
“At Eastport, ME the observed and predicted times of high water are within 0.11 hours of each other on average. Observed and predicted times of low water are within 0.12 hours on average. On average, the heights of observed and predicted high waters are within 0.147m (0.48 ft.); low waters are within 0.135m (0.44ft.); and hourly heights are within 0.143m (0.47ft.).” – NOAA.
This from a mob who claim that they can predict global sea levels to within half a thousandth of an inch (0.01 mm) in some cases!
Fools will follow trends right to the end, and then whine that they werent told that trends have been known to change without warning!
That’s an old story about John Bates’ administrative complaint. He did not complain that the work was faulty – and in fact said that he knew people would misuse his complaint to bash NOAA researchers.
An independent review of the situation conducted by a team appointed by the Trump Administration found the work to be sound, and that while procedures had been followed for the most part, made recommendation to improve the wording of NOAA policy. The other complaint that was upheld was that the paper in question should have included a disclaimer to the effect that it was not a NOAA internal document.
The ‘skeptic’ narrative on this is, of course, a scenario of cheating scientists faking data and fooling the world.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”Do you not realize that the changing methods for satellite global temperature records have included adjustments larger than any done to the surface data sets? UAH has some of the largest!”
***
Show me one. You claim not to be shooting down the UAH data sets but you sure do a good job with the propaganda here.
Pre 1998 data previously showed no trend.
After a correction due to orbital decay the trend is now +0.093C/decade.
This correction was made only after the issue had been pointed out by others and Dr Spencer had resisted for as long as he dared.
Antonin Qwerty
Two years ago I compared
– the differences between UAH LT 6.0 and the previous 5.6 revision
to
– the differences between the current GISS version and that archived in 2012:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6axDruUd62XggCQtxje25aI8I4bOFGX/view
Cela nous dit tout, me semble-t-il.
I’ll quote from Spencer and Christy’s 1998 paper:
“The combination of these changes causes the 18+ year trend of T2LT to be warmer by +0.03°C decade”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/8/1520-0442_1998_011_2016_aotmpf_2.0.co_2.xml?
For comparison, the RSS update in 2018 changed the trend by +0.02°C decade.
Again in 2005 UAH revised its data:
“The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1”
https://tinyurl.com/2pnhjaaa
Are you truly unaware that UAH has undergone major revisions, Gordon?
And now that you know, are you going to hold that if a dataset undergoes “blatant corrections”, that this automatically renders it untrustworthy?
The point I am making is not the UAH is better or worse than another dataset, but that they all suffer from the same problems and all undergo corrections for them.
YOU are the one who is favouring one and denigrating others. I am not doing that. You are projecting your own style of bias onto others.
Part of the situation with the UAH results up to 1997 is that the time series included some warm El Ninos early in the period and the cooling from Pinatubo after 1991. The result was the small trend thru April 1997, as reported by Christy and Spencer in 1998 (figure 14). After the 1998 El Nino, the calculated trends increased.
In the paper I quoted, the update to version D, the time series used was January 1979 to April 1997.
I want to be clear for Gordon that the 0.03 C/decade trend difference was NOT partly due to an el Nino. This was purely due to a correction to their methods.
Swanson, barry, please stop trolling.
Here you can again admire the endless ignorance of Flynnson:
” This from a mob who claim that they can predict global sea levels to within half a thousandth of an inch (0.01 mm) in some cases! ”
Frogs would say: ‘Plus bête tu meurs’, dumber you die.
His proud sentence is in his mind real science, written by an arrogant guy who isn’t even able to grasp the difference between the trend of a global average of sea levels varying by meters, and the 0.01 mm/year of standard error associated to the trend.
Le alone would he be able to notice that sea levels measured by hundreds of tide gauges worldwide are surprisingly similar to those measured by satellite-borne altimetry devices:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
But for the great Flynnson, all that matters is endlessly discrediting and denigrating everything around him.
Isn’t it about time we all stopped replying to him. It took me far too long to stop feeding the troll, and I think it’s time to starve him of the attention he craves.
Agreed.
But that is valid for trolls like Robertson as well.
And yet we react endlessly to his 1500 NOAA stations nonsense he will ever and ever repeat.
Frank Zappa would have said: “The torture never stops…” :–)
At least Gordon’s main purpose for commenting isn’t to attack.
Attack is the sole motivation for Flynn’s comments.
Mike Flynn has no teeth tho.
” At least Gordons main purpose for commenting isn’t to attack. ”
So? Then by ‘attack’ we mean different things – or his constant attacks on people whose work he doesn’t have the slightest idea about, don’t bother you.
He permanently insults all NOAA, GISS, Met Office people, Einstein as well, and even dares to call Newton’s main translator a ‘cheating son of a bitch’ just because he himself wasn’t even able to read Newton’s Latin text correctly.
*
At least does Flynnson understand things like time dilation and the need to care about special/general relativity and the Sagnac effect when implementing GPS.
Robertson is by far to dumb and opinionated to grasp such things.
I didn’t say Gordon doesn’t attack – he does so all the time. I said only that it isn’t his primary purpose in commenting. He generally tries to explain something, albeit almost always wrongly.
Flynn almost rarely tries to explain anything. His are just slimy, vengeful attacks, usually consisting of the same repetitive garbage. The primary purpose of his attacks is to shit all over a thread in order to stymie further discussion, whereas Gordon’s comments, no matter how dumb, never deter more input.
Flynn — rarely …
“He generally tries to explain something, albeit almost always wrongly”.
***
You need to qualify that, aq. You mean almost always wrong wrt your biased and inadequate understanding of science.
Gordon
Should I begin with the phases of the moon?
binny…”and even dares to call Newtons main translator a cheating son of a bitch…”
***
Tut, tut, Binny, I amended that to ‘misinformed’.
We have to give the guy credit for the colossal amount of work he did in interpreting Principia, however, we also need to keep in mind that much of Newton’s work was cutting edge and the interpreter did not have Newton to consult as to meaning.
That’s mainly why I questioned his interpretation of Newton claiming the Moon rotated on its own axis. Newton clearly claimed that the Moon moved with a liner motion that was bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. Newton also noted that the Moon kept the same face pointed at Earth.
The reference to Newton claiming the Moon rotated on its own axis comes down to the interpretation of the Old Latin for ‘revolve’, which could be interpreted with a different meaning than rotate. Newton did not use the word rotate. Based on Newton’s clear description of lunar linear motion, and gravity changing its course to produce a curvilinear motion, it makes no sense to me that Newton would have missed the glaring fact that the Moon cannot also rotate on a local axis while performing said motion while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
If you look at Newton’s description of lunar motion closely, it describes what we have described her as a change of orientation. wrt the stars.
I think the translator was influenced by the likes of Cassini, who mistakenly claimed the Moon rotates once on a local axis per orbit. He was obviously wrong, and Tesla proved it using an elegant usage of kinetic energies. Therefore, the translator made an assumption of what Newton meant and interpreted him based on the popular views of Cassini.
Put another way, if Newton had believed the Moon rotated on its own axis, he would surely have expounded on that. There is barely anything in Principia to that end. Not more than a sentence or two. Newton spent scads of time describing the Moon’s orbit, complete with intricate diagrams, but nothing on how it rotated on a local axis at the same time.
I think Newton must have felt, like the rest of us non-spinners, that it was obvious the Moon could not move as described while rotating about a local axis at the same time.
aq…re the phases of the Moon, it will cost you 5 pounds for a bloody good argument.
binny…”and the Sagnac effect when implementing GPS”.
***
I have explained in great detail why a reference to time dilation with GPS sats is wrong. I drew on my experience and training in communications systems. Not a peep out of you in response.
To review, there is no such thing as time, a concept we humans invented based on the natural period of rotation of the Earth. A natural period has no time associated with it. Like acceleration we can view it as a natural event and it’s not till we want to measure it that we need to introduce time.
So, we had a body rotating about a local axis in space, driven only by angular momentum, and we had the Sun as an external reference point. We built a machine, called a clock, that synchronized to one complete rotation of the Earth wrt the Sun. We sub-divided that period into a day, hours, minutes, and seconds, and called it time.
Then we discovered that atoms like Cesium have very regular oscillations as well, that are driven by internal forces. We learned how to divide those oscillations down till they equaled one of the seconds we derived from the Earth’s rotation. So, we created a clock that was more accurate than the Earth’s rotation but which still depends on the second derived from the Earth’s rotation.
That second can never be changed in duration unless the Earth change its period of rotation, hence time dilation is nonsense.
Furthermore, any time difference between the atomic clocks on a flying sat and the clocks in ground stations, is due to relative motion and the time it takes an EM signal to fly between the two. It has noting to do with Einsteinian relativity and the related stupid theories of time dilation.
Gordon
No argument is required to know that the moon’s phases are NOT caused by the earth’s shadow.
Nor does whether or not the moon rotates affect the moon’s phases.
Do those beliefs of yours illustrate your “adequate understanding of science”?
> it will cost you 5 pounds
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re in CAD. He’s in AUD.
Let go of your colonial past.
Willard
The timing of Gordon’s posts in recent times suggest a possible change in location. I am worried that he might have put a dent in Australia’s average IQ by joining us here. Here’s hoping he has only changed his sleep patterns.
aq…no worries, I won’t be in Oz anytime soon. My buddy has a g/f in Sydney, however.
My erratic hours have a different explanation.
Well that’s a relief. Now we only have to send Robert Holmes (aka 1000frolly) back to England and our average IQ will return to normal.
It’s pretty darn hot these days in BC, AQ.
Bordo won’t tell you because, you know.
The reason you want to start a union to boycott Swenson is that he asks intelligent questions you cannot answer. So, like a load of giggling pr-teen girls you want to stop talking to him.
The irony is that Swenson is not even responding to you, he is merely writing replies to people who understand good science. You boycott him if that turns your crank but I’ll keep on reading and responding to his comments because they are witty and to the point.
No, he is not asking intelligent questions.
For example, the eternal refrain that the world was much hotter when it was formed and is now cooler has nothing to do with the topic of anthropogenic global warming or the greenhouse effect. It’s implied premise is that there are other factors that affect global surface temperature, which no one disputes. This is a stupid, not an intelligent question.
His riposte to 2nd law discussions and the GHE (using an analogy of sweaters or blankets making people warmer) that dead bodies don’t get any warmer with or without a blanket is another gormless red herring that no one disputes as fact, and intelligent people realize misses the point.
The fact that he asks these questions in the middle of discussions about utterly unrelated topics is also gtestament to the witlessness of his contribution.
He offers no references, and he won’t click on links to check references given. His commentary is most usually beside the point and in bad faith.
Abridged version: he is a troll.
Way too judgemental, Barry. There’s an obvious light-heartedness and wit in Swenson’s posts. I think he’s just having a good time posting points that you guys find niggling.
He reacts to different posters in different ways. He has disagreed with me on several occasions and we discussed it amicably, agreeing to disagree.
All of us posting here have crossed the line when it comes to diplomacy. Never having been much for diplomatic solutions, I tend to revel in the opposite. That is, if someone insists on being undiplomatic.
Trolls are a different animal altogether. They have little or no interest in what goes on in a forum, they simply want to disrupt and they go to great length to do that.
Swenson lobs his off-topic comments at any conversation. When he doesn’t contribute to the ongoing conversation, that is disruptive. Trolling.
How many times have you seen him lob his “you can’t even define the greenhouse effect” into conversations that have nothing to do with it?
The repetitiveness alone is boorish.
I guess it’s ‘witty’ if you like Punch and Judy shows.
Here’s a clear example of him trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487049
All he has to do is click on a link to my comment to get the answer he seeks, but instead casts aspersions, presumably to get a rise out of me. This isn’t remotely good-faith discussion. He’s a troll pure and simple.
“Way too judgemental, Barry.”
Gordon sees Swenson as being on his TEAM. His feelings about him are similar to America’s feelings about various murderous dictators they propped up, Somoza, Noriega, Shah of Iran, Marcos, Pinochet :
“He may be an SOB but he’s our SOB”
“The irony is that Swenson is not even responding to you, he is merely writing replies to people who understand good science.”
So if he is not responding to me, what does the AQ mean at the beginning of every reply?
The hierarchy of climate science denial:
1/ Conspiracy theories;
2/ Fake experts;
3/ Impossible expectations;
4/ Misrepresentations and logical fallacies;
5/ Cherry-picking; and
6/ it’s too late; you scientists really should have warned us earlier.
There is a potential link between the hierarchy of needs and climate science denial. The hierarchy of needs, proposed by psychologist Abraham Maslow, suggests that individuals have a set of prioritized needs that must be fulfilled in a specific order, starting with basic physiological needs (e.g., food, water, shelter) and progressing to higher-level needs such as social belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization.
In the context of climate science denial, some arguments and behaviors can be influenced by the perception that addressing climate change conflicts with more immediate or tangible needs. Climate change is a long-term and complex global issue that requires collective action, policy changes, and potentially sacrifices in the short term. This can create a perceived conflict between the urgency of meeting immediate needs and addressing long-term environmental challenges.
For example, individuals who struggle to meet their basic needs or face economic hardships may prioritize concerns such as employment, financial stability, or access to affordable energy over addressing climate change. In such cases, the need for immediate economic security may overshadow the recognition or acceptance of the risks posed by climate change.
Additionally, social and cultural factors, as well as ideological or political beliefs, can influence climate science denial. People’s worldviews and belief systems can shape their acceptance or rejection of scientific evidence. Climate science denial can be driven by factors such as political affiliations, mistrust of institutions, ideological biases, or resistance to change.
Ark, that’s ALL political cultism. There’s no science there.
Your “climate science” compares Earth to an imaginary sphere, and claims that makes sense. Your “climate science” claims CO2 somehow results in a “forcing”. Your “climate science” tries to “balance” radiative flux as if it were energy.
REAL science does not violate the laws of physics. Why do you want to pervert science? Why do you want to pervert reality?
ark…you start out quoting Maslow with no idea who he was or what he stood for. Maslow preached humanitarian psychology and I was a fan of his, especially one of his contemporaries, Carl Rogers. Rogers developed the concept of encounter groups, aimed at deconditioning soldiers returning from war, and was far more effective as a psychologist than Maslow, who turned out to be a foot note in psychology.
Everything you quoted from Maslow is pure theory, which no one has ever applied. Humans are far more complex than what Maslow visualized even though I value his contribution. However, it was Rogers who exposed the underlying ridiculous nature of psychology and psychotherapy in general.
He did a study of various forms of psychotherapy, including his own, Client-Centred Therapy, and reached a conclusion that no form of therapy was more than 60% effective. In fact, he rated psychoanalysis, where people can spend years lying on a psychiatrists couch, as no better than no therapy at all.
A student of Rogers, Eugene Gendlin, arrived at a reason. He concluded that people who benefited from therapy were predisposed to it. In other words, they had an inherent understanding of the process which helped them work with the psychotherapist. For those who lacked the predisposition, therapy proved ineffective.
I am trying to say that quoting a famous psychologist means nothing if the end effect of the theory is inconclusive.
Nice try, though. It shows that you are putting more effort into the science than other alarmists.
BTW…there is a glaring weakness in your argument re Maslow and his theories, You presume that global warming/climate change theory is correct, and that people will be inclined to reject it due to more pressing needs.
No kidding!!! Most people will go berserk if they are prevented from driving their cars or heating their home based on a theory that has no scientific proof. It won’t be just the poor. I am betting we will be revisited with the equivalent of the vaccine passport. Those who can wheedle their way into getting a passport, like the wealthy and privileged, will have no problem driving their gas-guzzling SUVs while the rest of us will be relegated to walking and riding bikes, while freezing in the dark.
Rather than quoting Maslow, how about taking a page from your own advice and dig out the scientific method. Prove conclusively that a trace gas can cause more than an insignificant warming, and that even a warming of 1C over 170 years can cause any kind of catastrophic climate change.
“Everything you quoted from Maslow is pure theory, which no one has ever applied.”
Obviously you have never been in management.
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been influential in the field of management science and has implications for understanding employee motivation, satisfaction, and engagement. Here are some common applications of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in management:
1/ Meeting physiological and safety needs: Organizations recognize the importance of providing competitive salaries, benefits, and a safe working environment to fulfill employees’ basic physiological and safety needs. This includes ensuring fair compensation, access to healthcare, adequate workplace safety measures, and job security.
2/ Addressing social needs: Companies promote a positive work culture that fosters social connections and a sense of belonging. This can be achieved through team-building activities, open communication channels, and creating opportunities for social interactions and collaboration among employees.
3/ Enhancing esteem needs: Managers can provide recognition and praise for employees’ achievements, both through formal programs and informal feedback. Creating a culture of appreciation and valuing employees’ contributions helps fulfill esteem needs and boosts self-confidence.
4/ Supporting self-actualization: Organizations can offer opportunities for growth, learning, and development. This includes training programs, career advancement prospects, and allowing employees to pursue their passions and interests within their roles. Providing autonomy and empowerment in decision-making also fosters a sense of self-actualization.
It’s worth noting that while Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been influential, contemporary management theories have expanded upon these ideas, considering additional factors such as autonomy, purpose, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the direct application of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in modern management science may be supplemented by other frameworks and theories.
Management and organizational behavior are predicated on motivation theories and their applications in the workplace, including Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
This is Management 101.
ark…”Obviously you have never been in management.
Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs has been influential in the field of management science and has implications for understanding employee motivation, satisfaction, and engagement”.
***
Puleeeeze, gimme a break. Management is the last place you will find humanitarians like Maslow, all they want is a method to manipulate workers into working harder for less money and benefits. They pervert Maslow’s theories for their own benefit, not for the welfare of employees.
Most benefits that employees receive today come from the work of unions. Unions were formed by workers to demand better wages and conditions, and that led to better wages because non-union employers were forced to go along or lose their workers to unionized companies. They were eventually badgered into better working conditions and benefits even though many of them today offer poor wages and only the conditions governments imposed on them after unions affected them too.
An example. I worked at a place where the owner/manager called us together near Christmas to offer us a sob-story as to why he could not offer us a Christmas bonus that year. Then he took his family to Hawaii for the holidays.
Most management-types I have encountered are immature scumbags who lie through their teeth.
ark…”Addressing social needs: Companies promote a positive work culture that fosters social connections and a sense of belonging”.
***
Obviously, you have never worked in the real, work-a-day world. I have worked in jobs where the boss emphasizes ‘family’, but what he really means is ‘I am the daddy, and you had better do what I say and act as I instruct, or you’re gone’. All that bs about a positive work culture has nothing to do with the needs of the worker, it is an ideology aimed at compliance.
Personally, I think most workplaces are a source of stress.
ark…”Enhancing esteem needs: Managers can provide recognition and praise for employees achievements, both through formal programs and informal feedback. Creating a culture of appreciation and valuing employees contributions helps fulfill esteem needs and boosts self-confidence”.
***
Where do you find this bs? All this crap you are pushing is bush-league psychology that benefits no one but the owners.
Here’s the real world. I began working for a computer outfit where we were encouraged not to discuss our salaries. There was a black kid from Uganda working there who had far more experience than me, yet my starting salary was significantly higher than his. He had an extended family to support and I was single.
Later, when the workers rebelled and wanted to form a union, I got dragged into it reluctantly. I was a supporter of unions but being new on the job I did not want to rock the boat. However, I knew the rules related to forming unions in Canada and when the company started their dirty tricks aimed at interfering with the process I had to act.
This was a company that practiced all the bs you mention in your post. Essentially, you were rewarded based on your race, how well you shone your shoes, and how well you butt-kissed the company.
I have been there, done that. Don’t lay your theoretical bs on me.
The Scientific Method 101:
The scientific method does not aim to prove things conclusively but rather seeks to provide the best available evidence and understanding based on the current scientific knowledge. In the case of AGW, the scientific consensus, as supported by a vast body of evidence, indicates that human activities are a significant driver of global warming and climate change. This consensus is based on the comprehensive evaluation of multiple lines of evidence, including direct observations, paleoclimate data, modeling, and theoretical understanding of the Earth’s climate system.
While the scientific method does not provide absolute proof, the cumulative evidence from climate change research supports the conclusion that AGW is occurring. Scientists continue to refine their understanding through ongoing research, data collection, and analysis to improve predictions and inform policy decisions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Sorry Ark, but that’s more like “Cult Indoctrination” than anything to do with science.
If you’re claiming CO2 can warm the planet, you need to show the “mechanism”. How does CO2 warm the planet? When pressed to the wall, your cult can only arrive at the atmosphere is a “blanket”. But, that blanket has many holes in it, due to radiative gases. IOW, CO2 cools the planet.
Clint R
Please do not pretend you care about any actual explanation or facts on this topic. You have been given much information that you ignore.
Just be the honest offensive, rude troll you have always been. You have zero interest in science of any type. You only want to annoy people for your sick and perverted pleasure. You think it is fun to annoy people and get a reaction from them.
But since you post this really stupid point. How do you think the CO2 will radiated away more energy than the surface would with no CO2? CO2 cools the upper atmosphere, it does not cool the surface. Logically why do you think it would? The Surface is warmer and has a much greater emissivity than CO2 so how could CO2 radiate away more energy than the surface would do without an atmosphere?
Your points are very illogical and have no bearing on any reality. They are designed only to provoke and annoy. Unless you really are so stupid as to think a cold atmosphere radiates more energy than a warm surface. You could be that stupid but I don’t think so. More likely you are being an offensive troll to gratify some sick desire you have to intentionally annoy people. I think young kids like to do this. Most adults try to grow out of this mentality as it does not help them much in getting along.
norman…” You [Clint] have zero interest in science of any type”.
***
I disagree, Clint has offered many insights into science in this blog over the years. He started the discussion of the non-rotation of the Moon, for example, and defended it well. He has prompted me to think at a deeper level and I appreciate that.
Clint and I took shots at each other but the science is more important than emotional venting. Give it a try, Norman, get past your emotional responses and use your angst to learn at a deeper level.
Nothing speaks stronger than truth. Find the truth and present it. If it is truth, it will be indefensible.
Gordon Robertson
I soundly totally disagree with you! He has never supported any claim he makes. Ever!
That is NOT science at all it is cult minded trolling. He does it to amuse himself. He does not care anything about facts. I have personally given him many facts. His usual troll response is “a link he does not understand”.
If you call his tactics science you are deluded as to what science is. Evidence based system of forming hypothesis to explain phenomena.
He never defended his non-spinning moon nonsense (similar to flat-Earth nonsense no facts can work on such cult minded clowns). He just keeps bringing up a ball on a string. That is not science. Bindidon and myself linked him to a NASA article where they explained that the Moon rotation had to be taken into account for the lunar orbiter to meet up with the surface astronauts.
He cannot understand Tidal Locking even when I linked him to the math to explain how it works. He falsely believes since a steel ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a gravity field that eliminates Tidal-Locking. He does not understand nor does he care to that the Moon “bulges” from Earth Gravity have different acceleration since they are at different distance from Earth Center. He cannot understand this at all.
NO he does not care about science nor does he inspire thought with good ideas. He just says stupid anti-science garbage to intentionally annoy people for his own sick amusement. He has a mental defect that that he does not see in himself and cannot correct.
You can believe he is scientific but he is NOT at all!
Norman, you’ve forgotten the rules: No troll tactics allowed. That means no insults, no misrepresentations, and no false accusations.
You’re welcome to try again, if you think you can handle it.
Clint R
Guess who does not care about your idiot rules.
Nothing changes the fact that you are a trolling idiot who derives sick pleasure from annoying people.
rules of no rules you are an idiot. Maybe only Swenson is dumber of all the posters on this blog. You come close to his poor quality posting. Hard to tell which of you two is the dumber.
Well, looks like you couldn’t handle it, Norman.
No surprise there, huh?
Clint R
Your rules are as idiotic as you are. You come up with rules you do not attempt to follow. If I made rules I would be first to follow them. If you want posters to follow your rules then follow them or shut up.
Responsible adults don’t need rules, Norman. But responsible rules often benefit responsible adults. For example, with my rules I no longer need to waste time with immature, uneducated cult idiots.
And when they insist on stalking me, I just state that I will no longer continue the discussion (feed the troll). Without their source of attention, they typically fade away.
For example, I won’t be responding anymore today to your troll tactics.
ark…”The scientific method does not aim to prove things conclusively but rather seeks to provide the best available evidence and understanding based on the current scientific knowledge. In the case of AGW, the scientific consensus, as supported by a vast body of evidence, indicates that human activities are a significant driver of global warming and climate change. This consensus is based on the comprehensive evaluation of multiple lines of evidence…”
***
Now let me quote the real scientific method is 5 easy steps…
1)state your objective
2)explain your methodology
3)explain your apparatus and materials
4)make your observations
5)form you conclusions.
When all that is done, you write it up in a paper and submit it to a journal. If the journal is not made up of spineless scumbags, they will have it reviewed for basic science principles and it it passes review, it will be published. Then, other scientists can test your findings.
After all, peer review is meant as a review by your scientific peers, not some idiot editor at a journal.
Note there is nothing in there about consensus, which belongs in the field of philosophy, not science. You philosophers who created the hypothesis of AGW are not welcome in real science, until you follow the scientific method above and prove your case.
Arkady,
“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.” – Feynman.
You don’t even have a testable hypothesis for the GHE, because you can’t even describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, can you?
Scientific Method 101? More like delusional SkyDragon cultist propaganda 101!
You wrote “. . . indicates that human activities are a significant driver of global warming and climate change.”
Well, yes, eight billion people create lots of heat. Climate is just the statistics of past weather, and weather is the observations of a chaotic atmosphere. I notice you can’t bring yourself to mention the mythical GHE, nor CO2.
Is that just a slimy attempt to avoid having to face reality? Maybe you think that by not mentioning the GHE or CO2, you are being clever.
What are you trying to imply? That changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has some sort of measurable effect on weather? That you can explain the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling?
Of course you can’t! You are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
wee willy…”Its pretty darn hot these days in BC, AQ”.
***
It is a mite hot for this time of the year but two summers ago, when a heat wave struck in mid-June, alarmists were tripping over themselves claiming it as evidence of climate change. Surprisingly, NOAA pointed to the real reason, La Nina.
This year, the alarmists are surprisingly quiet. I think they are confused that a heat wave would occur in mid-May and maybe some of them are beginning to question the propaganda that it is caused by a trace gas.
The biggest concern are the many wildfires burning in Alberta. Even more surprisingly, 4 reasons were given for the fires and one of them was NOT climate change.
ps. Although it is a bit too hot for comfort, it is a nice change from the inordinate cold of the recent winter. I thought it would never end. We set records for cold temperatures.
> It is a mite hot for this time of the year but
C’mon, Bordo.
This “but” would not fit your skinny jeans.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Deniers (you know who you are) should direct their efforts towards scientific understanding, reviewing the evidence, and engaging in constructive conversations, in order to bridge the gap between their dogmatic opinions and reality.
Dogma: “It is a mite hot for this time of the year…”
Reality: https://postimg.cc/JGTtxKSD
https://postimg.cc/2q894jRN
Dogma: “How does CO2 warm the planet?”
Reality: The mechanisms by which carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earth’s surface and troposphere and cools the stratosphere are well-established and supported by scientific research.
Dogma: The mechanisms by which carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earth’s surface and troposphere and cools the stratosphere are well-established and supported by scientific research.
AKA, the check is in the mail….
Righto:
Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer’s oil-industry ties
https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html
Big oil pumps $1 billion into climate change lobbying, execs laugh about Trump access
https://electrek.co/2019/03/25/big-oil-climate-lobbying/
Thank you for pointing this out.
More good examples of dogma, Ark.
Another cult idiot that called himself “Tyson” used to supply dogma like that. It’s good to know Tyson has a replacement.
You may also like:
“I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
https://postimg.cc/QFSQ2g77
Thank you for pointing this out.
OK, TM.
It didn’t take long for you to abandon your “AKA, the check is in the mail…” comment without offering any proof AKA the receipts, or rebutting mine.
However, it is understandable that discussions on complex subjects like climate change can evoke strong emotions and opinions. It is important to approach such discussions with an open mind, willingness to listen to different perspectives, and a commitment to reasoned and respectful dialogue. Jumping to conclusions and dismissing information without careful consideration can hinder productive conversations and hinder the pursuit of knowledge.
Let us strive for a more constructive engagement, where we critically examine ideas, challenge assumptions, and foster an environment of intellectual growth and understanding.
Arkady,
Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.
Why do you have strong emotions or opinions about statistics?
Feel free to discuss as much as you like. I’m all ears, as the saying goes.
Ark, the *check is in the mail was in reference to your inability to support your dogma.
Try to keep up.
Latest ENSO forecasts.
Japanese Meteorological Agency
“ENSO neutral conditions continued, though the equatorial Pacific ocean evolved toward El Nio conditions.
It is likely that El Niño conditions will develop by boreal summer (80%)."
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
NOAA
“ENSO-neutral conditions are observed. Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are near-to-above average across most of the Pacific Ocean. A transition from ENSO-neutral is expected in the next couple of months, with a greater than 90% chance of El Niño persisting into the Northern Hemisphere winter.”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
“The ENSO Outlook remains at El Niño WATCH. This means that while the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is currently neutral, there is approximately a 50% chance of El Niño developing in 2023. This is about twice the normal likelihood.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
The IOD is also predicted to enter a positive phase. Interestingly, it has been suggested that a positive IOD is essential for an El Nino to turn Very Strong.
(I predict certain people will misrepresent what I just said.)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
(Note that IOD is predicted to peak in August but to return back to neutral for October.)
Bindidon
The plume which indicates a return to the IOD threshold in October is only the BOM model. The summary of international models below the plume indicates that the mean of these models is still above the threshold in October.
A six month excursion is typical for the IOD.
AQ,
You wrote –
“The plume which indicates a return to the IOD threshold in October is only the BOM model. The summary of international models below the plume indicates that the mean of these models is still above the threshold in October.
A six month excursion is typical for the IOD.”
Did you have a reason for writing that, or were you trying to convince somebody that you were a clever chappie?
Die Gurkentruppe is back in enso forecasting business
Eben
How about making a positive contribution for once instead of these brainless antagonistic comments.
Twerpy must be new here
Yet you KNOW that isn’t the case. If I were new then I wouldn’t know that your ONLY contribution is these types of comments, now would I. Do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to say? Or are you going to continue playing the 10 year old?
How long – not including today have you been in alarmist business
AQ,
You wrote –
“Yet you KNOW that isnt the case. If I were new then I wouldnt know that your ONLY contribution is these types of comments, now would I. Do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to say? Or are you going to continue playing the 10 year old?”
Ooooh! That will pulverize him, won’t it? Reduce him to a blubbering jelly?
You idiot – you can’t even describe the GHE, so you have no choice but to burble on about irrelevancies.
Just another witless and confused SkyDragon cultist, trying desperately to avoid facing the reality that CO2 does not make thermometers even a teensy weeny bit hotter.
What a fool you are!
What?? Do you have anything at all to contribute to the IOD discussion? How about you wait until I actually comment about climate.
AQ,
You wrote –
“What?? Do you have anything at all to contribute to the IOD discussion? How about you wait until I actually comment about climate.”
What are you babbling about? The Indian Ocean Dipole (I assume that is what the acronym IOD refers to, but correct me if I’m wrong), is just more historical temperature observations. No discussion needed.
As to your silly “How about you wait . . .”, why should I? You may comment on anything you like – I have no control over you whatsoever. How about you realise that I might not value your opinions so highly that I wait with bated breath for you to deliver what you believe to be pearls of wisdom from your keyboard.
Come on then, comment about climate (the statistics of historical weather observations).
I’m waiting.
No Im not, I was essaying a little humour.
Carry on,
AQ,
How about making a positive contribution for once instead of these brainless antagonistic comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487631
Wonky Wee Willy,
How about making a positive contribution for once instead of these brainless antagonistic comments in the form of irrelevant links.
Mike Flynn,
Are you such a moron that you do not realize when you are spoon fed?
Moron.
Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?
Are they the SkyDragon cult replacement for the crystal ball, or casting runes?
Or do you all just love wasting time for no good reason at all?
Very mysterious.
Did you say something?
Don’t even say that to him. It is difficult at first, but just see his name then move on to the next comment. I’ve managed not to read past his first line for a few weeks now – which I regard as an achievement.
Barry,
You wrote –
“Did you say something?”
Maybe you are a little retarded, so I’ll repeat myself – just for you and your fellow nutters:
Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?
Are they the SkyDragon cult replacement for the crystal ball, or casting runes?
Or do you all just love wasting time for no good reason at all?
Very mysterious.
Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?
Are they the SkyDragon cult replacement for the crystal ball, or casting runes?
Or do you all just love wasting time for no good reason at all?
Very mysterious.
I guess not.
barry…please answer the question. Why are you alarmists besotted by historical temperature records?
Arkady,
I Barry,
You wrote
Did you say something?
Maybe you are a little retarded, so Ill repeat myself just for you and your fellow nutters:
Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?
Are they the SkyDragon cult replacement for the crystal ball, or casting runes?
Or do you all just love wasting time for no good reason at all?
Very mysterious.
Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?
Are they the SkyDragon cult replacement for the crystal ball, or casting runes?
Or do you all just love wasting time for no good reason at all?
Very mysterious.
En fuego!
North Atlantic sea surface temperatures showing the average temperature Jan. 1 – May 18, for each year 1982-2023: https://postimg.cc/njqXQwFs
North Atlantic sea surface temperatures for May 19: https://postimg.cc/JGV9qY1r
Arkady,
I suppose you think you have a reason for posting historical so-called “sea surface temperatures”, but you are cunningly not mentioning what it is.
Do the words “sea surface temperatures” make you feel tingly all over, or are they part of some secret SkyDragon cult ritual?
Only joking – you don’t have any reason, do you?
So, the Atlantic warmed, on average, by about 1C. That’s to be expected by variations in the Atlantic Meriodinal Oscillation. Having said that, I don’t trust averages, especially in the hands of alarmists.
You need to catch up on your reading ark, this stuff seems to be new to you. Maybe as you go along you’ll learn about the Great Global Warming Swindle and become a convert to our side.
You regard us as deniers but we are in fact folks who care about the drastic effect current climate alarmist beliefs will have on people.
Personally, I’m all for responsible environmentalism and cleaning up pollution. I am also a realist, I realize the distastrous path we are on to deny people fossil fuels that are desperately required. In fact, I am ready to vehemently resist any idiot who tries to thrust that nonsense upon us.
Any time I see a graph representing a fraction of a degree warming in bright reds and orange colours, I tune it out. I think it’s alarmist and manipulative.
ark…”En fuego!”
***
It stumps me as to how you alarmists become so stupid. You lecture us on the scientific method and science yet you refer to an average warming on 1C as something being ‘on fire’, especially when it’s water being referenced.
Are you really that dumb?
Gordon
It’s funny how you were crying and whining when your “buddies” Swenson and Clint recently called you dumb yet you have no problem in dishing it out yourself. Do you deserve special treatment?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
Its funny how you were crying and whining when your “buddies” Swenson and Clint recently called you dumb yet you have no problem in dishing it out yourself. Do you deserve special treatment?”
Is that really the best you can do? It’s a bit pathetic, don’t you think?
If you wanted to reduce Gordon to a gibbering, incoherent blob, you could produce the fabled description of the GHE. It’s a pity that all you can do is cry and whine about the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and does so each night!
What’s the role of the mythical GHE in such cooling? That’s a rhetorical question, of course. The non-existent GHE has no effect on anything, because it’s non-existent!
Geez, you’re really stupid, aren’t you?
Gordon,
A quick walk through the history of NOAA’s global temperature product.
1) The land-based part of that global temp record has always been GHCN monthly.
2) The 1st version (1992) of GHCN monthly included 6039 stations, and data only went up to 1990. All stations included have at least 10 years of continuous data.
3) The 2nd version of GHCN monthly (1997) included around 7200 stations, with 1502 updating monthly.
4) No change in station count for version 3 GHCN monthly (2012), but data for many stations has been backfilled, as well as the 1502 regularly reporting.
5) The 4th version of GHCN monthly (2018) includes around 26,000 stations, with about 2800 updating in real time.
barry,
What is this fixation with historical temperature records? How can there be different “versions” or “products”?
Hopefully, temperatures are recorded using a suitable instrument, and the data is stored in some fashion – why, I have no idea, then other as a historical curiosity.
You seem totally absorbed by the completely useless – you can’t even say why you suffer from this fixation, can you?
Maybe you believe that you can predict the future by intense contemplation of history, but if you do, I fear you will be doomed to disappointment. Of course, you are free to waste your time as you see fit.
Carry on.
That’s a question for Gordon. He keeps bringing up the temp records. My fixation is with correcting his appallingly erroneous views.
barry,
What does your fixation achieve? Do you believe there is any useful reason for endlessly examining historical temperature records, or are you just trying to look clever?
Nobody’s “views” change a single fact, do they?
Accept reality – there is not even a valid description of the GHE – anywhere.
Temperatures change nothing.
“Why are you nutters so besotted with historical temperature observations?”
Odd question from someone who posts 172 times on a blog entitled “uah-global-temperature-update”
Maybe he should consider visiting a blog that actually interests him?
Just a thought.
barry…you still have not addressed the link I provided from the NOAA site in which they admitted to slashing the number of surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Where is the evidence they have changed their minds? I am not about to take anecdotal evidence from aq that he spoke to a legitimate authority at NOAA.
EVERYONE has addressed that link. Why do you lie?
No, they have not. If they had, and were not completely stupid, they could read what NOAA wrote, that they had slashed the number of global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
I have addressed it, Bindidon has addressed it, Barry has addressed it. Your refusal to accept those responses does not mean they were not made.
AQ,
What do the NOAA (or anybody else’s) temperature records achieve?
Nothing, that’s what. Apart from giving delusional SkyDragon cultists the opportunity to weep and moan, and generally fall about the place crying “It’s worse than we thought!”.
Oh well, maybe you can “address” something else as a diversion.
Give it a try, if you think it will help.
AQ,
Why are you delusional?
Gordon,
If I linked you to the methods papers for each update to GHCN, would you accept that? Or would you call it all lies?
If I link you to pages from NOAA saying that GHCN monthly has always been the dataset used for the land component of their global temperature record, would you write it off as lies?
Please tell me what source would be sufficient, because from everything you’ve written above I don’t think there is any that you would accept.
barry…nothing will satisfy me but a reasonable explanation by NOAA that nullifies the statement about them slashing stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
The explanation by aq’s contact struck me as rather dodgy.
Since the link statement was made before the current push by climate alarmists in the Biden admin, I seriously doubt that NOAA will come clean. I simply don’t trust them, especially after claiming 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability.
I am curious as to why you place such blind trust in them.
I am curious why YOU place such blind trust in the links you provided to “prove” malfeasance by NOAA.
This is a real Duh!!! moment, a Homer Simpson Doh!!! moment.
The link points to the NOAA site you ninny. It is NOAA reps printing the information.
Duh!!!
WHAT?? The links pointed to CHIEFIO. You just can’t stop lying.
AQ,
You wrote “WHAT?? The links pointed to CHIEFIO. You just cant stop lying.” as if you thought someone might value your opinion.
Unlikely. You probably can’t name even one person who is likely to be influenced by your views.
Mind you, out of eight billion people in the world, you might be able to find a handful even more delusional than yourself. Let me know if you do.
By the way, can you explain the role o& the GHE in surface cooling at night? No? I thought not.
[laughs at dimwit’s attempt to troll]
The 1500 refers to the stations that updated once a month at the time that web page was published, and the rest was non-updating historical data that have always been in the GHCN monthly database and included in the NOAA global temp record.
Here are the release notes for the 4 versions of GHCN monthly.
GHCN v1
https://doi.org/10.2172/10178730
GHCN v2
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
GhCN v3
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD016187
GHCN v4
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/24/jcli-d-18-0094.1.xml
You can see how many stations are currently updated monthly by scrolling down at the following link, scrolling down a little, leaving the data as April 2023 to April 2023, change GHCNv4 to ‘unadjusted’, and you’ll see the number of monthly updating stations displayed (9048)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
Confirmation NOAA have always used GHCN monthly for their global temperature record.
“Through the years, the main data sources for the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset have been the Global Historical Climatology Network – Monthly (GHCNm), which uses weather stations across the land surfaces, as well as the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST)”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/noaa-updates-its-global-surface-temperature-dataset
“NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI, formerly National Climatic Data Center) has developed and maintained the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) data set since 1992 (Vose et al. 1992). The GHCN-M data set was created with the intention of having a single repository of climate data for stations across the globe…
The GHCN-M v2 has been the official dataset since its release, and has been widely used in several international climate assessments, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as our monthly State of the Climate reports and in the yearly State of the Climate published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
NCEI scientists continued to improve the data set, resulting in a version 3 of GHCN-M…”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/ghcnm-transition
barry,
You wrote –
“NCEI scientists continued to improve the data set, . . . ”
Improve? By making “adjustments”, perhaps?
Do you think that “more advanced techniques for removing data inhomogeneities,” means more devious ways of removing inconvenient data? Maybe you don’t realise just how stupid the nutters at NOAA are. They issue “Monthly climate reports”!
Here’s a “climate highlight” – “On Apr 1, a 700-yard-wide EF-3 tornado touched down in DE, becoming the widest tornado in the state’s history and tying as its strongest.”
Seems like a weather report to me, nothing to do with “climate”. Feel free to disagree.
I asked my daughter if she wanted to be rich or respected.
She said, “Neither, Dad, I want to be just like you!”
swenson…to wee willy…”How about making a positive contribution for once instead of these brainless antagonistic comments in the form of irrelevant links”.
***
I think it’s wee willy’s mission and his job. I don’t think for one second that he just happened to come across Roy’s site. I think he is an emissary from skepticalscience or one of the other nutter sites pushing climate change propaganda.
Come on, Bordo.
Mike Flynn was responding to AQ.
I offered him a comment where AQ did exactly what he asked.
He spat on it.
Why do you condone this behaviour?
I condone it because Swenson provides good arguments and offers a hunourous wit. People who are affected by that are humourless, anal twits.
C’mon, Bordo.
Mike Flynn provides neither, and you condone it because you are a pathetic asshole.
Weird Wee Willy,
“Pathetic asshole”? Surely you can do better!
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? That would make you a pathetic delusional SkyDragon cultist – an object of derision.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Only joking, you can’t, any more than you can provide a valid description of the GHE.
Carry on with your idiotic attempts to sidestep reality.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Moron.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
aq…”If I were new then I wouldnt know that your ONLY contribution is these types of comments, now would I”.
***
What I am wondering is why you felt the need to change your nym? I know ‘a quewrty’ is new and if you have been around for a while, who were you before?
I could guess, but unlike wee willy I have no obsession in that direction. It is better to know who one is dealing with rather than having alarmists changing their nyms all the time.
Binny took the cake with that one. He got miffed with us and told us he was leaving. Within a week, a new nym appeared who posted uncannily like Binny. It was a female nym, however, and when confronted, Binny claimed it was his g/f, but insisted it was not him.
This constant shuffling of nyms by alarmists just strengthens my impression they are flaky.
> I could guess
Come on, Bordo.
No, you could not.
You would need to read and remember what you read.
Antonin used to comment as “Des”, a long time ago. Then it was “Bob”, or “Bond”, or “Bobdesbond”. Then he went by the name “Midas” for a while.
It’s the same story with Tyson McGuffin, who flits between commenting as “Tyson McGuffin” and “Arkady Ivanovich”, as well as moonlighting as “Andrea Weinberg”.
Little Willy will only criticise such activity if it’s someone from the other team, however.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
You forgot “Rob”. And “Bob” came first, back when there was no one here by the name of “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team”. Funny how someone could stumble across this site for the first time and come up with that name for their first post.
Why do you see this as an issue? Why don’t you also see Swenson “M.ke Flynn”, “A.mazed”) and Clint R (g.e.r.a.n, “JD.Huffman”) changing their names as an issue, especially given they deny it? Gordon and Barry are just about the only ones who have posted consistently under one name since I started here.
“Little Willy will only criticise such activity if its someone from the other team, however.” … Sounds like your own MO. I don’t see anything in his post which criticises it. Any criticism elsewhere is only about denial when pressed.
I actually am against sock puppets, AQ. When playing Climateball, pick one name and stick to it forever.
But then Gaslighting Graham denies that he is using sock puppets, so he is just being the usual manipulative dipshit that he usually is.
Willard
“Sock puppetry” refers to the practice of supporting the opinions of one account by posting under another. To make it seem as though there is more support for an opinion than there really is. It is not about merely using a second name. I have never gamed my names. And I’m not claiming that the others have either.
The only one I am aware of having done that here is someone else by the name of Bob, who appears very infrequently here and more often on Youtube, and is a denier – I’ve forgotten his surname. But he continually swaps between his name and that of a person he claims to be his Asian wife thinking independently, but somehow manages to speak in exactly the same way.
Each of my name changes has resulted from having difficulties posting on this site (difficulties which everyone has had) and trying a new name to see if that fixes the problem. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t and I just have to wait until the problem goes away. It causes no problems as long as people are honest about it, and as long as it is not done to get around having being blcoked (a la Swenson and Clint R).
AQ,
You may not be aware that Mike Flynn commented here not that long ago. I can’t remember the circumstances, but he certainly didn’t appear to be blocked or censored. You could always check for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
In any case, all this nonsense about whose pseudonyms are more valid than others is quite silly, isn’t it? If you believe that surrounding thermometers with CO2 makes them hotter, then you are quite delusional!
If you can’t validly describe the GHE under one name, you are hardly likely to be able to achieve such a miracle under a different name, are you?
You’re about as silly as Willy. Which of you do think is dumber?
AQ,
Sockpuppetry is more general nowadays. It includes things like restriction prevention. The point of signing one’s comments with a persistent name is to carry an identity. That you felt the need to change yours when another Bob came around tells you all you need to know about personal identity. If you keep changing your name, you are no better than any other silly sock puppet.
Gaslighting Graham’s norm stretch is different. He decided to pick something like a reserved word. (There is an interesting Radiolab episode called NULL that shows where this can lead.) He has been asked many times to pick another nick. Directly and indirectly. Not just by me. But he prefers to keep trolling using that ironic and immature handle. This is par for his Machiavellian course.
What I sign with your Climateball name is my honor. I was considering your suggestion of ignoring Mike’s moronic comments. At least when he’s not pretending to address me. You are now AQ. If I see you change your identity again, I will disregard your suggestion.
Lastly, if you have a problem getting comments through, just stop for a few hours. If you insist too much, your login credentials will get flagged as spam. On a deprecated and unsupervised installation, you don’t want that. If you get that on other blogs, contact Akismet to make sure you’re whitelisted:
https://akismet.com/contact/
Do you always respond to a non-attack with an attack? You preach about what you incorrectly call sock puppets, yet commit the far greater sin of incessantly using the same foul language as Flynn and Clint.
Do you seriously think that whether or not you ignore me is going to make any difference to what I do? Perhaps if it were Barry or Norman, or someone else whose actions here deserve my regard.
Heads up – there was no one posting here under the name of “Willard” back in 2019 or earlier when Swenson was last posting under the name of “Mike Flynn”.
I point at
[AQ] Do you always respond to a non-attack with an attack?
And I point at
[ALSO AQ] yet commit the far greater sin
That is not all.
What you call a “far greater sin” is irrelevant to the point I was making. So that’s a fallacious tu quoque. Also, I countered your argument – online sockpuppetry encompasses something more general than the old political connotation.
I don’t give a shit about your tone trolling, dude.
I give a shit about you acting like a fucking sock puppet.
Is that clearer?
Oh, and since you mention Moron Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713287
Notice the date. Notice the argument.
Mike is an old Climateball fellow.
Hey Dudnik
Boy are you a nutter.
I give a shit about you copying Flynn and Clint’s trolling techniques. I do not give a shit what you believe “the point” is. When I am commenting I decide “the point” of my comment.
I have no idea what “climateball” is.
I also have no idea what copying me in your opening lines is about. Do you believe it is an example of responding to a non-attack with an attack? Heads up – for that to be the case, your comment I was replying to would first have to be a non-attack.
And I see you had your Twitter account suspended. Why am I not surprised.
I already answered your rhetorical question, Puppy One. Which part of tu quoque you do not get?
As for your second rhetorical question – yes, I believe you need to take heed of the fact that people value personal identity, be it real or virtual. Not because I say so. Because they have valid reasons to do.
I am not saying what I believe to sway you. I am saying it because Gaslighting Graham challenged me to do so. By contrast, I considered reducing my interaction with Moron Mike after your earlier requests to me. Not because any of your antiquated beliefs regarding how we should deal with such trolls. Out of respect, which you now are losing.
The point that went above your head is that I know Mike Flynn from before here. That responds to a third of your rhetorical questions.
Arguing by rhetorical questions is stupid. Not because Richard does it all the time. Because it is annoying AF.
You find it annoying? Thanks for the info. I wonder – how should I use it …
As you already do.
Checking back, your *heads up* was not a question, though. It was merely an indication that you might be new to Climateball.
Do you happen do comment on other climate blogs using different socks by any chance?
The only other place I comment is Youtube. I have one account for commenting and one account for checking whether my comments have been ghost-blocked.
Who wrote these Rhetorical questions:
Could it be that El Nino is closer to Australia than the Sun?
So you cant find it for yourself?
Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you only pretending, because you are stupid?
Is there a chance you wont make a moronic comment?
Which part of tu quoque you do not get?
Are you such a moron that you do not realize when you are spoon fed?
Has it occurred to you that youre doing exactly what you would call butt kissing?
Dont you feel a bit stupid faltering on an analogy even kids can get?
I guess you are also annoying AF.
Patience, grasshopper –
To whom were these questions directed – to you?
Do you really think *I* care if you ask *me* a rhetorical question?
What do you think will happen if you do?
You know what rhetors say about rhetorical questions?
Do you not make the difference between asking and arguing?
Have you ever heard of 481?
Is this another silly tu quoque?
***
So, YT. Eh. How the hell did you stumble upon here, then?
You said you find it annoying. So either you care or you were lying for dramatic effect.
“Do you not ??make?? the difference between asking and arguing”
“Epiplexis
Epiplexis is a rhetorical device in which one asks a question in order to admonish rather than receive an answer.”
All the examples I provided fit that category.
Keep squirming.
Incorrect, grasshopper. I said it was annoying AF. As in, it is generally frowned upon. I’m sure you could find instances of a rhetorical question that is not annoying AF. Couldn’t you?
So I did not say *I* find it annoying. I find it silly. As in, self-defeating. From where I come, we learn to write dissertation by asking questions. It can be called problematization. I hope to have shown you that it’s second nature to me. Should I?
But wait – does it mean *you* don’t find it annoying? That should mean you don’t really find Moron Mike that annoying? For we both know that it’s his pet trick, right? Perhaps you don’t find what Moron Mike does annoying AF after all. Would that be a reasonable inference?
Do you not realize that you’re pulling the “by your logic” trick Gaslighting Graham just did to you to escape your interrogation? I can unpack this last bit with more questions if you want.
Yep – the squirming continues. It must be draining having to continue to wriggle yourself out of a hole like that every time. I’m afraid you will need to keep wriggling in your next comment …
“It is annoying … but hey, I’m special, I’m resistant. I am just such a caring person and I was thinking of everyone else who is not as strong as me, people who have no part in this discussion and have no interest in what is being said.”
Let me try that for myself:
“You are a tosser.” …
… But hey, I didn’t attack you there … I was simply telling you what everyone else thinks.
And now you will try to claim there is a difference between “it is” and “you are” with respect to that “logic”.
.
.
.
Funny how you assert a “by your logic” argument immediately after just completing your own “by your logic” argument … “by your logic, you won’t find Flynn annoying”. So many logical flaws there – where do I even begin …
… There are MANY issues with Flynn’s comments, but let’s say only three … A, B and C.
You just said “If you have no issue with A, then you should have no issue with Flynn’s comments.”
Which means you are saying that B and C by themselves or in combination are insufficient by themselves to cause a problem.
Which means firstly that you are imposing your own priorities on me.
And the issue you have just declared not to annoy you you are now declaring as the number one issue, one which is apparently a necessary condition to find Flynn annoying.
.
.
.
It is intriguing how easily otherwise logical people can toss their logic aside when they have a win at all costs mindset. We see it with the deniers (at least the ones who are endowed with a basic sense of logic, so not Gordon), and now we see it with you.
Let your squirming continue …
You are still showing impatience, Grasshopper.
No, I haven’t *said* that if you have no issue with rhetorical questions, then you should have no issue with Mike’s comments. I asked why you take issue with Mike’s comments if rhetorical questions do not bother you. The latter does not imply the former.
One possible answer could be that Mike keeps shifting the burden of proof. This shows that Mike transfers commitment. Questions do not have the same level of commitment that claims have.
I’m talking of commitment because a similar idea applies to online identity. Someone who keeps changing persona can end up being unable to honor their commitment. For auditors, this sucks to no end. Climateball can be a long game, and I’d rather disregard your commitments than having to trace back everything you said under your various socks.
An epiplexis is indeed a rhetorical question, but not all rhetorical questions are epiplectic. That you focus on the former when I was asking about the latter shows that you are trying once again to flip the table.
Do you think it will work?
“I asked why you take issue with Mike’s comments IF rhetorical questions do not bother you.”
Asking “why A” implies PRECISELY that you believe “not A”. That is, that “you shouldnt take issue with Mike’s comments IF rhetorical questions do not bother you”. Which is a logically equivalent rewording of “if you have no issue with rhetorical questions then you should have no issue with Mikes comments”.
But of course you could claim otherwise because ‘by asking a question you’ve transferred commitment’.
.
.
.
I defined Epiplexis in response to your question “Do you not ‘make’ the difference between asking and arguing”.
Firstly I had to try to figure out what “make” was doing there. “Make” and “difference” go together in only one context, and you certainly werent using them in that context. So I had no idea what you were trying to ask, and I had no idea of your purpose in asking.
So I had no choice but to assume your meaning and purpose. I assumed you were implying that the examples I cited of you using rhetorical questions were not indeed rhetorical. Stating that those citations were epiplectic DOES indeed challenge your question as I assumed you to mean it. If your question meant something else and/or had a different purpose then you will need to clarify. I recall seeing from you another unnatural collocation of English words somewhere on this page.
.
.
.
What do you mean by ‘honour my commitment’? What is my ‘commitment.. Who is this auditor, what are they auditing, what does it have to do with anything here, and why would I modify what I do and say for the sake of such a person? Again, WHAT IS “CLIMATEBALL”? Is it a word you made up? Do you try to kill people by firing blobs of climate at them. And why would you feel the need or the desire to “trace back” what I have said in the past, except for the purpose of stalking/trolling?
I already saw that comment. But where?
Ah yes, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488292
I wasn’t criticising. Changing your name is fine in my opinion. Sock puppetry is something else altogether. Little Willy doesn’t understand the difference.
Why would you bring it up all the time if not to criticise? The only other explanation I can think of is trolling. Just like changing someone’s name for the purpose of belittling. Or talking to someone you are directly replying to in the third person.
Is changing one’s name to escape a ban also OK?
And you haven’t dealt with the second and third sentences of my opening paragraph.
Gaslighting Graham overplays his hand once again, AQ.
He wasn’t criticizing *you*, but *me*. Because, you know, I should have recognized your old socks in threads where I wasn’t around. Usually about stuff I could not care less, like ENSO-related events.
As if he does not recall when I told B4 to stick to one and only one Climateball nick.
A simple explanation is that he’s betting that *you* do not recall that I did. Why would you? So he’s trying to exploit a lack of knowledge to get to me.
Another way he’s manipulating you is by using a “by your logic” argument. It’s not that he’s against socks, it’s that *I* am against it. He makes no commitment regarding them. And since he made no commitment, what does he have to lose?
I mean, I don’t blame him. He had three Sky Dragon cranks talking points, and he lost them all. What else does he have to keep in the game?
Nothing to deal with, Antonin.
Dremt – three questions asked, 0.5 answered. Perhaps the meandering rant above distracted you. Give it a second go.
Gordon asked:
“What I am wondering is why you felt the need to change your nym? I know ‘a quewrty’ is new and if you have been around for a while, who were you before?”
I responded, since I knew who you were before. I also took the opportunity to criticise Little Willy, who thoroughly deserves all criticism. I was not criticising you for changing your name. That’s it. That’s all the involvement I have with this thread. No need to answer any questions.
[A] Why would you bring it up all the time if not to criticise?
[G] I wasn’t criticising.
[W] He wasn’t criticizing *you*, but *me*.
[G] I also took the opportunity to criticise W
So beautiful. So true.
What are the 2.5 questions that remain, again?
Little Willy tries to pretend there’s some problem with what I’ve said or done in this thread. There isn’t.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again, all the while forgetting about the “why would you bring it up all the time” part of the question.
I don’t bring it up all the time. I occasionally mention that Antonin used to post under different names because of all the grief I get…
…and what Tyson/Arkady/Andrea is doing counts as actual sock puppetry.
> I occasionally mention
And so Gaslighting Graham goes the distinction without a difference.
As I said earlier to Grasshopper, the reason why his sock is frowned upon is because he’s used something like a protected word. One earlier sock was no better, a mere pun. In both cases, he is piggybacking on another person’s identity.
Neither are cool, but his last moniker suffers from being too localized. He now has to go on other blogs, confusing readers along the way.
What will happen when he’ll grow out of it?
Little Willy changes the subject to, “I don’t approve of your name”. Oh. Well, I don’t care if you disapprove. So that’s the end of that diversion.
First, Graham tried to evade the question by distorting it. Then he tried to pretend he answered it. And when he finally answered, he tried to minimize the criticism he received by conflating his own choice of sock with those who get tired of Roy’s fussy parser. And now he pretends that the topic he himself introduced is irrelevant.
Quite an ironic moderator we have here.
At what point does the accumulation of these shenanigans turns into pure gaslighting?
No idea what you’re on about.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more…
Incorrect.
Gaslighting Graham does not always *not* criticize, but when he does not it’s because people give him grief about his silly sock.
Huh?
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Here is him:
[GG1] I occasionally mention that [Grasshopper] used to post under different names because of all the grief I get…
And here is him:
[GG2] I was not criticising you for changing your name.
Which leads to interesting questions.
First, is GG1 restricted to Grasshopper? If so, then he could be criticizing Binny. Second, and more importantly, how does the overall logic work exactly?
There are limits as to what one can hide under a “by your logic” stance. And Gaslighting Graham might be about to discover some of them.
Changing names is fine.
Sock puppetry is not fine.
Is it fine for Gaslighting Graham to change his definition of sock puppetry to criticize Tyson?
Is he criticizing Binny?
Gaslighting Graham is so very clear all the time.
Pretty clear, yeah. As Antonin said:
““Sock puppetry” refers to the practice of supporting the opinions of one account by posting under another. To make it seem as though there is more support for an opinion than there really is. It is not about merely using a second name. I have never gamed my names. And I’m not claiming that the others have either.“
If, as I suspect, Tyson has posted as Tyson, Arkady, and Andrea, then that is sock puppetry…because I have witnessed Tyson interact with Andrea. These are accounts that are running concurrently. Not consecutively.
Bindidon…I think he did at one point post under both Bindidon and La Pangolina at the same time. So that would also be sock puppetry, if my recollection is correct.
In what way does Gaslighting Graham’s definition applies to Tyson?
Why doesn’t he apply it to Mike Flynn?
Gaslighting Graham is so very elucidating…
I just explained how it applies to Tyson. If Swenson did indeed once post as Mike Flynn, they never posted at the same time. It is not the case that Swenson and Mike Flynn interacted in a thread. So it would be a name change, not sock puppetry.
Compare and contrast:
[DEPRECATED] “Sock puppetry” refers to the practice of supporting the opinions of one account by posting under another.
[MIKE FLYNN UNDER ANOTHER NAME] as far as I know Mike Flynn has never even tried to to describe the GHE
According to Graham’s logic, Mike Flynn’s new nick is no sockpuppet because he never posted with more than one at the same time.
The Master of Clarity strikes again.
Sock puppets have to be accounts that are active concurrently, not consecutively. Dead simple.
Mike Flynn pretends he’s not Mike Flynn.
Sockpuppetry.
Dead simple.
Our Master of Clarity forgot do clarify – how is Tyson commenting under various names at the same time?
I don’t see Tyson commenting on this page under his usual name.
I have seen Tyson interact in a thread with Andrea before, as I said. Arkady has turned up recently, posting in a very similar way to Tyson. Perhaps it is a name change from Tyson to Arkady. Depends if we see Tyson post again. Identifying true sock puppetry is difficult. Accusing all people who simply change their name of sock puppetry is just silly.
And so Gaslighting Graham has a roundabout way to say that, yes indeed, Tyson kept to one and only one nick on that page. According to his own logic, that should be the end of it. Thus he keeps misrepresenting his own definition.
Sockpuppetry is all about deception.
Suppose Bob changes his nick to “Des” and Bordo, the great diplomat that he is, asks:
(Bordo) Hey, did you write this comment, Bob?
(Des) Yeah, it me. Damn login problems.
Then nobody in their right mind ought to see any problem with what Bob did. Now, suppose that Des becomes “Trent” and that it took a month of teasing before Bob admits being Trent. Again, Bordo:
(Bordo) Hey, Des disappeared for a month and now there’s “Trent.”
(Des) Sorry, I thought it was obvious. My bad. Next time I’ll warn y’all.
Again, all should end well. But there was a time where some deception could take place.
***
So the main question ought to be: was there deception?
In Mike Flynn’s case, it’s quite clear. So it is in Pupman’s case. Yet Gaslighting Graham has to play the Very Clear Guy to sidestep the judgement that they’re both silly sockpuppets.
In Bob’s case, he seemed quite open about his nick change, but only after being called out. That’s suboptimal – being proactive during the change might help.
In Binny’s case, it was also clear, although he fooled no one and could argue that he was being as ironic as Gaslighting Graham pretends to be.
B4’s case is a little different. He’s switching account names between Climateball websites. To me it’s still deceptive.
Graham’s own case is also different. To me, his nickname is deceptive. However ironic he wants it to be, it takes a while for newcomers to get that he’s just a little Machiavellian who likes to piggyback on someone else’s identity.
***
Now, what about Tyson? To see Graham’s dispositive evidence would be nice. For now he’s only relevant insofar as he shows that Gaslighting Graham has *no* idea how to read and understand a definition properly.
Tyson interacted with Andrea in a thread. Arkady turned up on the scene at a time when Tyson was still commenting, IIRC. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? If someone is using multiple accounts concurrently to make it appear as though more people agree with their opinions, that is sock puppetry.
You objecting to my name has nothing to do with anything.
And so Gaslighting Graham, instead of doing the honorable thing and admit that Pupman and Mike Flynn indeed comment under sockpuppets (each in their own loveable way), Gaslighting Graham waves his arms.
So much clarity he provides at all times for us all.
If Clint R and Swenson changed names to escape a ban then that could be considered sock puppetry. Then again…if there was a ban, was the ban justified? Was Mike Flynn actually banned? You can still post his name, so it seems not.
Gaslighting Graham confuses himself once more.
Pupman has been bannned. Many times over the decade he has been here. New socks have been created to bypass it.
The clearest case of sockpuppetry there is. No ifs, no buts. And by Graham’s own logic, sockpuppetry is bad.
Mike Flynn has presumably not been banned. He has only been “disinvited” by Roy. Around the same time, Mike started to reappear under various nicknames. Each time he could admit that it was him he denied it. He still speaks of Mike Flynn as another person.
Pure deception. Sockpuppetry. And by Graham’s logic, etc.
Cases closed.
I just said that if Clint R and Swenson changed names to avoid a ban then it could be considered sock puppetry. However, was the ban justified? Something to consider. If a ban is not justified you can’t really blame people for coming back under a different name.
Once again, we have flimsy evidence that Mike Flynn was ever banned. What we know is that Roy showed him the door. So to say that both were banned would be incorrect.
Graham just can’t bring himself to realize that the nature of the deception involved in sockpuppetry can vary. As with all interesting questions, there’s no categorical answer.
All that matters for now is that everyone ought to agree that the worst sockpuppets here are Pupman and Mike Flynn. This is the entry price for every time Graham will try to pull me in again with this question.
Over and out.
Why do I waste my breath? Suddenly the number one topic of discussion is Swenson and Clint R. Yet was that originally what I commented about? No.
sockpuppet:
“often used to refer to alternative online identities or user accounts used for purposes of deception. Online, it came to be used to refer to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.
The use of the term has expanded to now include other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend, or support a person or organization,[3] to manipulate public opinion,[4] or to circumvent restrictions, such as viewing a social media account that they are blocked from, suspension, or an outright ban from a website. A significant difference between a pseudonym[5] and a sock puppet is that the latter poses as a third party independent of the main account operator.”
From wikipedia.
Whenever I’ve seen the term used it is about people getting around bans and/or pretending to be someone else.
In both cases it’s straight out deceit. Your mileage may vary on how acceptable that is.
So we’re agreed that what Tyson/Arkady/Andrea and Bindidon/La Pangolina did is not OK.
Unless they are upfront about who they are/have been then I definitely look down on it.
The only other monicker I’ve ever posted under is barryschwarz, and never used two different nyms on the same website.
What other monickers have you posted under, DREMT?
None of your business, barry.
Dare I dream that someday we will come to a blog where people focus on the science content of the posts, not the character of the posters?
“I asked why you take issue with Mikes comments IF rhetorical questions do not bother you.”
Asking “why A” is implying PRECISELY that you believe “not A”. That is, that “you shouldn’t take issue with Mike’s comments IF rhetorical questions do not bother you”. Which is a logically equivalent rewording of “if you have no issue with rhetorical questions then you should have no issue with Mikes comments”.
But of course you could claim otherwise because ‘by asking a question you’ve transferred commitment’.
.
.
.
I defined Epiplexis in response to your question “Do you not ‘make’ the difference between asking and arguing”.
Firstly I had to try to figure out what “make” was doing there. “Make” and “difference” go together in only one context, and you certainly weren’t using them in that context. So I had no idea what you were trying to ask, and I had no idea of your purpose in asking.
So I had no choice but to assume your meaning and purpose. I assumed you were implying that the examples I cited of you using rhetorical questions were not indeed rhetorical. Stating that those citations were epiplectic DOES indeed challenge your question as I assumed you to mean it. If your question meant something else and/or had a different purpose then you will need to clarify. I recall seeing from you another unnatural collocation of English words somewhere on this page.
.
.
.
What do you mean by ‘honour my commitment’? What is my ‘commitment’. Who is this auditor, what are they auditing, what does it have to do with anything here, and why would I modify what I do and say for the sake of such a person? Again, WHAT IS “CLIMATEBALL”? Is it a word you made up? Do you try to kill people by firing blobs of climate at them. And why would you feel the need or the desire to “trace back” what I have said in the past, except for the purpose of stalking/trolling?
Oops – posted in the wrong place. Abort landing – going around.
> Asking “why A” is implying PRECISELY that you believe “not A”.
Not really. Really, no. Like, not at all.
Could mean I don’t see any reason to believe A. Could mean I fail to see how A is relevant. Could mean a lot of other things, which you could find all by yourself by letting go of that silly reactance, Grasshopper.
People who just asks questions don’t need to commit to any belief or claim regarding A. There are presuppositions, of course, which vary in context. For instance, that explaining A matters, that knowing what you believe about A is of value, and so on and so forth.
You know, there’s this contrarian blog who belongs to Lucia. She’s some kind of luckwarm contrarian, and she used to have this rule against rhetorical questions. As in, none at all. Verboten.
You know why? Because it’s harder to interpret, and because she prefers when people COMMIT to explicit claims. I can dig this, even if I don’t really mind more flourish myself.
Where I am going with this? Ah, yes, changing socks. *This* is the topic of the current exchange. The questions I just asked and answered are called hypophoras, BTW. Which goes on to show that your tu quoque rests on an equivocation.
And to answer my earlier question – it’s unclear for now if I will fall for your NO U. Depends on if you will eventually reciprocate. Hammering obvious falsities about how language works using caps lock may not be the way to go.
Go ahead, say that I wrote “COMMIT” in caps lock, oblivious to it all.
You certainly enjoy wordplay to get yourself out of a knot.
Why do you get the luxury of asking so many rhetorical questions (examples posted above) while demanding that others don’t? Are you special?
And then you talk in code … you still haven’t explained “climateball”, and now WTF is “NO U”?
Locking others out of the conversation by talking in private code is any signature of denier troll.
On a disconnected matter, I have never met a Nederlander who is not a dirtbag. What about you? Am I just unlucky?
“… is a signature of a …”
Perhaps you would prefer a simple example, Grasshopper –
Suppose A is *Vincit qui se vincit*, and the rhetorical question is
(Q) You know what *Vincit qui se vincit* means, right?
Do you think I don’t believe you know?
I think you know what it means.
Should I go on?
I sincerely don’t know the answer to that last one.
Oh, and as a token of appreciation, a NO U is this:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/no-u
I mentioned the tu quoque earlier a few times already.
The topic here is my belief that Climateball players should pick a nick and stick to it.
Easier for everyone, Grasshopper.
As you refuse to explain it, I am going to have to assume that “climateball” means nothing. Yet apparently you want to capitalise it as though it is your “god”.
I don’t speak Latin, and being able to speak a dead language is not a sign of intelligence or education, despite you convincing yourself that it is. It’s only purpose is to sound superior.
Your obvious smug belief that you are the most intelligent person here pervades all of your posts. Your concept of ethics is based on convenience – you don’t have two names (so you claim) so doing so is unethical, but you do talk to people in a revolting way so doing so seemingly does mot break any rule of ethics.
When pushed for an explanation of your choices you talk of “auditors” and “commitment” without explanation, and your apparent need to stalk people by researching their history. Apparently I have to restrict myself to one name to enable your stalking.
Are you desperate for the last say? Is that why you are hounding me? And oh – I am not just unlucky.
You can assume whatever you want, Grasshopper. It’s a free world. That you can’t find what “Climateball” means all by yourself when you could find my old Twitter account only shows you have yet to develop the patience required to play Climateball properly.
**Vincit qui se vincit** is what we call a motto. He Conquers Who Conquers Himself. It’s a good motto.
I have every reason to believe that you could find its meaning in a matter of seconds if you never encountered it. I have every reason to believe that you did encounter it already. You can always ask me why if you’re curious.
Still, your epilogue about dead languages is duly noted.
aq…you can write Mike Flynn…he was never banned.
So why is he afraid to admit it?
AQ,
Why would Mike Flynn be “afraid” to “admit” he isn’t “banned”? You don’t make a lot of sense.
Are you mad, or just in denial of reality. As I recollect, he commented a couple of times after somebody claimed he was “banned”. Feel free to prove me wrong.
[laughing at pathetic fool]
What is being asked makes a lot of sense, Mike.
Perhaps you are still playing dumb because you are a moron.
AQ,
Why would Mike Flynn be “afraid” to “admit” he isnt “banned”? You dont make a lot of sense.
Are you mad, or just in denial of reality. As I recollect, he commented a couple of times after somebody claimed he was banned. Feel free to prove me wrong.
[laughing at pathetic fool]
See, Graham?
Deception.
Sockpuppetry.
Simples.
No, I’m not sure I do see. What is the deception, exactly, and what is the end game? What is the purpose of this deception, in your opinion?
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights furthermore.
Back to the third person.
I forgot that you never answer questions.
Alright. Let’s try to close that loop once and for all, if only to make sure that Gaslighting Graham finally gets that there is a cost to manipulating people –
Let’s posit that Mike Flynn wears a sock for the silliest reason of all. Let’s call that reason teh Lolz. Here he is:
That’s not an illeism. That’s denial. Pure deception. For the lolz. In other words, Mike Flynn is the purest, silliest troll there might be.
Does that change anything about the fact that Mike is acting like a moron under a sockpuppet? No, it does not. He’s just a bit less anti-social than Pupman. Or in his own way. Mileage may vary on that question.
I truly hope that’s clear enough, for there’s a hockey game to watch.
Ta.
It’s like you’re talking another language, sometimes.
> It was a female nym
C’mon, Bordo. Our Pupman does not feminize Binny’s name. Are you sure you recall that story correctly?
Besides, you know why I started to call you “Bordo,” right?
What Gordon said is correct. Bindidon stormed off from the blog one time, said he was leaving, then somebody new (posting in a very similar style to Bindidon) began posting, who later was claimed to be Bindidon’s lady friend. La Pangolina was the screen name, IIRC.
Being kissed by a Rose gave Binny the courage to come back.
Yeah, it was just Bindidon posting under a different name.
Hence the song:
https://youtu.be/yivLt9cTaio
I expect you’ll be wanting to give him some grief for sock puppetry…
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again…
Incorrect.
I expect Graham will revise his initial claim…
No idea what you’re on about.
More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
Let’s see if he can find the claim that started this episode:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487899
Yes. And?
And I expect Graham will revise his initial claim…
I doubt it. Why would I need to?
Gaslighting Graham gently cranks up the gaslighting.
There are two obvious responses to his question. The first is that he might have forgotten about the B4 episode. The second is that he might already have forgotten about yesterday.
The life of an online Machiavellian is full of forgetfulness.
Oh, I get what you’re talking about now. You think that because you very gently admonished Ball4 a while ago, and because you got very argumentative with Antonin (like you are overly argumentative with everyone) that my claim that you don’t criticise those on your own side of the debate about what you consider to be sock puppetry, is false.
You realise that you’re very difficult to understand, right? I’m not the only one that thinks so.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more…
Try being a bit more direct, in future. Try to express what you want to say clearly and concisely. Keep working on those language skills. You’ll get there.
(Estr) I expect Vlad will revise his initial claim…
(Vlad) I doubt it. Why would I need to?
**Estragon spoonfeeds Vladimir.**
(Vlad) Oh, I get what you’re talking about now.
If Vladimir did not know what Estragon was talking about, why did he say that he doubts that he will revise his initial claim?
As one can see, Vladimir is the master of directness…
I just generally doubted that there would be any need for me to revise any claim I might have made due to something you said. It’s never happened before, you see. Still hasn’t. I’m happy to still criticise you for double standards. You only really attacked Antonin to save face. You won’t go after Bindidon unless pressed (by me). You don’t go after these people the same way you go after Clint R, Swenson and myself. Simple as that.
Gaslighting Graham isn’t always quasi-certain that he won’t change his mind, but when he does it’s about whatever might be the topic under discussion.
For, you know, when he says “I doubt it,” he does not even need to know what the “it” could be.
And of course he does not need to say that he has no idea what the “it” is until, well, he starts to doubt.
Gaslighting Graham is the Master of Clarity.
I just generally doubted that there would be any need for me to revise any claim I might have made due to something you said. It’s never happened before, you see.
Graham does not always ignore what is being talked about, but when he does it’s to play dumb.
I’ve said and done nothing wrong, for all your endless sniping.
Gaslighting Graham is once again Very Clear.
When someone says “I really doubt it,” the “it” in question is presupposed to be known. Witness:
(Estr) I fear that you will fail.
(Vlad) I doubt it.
The “it” *must* refer to something known between Estr and Vlad, the thing-that-Vlad-could-fail. Otherwise Vlad’s response is misleading at best. After a while, it becomes really hard not to see that kind of infelicity as gaslighting.
The “it” referred to the general idea that you would be capable of causing me to revise a claim that I had made.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Return to the situation between Vlad and Estr:
(Estr) I fear you may fail.
(Vlad) Huh?
This situation makes sense: Vlad does not know what Estr is talking about.
(Estr) I fear you may fail.
(Vlad) I doubt it.
(Estr) Then don’t forget your lucky hockey stick.
(Vlad) Huh?
This situation also makes sense: Vlad misunderstood what Estr was talking about, he might not know he has a lucky hockey stick, etc.
What does *not* make sense, at least as a felicitous exchange, is Gaslighting Graham pretending he does need to not know what “it” is about. Even weirder, that he *expects* people to get that he has no idea what he’s talking about when he says “I doubt it.”
After more a few rounds of that kind of trolling by Graham, it’s really hard not to determine that he’s gaslighting.
The “it” referred to the general idea that you would be capable of causing me to revise a claim that I had made. Odd that you can’t understand that simple concept.
Of course it gets more interesting if we track back a bit:
(Estr) I expect Vlad will revise his initial claim…
(Vlad) No idea what youre on about.
(Estr) Lets see if he can find the claim that started this episode:
*Cites the full comment.*
(Vlad) Yes. And?
Readers should ask themselves – what does Vlad’s “yes” mean?
Gaslighting Graham is Very Good at being clear.
“Yes” as in “yes that was the initial comment”. “And?” as in “so what?”
Let’s see:
(Estr) Lets see if he can find the claim that started this episode:
(Vlad) Yes.
Let readers decide what that “yes” should means:
(V1) Yes, that is the episode.
(V2) Yes, I could find the claim.
Very, Very, Very clear. As always with Graham.
Absolutely no gaslighting going on.
No trolling at all.
Your relentless over-analysis of my every word is comical, but not very productive. I have said and done nothing wrong, despite all your very best efforts to try to pretend otherwise.
When faced with the proof that he is indeed the one who’s being obscurantist, Graham gently gaslights furthermore.
The only proof that I’m faced with is that you’re an idiot.
arkady…”Righto:
Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencers oil-industry ties…”
***
Now that we know you are a lying, alarmist scumbag, there’s no point trying to discuss science with you. Anyone who has any awareness of Roy and John Christy of UAH know they have the utmost integrity and are two of the few climate scientists who have the courage to stand up against the lies of scumbag alarmists.
The article at the link quotes Kevin Trenberth on the paper by Spencer and Braswell, claiming it should never have been published. Since when is Trenberth the new king of peer review, who has the last say on whether a paper should be published? Trenberth has already interfered in peer review, causing an editor to resign due to pressure from Trenberth.
The truth is, it is none of Trenberth’s business. He is doing nothing more than interfering in the peer review process. In the CLimategate emails, Trenberth’s partner as a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, Phil Jones of Had-crut, bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that a certain paper co-authored by John Christy would not reach the review stage.
Jones and Trenberth are engaging in witch hunts yet you have the temerity to lecture us on the scientific method and related ethics.
Give me one good reason why the paper by Spencer and Braswell should not have been published. They are both scientists and there is no reason why. If anything, most of the alarmist papers should be banned as outright disinformation.
If you were not such a scumbag you would object to such blatant interference in science, but you prefer to use scumbag methodology to suggest Roy is receiving money from oil companies.
Even if he was, which he’s not, what is wrong with a scientist being funded by an oil company? You alarmist scumbags have gotten the notion out there that oil companies are doing something immoral and uethical by supplying oil. If a scientist is funded by an oil company and he writes a paper that adheres to the scientific method, there is nothing wrong with that ethically or morally.
As a skeptic, I have a problem with oil companies as well. They are charging way too much for oil and gasoline.
Gordon,
Just in case you miss it, I provided links to all versions of GHCN data here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1487901
And links NOAA confirming NOAA have always used GHCN monthly for their global temp record just below that post.
barry, please stop trolling.
It’s not trolling. Gordon frequently demands answers never to return to the thread he’s replied twice in. When I’ve gone to some effort to reply I’d rather it wasn’t ignored.
Yep, well, we all wish we weren’t ignored…but it happens sometimes.
aq…”Its funny how you were crying and whining when your buddies Swenson and Clint recently called you dumb yet you have no problem in dishing it out yourself. Do you deserve special treatment?”
***
This proves to me that you lack the intelligence and maturity to understand what was going on between me and Clint. I don’t recall Swenson commenting at all.
What interests me more is your obsession with personal matters between me and Clint. You are looking for any reason to stir the pot and that strikes me as being about your inability to debate the science with us.
What Arkady is doing is another matter. He is taking cheap shots at Roy, a good scientist who has welcomed us on his site and given us a broad leeway as to what we discuss. Roy is not going to call him a scumbag but I can, and will.
“You are looking for any reason to stir the pot”
Try reading again my comment that you quoted, and tell me my REAL motivation.
And stop pretending this is a one-off. You have called EVERYONE dumb.
AQ,
No success with finding a valid GHE description? How sad. You might as well try trolling.
Carry on, dummy.
ark…”Dogma: How does CO2 warm the planet?
Reality: The mechanisms by which carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earths surface and troposphere and cools the stratosphere are well-established and supported by scientific research”.
***
Explain the mechanism. Until you can, consider yourself a denier of science. Where is the scientific research that definitely and scientifically explains how a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming leading to a catastrophic climate change.
Your authority figure, the IPCC cannot supply the science, they offer only a likelihood based on a convoluted, in-house rating system.
Come on, Bordo.
Nobody needs to make you any sammich.
Science will survive your pouting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Is there a chance you could make a useful comment?
For example, provide a valid description of the GHE – one that explains surface cooling over four and a half billion years, or even each night, if you prefer.
Or just keep talking gibberish, like “sammich”, for example.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
Is there a chance you won’t make a moronic comment?
Here you go, moron –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Carry on, moronically.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Is there a chance you could make a useful comment?
For example, provide a valid description of the GHE one that explains surface cooling over four and a half billion years, or even each night, if you prefer.
Or just keep talking gibberish, like sammich, for example.
Or linking to something totally irrelevant, no doubt created by an unemployable ex-physicist who now styles herself a “content creator”.
Off you go now.
Mike, Mike,
You’re overthinking this –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Is there a chance you could make a useful comment?
For example, provide a valid description of the GHE one that explains surface cooling over four and a half billion years, or even each night, if you prefer.
Or just keep talking gibberish, like sammich, for example.
Or linking to something totally irrelevant, no doubt created by an unemployable ex-physicist who now styles herself a content creator.
Off you go now.
Mike, Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Moron.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Is there a chance you could make a useful comment?
For example, provide a valid description of the GHE one that explains surface cooling over four and a half billion years, or even each night, if you prefer.
Or just keep talking gibberish, like sammich, for example.
Or linking to something totally irrelevant, no doubt created by an unemployable ex-physicist who now styles herself a content creator.
Off you go now.
Mike, Mike,
Here’s a useful comment –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
You even asked for it, and still do!
Remember, moron?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place.
https://youtu.be/6jAWuQDi_Us
Exceptional rains Wednesday in a drought-struck region of northern Italy swelled rivers over their banks, killing at least eight people, forcing the evacuation of thousands and prompting officials to warn that Italy needs a national plan to combat climate change-induced flooding.
The heavy rains also forced Formula One to cancel this weekend’s Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix to not overtax emergency crews that were already stretched thin in responding to the rivers of mud that have torn through the region, wreaking havoc on infrastructure and homes.
Days of rainstorms stretched across a broad swath of northern Italy and the Balkans, where “apocalyptic” floods, landslides and evacuations were also reported in Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia.
Arkady,
I’m not sure what “total f&%kery” is supposed to be.
Is this your attempt to redefine “weather”?
Many cultures have legends of a great flood – for example, in the Christian Bible. Is this an example of the “total f&%kery” you are talking about?
Maybe you are in the grip of some delusional SkyDragon religious mania, thinking that mankind is doomed to be boiled, fried, roasted or toasted, unless it reverts to the Stone Age.
Accept reality. No GHE. Just anthropogenic heat production reflected by thermometers showing increased temperatures. Not terribly surprising, is it? More heat, thermometers respond!
You’re really not that attached to reality, are you?
Maguff…it’s weather, get over it.
We are living in a ice age, it’s called, “Late Cenozoic Ice Age” and in last couple million year has the coldest in last tens of millions
of years. And in terms of hundreds of millions most of the time has
been a warmer global climate which called greenhouse global climate.
Our oceans have average temperature of about 3.5 C, and greenhouse global climates have an average ocean temperature of 10 C or warmer.
Rather then the entire ocean temperature, the average ocean surface temperature is quite warm. It’s about 17 C whereas average land surface temperature is about 10 C.
The ocean surface covers 70% of Earth’s entire surface, and land surface covers about 30%. And average surface temperature of ocean and land is about 15 C.
The difference between an ice age and greenhouse global climate is the difference in the temperature of entire ocean.
Whenever you in the coldest period of an ice age, like it has been on Earth in the last couple million years, you glaciation periods and times between glaciation periods, which called interglacial periods.
Glaciation period are longer time periods, and interglacial are shorter periods- around 10,000 years.
Whenever the glaciation period becomes the coldest, it results rapid warming period of thousands of years which has called “global warming”. Sea levels rise more than 100 meter and global average temperature increases by more than 6 C.
This warmer period is the warmest time during the interglacial period, and over thousands of years, the global temperature lowers gradually until it returns to glaciation period.
There have many of these cycles of interglacial periods and glaciation periods, and last glacial maximum was about 20,000 years ago.
“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. 25% of Earth’s land area.”
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level
gb…”Our oceans have average temperature of about 3.5 C”
***
According to the rocket science climate alarmists, at least 0.5C of that is hidden heat from anthropogenic sources.
“Explain the mechanism.”
Thermodynamics plays a significant role in understanding the mechanisms by which carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earth’s surface. Here’s an explanation of these mechanisms in terms of thermodynamics:
1/ CO2 molecules have specific vibrational modes that can aβsorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. This aβsorpτion occurs due to the interaction between the electromagnetic radiation and the molecular structure of CO2. As a result, the CO2 molecules gain energy from the aβsorbed IR radiation.
2/ After aβsorbing the IR radiation, the CO2 molecules undergo internal energy transitions. These transitions involve the redistribution of the aβsorbed energy among the molecule’s vibrational and rotational modes. Through collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), the aβsorbed energy can be transferred and distributed throughout the surrounding air.
3/ Following the energy transfer process, CO2 molecules can undergo spontaneous emission. This occurs when the CO2 molecules return to a lower energy state by releasing the excess energy as IR radiation. Some of this re-emitted IR radiation is directed back towards the Earth’s surface.
4/ The re-emitted IR radiation from CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including CO2, act as a “blanket” by aβsorbing and re-emitting the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation. This process traps a portion of the thermal energy near the Earth’s surface, preventing it from escaping directly into space. Consequently, the greenhouse effect warms the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
Thermodynamics helps explain the flow of heat and the redistribution of energy associated with the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation. It provides insights into the mechanisms through which CO2 affects Earth’s surface temperature.
At the molecular level, carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earth’s surface through a process called radiative forcing. This process involves the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The mechanisms involved are:
1/ Aβsorpτion.
2/ Vibrational Energy.
3/ Collision and Energy Transfer.
4/ Re-emission.
5/ Greenhouse Effect.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas involved in the warming of Earth’s surface. Other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), also play significant roles in the greenhouse effect. Together, these gases contribute to the overall warming of the planet.
Arkady,
You wrote (in a fit of stupidity and reality denial) –
“At the molecular level, carbon dioxide (CO2) warms Earths surface through a process called radiative forcing. This process involves the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The mechanisms involved are: . . .”
Your “mechanisms” don’t seem to work at night. Why is that?
Nor have they worked for the last four and a half billion years. You might not have noticed that the surface is no longer molten.
Are you ignorant, stupid, or delusional? All three, maybe?
All you seem to be implying is that the GHE warms the surface, when it clearly doesn’t – unless the Sun is shining brightly, of course!
Time for a rethink, perhaps?
Try again.
Ark, that’s a lot of blah-blah, mostly repeating the existing nonsense. Before I technically debunk it, are you willing to stand by it? Are you willing to say that is THE exact science supporting the GHE?
I don’t want to debunk it, and have you throw something else at the wall.
Do you 100% support what you’ve presented here?
Holy multi-level marketing, Pupman!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Holy multi-level marketing, Pupman!”
If you trying to demonstrate intellectual vacuity, you have succeeded brilliantly!
I suppose if you can’t even describe the GHE in any coherent fashion, you might as well play the mentally disability card.
Keep it up.
Moron Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
That will be all.
You wrote
“Holy multi-level marketing, Pupman!”
If you trying to demonstrate intellectual vacuity, you have succeeded brilliantly!
I suppose if you cant even describe the GHE in any coherent fashion, you might as well play the mentally disability card.
Linking to stupid YouTube nonsense which doesn’t provide a description either, won’t help.
Keep it up.
Mike, Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep spitting!
Obviously Ark is still thinking it over, as to whether or not he wants to commit to his GHE “science”.
Maybe this is a good time to see if there’s a “consensus”. Does the majority of the cult go with Ark’s description? Yes or No?
barry
Ark
Ent
Ant
Bindidon
Norman
Nate
willard
Folkerts
bob
Swanson
Place your vote!
Let’s get this over with. Decide on the GHE you most support, and see if it can hold up to REAL science. Then Swenson, et al., won’t have to keep asking.
Earth has cooled a lot in last couple million years.
If you think Earth has cooled over billions of years, it seems
you have admit, that it seems it has cooled a lot over last 2 million years.
maguff…”The re-emitted IR radiation from CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including CO2, act as a blanket by aβsorbing and re-emitting the Earths outgoing longwave radiation”.
***
Your explanation of how CO2 absorbs IR is typical alarmist propaganda. There is no argument that CO2 can absorb IR, Tyndall proved it in 1850. With regard to absorbing IR, the CO2 molecule is made up of three atoms bonded together by the valence electrons in C and O which are shared (covalent bonds). That’s all you have in the molecule, 3 atoms and the electrons in each atom.
The only known atomic particle able to absorb and emit IR is the electron. It carries an electric charge and when it moves it produces a magnet field, hence the electromagnetic energy associated with it. The nonsense about molecules emitting and absorbing IR is juvenile stuff from alarmists.
The real greenhouse effect is produced by oxygen and nitrogen which makes up 99% of the air in a greenhouse. In fact, you could remove all CO2 and WV and the greenhouse would warm just the same. Greenhouse warming has nothing to do with radiation, it’s all about heated air molecules trying to rise and being blocked by the glass.
There is no glass in the atmosphere to block convection, in fact, without convection we’d become over-heated according to Lindzen. The surface temperature would rise to around 70C. The mechanism you describe breaks both the 2nd law and the law about perpetual motion.
“It carries an electric charge and when it moves it produces a magnet field, hence the electromagnetic energy associated with it. ”
You do realize that the nucleus also carries a charge. Hence when the nucleus moves (eg when a molecule vibrates), it also has EM energy associated with it.
When an electron changes its motion (eg jumps up or down in shells around an atom), it can emit or absorb photons.
When an nucleus changes its motion (eg changes vibration), it can emit or absorb photons.
There is nothing unique about electrons that make them the only particles that can emit or absorb photons.
tim…nowhere in anything I have read in quantum physics is it insinuated that the protons in the nucleus can emit EM. Bohr’s theory that started it all is based on electron transition and so are the equations of Schrodinger who formalized it mathematically. The root of Schrodinger’s equations are wave equations that describe the angular motion of electrons around the nucleus. The only mention of the nucleus is the distance (Bohr’s radius) from the nucleus to the first electron orbital level.
In chemistry, when the electrons and nucleii are discussed, protons are not even mentioned. The discussion is focused on the valence electrons and their involvement in bonding.
If you consider atoms making up a solid, they are bonded together by electron bonds. Even though the nucleii are vibrating, the rate of vibration is dead slow compared to the velocity of the orbiting electrons. Besides, radiation involves only the surface atoms.
We seem to agree that EM is emitted when electrons transition from a higher orbital energy level to a lower level. It is during that transition that the EM is generated, but where does it come from? The electric field and magnetic field making up the EM requires a source. It is there is the electron, that has a natural electric field and a magnetic field produced as the electron orbits.
Also, looking at the frequency of the generated energy quantum, it matches the radial frequency of the electron.
Looking at a more familiar generation of EM we can look at a communications antenna. Electrons forced up and down the antenna by a rapidly changing electric field, produce around the antenna a rapidly changing electric field and a rapidly changing magnetic field. If the rate of change of the field is high enough, and the intensity, an EM field will be generated that can travel through space indefinitely.
Although this cannot be proved using quantum theory, I think the parallel example of a communications antenna tells us what happens in an atom.
Gordon Robertson
You are still wrong! Learn some Chemistry!!!
YOU: “The only known atomic particle able to absorb and emit IR is the electron”
The dipolar molecule’s charges move back and forth (oscillate) which produces a change in an electric/magnetic field and produces IR radiant energy that moves away when a higher vibrating molecule drops to a lower vibrational state!
It is the basis of Spectroscopy and the theory of molecular vibration works very well to predict what molecules make up an unknown substance.
When you make bold false statements you are NOT a skeptic just a denier of facts and evidence and an entire field of Chemistry that works very well despite your denying the science.
Gordon Robertson
Rather than be a science denier read through this material and learn. Can you change your false narrative or are you too deeply entrenched in the fake science to learn the real science that works and is used.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85ht4y
norman…that link is far too primitive. I am talking about the chemical action beyond the molecular level. In chemistry, they initially teach molecules as what they are, aggregations of atoms bonded by electron bonds. Once that has been learned, they generalize, referring to the atomic aggregations by their molecular names.
The article to which you have linked is about spectroscopy, not basic chemistry theory. By that level, they presume you clearly understand that a molecule is an aggregation of atomic nucleii bonded by electrons.
norman…”The dipolar molecules charges move back and forth (oscillate) which produces a change in an electric/magnetic field and produces IR radiant energy that moves away when a higher vibrating molecule drops to a lower vibrational state!”
***
You’re a piece of work Norman. What do you think produces the dipole charge? It is produced by electrons!!! In CO2, the oxygen atoms are more electronegative than the carbon atoms, meaning the O-atoms pull the electrons in the bonding orbital closer to them. That makes the O-atom end of the dipole more negative than the C-atom end, creating a dipole which is more negative on the O end hence relatively positive on the C end.
The vibration is natural with such charges wherein they do not tend to sit still in a stable bond. They are constantly adjusting and re-adjusting hence the vibration.
So, what happens if one of the those bond electrons receives a quantum of EM? It changes energy level in its orbital, causing the bond to vibrate even more, at least, for the time before it transition back down. A the same time, heat is created.
The bonding electrons are only going to be affected by IR, However, due to the circumstances of the shared bond. When people talk about molecular vibrations they are referring to the electron bonds vibrating.
Gordon Robertson
No I am not a piece of work. I have a Chemistry degree and understand science. I am trying to get you out of the hole you are deeply in but is it possible?
The dipole is created by both the electrons and the protons.
In a dipolar molecule like CO2 the distance between the oxygen nuclei and Carbon nuclei increase when IR is absorbed. It has a larger amplitude vibrational state.
You should read the science material I linked you to. As it stands you have no real knowledge of Chemistry or molecules. You just make up crap and hope no one is wise to your BS. Stop already you know somewhere that you knowledge is devoid and empty yet you keep posting this idiotic crap. Who is it for. It is completely wrong!!
Why you do this is a mystery to me. Who are you trying to impress with bad science?
norman…”In a dipolar molecule like CO2 the distance between the oxygen nuclei and Carbon nuclei increase when IR is absorbed. It has a larger amplitude vibrational state”.
***
Why does the distance increase, Norman, and what absorbs the IR? What is in the bond except electrons? If you have a degree in chemistry you should have no problem explaining this in detail, to the atomic level.
And, why do electrostatic bonds vibrate naturally? I await your enlightened reply.
Gordon Robertson
EMR is an energy that can have effect on matter. The incoming energy is what moves the nuclei of the atoms making up molecules farther apart. The energy moves them just as it does electrons. The meaning of absorb is just that energy is converted from one form to another. With a dipolar molecule you have electric poles that can be moved by the Electric component of an EM wave. Higher energy EMR can move an electron to a larger potential energy around the nuclei. The EM has energy that can move charges. It can cause the dipole to move farther apart and then the energy is absorbed. It is gone, it did work on the molecule and is converted from one form to another and then back again. The higher vibrational state is unstable and will go to its ground state giving up an EM wave in the process.
norman…”With a dipolar molecule you have electric poles that can be moved by the Electric component of an EM wave. Higher energy EMR can move an electron to a larger potential energy around the nuclei”.
***
You are failing to explain the absorbing mechanism. Claiming that the electric wave component of EM can affect the dipoles in CO2 molecules might get you a Nobel if you can prove it. However, your explanation, albeit a good one, does not explain the actual mechanism.
Suppose the linear dipoles are aligned along the x-axis and the dipole is vibrating in that direction, either symmetrically or asymmetrically. What is the interaction between the electric field of an EM wave and the differing negative potentials of the dipole? Remember, the vibrating electrons in the bond have mass and the EM has no mass.
Your idea has merit and I urge you to expand on it. I have already proposed such a solution to the claim light is bent by the Sun. I think it is an interaction between the EM fields in light and the strong EM field that must surround the Sun. Of course, Einsteinians are claiming it as proof of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
The second part of your statement suggests the EM has a force that moves electrons between orbital energy levels. The notion that electrons jump to higher orbitals due to an exchange of momentum is misguided. If you have a snooker ball sitting still and it is struck a glancing blow by a moving ball, there is an exchange of momentum and each ball retains part of it after collision. That’s not the case with a quantum of EM reaching an electron.
The electrons in the orbital are moving at a blinding speed. If there was a collision involving an exchange of momentum, one might think the electron would be dislodged from its orbital and fly out of it. It doesn’t, the electron remains stable in its orbital and simply has an increase in kinetic energy that is acquired from the EM. Of course, the acquire EM causes it to rise to a higher orbital energy level.
The EM is annihilated and its energy converted to KE in the electron. This is a resonant exchange at a particular frequency, not an exchange of momentum. It’s also Bohr’s theory and he mentioned nothing about an exchange of momentum.
Gordon Robertson
The polar charges of the molecule (plus/minus) ends move closer and farther away continually even in ground state but no energy is lost.
There is a frequency to this oscillating charges. If IR has the same frequency as this oscillation it will be converted to increase the amplitude of this vibration (a higher vibrational state). The EMR has an oscillating electric and magnetic field and so does the dipolar molecule. The oscillations match the energy of the EM is absorbed and converted to higher amplitude vibration of the molecule.
I believe you are wrong with your counter to Einstein. Scientists create very powerful electromagnetic fields and cannot bend light. Light has both plus and minus oscillating charges so no electric filed will bend it in one direction and the same with the magnetic.
In particle accelerator detectors they know there is photon of energy when it is not bent by the fields of the detector.
norman…”EMR is an energy that can have effect on matter. The incoming energy is what moves the nuclei of the atoms making up molecules farther apart. The energy moves them just as it does electrons”.
***
Norman…EM, in this situation, moves nothing physically, The EM energy is ***CONVERTED*** to another form of energy in electrons and there is no way EM reaches the nucleus.
You have to be extremely careful when claiming particles like electrons and protons are moved by EM fields. Certainly, an electron or a proton, flying freely through a vacuum space, like in a cathode ray tube, or an electron microscope, can be diverted by a magnetic or electrostatic field. That does not apply in atoms, however, especially the atoms bound in a lattice structure in a solid. The electrons, for example, don’t transition orbital level to orbital level because they are affected by an EM field.
Heat can cause the same transitions and it offers no momentum.
If what you claim is correct, then exposing any surface to ordinary sunlight would destroy the surface, or at least alter it permanently.
It’s all there in black and white if you care to crack a book on quantum theory. When an electron absorbs a quantum of EM the EM must have the same frequency as the electron. E = hf. The frequency wrt the electron is its orbital velocity, hence the number of times it orbits per second. The frequency of the EM quantum is the number of times the field reverses direction/second.
Here, frequency has two different meanings but the end result is a physical action. For EM, frequency refers to the number of times per second the field changes direction. For the electron, it’s the number of times it orbits the nucleus per second. If they match, somehow, the electron gains kinetic energy and moves to a higher orbital.
However, it’s the opposite you have to consider. When the electron drops down to a lower orbital, it emits energy in the form of electromagnetic energy. If you are talking a transfer of momentum, how would that work? And why a conversion of energy from one form to another?
I realize this theory is a bit too cute but it is the basis of the Bohr theory, which is still taught in university chemistry classes, albeit in a form conducive to multi-proton, multi-electron atoms. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an exchange of momentum.
Furthermore, your theory that protons in the nucleus are affected is not addressed in quantum theory. Some scientists have proposed a shell model for the nucleus akin to the electron shell model but they seem to have disappeared into oblivion. At any rate, there is no evidence that EM can penetrate to the nucleus and affect protons in it.
Personally, I think the entire theory needs to be re-examined. In the nucleus, with two or more protons, the protons should repel each other. To counteract that, nuclear physicists have come up with a convenient strong nuclear force that overcomes the repulsion to hold the nucleus intact. Little too much convenient physics for me. Where would such a force come from and why only in atoms?
The other thing is how electrons apparently live in their own orbits without ever colliding or perturbing other electrons in the same orbit or in adjacent orbits.
Quantum theory tells us that each atom, besides hydrogen, has a maximum of 2 electrons in the inner orbit. How are those orbits arranged so they don’t cross over, causing a collision? In the next orbital level there are 8 electrons, all orbiting the 2 inner electrons. How are those orbits arranged to prevent collisions?
Remember, if even one of those electrons goes awry, the physical composition of the element changes.
The 3rd shell has 18 electrons and the 4th 32 electrons. That’s major traffic control and no one has offered a visualization as to how it is all possible.
Quantum theory tells us nothing about the physical spacing of the orbitals. A fabricated positive and negative spin was devised to allow electrons, like in the inner orbital, to avoid each other, but it’s way too convenient.
The truth is, all we know about atomic particles is what the math reveals. There is simply no way of visualizing the real physical spaces of atoms, in fact, it is discouraged.
norman…”The polar charges of the molecule (plus/minus) ends move closer and farther away continually even in ground state but no energy is lost.
There is a frequency to this oscillating charges. If IR has the same frequency as this oscillation it will be converted to increase the amplitude of this vibration (a higher vibrational state). The EMR has an oscillating electric and magnetic field and so does the dipolar molecule. The oscillations match the energy of the EM is absorbed and converted to higher amplitude vibration of the molecule”.
***
You are resisting looking more closely at the actual physical reality. The vibrating dipole consists of electrons shared between atoms. In the case of CO2 it looks something like this…
O=====C=====O
The double dashed lines represent 2 electrons per side shared between the oxygen and carbon atoms on either side of the C-atom.
Since the O-atom is more electronegative, it causes the shared electrons to be located closer to the O-atom and that makes the O ends more negative and the C ends positive wrt the O ends.
This has nothing to do with protons in the nucleus, or any positive charges. When you have electric charges from electrons accumulating in one region wrt another region, even though the charges are all negative, the accumulation makes that area more negative than the other region.
An example is a capacitor. When electrons flow into one plate of the capacitor, even though the other plates, on the other side of an insulator, has electrons too, the accumulation of electrons on the one plate makes it more negative wrt to the non-charged side. Of course, the ‘relative’ descriptor is not used, one plate is said to be negative and the other positive. Same with the dipoles in the CO2 atom.
The dipole is more negative on one end than the other because it has more electrons hanging around that end. Electronegativity is essentially an affinity for electrons. If an atom is more electronegative than another atom it means it tends to attract electrons to it better than an atom with a lower electronegativity. In the case of CO2, oxygen is more electronegative than carbon.
If you have an asymmetric vibration in the CO2 bonds, this is what you see…
O=====C==O
O==C=====O
If it’s symmetric, this is what you see…
O=======C=======O
O==C==O
The bonds are changing length either assymetrically or symmetrically. However, it is the lengths of the electron orbitals that are changing.
You need to understand that the only particle involved in these bonds is the electron. It is the electrons that absorb any EM and convert it to kinetic energy, and that added KE stretches the bonds, making them vibrate. And when the electrons drop to a lower energy level they generate EM.
It is the electrons that absorb any EM and convert it to kinetic energy”
Again, no Gordon.
Gordon is such a rookie at quantum physics that Gordon doesn’t know the electrons don’t have enough mass & radius to absorb the linear and angular momentum of the photon for which it takes the whole atom or molecule (including nucleus).
Note Gordon’s O==C==O structure can spin about a center axis; that molecular spin is also quantized and is the predominate quantum jump up an energy level causing CO2 opacity at temperatures & pressures found in the earthen troposphere. There is not enough collisional energy at such temperatures & pressures to excite an electronic level jump.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The Hellas Basin on Mars crosses more time zones than continental US or the Mediterranean sea. But it’s on smaller planet by about 1/2 it’s not a wide. But Hellas Basin is deeper than Mediterranean sea.
So if you on high hill Near Marseille, France, close enough to see
Mediterranean sea, and then the sea disappear, it would be something like the Hellas basin, viewed from southern part of basin.
Or, make it Nice, France at 43.7 North. And being at Mars 43.7 South latitude and around 90 degree longitude and looking across Basin toward Equator it is around 35 degree. And from France looking towards Atlas Mountains or Tripoli which is around 35 degree north latitude.
Since there is endless amount of water in our solar system and this water could be become quite cheap- you could have Hellas Basin filled
with water.
But did this you could lose sunlight. Because the depression of basin
is lowering your horizon.
Or if on high enough hill in general area of Marseille/Nice, France
the sun rising and setting upon the ocean.
But one could have very big lake- and not block the sunlight.
The reason solar panels work on Mars at 43.7 degrees latitude and don’t work on Earth at 43.7 degree latitude.
At Earth distance from the sun, due to it’s varying distance, it’s
1,413 watt per square meter to 1,321 watts per square meter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Published_tables
Mars: 715 to 492 watt per square meter.
But the sunlight which reaches the Earth where and when the Sun is at zenith is about 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight.
About 1050 watt of direct and 70 watt of indirect sunlight which when totaled = 1120 watts per square meter.
When you are at 43.7 degrees latitude on Earth, the sun is never at zenith and so, you always receive less than 1120 watts of sunlight- the lower in the sky, the sun is, one gets less sunlight, you get.
On Mars where there is very little atmosphere, if sun is above horizon and clear skies, you get 715 to 492 watt per square meter- or the difference depends on Mars distance from the sun.
Both on Mars and Earth, you get on average 12 hours of daylight and night, but with Earth, one gets the most amount sunlight whenever the sun is closer to zenith. And this is called “peak solar hours”
and in the better locations on Earth, one on average get about 6 hours per day. A Mars gets about 12 hours on average per day, regardless of where you are on Mars.
Due to topographic features, one can get less sunlight or more sunlight. On Earth, you have obvious things like putting solar panels on wrong side of your roof or having a tree in front of your solar panels. But natural terrain feature are not much of a factor, because you getting sunlight when it’s higher in the sky.
With Mars, terrain features can make large difference.
With “optimal” terrain features you can add a couple hours to average of a 12 hour day.
But without this but maybe just have tower or being on small hill you
get about 12 hours, and if average year, 715 + 492 = 603.5
and times 12 = 7242 watt hours per average day [then times that the efficiency of solar panels]. Anyhow 7.2 Kw per day is better than most place on Earth and UK and Germany get less than 3 Kw hour per day. And you have less time you need store electrical power.
And with Hellas Basin there 1/2 transmission distance compared to Earth- to a hour ahead or behind with time zones.
“Give me one good reason why the paper by Spencer and Braswell should not have been published.”
Start here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002
“The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.”
and end here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051
Arkady,
The paper was published in spite of your “one good reason”, was it?
Shows your influence. Nil.
How are you going with the valid description of the GHE which you claim to have, but can’t release due to intellectual property restrictions?
Who owns the intellectual property? Only joking, you haven’t actually got a description, have you?
Keep dreaming.
maguff…from the link…”the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chiefthe ”
***
The gutless editor who resigned lacked the courage to stand up to alarmist bullies like Trenberth, who had no business interfering in the process. The ex-editor admits the review process was done correctly and the reason given is that the 3 reviewers they accepted were biased toward skeptics.
What it comes down to is this. The Spencer/Braswell paper disagrees with climate alarmists. Duh!!! Scientists disagree with each other, therefore the paper they disagree with should not be published.
You are surely not this stupid are you? We are talking about outright censorship. You have denigrated Roy’s reputation over this scumbaggery?
Willard can’t actually describe the GHE (easier to describe a unicorn or a mermaid, and neither of them exist either), but he can describe a fellow troll –
“I dont give a shit about your tone trolling, dude.
I give a shit about you acting like a fucking sock puppet.
Is that clearer?”
Oh so rational! Oh so erudite! No clearer at all, unfortunately.
Willard and his ilk need to learn a little self control.
Moron Mike,
I could find how you yourself describe it, but this will do –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Your favorite.
Enjoy!
Come on, wee willy, you could do better with minimal effort. Be a good lad and give it a go.
I certainly could try to find Mike’s old descriptions, Bordo.
But why would I do that?
Wriggly Wee Willy,
Linking to an irrelevant YouTube video (apparently created by the bizarre Sabine Hossenfelder) is pointless. How many times have you tried to divert attention by posting that link, dummy?
50? 100? How has that worked out for you? Not too well, I guess.
Then you write “I certainly could try to find Mikes old descriptions, Bordo.”
You could try until you dropped from exhaustion, but as far as I know Mike [Flynn] has never even tried to to describe the GHE – because it doesn’t exist, you fool, and Mike Flynn seems to share that view.
You are an idiot, if you think you can fool anybody into thinking you can provide a valid description of the GHE by not providing one!
Did you have to put a lot of work into achieving your present level of stupidity?
[laughing at pointless SkyDragon dimwit]
Hey, Moron Mike –
Do you remember the time you mocked Sabine because she was a “content creator” and I gave you a ballpark of the income she was earning with it and you ran away?
Perhaps you could try again to mock her?
Long live and prosper.
Willard cant actually describe the GHE (easier to describe a unicorn or a mermaid, and neither of them exist either), but he can describe a fellow troll
I dont give a shit about your tone trolling, dude.
I give a shit about you acting like a fucking sock puppet.
Is that clearer?
Oh so rational! Oh so erudite! No clearer at all, unfortunately.
Willard and his ilk need to learn a little self control.
Moron Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
test
One might question why CO2 emits and absorbs in the IR band whereas oxygen and carbon emit naturally at far different frequencies. O2 actually emits frequencies high enough to be seen as visible light and low enough to be in the microwave region.
I am no expert on this but there is a difference between EM emitted and absorbed due to electron transitions and the emissions emitted/absorbed due to their molecular shapes either as diatomic molecules or molecules formed with other atoms like CO2.
We have to consider the difference between electrons that always orbit the same atom and valence electrons that are shared between atoms. Those shared electrons are also subject to EM emission/absor.p-tion via bond transitions and the parameters involved are obviously quite different.
Furthermore, shared electrons tend to accumulate around the more electronegative atoms. In the CO2 molecule, which is linear, the electrons tend to accumulate around the more electronegative O atoms. That makes the bond a dipole, meaning it is more negative at the O side than the C side.
It is this dipole nature that allows CO2 to emit and absorb in the IR band through bond vibarations. Nevertheless, the absor.p.t-ion/emission must come from the bond electrons, not some mysterious black box in a molecule.
I don’t think anyone but a chemist with the experience of Linus Pauling could begin to explain this subjectively. Everything we know from quantum theory involves convoluted math that no one understand subjectively, according to Feynman.
“I am no expert on this but there is a difference between EM emitted and absorbed due to electron transitions and the emissions emitted/absorbed due to their molecular shapes either as diatomic molecules or molecules formed with other atoms like CO2.”
This is precisely what I tried to tell you a few years back, but you rejected it out of hand.
Apparently things don’t become facts until YOU decide they are facts.
The rest though is crap, as any 2nd/3rd year uni chemistry text will tell you when describing infrared spectroscopy.
Asymmetric and bending vibration of the bonds causes the mean position of the electrons to oscillate about the mean position of the protons, resulting in oscillating electric and magnetic fields, ie. electromagnetic radiation.
Conversely, anything that can cause the mean position of the electrons to vibrate about the mean position of the protons (ie. the oscillating electric and magnetic fields in incoming electromagnetic radiation) can cause the bonds to oscillate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are about to deny the actual meaning of “electromagnetic” in relation to light.
aq…”Asymmetric and bending vibration of the bonds causes the mean position of the electrons to oscillate about the mean position of the protons, resulting in oscillating electric and magnetic fields, ie. electromagnetic radiation”.
***
What mysterious force, in your mind, causes the bond electrons to vibrate about a mean position? The main force causing vibration is electrostatic force. So, where would an electrostatic force come from? One source is the negative and positive forces between electrons and protons in the nucleus. We are not talking about that here since that is normally about vibrations between atoms enmeshed in a lattice in a solid.
We are talking about a specific vibration produced in an electron bond. I have already told you what causes it in the case of the linear CO2 molecule, but feel free to produce your own theories, which are conspicuously absent. It is electronegativity causing the linear dipole action but the vibration obviously comes from other interactions.
If you have an electron bond featuring a linear dipole, with an oxygen atom at one end with more than its share of electrons accumulating there, and the carbon atom, which is at a more positive potential, the dipole will vibrate naturally anyway. That’s the nature of electrostatic bonds featuring two different polarities. They push and pull on each other looking for an equilibrium state.
But how does that relate to the emission and absorp-tion of EM? If one or more of the bonding electrons receive a quantum of EM, it causes them to jump to a higher orbital where it/they will have more energy. That higher energy state causes more vibration and heat.
There you have it, a scientific explanation. See if you can rebut it using a scientific explanation rather than the kiddie scripts you usually offer.
I told you precisely where the force comes from – the varying electric and magnetic fields of the incoming electromagnetic radiation.
Try READING next time.
And there is no jumping of electrons to a higher energy state. That requires the incoming electromagnetic energy to be MUCH higher than that offered by infrared radiation. How about you research the actual energies of transition for these electrons and comparing them to the energy of a photon of infrared radiation before making such an uniformed statement. Your comment makes it sound as though you believe that ANY photon will cause this transition. No scientific explanation there.
AQ,
You still cannot describe the GHE in any valid way, can you?
As you say, no scientific explanation there. No explanation at all – hardly surprising, you can’t explain what you can’t even describe!
Start easy if you wish. Describe the GHE at night, without the distracting presence of the sun.
Or does the GHE only have an effect when the sun is shining brightly? You tell me – no delusional SkyDragon cultist seems prepared to commit themselves to any definite description of the GHE, night or day!
How hard can it be – or is it impossible?
Idiot.
It seems you were lost for words, Gordon.
“I am no expert on this ” … so why do you try to tell us what “must” be true? This is a serious question. If you realize you are not an expert, then why not either read up and become an expert or leave such explanations to actual experts?
It is not “bond vibrations” that are involved here, but molecular vibrations. The nuclei move (not some ‘black box’). Certainly the bonds are involved in how those nuclei move, but its not like the nuclei are rigidly fixed some exact distance apart an the ‘bonds’ vibrate around them. This is ‘textbook science’ in both physics and chemistry.
tim…”It is not bond vibrations that are involved here, but molecular vibrations”.
***
Tim…what the heck do you think a molecule is??? Molecules are aggregations of atoms bonded together by electron bonds. Without the bonds, molecules cannot exist.
In introductory chemistry classes, you are taught how molecules are constructed from atoms. You don’t hear the word molecule specifically for a while, everything is about the various means of bonding atom together by electron bonds. It’s only after that is established they begin to name the molecules based on their atomic structures.
The entire field of organic chemistry is based on the atomic relationship between the carbon atom and the hydrogen atom. To differentiate one atom structure from another they use the term molecule and name it. Other than that, a molecule has no physical meaning, it has no properties independent of the atoms making up the molecule.
However, the interaction of the atoms and electrons in the bonds determine the shape of the molecule.
Gordon,
“Other than that, a molecule has no physical meaning, it has no properties independent of the atoms making up the molecule.”
Yes it does, for example Carbon Dioxide has properties that Oxygen and Carbon do not have.
It has different melting and boiling points to start, and then I could go on, being a chemist.
” I am no expert on this but… ”
And since Robertson is by no means an expert in whatsoever, he will of course continue ad nauseam to claim things like
– ” I think the idea that N2/O2 do not absorb or radiate in the IR spectrum is more propaganda than fact. ”
or
” For example, O2 radiates in the microwave range which is just below the IR range. Therefore O2 radiates!!! ”
So say ‘experts’, don’t they?
Is this Binny or La Pagolina?
Robertson the dumbest
Firstly, my lady Rose’s pseudonym was ‘La Pangolina’.
She exists – to a much bigger extent than your alleged knowledge. In comparison to her brain, yours looks like a pea.
*
Rose was the person who first discovered the Clausius 1887 paper you never did understand anything about, and brazenly tried to discredit.
Rose stopped posting after you published your obnoxious, vile post about Newton’s translator Andrew Motte, whom you dared to insult as a “cheating son of a bitch” – all because you weren’t even able to correctly read Newton’s Principia in its original Latin version.
People like you, Robertson, are so utterly stupid that they don’t even realize they’re going from the main text to a footnote as they read a page.
That was definitely too much for her.
*
Now back to your endlessly repeated, anti-scientific nonsense.
*
1. H2O
Intensity range: ~10^-2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12JThOo4l-TuQ7MVWC10DX6HuP7RqRM8R/view
2. CO2
Intensity range: ~10^-3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o_sKIMoI32SeIgXh5WLWMGm-qiVzopD/view
3. O2
Intensity range: ~10^-10
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17aLovAJkjgJ-iJI7ccXQgl8_4svylt_Y/view
4. N2
Intensity range: ~10^-13
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbY9IG7HeQc4vBqt5FQZiK4mS7ofyoS0/view
*
We see that genius Robertson compares absorp~tion / emission capabilities of O2 and N2 with those of H2O and CO2, though CO2’s capability is ~10^7 times higher than O2’s, and ~10^10 times higher than N2’s, despite their relative atmospheric abundance being already considered.
Read this and weep…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
“Nitrogen Has Back Radiation in the Infrared…”
Here’s the pdf to the article from Harvard…
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1945ApJ…101…39S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Binny,
When air temperature is measured, the radiation from the air interacts with the measuring device, and a “degree of hotness” of the air is obtained.
Removing the CO2 from the air sample makes precisely no difference to the “degree of hotness ” measured.
Whether you like it or not, oxygen, nitrogen, argon, CO2, or anything else can have precisely the same temperature, and be radiating exactly the same frequencies. Unfortunately, even some lecturers who should know better, are confused about the mechanism by which photons are emitted by a gas which is “excited”
For example, argon, like neon, emits a characteristic colour when excited. Red for neon, violet for argon. At normal temperatures, both gases emit no visible light whatever, and emit radiation proportionate to their absolute temperatures.
No magical properties for CO2.
No GHE.
The Earth has cooled since its creation, and the surface does so every night.
Boo hoo. Bad luck. You might as well talk about dogs, barking, ignorance, arrogance or anything else. Science is not your strong point.
Gordon
Only your uneducated Chiefio refers to “back radiation”. The paper he refers does not use the term. It refers to emission and says nothing about absorp.tion. Nitrogen does not absorb radiation, so there is no greenhouse effect. He is not the only denial blogger who deliberately misinterprets this paper.
Gordon, that 70 year old paper is interesting but only speculates about N2 as the origin. Further, that speculation is about UV photo dissociation of N2 and three-boy interactions producing a weak signal near 1 um where there is basically no thermal radiation anyway. This is not a mechanism for thermal radiation from N2.
This is NOT the proof you want.
But at least it has some one the right key words in the title.
> Rose stopped posting after you published your obnoxious, vile post about Newton’s translator Andrew Motte,
I can’t find that comment in the last thread I saw that nickname, Binny:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/
Please advise.
What you can find or can’t, Willard, doesn’t interest me.
The exact text was:
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
And whether a dumb, all time insulting poster writes ‘SOB’ or ‘son of a bitch’, doesn’t interest me at all.
Got it, old boy?
Thanks, Binny. Will check it out.
Meanwhile, there is zero “Motte” on that page, and the last comment seems to be:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324981
There is this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324926
The “blah blah” looks a lot like something you yourself would say.
Also, I’m not sure what Rose would establish if she “could do the same.”
I mean, it’s no big deal. Rose is gone and you are back.
Hey Binny,
A quick update. Unless the search engine missed hits, “In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB” only appears four times on the website.
All in 2021.
There’s a lot of death threads between the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2021.
Enjoy your evening,
Robertson tried already often enough to kid us with (once again) nonsense posted by chiefio aka EM Smith, who is exactly an ignorant boaster as is Robertson.
That is the reason why Robertson, who constantly discredits others by claiming they would ‘appeal to authority’, also constantly appeals to chiefio’s highly questionable ‘authority’.
*
It’s typical for Pseudoskeptics a la chiefio to construct ‘proofs’ from scratch my misrepresenting facts, distorting the reality, and discrediting people and their work through such manipulations.
I don’t know, however, whether or not his blatant misuse of Stebbins, Whitford and Swings’s article was intentional.
*
A clear hint on chiefio’s misuse of the paper is the fact that the three scientists recorded nitrogen emissions at maximally 11,000 Ångström, i.e. 1.1 micron wavelength.
This frequency is in the middle of the so-called ‘near IR’ band (0.75 till 2.5 micron) and hence has nothing to do with the terrestrial IR band emission (7.5 till 20 micron) we are talking about: Earth major IR emissions (luckily) take place in the atmospheric window arond 10 micron.
*
Thus, chiefio’s head post is plain trash. And the head post which ‘inspired’ him (oh dear)
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
lies in exactly the same vein.
Robertson is simply unable to understand such things.
> Unless the search engine missed hits
It did:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-577454
Bordo’s comment is above that one.
Whether that interests you or not, dearest Binny, for now there’s a hole of a few months in your story.
And by a few months I mean more than 24.
Will report if I find anything else.
I don’t know what it was like back then, good old boy. I don’t care, let alone does my lady.
By the way, you’re not the only one who can search the entire history of a blog by wget-ing all its threads and inserting the cleaned data into a SQL database.
I could show you the incredible amount of silly, childish schoolboy exchanges between you and Swenson over the years…
And a guy like you dares to play here blog manager and big brother.
Oh Noes, Willard.
It is certainly your prerogative not to care if your story holds up or not, my most beloved Binny.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
” Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst. ”
Exactement, Oberlehrer Willard!
{ My native tongue lacks many of these pretty German idioms – like e.g. ‘dummdreist’ which means a lot more than the simple concatenation of the two. }
C’est pourquoi je répète tout simplement:
” I could show you the incredible amount of silly, childish schoolboy exchanges between you and Swenson over the years… ”
Like Blindsley H00d, you love to ignore and hide negative aspects once they really affect… you.
Threatening me with a good time will not make your story stick, loveliest Binny. Tater sagen mehr als Worte. Two quick questions.
If you despise that Bordo said nasty things about Motte, why did you repeat them so much? You must have rehearsed them at least ten times more than he did! And now you are repeating them for a story that so far does not stick! Surely you know better lines to sound like the pompous and cankaterous anchorite we all know and love.
Also, have you considered buying the authoritative translation? You can even find it online for free if you know where ro search. Bordo kinda stopped using that silly line since it has been mentioned. Only you persist with it, as if it was the echo of a traumatic experience.
> cankaterous
Great. Now my autocorrect learns my typos. Next time I’ll just say crusty.
Warning – The names have been changed to protect the stupid
[BORDO] Is this Binny or La Pagolina?
[ALSO BORDO] Who’s Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swenson…”If you wanted to reduce Gordon to a gibbering, incoherent blob, you could produce the fabled description of the GHE”.
***
Don’t know about the incoherent blob but it would be revealing if someone, including the IPCC, could produce a coherent explanation that could not be defeated by simple logic and science.
I might sulk for a bit, wondering how I could have been so stupid. Meantime, I wonder how alarmists are so stupid as to get the theory so hopelessly wrong.
C’mon, Bordo.
There’s nothing to do to reduce you to an incoherent blob.
Swenson’s parrot shows up to parrot things Swenson has already said.
C’mon, Bordo.
Mike Flynn said if.
There’s no if.
Correction is not repetition.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“I’m not sure what “total f&%kery” is supposed to be.”
Just to be clear, because some are confused, the f&%kery lies in deniers dismissing the severity of current North Atlantic heating https://imgur.com/a/uChWM8q (>2σ), falsely claiming it is merely natural fluctuations.
Online trolls and fake science blogs contribute to the f&%kery by spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation about climate change.
F&%kery refers to actions or tactics employed to deny, undermine, or downplay the scientific consensus on climate change and its causes. It often involves spreading misinformation, distorting facts, or promoting doubt to hinder efforts towards climate action.
While extreme weather events cannot be solely attributed to climate change, scientific research consistently indicates that climate change increases the likelihood and intensity of such events. The F&%kery lies in deliberately misrepresenting or denying this scientific consensus.
Ark is competing for top Alarmist. The competition is fierce. Ark contributes links about SSTs, and claims “En fuego”. Upthread, he listed his “science” behind the bogus GHE. When asked if he would stand by his nonsense, he “left the building”.
Like the other Alarmists, he’s pretty sure Earth is on fire, but he has NO science to support his false beliefs.
Some people just want to live in needless fear, I guess.
maguff…”F&%kery refers to actions or tactics employed to deny, undermine, or downplay the scientific consensus on climate change and its causes”.
***
Deny consensus??? Consensus is not part of science, it is politics and/or philosophy. If the yahoo alarmists had scientific fact they would not need consensus.
Arkady,
You are an idiot, if you think that redefining ” . . . deliberately misrepresenting or denying this scientific consensus.” as “F&%kery” makes you look any less like the delusional SkyDragon cultist which you are.
Climate is merely the statistics of historical weather observations, and, as such, always changes.
Your nonsensical reference to “climate action” just shows you how mentally deficient you are. I suppose you are one of those deluded fools who support waving banners saying “Stop climate change!”, are you?
You seem to believe in a GHE which you can’t describe, as do a lot of other silly SkyDragon cultists! implied obscenity just makes look like a petulant adolescent, and is unlikely to influence anyone who is already laughing at your gullibility.
Consensus? Here’s what a real scientist 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.” – Richard Feynman.
You obviously disagree. That’s because you don’t like inconvenient truths.
Go away and play with yourself, like that other witless fool Willard.
swenson…”I suppose you are one of those deluded fools who support waving banners saying Stop climate change!, are you?”
***
I think he’s more the type who throws liquids at priceless paintings in art galleries or who glues himself to a wall. Or like Greta Thunberg who had predicted the end of the world by this date.
C’mon, Bordo.
For the nth time, the paintings were glass protected.
And
https://climateball.net/but-12-years/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The global warming cargo cult seem to imagine that a trace amount of CO2 plays important role in global temperature.
A global warming cultist at NASA- who was a follower of James Hansen,
imagines that global CO2 levels at which are .0003 of the atmosphere [300 parts per million] causes the atmosphere to become 33 C, warmer. And it would cause a lot more global warming if CO2 were to become closer to .0005 of the atmosphere.
I think it’s possible that global CO2 could get to 500 ppm, but if it does, it will likely to related to the CO2 emission China. And CO2 levels emitted by Europe per year is quite small compared to China.
If global CO2 were to reach 500 ppm, I don’t think it will have measurable effect upon global temperatures.
As 100 ppm rise in CO2 levels has not been measurable and another rise 100 ppm should be even less measurable.
Or a rise from 200 ppm to 300 ppm should greater warming as compared
to 300 to 400 ppm. Or CO2 is suppose to related doubling of CO2 levels. So, 200 to 300, 200 x 2 = 400 ppm = X amount and 300 ppm is 50% less then X amount.
And rise from 400 to 800 ppm = X amount. Or, it’s logarithmic in terms of doubling. So, 400 to 500, has less effect than 300 to 400.
As would 300 to 350, have larger effect, than 350 to 400 ppm.
As said, a rise from say 300 ppm to 350 ppm has not been measured.
A problem related to this is also unknown factor which one could call the length time the warning effect is delayed.
So what has not measured is the delayed effect nor how much it is.
I tend think it’s very long delayed effect and it’s a small effect- and therefore will be very difficult to be measured.
So, what is greenhouse effect?
If in a greenhouse, the air temperature more uniform.
Say, had two rooms, room A is warmed by sunlight [or anything] a room B had the doors shut between and room A, B has less greenhouse effect from room A.
With regard to Planet Earth, room A is the tropical ocean.
The tropical ocean gets most of sunlight from our Sun, and transfers the heat to atmosphere. And via the atmosphere heats the rest of world.
Europe gets very little sunlight, and without being warmed from tropics, it would be 10 C, colder.
With the warming effect of Earth greenhouse effect, Europe average surface air temperature is about 9 C.
Or without greenhouse effect making Europe have more globally uniform temperature, it’s average air temperature would be less than 0 C.
And if look at Russia, you see what Europe would be like without this global warming effect. Russia might have a hotter summer day, but what Russia has is a lot of very cold days in winter.
Or Europe tends to have milder conditions.
uniform = more milder conditions.
gb…”A global warming cultist at NASA- who was a follower of James Hansen, imagines that global CO2 levels at which are .0003 of the atmosphere [300 parts per million]…”
***
Thought you’d made a mistake for a minute, but you are right. The 0.0003 figure is the concentration in ppm and can be extended to 0.000300 and if you move the decimal 6 places to the right you get 300 x 10^-6, which signifies the CO2 level at 300 parts/million. The 10^-6 can be moved to the denominator as 10^6, and the expression becomes 300 parts/million.
I normally think of it as a percentage, which means multiplying 0.0003 by 100 to get 0.03 percent.
At any rate, your point is apt. How can such a trivial gas cause the catastrophes predicted?
“At any rate, your point is apt. How can such a trivial gas cause the catastrophes predicted?”
If people are saying many catastrophes, it means they don’t think there is a catastrophe.
And the list of these lies very long indeed.
But I think a doubling of C02, might cause some warning, but it may take centuries, and there many things which going happen in decades- and also, 15 C, is obviously, a cold air temperature.
gb…the G&T calculation of heat diffusion is based on a doubling of CO2. They calculated a 0.06C warming from CO2. That means CO2 MIGHT have contributed 6/100ths of a degree C to the 1C rise over 170 years.
I did a guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law and calculated a 0.04C warming per degree rise in temperature from CO2. That is 4/100ths of a degree C.
Meantime, the alarmists at GISS are claiming a warming factor of 9% to 25%. The lower level would be about 0.1C warming per degree C rise in temperature and the higher value a 0.25C rise due to CO2 per degree C.
Even if GISS is right, CO2 only accounts for about 1/10 to 1/4 the warming. What caused the other 9/10ths or 3/4?
“Even if GISS is right, CO2 only accounts for about 1/10 to 1/4 the warming. What caused the other 9/10ths or 3/4?”
I have said, we recovered from the Little Ice Age.
The global warming cargo cult seems to have confused itself with their failed attempt to erase history.
The IPCC says the world as warmed 1.1 C since the end of LIA and convinced themselves that for more thousand years, Earth average temperature was less than 14 C- the grapes didn’t grow in Scotland.
Less than 14 C is colder than 15 C.
If global temperature cooled by 1 C, it seems the News headlines would screaming about the coming Ice Age.
I think the simple lesson is that bureaucracies can appear to do stupid things.
And the Vogons are far superior, bureaucrats.
gb…”Earth average temperature was less than 14 C- the grapes didnt grow in Scotland”.
***
Wasn’t just grapes, there was an outright crop failure in the Scottish Highlands at the second peak of the LIA circa 1790.
gbakie: “global CO2 levels at which are .0003 of the atmosphere [300 parts per million]”
0.03% a hundred years ago, 0.04% now. You’re two orders of magnitude off.
Trace elements can have significant effects. Try drinking 0.03% of your blood’s weight in arsenic.
This typical ‘skeptic’ argument from incredulity is sheer rhetoric.
Anyone taking medicine expects a pill that is 0.0004% of their body weight to have an effect. ‘Skeptics’ say – no way!
barry,
One single hemorrhagic fever virus is sufficient to kill you.
Or one high energy photon triggering a fatal cancer – and the photon has no weight at all (no rest mass, anyway).
There is no GHE – if there was, you could at least describe it, couldn’t you? But of course, you can’t. You believe in something you can’t describe – just like any member of most religions. If you want to “believe”, that’s fine. If you want to convince someone that your belief has physical reality, feel free.
If people reject your proselytising, that’s life.
Noice example!
Can’t describe the GHE?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485382
barry…”Trace elements can have significant effects. Try drinking 0.03% of your bloods weight in arsenic”.
***
You need to find a better argument, Barry. We are talking about a gas mixture and the percent of each gas making up a mixture of gases in which two of the gases make up 99% of the gases.
The mechanism that kills you with a poison has nothing to do with the science related to the atmospheric gas mixture. Arsenic interferes with enzymes required for proper cell function. The action may be cumulative and triggered by the arsenic.
In the atmosphere, we are talking about heat and how it is affected by a trace gas. The problem is in the interpretation of the mechanism, which suggests, without a satisfactory explanation, that a trace gas can somehow heat the other 99.96% gases surrounding it.
G&T proved using heat diffusion (not conduction) hat Co2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can supply no more than 0.06% of the heat.
If we were to have some global warning, sea levels would be meters higher.
This was predicted, and it didn’t happen.
Sea levels within Holocene were at at 1 meter higher.
Other interglacial periods had sea levels at least 4 meters higher.
Barry’s problem is having people like Al Gore.
And no government, in the world has lowered CO2 emission.
Technology has lowered CO2 emission- and govt have been opposing technologies which could have significantly lowered CO2 emissions.
Actions speak louder than words.
> no government, in the world has lowered CO2 emission.
Sweden actually did, simply by introducing a carbon tax.
That didn’t lower global CO2- though cutting down on cruise ships, might.
Neither did your daily denial slowed down its deceleration:
> Thanks to record deployment of renewables and EVs, the CO2 intensity of the worlds energy supply is improving again after worsening in 2021 when the economy rebounded sharply
https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase
We obviously are going straight into an ice age.
Now is your cue.
“If we were to have some global warning, sea levels would be meters higher.
This was predicted, and it didnt happen.”
The amount of sea level rise we’ve had exceeds the predictions for the amount of CO2 we’ve accumulated in the time that it has done so.
“The mechanism that kills you with a poison has nothing to do with the science related to the atmospheric gas mixture. ”
But your insistence that fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to matter ignores science!
You ignore the optical properties of that small fraction, which matters a great deal.
For example, what gives Ruby its red color is a few parts per million impurities.
Without those impurities very little light would be abso.orbed by the crystal.
But because light is abs.orbed a ruby can be heated by a light source.
So can the atmosphere be heated by IR, because of the small amount of CO2.
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
“You are an idiot, if you think that redefining… ”
Never ask a question you know you’re not going to like the answer to, unless you are prepared to face the truth and handle the consequences.
You are delusional if you persistently hold onto false beliefs or refuse to acknowledge reality, as it can hinder personal growth and lead to misguided actions and decisions.
You are delusional if you think quoting Richard Feynman, or any renowned figure, automatically validates your arguments or opinions. It is important to critically analyze and understand the context and substance of their words, rather than using them as a mere appeal to authority.
I see no benefit in continuing to reply to you, as it is obvious your comments are unproductive. It may be more worthwhile to disengage and focus on other matters that are more meaningful or conducive to personal growth and understanding.
Don’t be offended if I skip your comments from now on, as it is my prerogative to choose which comments or interactions I engage with. It’s important to respect each other’s boundaries and preferences in communication, allowing for a more positive and fulfilling exchange of ideas.
Arkady,
You wrote –
“Its important to respect each others boundaries and preferences in communication, allowing for a more positive and fulfilling exchange of ideas.”
Don’t be stupid. I don’t give a toss about your “boundaries and preferences in communication”.
Why should I? You may say how “important” it is, to your heart’s content, but why should I value your opinion? All of your opinions plus $5, will buy a $5 cup of coffee, so your opinions are worth precisely zero.
You rattle on about a “consensus”, but you cannot even bring yourself to be specific about what this “consensus” is about. You are too embarrassed to clearly state what you believe in, let alone why you believe it.
I’ll repeat the words of Richard Feynman “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.” If you disagree, you could indicate why, but of course, you won’t, because you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, who can’t say say what he believes in, nor why he believes it!
As to being offended, you may be overrating the value I assign to your opinions. I generally choose not to waste my time feeling offended, insulted, annoyed or suchlike.
If you imagine Im going to make an exception for a dimwitted peanut like you, you are sadly mistaken.
Carry on.
maguff…”Dont be offended if I skip your comments from now on, as it is my prerogative to choose which comments or interactions I engage with”.
***
Don’t be surprised if Swenson keeps responding to you anyway. Your recent assassination attempt on Roy’s integrity is typical of your posts and draws replies from the likes of Swenson or I to set the record straight for 3rd party viewers.
You have a nerve talking about a more fulfilling exchange of ideas when you take shots at a scientists integrity and you have nothing to base it on.
–Posted on May 21, 2023 by Steven Hayward
Did Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail Bill Gates?
There has long been speculation that Jeffrey Epstein acquired much of his murky fortune and influence through a sophisticated blackmail operation, but there has been no solid evidence reported in support of this theory. Until today.
The Wall Street Journal is out mid-day with a genuine bombshell story that Epstein attempted to exploit an affair Gates had in 2010 with a young Russian bridge player to coerce Gates into contributing at least $100 million to a foundation that Epstein was trying to launch, and from which hed receive substantial management fees in the millions of dollars.
…–
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/did-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-bill-gates.php
linked:
https://instapundit.com/
obviously, Epstein was murdered.
And this kind of stuff is not ignored by CIA and etc, etc.
gb…”The Wall Street Journal is out mid-day with a genuine bombshell story that Epstein attempted to exploit an affair Gates had in 2010 with a young Russian bridge player…”
***
Was the Russian bridge player male or female, or perhaps a male trapped in a female body, as so many claim these days? If the latter, Epstein was likely jealous.
Currently reading a book by Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. He made the Lumberjack Song famous.
Anyway, Palin has written an excellent book on the HMS Erebus, a Brit navy frigate designed as a ‘bomb’ ship, which carried huge mortars for assaulting inland positions. In peace time, it was converted to an exploring vessel, and James Clark Ross sailed it to the Antarctic being the first to step on the Antarctic continent proper. The Ross Ice Shelf is named after him.
Later, Franklin sailed it to the Arctic, resulting in him and his entire crew being lost. The Erebus, along with its sister ship, Terror, became trapped in Arctic ice and both were ultimately destroyed by the ice.
Enter the Little Ice Age. Franklin sailed to the Arctic circa 1850, as the LIA was ending. At that point, no one had successfully sailed the NW Passage for the simple reason there was far too much ice, even in summer, for any sailing vessel to get through.
The voyage before Franklin had experienced so much ice, even in summer, they could not even enter the Lancaster Sound, the gateway to the NW Passage at the eastern end, across the Baffin Bay from Greenland. Franklin’s ships had trouble negotiating a passage through the Baffin Bay from Greenland due to thick ice in June.
Franklin eventually got into Lancaster Sound and made it to Beechey Island where they wintered. The following year they tried sailing NW and failed so they circled back, eventually sailing south. That’s where it all ended during a severe winter. They literally succumbed to the brutal winter, suffering from scurvy and bad decisions.
It should be noted that the first one through the NW Passage, was the Brit McClure. However, he sailed in from the West and had to walk across 100 miles from ice to meet another Brit ship on the eastern end.
The IPCC would have us accept their propaganda that such weather was normal and that a trace gas warmed the planet so much that the ice is all gone. Some 850 years before Franklin, the Vikings were farming on Greenland, meaning there would have been much less ice between Greenland and the mainland than Franklin’s expedition encountered.
If you look at a Google map of the Lancaster Sound, it shows nice blue water straight through from Greenland to the Arctic Ocean. Propaganda. During winter that passage is sealed shut with ice to normal sailing vessels. Only icebreakers can get part way through and even at that, it depends on the flow of ice in the Arctic Ocean. For normal sailing boats, an attempt at a passage is available only from July through September and even then the air temperature is between -5C and +5C.
Success is not guaranteed, one is always at the mercy of ice packs, even in summer. A good example was the trip of Henry Larsen on the motorized RCMP cutter, St. Roch. In the early 1940s, it took them 2 years to travel west to east through the passage due to ice closing in and forcing them ashore in Northern Canada. On the return trip from Halifax to Vancouver, they sailed straight trough in 87 days.
Even then, it was touch and go as ice was closing in on them as they sailed past the northern edge of Alaska.
> Some 850 years before Franklin, the Vikings were farming on Greenland
Pick your poison:
https://climateball.net/but-mwp/#vikings
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place/#greenland
Whacky Wee Willy,
Appealing to your own authority is slightly pointless, isn’t it?
Who would pay attention to the second-hand deranged maunderings of a delusional SkyDragon cultist?
Linking to yourself as an authority just reinforces the impression that you are an idiot!
Mike Flynn,
You just did.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Appealing to your own authority is slightly pointless, isnt it?
Who would value the opinions expressed in second-hand deranged maunderings of a delusional SkyDragon cultist?
Linking to yourself as an authority just reinforces the impression that you are an idiot!
Mike, Mike,
Links save time.
Why do you waste yours?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Appealing to your own authority is slightly pointless, isnt it?
Who would value the opinions expressed in second-hand deranged maunderings of a delusional SkyDragon cultist?
Linking to yourself as an authority just reinforces the impression that you are an idiot!
If you want to save time while convincing others you are an idiot by posting links to your opinions, then you create extra time to convince even more strangers that you are an idiot.
Go for it!
Hey Mike,
Do you know what’s a double bind?
swenson…”Appealing to your own authority is slightly pointless, isnt it?”
***
No one else will listen to wee willy, he needs himself as an audience.
C’mon, Bordo.
Here you are, not being me.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, in a fit of denial of reality, AQ wrote –
“Nitrogen does not absorb radiation, so there is no greenhouse effect.”
AQ is stupid, ignorant, delusional, of just an average SkyDragon cultist – or maybe all of them!
All matter absorbs radiation. All matter emits radiation.
AQ is inadvertently right about one thing, though, when he writes ” . . . there is no greenhouse effect.”
So true.
“All matter absorbs radiation. All matter emits radiation.”
But not all matter absorbs & emits all wavelengths equally under all circumstances. That should not even need to be said.
* polished silver absorbs very little visible or IR radiation.
* black paint absorbs both visible and IR well.
* glass absorbs IR well, but not visible light.
* atoms with small atomic number absorb x-rays poorly, but atoms with large atomic number absorb x-rays well.
* plants absorb red and green light, but reflect green.
And in particular for this discussion,
* CO2 absorbs (and emits) well in a few bands of IR, but poorly in visible and UV.
* O2 absorbs (and emits) well in some bands of UV, but poorly in visible and IR.
* N2 absorbs (and emits) poorly from UV right through IR.
It is simple to spot the IR emissions from the atmosphere from CO2 and H2O and CH4 (and water droplets). But N2 and O2 are 99.99% transparent across the 4-40 um range of terrestrial thermal radiation. Theoretically and experimentally they do not contribute significantly to the IR from the sky.
Sure there is SOME miniscule emission of IR from N2, but it is COMPETELY SWAMPED by emissions from GHG.
“plants absorb red and green light, but reflect green.”
??
Plants absorb red and BLUE, and reflect green. A slip of the fingers.
Tim, look up the measured* spectrum of a green plant leaf illuminated by daylight. If the visible spectrum is divided into six regions to which color names are given, then find a green plant leaf is far from being a reflector of only green light.
The measurement will also show a spectrum containing violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. A green plant leaf will be far from being a reflector of only green light. Green band may not even be the measured peak radiance band. That spectral measurement, though, human brains interpret as what is color named green.
This is useful information for determining the health of crops from a plane or helicopter inspecting them.
*Spectral measurements from, say, a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm.
Ball4, I am not going to ‘look up’ anything.
The point is simply that different materials absorb different color different amounts! None of the details as you go off on this tangent that basic fact. We don’t need a detailed analysis of the spectra of different leaves. We just need to know that different surfaces absorb different colors differently.
And surfaces reflect differently. After “But” Tim went off on a tangent from Planck’s ideal law: “All matter absorbs radiation. All matter emits radiation.” to add in opaque surface emissivity and reflectivity. I added to that tangent in that by measurement plant material absorbs and reflects all colors not just the color band we see.
“After “But” Tim went off on a tangent from Plancks ideal law”
That is not a tangent. That is the point. If everything behaved like an ideal blackbody obeying Planck’s Law, then everything would emit and absorb across all wavelengths. But things do NOT behave that way. Things absorb and emit differently.
And in particular, N2 emits and absorbs EXTREMEMLY POORLY over the whole visible and IR range. For all practical purposes, N2 does not emit IR at all when heated to 200K or 300K or 400 K. Less than 0.1% of the thermal radiation from the sky is from N2. N2 simply doesn’t matter in radiative transfers.
Tim, according to Planck’s law everything does emit and absorb across all wavelengths … at all temperatures, all the time with a certain real emissivity measured at each wavelength.
“In physics, Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body..”
Ball4.
Planck’s Law — as listed in any reputable source you care to find — is about black body radiation. Emissivity is not included. This would be “Planck’s ideal law” that you brought up.
Yes, we could include emissivity in a modified, non-ideal version of Planck’s law for non-blackbodies. But again, this is the point. The ‘certain, real, measured emissivity’ of N2 gas is 0.00 across the range of IR of interest. Sure if you carried out more decimal places, you might find some small emissivity at some wavelengths, but why bother? The contribution from N2 is a minor, immeasurably small perturbation.
First Swenson and now you make it sound like the N2 is emitting and absorbing significantly, when in fact it is not.
“The ‘certain, real, measured emissivity’ of N2 gas is 0.00 across the range of IR of interest.”
No Tim. N2 gas is made of normal matter so that’s a violation of Planck’s law which contains 3 constants of Nature! You are just behind in your atm. radiation studies.
Sure, if you carried out more decimal places, you will find some small emissivity at each wavelength. That bother has already been performed experimentally & reported in the literature; Tim has not bothered to look up the research. The effect of N2,O2 on earthen global avg. clear sky OLR reduction each is reported in the first decimal place & together about 15% of the OLR reduction caused by CH4.
Tim used the word “significantly”; I have not.
Nate 6:54 am: Blackbodies do not exist in nature but blackbody radiation does exist & was used for the tests supporting Planck’s law so more correctly:
“In physics, Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation in black body radiation..”
Ball4, you are the one behind!
Planck’s Law gives an upper limit for radiation at each wavelength for a given temperature. Real materials cannot radiate MORE than calculated by Planck’s law. But they can radiate LESS.
Only a perfect blackbody would follow Planck’s law and have an emissivity of 1. Real materials will have an emissivity less than one — without violating Planck’s Law. Polished silver is around 0.02. N2 is even less. To 2 significant digits, it would be 0.01 or 0.00.
As for research and data and sources, look here: https://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Check the spectra for N2 (along with maybe O2, CO2, and H2O) from 4 um to 20 um where most of the thermal IR from the surface and atmosphere is. You will see basically nothing from N2.
If you have a source that says N2 and/or O2 are 15% of any sort of thermal radiation, I would love to see it.
I just found Ball4’s source, based on the snippets he gave.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
It concludes “the net global OLR reduction of oxygen and nitrogen together is with 0.28 Wm−2 [under clear-sky conditions]”. This is about 0.2% of the OLR. Not zero, but quite small. Note this is or both N2 and O2. Also note that for cloudy skies, the effect would be reduced.
So if corrections on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 are important, then taking N2 might be important.
Tim Good find, order of 0.1 W/m^2 each as I noted is not 0.00. Some other points:
“Real materials will have an emissivity less than one – without violating Planck’s Law.”
Tim, not all, real materials (for example lunar surface powder) can measure emissivity greater than one when their particle sizes (diameters) are on the order of the wavelengths of the material’s illumination due to diffraction becoming important in the measurement.
On spectracalc, “You will see basically nothing from N2.”
Not sure what Tim means exactly by “basically nothing”. If the spectracalc link computes “basically nothing” effect on reducing global avg. clear sky OLR by N2 and O2 together and NOT 15% of CH4 effect, then spectracalc doesn’t comply with research papers on the subject.
“order of 0.1 W/m^2 each as I noted is not 0.00.”
Using 255 K as a base temperature, the radiation would be
* 240 W/m^2 with e = 1
* 24 W/m^2 with e = 0.1
* 2.4 W/m^2 with e = 0.01
* 0.24 W/m^2 with e = 0.001
Emissivity is on the order of 0.001. When rounded to 2 decimal places, that is 0.00. Exactly as claimed.
[It is a bit more complicated than that, but the general point still stands. The emissivity is around 0.00 or maybe 0.01; the flux is on the order of 0.1 W/m^2; these are negligible except for the most detailed calculations.
Clouds, water vapor, CO2, CH4, and O3 all have bigger impacts than either N2 or O2.]
“real materials (for example lunar surface powder) can measure emissivity greater than one … “
First, an emissivity greater than 1 would mean the surface absorbs more than 100% of the incoming radiation. Yeah .. not going to happen.
If surface emits more than Planck’s law due to diffraction, then the emissivity is STILL not greater than one. The measurement is being influenced by other radiation not being emitted by the surface.
Again, if you have a reference, please provide it.
“Not sure what Tim means exactly by basically nothing. “
If you can’t bother to look at the link and try to understand, then I can’t bother to explain. I am not going to try to guess which ideas you don’t understand.
0.001 is also not 0.00. Spectroscopy really is the science of details.
“First, an emissivity greater than 1 would mean the surface absorbs more than 100% of the incoming radiation. Yeah .. not going to happen.”
It does happen. Measured emissivity greater than one just means, as I wrote, usually neglected diffraction becomes important due to particle size on order of illumination wavelength which influences the measurement where Planck no longer applies.
Ref. Planck Treatise on Radiation p.3: “Throughout the following discussion it will be assumed that the linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wave lengths of the rays considered. With this assumption we may, without appreciable error, entirely neglect the influence of diffraction.”
I did bother with the link. The link has exactly nothing worthwhile, Tim, it even points to H2O. You really can do better for a research ref. and data on O2,N2 IR band opacity. You could even show using the link your claim of 0.00. In which case, if you do, the program result doesn’t comply with research in the field.
“0.001 is also not 0.00.”
Yes, it is, when rounded to 2 decimal places. And that is what I claimed. When rounded to 2 decimal places ….
3.1416 becomes 3.14
0.222 becomes 0.22
0.014 becomes 0.01
0.002 becomes 0.00
I claimed nothing more and nothing less.
“The link has exactly nothing worthwhile, Tim, it even points to H2O.”
You can select gases from a list. You can select wavenumber or wavelength. You can select which wavelength range. You can even select to plot according to atmospheric concentration. Its not that difficult.
When you select the four gasses, you will see that N2 has one narrow band from ~ 6-7 um. Oxygen has a similar strength band from ~ 4-5 um. Both CO2 and H2O absorb over much broader bands and up to ~ 100,000x stronger!
**********************
Planck’s “THE THEORY OF HEAT RADIATION” does ignore diffraction for simplicity, but never claims diffraction would make emissivity greater than 1. Try again. Where is a measured emissivity greater than 1?
I will also point out that the preface says:
“I wish, however, to emphasize here what has been stated more
fully in the last paragraph of this book, namely, that the theory
thus developed does not by any means claim to be perfect or complete, although I believe that it points out a possible way of accounting for the processes of radiant energy from the same
point of view as for the processes of molecular motion.”
Advances have been made in the intervening century!
https://ia804508.us.archive.org/26/items/theheatradiation00planrich/theheatradiation00planrich.pdf
Ok then, so spectracalc isn’t up to speed with the long ago experimental research on atm. N2,O2 opacity.
There is a professor of Meteorology that has written of his lab course antics. One of the lab experiments had his students measure the emissivity of ~6 various provided substances writing: “One of the great appeals of atmospheric science is that we always are in its laboratory. Accordingly, we suggest simple experiments and try not to miss opportunities to point out how life can be breathed into inert symbols… Nothing is trivial.”
Of course, one of the materials he provided for measurement was a powder with known particle size on the order of the wavelength of the given lab illumination. He knew from practice the students would then measure its emissivity being greater than 1 due to the powder material’s non-negligible diffraction.
The professor would then sort of enjoy their puzzlement as they tried in (seriously funny ways) to explain away their presumed “errors” somewhere in the lab work on that particular material.
“a professor of Meteorology … had his students measure the emissivity …. a powder with known particle size … ”
Seriously? You base your ‘proof’ on an unnamed professor using an unknown power in an undergrad lab?
Also if they are using “lab illumination”, then they would be measuring the amount of illumination absorbed and/or reflected, not the amount of thermal IR emitted.
The least you could do is tell us the source of this information and the conditions in which an emissivity greater than 1 was measured. Otherwise we might think you made it up, or misunderstood.
******************************
PS and all of this is a tangent on a tangent. N2 is a very poor emitter and absorber. A 0.1% impact at best on thermal IR. An almost immeasurably small emissivity. Ill-designed experiments with measured emissivities greater than 1 might be interesting, but not germane.
Tim, I just don’t remember the exact cite anymore, it was in one of Prof. Craig Bohren’s books, all are a delight to read. I urge you to read this Forward & Preface if the blog will permit it to upload & work, especially his “there is no authority other than observation and experiment illuminated by reason”:
https://www.amazon.com/Clouds-Glass-Beer-Experiments-Atmospheric-ebook/dp/B00BLRDHM4/ref=d_pd_sim_sccl_1_1/136-0790363-6362234?pd_rd_w=f91Mu&content-id=amzn1.sym.cea269b5-2b99-44d4-a309-214a6674c0a9&pf_rd_p=cea269b5-2b99-44d4-a309-214a6674c0a9&pf_rd_r=B91ER7JDGE8ZH7SYGDRQ&pd_rd_wg=4jGjh&pd_rd_r=8b5b83be-524f-4228-817e-d49edf8338b0&pd_rd_i=B00BLRDHM4&psc=1&asin=B00BLRDHM4&revisionId=6549a8b2&format=1&depth=1
I believe you that the books are good. I can also believe that an undergrad experiment could easily be concocted to give the impression of emissivity greater than 1. I am just really skeptical of a result that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
PS. I will agree that N2 can emit some thermal IR. Will you agree it emits 0.1% or less thermal IR than H2O and CO2, and hence can typically be ignored when considering IR to/from the atmosphere?
Tim,
Measure the air temperature. Remove the CO2. The air temperature changes by precisely nothing at all.
If you can be bothered to face reality, put a thermometer in a bottle or an empty (except for air) fish tank. Put another in an identical container full of CO2. Allow both to reach equilibrium with their surroundings.
Sunlight, darkness, makes no difference. If both are say, 25 C, they are emitting the same wavelengths. Compress both quickly, to say 500 C, they are both now emitting identical wavelengths.
They are the same temperature!
You are confusing radiative intensity with temperature. If you put your hand on a polished silver teapot of near boiling water, you will discover that its temperature is – nearly boiling!
Your fantasies do not reflect reality.
You can’t even describe the GHE, which makes you just another SkyDragon cult fanatic, consumed by religious mania. You could try praying harder, but the power of prayer may be overrated in this instance.
Carry on.
“Allow both to reach equilibrium with their surroundings.”
What is the temperature of the surroundings of the atmosphere, Swenson?
We’ve got the Earth surface at 288 K, and we’ve got space @ 3 K.
So which T will the atmosphere equilibrate to?
“If both are say, 25 C, they are emitting the same wavelengths.”
No. How strongly they emit at different wavelengths depends strongly on the gases. The CO2 will emit strongly near 15 um, and also near 4 um. N2 will not emit significantly at any wavelength.
“They are the same temperature!”
Yes, of course. That is the definition of ‘same temperature’. Thermometers read the same, so the temperature is the same. But that does NOT mean they radiate the same! That is a separate issue.
You are the one confusing radiative intensity with temperature. If you put your hand NEAR a polished silver teapot (emissivity ~ 0.02) near 100C, you will discover that you feel almost no heat (almost no thermal radiation). If you instead put your hand near a Wrought Iron teapot (emissivity ~ 0.94) near 100C, you will discover that you feel significantly more heat. Even though the temperature is the same, the radiation is dramatically different.
TF, Yeah, Flynnson got it seriously wrong. The emissions from gasses only occur in narrow ranges of wavelength, not all wavelengths as would be true for a black body or one with near BB emissivity. This latest display of his ignorance is rather astounding, given his years of posts around here.
Tim, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Global warming in the pipeline.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/PipelinePaper.2023.05.19.pdf
Jim Hansen recently released a preprint of a paper updating his 2012 paper titled “Global warming in the pipeline.”
One conclusion is:
“Equilibrium global warming including slow feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (4.1 W/m2) is 10 C, reduced to 8 C by today’s aerosols.”
Given that we have experienced about 1 C of warming already, Hansen is saying that there is 7-9 C of warming in the pipeline.
Hansen emphasizes that the consequences of past and present greenhouse gas emissions will continue to unfold for many years, even if emissions were to cease abruptly. This phenomenon occurs due to the persistence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the time it takes for the climate system to respond to these changes. The effects of global warming in the pipeline include rising temperatures, sea-level rise, shifts in weather patterns, and other climate-related impacts.
Since Hansen’s predictions have often proven correct, it’s important that we pay close attention to what he’s saying.
Arkady,
I have indeed paid close attention to Hansen’s nonsensical paper.
A load of rubbish.
A sample –
“It has been known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases (GHGs) warm the Earths surface and that the abundance of GHGs changes naturally as well as from human
actions.”
No, Arkady, Hansen is as thick as a brick for not accepting that the Earth has cooled from the molten state. Carl Sagan is another who shares this implicit view, and had to create an insoluble “faint Sun paradox” to justify his rejection of reality.
The Sun warms the Earth’s surface, as does anthropogenic heat, and a few other things. No GHG warming at all.
As a matter of fact, when sunlight does not reach the surface, the temperature falls! Even during solar eclipses, where the GHG concentration presumably remains unchanged.
It looks like you share the brick-like thickness of people like Hansen, Sagan, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the reality rejecting SkyDragon cultists.
Appeal to a different nutter.
“Carl Sagan is another who shares this implicit view…”
***
Not surprising since Sagan was Hansen’s guru. Sagan was dead wrong about the cause of the climate on Venus, proved wrong by the 1978 Pioneer probes launched to check it out. They revealed a surface temperature of about 450C, far too hot to be caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, if such an effect even exists. A Russian probe confirmed the surface temperature.
Woke scientists laughed at Velikovsky for his theories about Venus but he got the surface temperature right and the scientists were not even close.
“They revealed a surface temperature of about 450C, far too hot to be caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, if such an effect even exists.”
Argument from incredulity is a favorite method here.
Besides you, who says so? And why?
Nate,
Seeing as how you can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, is there any point to your gotcha?
False premise.
Why does Swenson post regularly at a blog on science, global temperature and climate change when he clearly hates those subjects and all those who discuss them?
Insanity? Exposure therapy? Sado-masochism?
It is a mystery.
“Hansen emphasizes that the consequences of past and present greenhouse gas emissions will continue to unfold for many years…”
***
Since Hansen made his prima donna appearance on national TV in 1988, offering gloom and doom, none of it has come to fruition. Why would anyone be interested in his delusions about pipelines?
What did he predict that didnt happen?
“In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenlands ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenlands ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible.”
Just in case you want to play “silly semantic games” a la Willard, and claim Hansen made “projections”, this might interest others –
“Since Hansen used the word “forecast” in his paper title [2], and the words “predicted” or “predictions” three times in the abstract alone and at least six more times in the body of the paper, the ” projections” legend is rendered untenable by Hansen’s own words.”
Any fool can make predictions, and many do. The future is unknowable. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, and changes constantly.
Found a description of the GHE yet? No? Why am I not surprised?
You are as delusional James Hansen and the rest of the nutters.
Mike Flynn,
You forgot your cite:
http://www.seanews.com.tr/30-years-of-dire-global-warming-carbon-warnings-prove-false/177174/
Do you often read SeaNews Turkey?
Willard,
What are you babbling about, idiot? Your mind-reading instructor saw you coming. I hope you didn’t pay anything for the course.
Why would I read SeaNews Turkey? Are you off with the fairies again?
Also here:
“https://www.cato.org/commentary/thirty-years-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand”
Commentary at a conservative think tank.
2007 is not 1988 so off-topic, and no quote is given in any case.
They discuss the 1988 testimony fairly accurately and it doesnt predict anything that didnt happen.
Hansen quote in 2007
“After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981)
that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the
Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research,
specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper
at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication
(MacCracken 1983).”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002/pdf
He was explaining scientific conservatism:
“I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be
conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more
readily if they do not push too far and are larded with
caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in
skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation
and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency
for gradualism as new evidence comes to light may be illsuited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse
is concerned.”
He makes clear that he decided to be less conservative going forward.
Thus he states, on Greenland’s contribution to sea level rise:
“let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the
decade 200515 and that it doubles each decade until the West
Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant
yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.”
He makes clear he is speculating:
” Ofcourse I cannot prove that my choice of a ten-year doubling
time for nonlinear response is accurate, but I am confident that
it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the
ice sheet component of sea level rise under BAU forcing.”
But most other climate scientists do not agree.
Hansen 2007 Hansen quote in 2007
“After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981)
that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the
Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research,
specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper
at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication
(MacCracken 1983).”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002/pdf
He was explaining scientific conservatism:
“I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be
conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more
readily if they do not push too far and are larded with
caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in
skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation
and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency
for gradualism as new evidence comes to light may be illsuited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse
is concerned.”
He makes clear that he decided to be less conservative going forward, as he became more of an activist.
Thus he states, on Greenland’s contribution to sea level rise:
“let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the
decade 200515 and that it doubles each decade until the West
Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant
yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.”
He makes clear he is speculating:
” Ofcourse I cannot prove that my choice of a ten-year doubling
time for nonlinear response is accurate, but I am confident that
it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the
ice sheet component of sea level rise under BAU forcing.”
But most other climate scientists do not agree.
Hansen Hansen quote in 2007
“After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981)
that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the
Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research,
specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper
at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication
(MacCracken 1983).”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002/pdf
He was explaining scientific conservatism:
“I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be
conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more
readily if they do not push too far and are larded with
caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in
skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation
and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency
for gradualism as new evidence comes to light may be illsuited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse
is concerned.”
He makes clear that he decided to be less conservative going forward, as he became more of an activist.
Thus he states, on Greenland’s contribution to sea level rise:
“let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the
decade 200515 and that it doubles each decade until the West
Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant
yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.”
He makes clear he is speculating:
” Ofcourse I cannot prove that my choice of a ten-year doubling
time for nonlinear response is accurate, but I am confident that
it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the
ice sheet component of sea level rise under BAU forcing.”
But most other climate scientists do not agree.
Beyond 2007 Hansen had become more of an activist than scientist.
In any case, not the Hansen predictions of 1988.
Whoops, paste errors.
In any case, Hansen has been wrong so far in his 2007 speculation that Greenland melt rate would double each decade.
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
” Hansen is saying that there is 7-9 C of warming in the pipeline.”
Way beyond what the rest of the climate science finds.
Ren’s regular update on the SOI seems to have gone AWOL. Would you care to share it ren.
Oh it’s not only a Palmowski problem…
All Coolistas in unison confuse La Nina episodes – and especially the recent one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
as a sign of global cooling, and therefore during the lowest moments of this episode (2021-2022) the blog was full of hints e.g to
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Now, these links no longer seem to be ‘en vogue’.
But be sure that when this incoming El Nino really plummets as they hope, the picture will reappear sooner than we think.
*
The same happens by the way since months with links to solar cycle SC25 because it currently no longer likes to plummet below SSN 50, he he.
RLH is particularly nutty in this respect.
As ENSO 3.4 rises he feels the need to point out every little drop along the way. Yet the same thing happens as almost every ENSO event approaches, and certainly happened as we approached La Nina in 2020-21 and 2021-22. (In 2022-23 we didn’t actually leave the previous La Nina.)
In 20-21 ENSO 3.4 first dropped to -0.4, before recovering to +0.1, before then moving into La Nina. In 21-22 those numbers were -0.4 and -0.1.
RLH was happy to trust the models for those La Ninas (which did indeed turn out to be correct) but thinks he knows better than the models as we head into a possible/likely El Nino.
But ren … no models for him. This is the first time in 7 years that he hasn’t predicted La Nina (let me know if I’ve missed such a prediction), effectively making his predictions a coin toss. And he stated a couple of months ago that there is no chance of El Nino developing this year. At least he seems to have abandoned his predictions about the AO index from a few years back.
BTW – I don’t believe El Nino is a certainty. The recent SOI contributions are a “positive” (quotes because El Nino is not a positive outcome), but there is still the chance that the cold waters to the north (ie. the negative PDO) could have their say. But I think it’s a case of all or nothing – either neutral or a ‘strong’ El Nino (or possibly ‘very strong’).
Re SS25, I think that the SSN 50 you are citing was applied before the SILSO counting system was changed in 2015, although it’s possible that some people have quoted it since, not realising there was a change. I think it corresponds to about SSN 70 in the current system. I recall reading that you have to (approximately) multiply by 0.7 to go back to the old and divide by 0.7 to convert old to new. Nevertheless, we are still 40% higher than that value at the moment (meaning November 22).
” Re SS25, I think that the SSN 50 you are citing was applied before the SILSO counting system was changed in 2015… ”
No no, I’m talking about SC25 and more precisely about 2021/22:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9G_SqfDMF3upJnOh_EmW6RLjHeuA5a/view
And the same ‘ren’ silence you observe re. ‘Oulu neutron count’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1buuegFRhEgnFB8xfJxXRaDApu7lv4zdo/view
of which I post the inverted values in order to make them more understandable with regard to the SSN.
The only person who keeps posting solar data is gbaikie.
La Bindigolina who could not see any of the three La Ninas coming fullfils my prediction ones again
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1295076
Prescient:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1295051
It seems that the stalking dachshund Eben doesn’t even understand that with his aggressive post, he perfectly confirms what I wrote above.
So it seem – when you live in Bizarro World
Ja Ja Ja
Perhaps one day you will make a positive contribution not filled with bile.
” So it seem when you live in Bizarro World ”
Ah bon!
Thus, dachshund Eben understands that with his aggressive post, he perfectly confirms what I wrote above.
Oui oui oui, mon petit teckel: rien n’est simple, tout est compliqué, comme disait Sempé.
Binny,
Slay all your stalkers, dachshunds, untermensch, and all the rest, with one stroke!
Just describe the amazing GHE in some valid way, and all will fall before you!
Only joking, you can’t can you?
Back to your multicolored graphs of historical temperatures – maybe you can use them to predict the future, do you think? That’s a gotcha, of course. I already know the answer.
Carry on.
There is no evidence that Swenson actually understands descriptions of the GHE, like the perfectly straightforward one Barry posted recently.
It is noteworthy that he could not point out any real logical or factual flaws in it, but continues to assert that no one has adequately explained the GHE to him anyway.
Thus his protests are only highlighting his own limited intellectual capacity.
Nate, maybe no one saw barry’s *perfectly straightforward* description of the GHE. Maybe you could link us to it. I’m sure barry wouldn’t mind.
Maybe Mike Flynn is a deceitful cretin, and Pupman a silly sock puppet.
Barry on GHE
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485382
Oh, THAT description. We now have several descriptions of the bogus GHE, but no one wants to be strapped to it. It’s like they know it will be shot down, so they want to be able to distance themselves from their own nonsense.
Funny cult.
> no one wants to be strapped to it.
Wait till Mike Flynn read that one.
Naughty Pupman.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“> no one wants to be strapped to it.
Wait till Mike Flynn read that one.
Naughty Pupman.”
Any chance of a GHE description which you support, or just more incomprehensible idiocy?
Nate,
The “description” you linked to, doesnt seem to explain why the surface cools at night.
Maybe you could help the idiotic barry out, by describing the role of the GHE in nighttime surface cooling.
barry says “GHGs to slow the rate at which radiation from the surface escapes to space, . . .”, which doesnt result in heating, obviously. The surface cools when it loses radiation. An example s the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years. Do you think this happened by magic?
Do you share barrys delusional physics belief that slow cooling results in raised temperatures or not?
You dont seem to be prepared to say anything that can actually be examined. Why is that?
Mike,
“Do you share barrys delusional physics belief that slow cooling results in raised temperatures or not?”
The surface has a heat source: the sun with its SW radiation, and a heat sink: space.
And as you have been informed, Tyndall discovered that water vapor and CO2 abs.orb LW IR but pass the SW solar visible and near IR.
Then he explained:
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet”
Until you understand these basic facts, you will never understand the GHE.
But we understand that not understanding serves your trolling needs.
Nate, what you cant grasp is that *a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface* does NOT translate to an increased surface temperature. You STILL dont understand radiative physics. Youre trying to make something hotter by adding more ice!
What you do not get, Pupman, is that if you stop wasting money you will become richer.
Do the Shower Experiment.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“You need to find a better argument, Barry. We are talking about a gas mixture and the percent of each gas making up a mixture of gases in which two of the gases make up 99% of the gases.”
The old refrain of incredulity that a ‘trace amount’ could have an effect is dealt with with such analogies as taking medication or poison.
Obviously, you are going to put your faith in science teachers over atmospheric researchers.
Like Roy Spencer, who apparently belongs to the “cult” of people who understand the GHE. Add John Christy to the list.
barry,
Oooooh! An appeal to authority!
Maybe you could describe this “GHE” which you claim people understand, but I doubt it.
Adding CO2 to a sample of air doesn’t change its temperature at all. You must be dreaming if you think it does.
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.”
You dont even have an experiment on which to base a theory!
Carry on dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
You forgot to read to the end:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1485537
Deceitful cretin.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Nope. All I see is a link, which doesn’t have a valid GHE description, of course.
If it did, you would wave it around proudly, and let everyone know.
You are an idiot, if you think anyone except a delusional SkyDragon cultist is likely to believe that you can describe the GHE. All you can do is post stupid links.
Keep trying.
> I see
Do you, Moron Mike?
You see nothing, hear nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.
A lifeless sock puppet.
Enjoy your evening.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Nope. All I see is a link, which doesnt have a valid GHE description, of course.
If it did, you would wave it around proudly, and let everyone know.
You are an idiot, if you think anyone except a delusional SkyDragon cultist is likely to believe that you can describe the GHE. All you can do is post stupid links.
Keep trying.
> Nope.
Nope, what, moron?
How is the sabbatical going, BTW?
Swenson is now singing a different sandwich request.
Now he wants a “valid” description of the GHE.
Now Swenson, maybe you could explain to me what parts of the GHE I have described for you are invalid?
Or are you an invalid?
Mentally speaking that would be.
bobdroege,
You haven’t described the GHE, you idiot. You just keep claiming that you have – hoping someone will believe you. Go on, repeat your claim.
The Earth has cooled, fool, as does the surface every night.
Off you go, trot out your GHE (use the non-valid description if a valid description is too hard for you), and show that it reflects reality.
By the way, you mentioned you were a “chemist”. Did you mean “alchemist”, or were you trying to appeal to your own authority?
No Moron, I have described the GHE for you several times, here we go again.
There is CO2 in the atmosphere, it radiates, some of that radiation reaches the ground, increasing the energy of the ground which may increase the temperature of the ground even at night when the ground is cooling.
Yes I am a chemist, but I never appeal to my own authority.
That’s what you do.
You state things, that you call facts, yet no one else calls them facts.
Donkey Bobby,
You wrote – “There is CO2 in the atmosphere, it radiates, some of that radiation reaches the ground, increasing the energy of the ground which may increase the temperature of the ground even at night when the ground is cooling.”
Do you realise that “when the ground is cooling” means that the temperature is dropping?
Sunlight during the day causes the temperature of the ground to increase. At night it falls.
CO2, like all gases, radiates IR if it is above absolute zero. So does all matter, in fact.
You don’t have to believe me if you prefer to be an idiot. Others a free to decide for themselves.
By the way, you haven’t described the GHE, have you? You are trying (and failing) to explain a GHE which you haven’t described! If you claim that the GHE is responsible for heating the planet (after four and a half billion years of cooling), you might at least describe where the effect might be observed, measured, and documented.
Explaining the effect comes later – except for idiots who try to put the cart before the horse.
Carry on.
Swenson,
There is a branch of Chemistry called spectroscopy, based on the fact that everything absorbs and radiates differently based on the chemical bonds in different substances.
Cooling is cooling, yes but slowing the rate of cooling means the surface will be warmer than it would be without those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect can change the rate of cooling of the surface over 4.5 billion years, but then if you claim it warms during the day and cools at night, there goes your claim of 4.5 billion years of cooling, it has been defenestrated.
If you want to know where you can observe the greenhouse effect, Clint R has an instrument you can borrow to do that.
Or you can look at the graph at the top of this page.
bob claims: There is CO2 in the atmosphere, it radiates, some of that radiation reaches the ground, increasing the energy of the ground which may increase the temperature of the ground even at night when the ground is cooling.
bob, increasing the number of 15μ photons will NEVER increase Earth’s average surface temperature. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice. You can’t learn.
Clint R, just doesn’t ever understand increasing the total thermodynamic internal energy of an object will also increase its avg. temperature. Pity but very humorous Clint’s entertainment has gone on so long.
No Moron, the CO2 is not at any specific temperature in the atmosphere, so it’s not like heating something with ice.
I could have predicted that response from you.
It shows no understanding of science, you are incorrectly using Wien’s displacement law and you won’t learn how to use it correctly.
Each 15 u photon adds a little energy to the surface of the Earth.
It’s exactly like using a bunch of 10 u photons to melt steel.
Still a moron and always will be a moron.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
You continue to confuse the issue with lasers. There are NO lasers in the atmosphere. Low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of an object with higher average molecular vibrational frequency.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes. And, you can’t learn.
Youre braindead.
“Low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of an object with higher average molecular vibrational frequency.”
That’s wrong moron, because most of the molecular vibrations are in the ground state at terrestrial temperatures.
That and because the surface emits these low energy photons, it can absorb them.
Still WRONG, bob.
Your flawed belief would imply that everything on Earth was at the same temperature. Just like your mis-understanding of Kirchhoff’s Laws would imply that ice cubes can boil water.
And your repeated effort to insult me means we’re done here. Maybe by next time you will have matured more. One can hope….
“Low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of an object with higher average molecular vibrational frequency.”
Gee, I have never heard of this rule, except here.
What is it called? Clint’s Law?
When was it discovered? Is it in textbooks? On Wikipedia? Anywhere?
Or is it just more Troll-Clint BS?
Yeah, that’s what it is. Because microwave ovens can heat stuff.
Troll Nate, obviously the rule you’ve never heard of is “staying on topic”. The topic here is the atmosphere can NOT heat the surface. (And before you attempt to pervert that, isolated weather events do not count. The topic is about the ENTIRE atmosphere can not heat the ENTIRE surface.)
There are no microwaves, or lasers, in the atmosphere. You cult idiots need to grow up and get a life.
What will you try next?
Cult Leader grammie still doesn’t understand physics:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488040
He still can’t comprehend that the temperature of a body is the result of whatever energy may be flowing into and out of it. For steady state, the temperature is a constant, but where there is variation over time, the temperature will also change, such as on Earth, where the daily and seasonal cycles cause continual variation at any location.
The temperature of the surface is the result of the “heat” arriving from the Sun minus the “heat” lost to deep space via multiple pathways thru the atmosphere. Changing the exit pathways by increasing CO2 will result in a change the temperature of the surface.
Clint R,
Still a moron, you are confusing temperature, which is the average kinetic energy of a group of molecules or atoms with the molecular energy levels within those molecules.
You might have to figure out how an infrared lamp works when used to heat objects.
If you want me to tell you, it’s a physics lessons and that’s 50 bucks payable in advance.
Yeah, there are no infrared lamps in the atmosphere, thanks for telling us the stupidly obvious.
IR acts like IR, the source doesn’t matter.
The cult is out this morning, anxiously displaying their immaturity and ignorance of physics.
Nate and bob have implied that because we have lasers and microwave ovens, that means CO2 can heat the planet! Then E. Swanson comes out to “explain” how more energy in means higher temperatures. His implication, of course, is that that ALWAYS applies.
E. Swanson is a special case of braindead. He’s the one that recently confused the 1LoT with 2LoT! You can easily look up these basics. Even poor Norman knows the difference between 1LoT and 2LoT. But, E. Swanson can’t learn. E. Swanson’s hero is worthless willard. That tells us all we need to know —
E. Swanson claims “– the temperature of a body is the result of whatever energy may be flowing into and out of it. For steady state, the temperature is a constant, but where there is variation over time, the temperature will also change, such as on Earth, where the daily and seasonal cycles cause continual variation at any location.”
Again, that only applies when the entropy agrees. The simplest example is a perfectly insulated box containing a brick. The box and brick are both at 288K. A second brick, also at 288K, is added. The photons flying in the box are effectively doubled, but the temperature does not change. Energy has been added to the box, but the temperature remains 288K. Add 10 more 288K bricks, and the results are the same. Adding energy does NOT mean the temperature has to increase.
An increase in temperature REQUIRES absorp.tion AND a decrease in entropy. That does NOT happen with low energy photons arriving a surface with higher frequency molecular vibrations. More CO2 15μ photons flying in the atmosphere will NOT result in higher surface temperatures.
Braindead bob makes another mistake, typical of his cult. He believes that ALL infrared is the same: “IR acts like IR, the source doesn’t matter.”
Sorry bob, but the source DEFINITELY matters. Infrared is NOT all the same. Different wavelengths have different effects. Poor bob should touch the filament of a typical room infrared heater. He might learn why the filament is red.
It’s easy to see why I don’t waste much time with these idiots. They will continue trolling here, but that just means I get to enjoy ignoring them. They’ve got NOTHING.
“A second brick, also at 288K, is added.”
Clint R demonstrates doesn’t understand what is meant by a closed system. Try working with a closed system Clint R as your whole 11:45 am argument is thus inapplicable to Earth’s atm. energy balance. There are no bricks in space to be added!
Here Clint: there are two macroscopic ways for the internal energy of a closed system like earth’s atm. to change: (1) allow it to interact with its surroundings at a different temperature (heating or cooling); (2) exert a force on the system over a distance (working).
Now Clint R has all the tools to understand how ice can be used to boil water by raising the water’s internal thermodynamic energy in a closed system such as Earth’s atm. Pity though Clint R won’t have the ability to use the tools.
Clint R,
I can lead you to water but drinking is up to you.
“That does NOT happen with low energy photons arriving a surface with higher frequency molecular vibrations.”
and before you said this
“Low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of an object with higher average molecular vibrational frequency.”
And where is that surface located, and what temperature is a surface with higher frequency molecular vibrations, average or otherwise?
That’s exactly where you are wrong.
The surface of the Earth does not have solids which have higher frequency molecular vibrations.
You might want to find a source about predicting the heat capacity of substances, maybe you have come across 3/2 R, 5/2 R and 7/2 R.
For 50 bucks I’ll provide a nice link with physics and calculation that shows you are quite wrong.
And by the way, I did not say in this thread that CO2 does any heat transfer.
Anyway, the CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly not at the temperature of ice, in the stratosphere surely, but at the surface it’s quite warm.
“Your flawed belief would imply that everything on Earth was at the same temperature.”
Nope, that does not follow, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms. Molecular vibrational states do not contribute to temperature until temperatures are quite elevated. Remember I said most, not all, you stupid moron.
Clint R,
And one more thing, all light is the same with the exception of the three pieces of information each photon carries.
Two for direction, and one for energy, wavelength, or frequency.
The photon does not carry the information about what substance emitted it.
So if 10 u photons can melt steel, so can 15 u photons, it just takes more of them.
As predicted, the cult idiots have continued trolling.
Braindead bob is now backing away from his bogus claim that all infrared is the same. Someone must have told him about wavelengths.
But the incapacitated Ball4 is STILL claiming ice cubes can boil water!
They don’t understand ANY of this.
That’s why it’s so much fun.
Still no understanding of a closed system and Clint R had all that time to look it up. Pity, but entertaining. Got any more bricks from nowhere and other physics gaffes to humor the blog commenters yet Clint?
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“There are no microwaves, or lasers, in the atmosphere. ”
So your new physics rule
‘Low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of an object with higher average molecular vibrational frequency.’
doesnt apply in kitchens? How bout bathrooms? Living rooms? Closets?
Clint R,
“Braindead bob is now backing away from his bogus claim that all infrared is the same”
Nope, that was your claim, I said all
“IR acts like IR, the source doesnt matter.
If the surface can emit a 15 u photon, then it can absorb a 15 u photon, even if it comes from a colder source.
The Greenhouse Effect recycles the energy from the Sun, making the surface warmer that it would be without the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
A moron could do better than you.
bob, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1489680
Grand Solar Minimum
Snow Snow Snow
https://youtu.be/IId8LTd23g0
Eben, surely you jest!
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just arent going to know what snow is.” he said.” – Independent, 2000.
Must be true – he’s a scientist, and a senior one, at that!
“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters which scientists are attributing to global climate change produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries ”
He was talking about snow only in the UK.
Thanks, Mike:
https://theconversation.com/why-snow-days-are-becoming-increasingly-rare-in-the-uk-152038
You might be a moron, but at least sometimes you are a useful moron.
Weary Wee Willy,
“Generally” and “up to ten days per decade” in a specific location, adjacent to a city?
You’re a gullible idiot, aren’t you?
Maybe you think the greenhouse effect is only noticeable when the Sun is shining, and not at night. Seeing how you can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, anything is possible in that diseased organ you refer to as your brain.
Generally, of course.
“Met Office data shows that, since 1979, the number of snow-lying days has generally decreased by up to five days per decade…”
***
5 full days in 3650 days. I’m shocked.
“5 full days in 3650 days. Im shocked”
In 4 decades that is 20 days. Is 20 days not significantly less snow days in a winter?
As a Canuck, Bordo may not realize that there are fewer snow days in UK than in Canada.
Though he lives in Vancouver, so go figure.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, “generally” as in “generally Mike is a deceitful cretin.”
Cheers.
Willard, Willard, Willard,
More logorrhoea? No sign of a GHE description yet?
How sad. Maybe you could link to a Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube presentation which doesnt contain a description either!
Or just keep posting incoherent nonsense.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, Willard, Willard,
More logorrhoea? No sign of a GHE description yet?
How sad. Maybe you could link to a Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube presentation which doesnt contain a description either!
Or just keep posting incoherent nonsense.
You bet I could, deceitful cretin –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Most obliged.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Is that really the best you can do? I can’t think of why you would boast about posting an irrelevant link (which you agree doesn’t contain a description of the GHE), which you have posted many, many, times before.
Seems like idiocy of a delusional variety.
Deceitful cretin,
No, it’s not the best I can do.
Why would I do that?
What I do is enough to counter deceitful cretins like you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mars atmosphere has about 210 ppm of water vapor.
NASA’s Mars Fact Sheet:
Martian Atmosphere:
Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg
Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major: Carbon Dioxide(CO2)- 95.1% ; Nitrogen(N2)- 2.59%
Argon(Ar)- 1.94%; Oxygen(O2)- 0.16%; Carbon Monoxide(CO)- 0.06%
Minor (ppm): Water(H2O)- 210; Nitrogen Oxide(NO)- 100; Neon(Ne)- 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen(HDO)- 0.85; Krypton(Kr)- 0.3; Xenon (Xe) – 0.08
And for NASA’s Mars crew exploration program, it’s considered possible to mine the water from Martian atmosphere as compared to the cost to ship water from Earth to Mars.
So, if cost to ship 100,000 kg of water is costly [$10,000 per kg]:
100,000 x 10,000 = 1,000,000,000 if cost couple billion dollars to mine 200 tons of water.
Humans on Earth use a lot water, Humans in orbit use a lot
less water, and water from a human’s breath is removed from air. humans sweat to control their temperature.
The human body makes water, and consumes liquids and food which has a water content [and it more obviously, pisses and shits water content]. In an enclosed environment, the breathing and sweating requires de-humidification of the air:
“Future astronauts poised to blast off for an extended stay on the International Space Station (ISS) might first consider dashing to the restroom for a quick splash at the lavatory, or better yet, a luxurious hot shower. Once on board the ISS, spacefarers are in for a steady diet of sponge baths using water distilled from — among other places — their crewmates breath!
If you’re squeamish, read no farther, because the crew will eventually include lab rodents — and they’ll be breathing, too. All of the denizens of the space station lose water when they exhale or sweat. Such vapors add to the ambient cabin humidity, which is eventually condensed and returned to the general water supply.”
…
“Even with intense conservation and recycling efforts, the Space Station will gradually lose water because of inefficiencies in the life support system.”
Water is lost by the Space Station in several ways: the water recycling systems produce a small amount of unusable brine; the oxygen-generating system consumes water; air that’s lost in the air locks takes humidity with it; and the CO2 removal systems leach some water out of the air, to name a few.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast02nov_1
Anyhow, NASA is constantly shipping water to ISS and ISS consumes a fair amount of electrical power, recycling the water.
And crew and experimental farming on Mars could need a lot water.
Anyways, back to point, is it economical to remove such a trace amount of H2O from the Martian air?
The whole reason to explore Mars is it’s a planet which humans might be able to live on. It has enough CO2 and nitrogen in it’s atmosphere and it could have enough water [in it’s ground].
Human settlements [not bases of human exploration] have to be mining the Mars sky. Or that is mostly about mining the CO2 and nitrogen:
“Carbon Dioxide(CO2)- 95.1% ; Nitrogen(N2)- 2.59%”
And the exploration crew could also have a use for the [CO2 and N2].
If you have H2, CO2 is rocket fuel. Or without H2, splitting CO2 into CO and Oxygen is rocket fuel.
So, if focus mining water from sky, the same “operation” also allows to have the rocket fuel to leave Mars.
And related also transportation upon the Mars surface.
[CO + 02 is not great rocket fuel, but might do ok, to power some land vehicle.] because carbon monoxide is so lethal it’s not considered on Earth. But that Mars air has 0.06% [600 ppm] is not issue, even if it was 60,000 ppm of CO [unless possible combustion is the concern- but not matter related to lethal posioning- you can’t and don’t breath the air].
The key advantage mining water from Mars sky is it could done robotically before crew get to Mars.
So, assuming you know where you going to land crew on Mars surface in future, you land it there years before crew show up. And crew could bring more of them with them- which have already been tested to operate on Mars surface.
Anyhow, I bring this up, because you could also mine C02 from Earth’s atmosphere – and it’s routinely done, because we mine Earth’s atmosphere to get liquid N2 and liquid O2, mostly, but also Argon- also C02, Xenon [which costs about $1000 per kg- used for ion rockets], and other gases:
“Chemical makeup of the atmosphere EXCLUDING water vapor:
Nitrogen N2 78.084%
Oxygen O2 20.947%
Argon Ar 0.934%
Carbon dioxide CO2 0.035%
Neon Ne 18.182 parts per million
Helium He 5.24 parts per million
Methane CH4 1.70 parts per million
Krypton Kr 1.14 parts per million
Hydrogen H2 0.53 parts per million
Nitrous oxide N2O 0.31 parts per million
Carbon monoxide CO 0.10 parts per million
Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million
Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million
Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million
Ammonia NH3 trace
These percentages of atmospheric gases are for a completely dry atmosphere. The atmosphere is rarely, if ever, dry. Water vapor (water in a gas state) is nearly always present, up to about 4% of the total volume. ”
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere
hmm, Carbon monoxide at 0.10 parts per million is safe and above Mars is 600 ppm of C0. What is lethal levels?
“As CO levels increase and remain above 70 ppm, symptoms become more noticeable and can include headache, fatigue and nausea. At sustained CO concentrations above 150 to 200 ppm, disorientation, unconsciousness, and death are possible.”
So if compress Mars air to say 5 psi and make it 10 psi by adding O2 or LOX, it give about 300 ppm of CO [still lethal and would it oxidized if given enough time??] Assuming it doesn’t, add again equal parts of LOX: 150 ppm of CO, 75% O2, 23.775 CO2
And add again equal parts of LOX: 75 ppm of CO, 11.8875 CO2
add again: 37.5 ppm CO and 5.94375% C02 [about 93% 02]
This I guess would likely cause C0 to burn, and at higher pressure, say 50 psi, the more likely.
If not, say it’s still at 10 psi [we were adding volumes not pressure] it was warm, 50 psi 100% O2 sprayed into 10 psi volume.
Assuming that didn’t work add equal parts N2:
18.75 ppm of C0 is safe, 2.971875% CO2 or 29,718.75 ppm C02 within
about 46% O2 environment is also safe. Or Humans exhale C02 at CO2 level of 40,000 ppm- that has been, safe.
“A stillsuit is a full body suit worn in the open desert of the planet Arrakis that was designed to preserve the body’s moisture. It consisted of various layers that would absorb the body’s moisture through sweating and urination, and then filter the impurities so that drinkable water would be circulated to catchpockets. The individual could then drink the reclaimed water from a tube attached to the neck. A stillsuit, kept in working order and maintained properly, permitted the wearer to survive for weeks in the open desert. ”
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Stillsuit
I read Dune when I was much younger- I liked it.
Too bad we don’t have the technology of stillsuit, you could use for space travel.
We might able to make it, if it only worked for a day or two- which might also be useful for space travel. If you use it for a day or two, put on another, and recycle the first one, so you reuse the next day.
Anyhow, I like sfi fantasy.
Read a couple of books by Heinlein when I was a teenager but don’t recall what they were about. Tried some Asimov as well. Much of the science was far too juvenile yet I watch the likes of Star Trek and Stargate. Also, Dr. Who.
Dr. Who I can take because it is presented as tongue-in-cheek. Star Trek and Stargate become annoying when they try to pass off physics-like terms that have nothing to do with the science they are trying to create as fiction. Things like flux capacitors and wormholes are annoying to me because a script writer threw them in the script presuming everyone was too stupid to question it.
I like Dr Who, each Who doesn’t play in character, other than they are all fools, the latest is chick, who is roughly, destroying the Universe. But she is political correct.
It’s traditional Brit.
In the sense that the Americans think it’s satire- and the Brits don’t.
But this is sort of opposite with, 1984. American Left seems to regard it as a handbook for the future
Climate zshysters lost their protection, cannot take free speach .
Finding out not 97% of people a grees
https://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-flee-twitter-hostility-012943481.html
From the land of Freeze Peach Abzolutism
> Wired reporter Dell Cameron was permanently suspended Wednesday after interviewing the man who hacked conservative activist Matt Walshs Twitter and email accounts.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-still-banning-journalists
Even better:
https://twitter.com/jules_su/status/1661392489196945414
“Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges”
So time more than month ago, Judith Curry said she doing twitter and was asking. Richard Lindzen to do it also. He didn’t seem too excited about the idea. But maybe he changed his mind.
Lindzen has been retired for some time and likely doesn’t need the hassle. Besides, despite Musk being progressive in some senses, he seems to be a global warming twinkie.
google it:
https://twitter.com/curryja?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
and bookmark it to look at later
And Richard Lindzen:
https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists/status/1638229244709838859
I guess he did. bookmark it, also.
My mistake Richard is not on twitter as far as know.
I don’t use twitter, but if you are logged on, you use it’s search function. Oh, my brother is user.
Ah, yes, got an account but not using.
[like me- and I don’t know how to log in- started it in 2010- many computers, ago. maybe, try to see if I can log in]
from the article…”Policies aimed at curbing the deadly effects of climate change are accelerating, prompting a rise in what experts identify as organised resistance by opponents of climate reform”.
***
Seems the Nazis escaping Europe for Argentina have found their way onto Twitter.
Don’t be too hard on Elmo, Bordo.
You might like the latest news:
https://twitter.com/PEWilliams_/status/1661495273439256578
Cmon Willard,
Your logorrhoea makes you look like an idiot, rather than a savant.
Produce a valid (or invalid if you prefer) description of the mythical GHE, and you wont need to spend time trying to avoid facing reality.
Only joking, I know you live in a fantasy world where fact is replaced by fiction.
Keep dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Try to deny this:
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html
C’mon Willard,
Your logorrhoea makes you look like an idiot, rather than a savant.
Produce a valid (or invalid if you prefer) description of the mythical GHE, and you wont need to spend time trying to avoid facing reality.
Only joking, I know you live in a fantasy world where fact is replaced by fiction.
Keep dreaming.
You keep using that word, Mike. It may not mean what you make it mean.
Enjoy:
> Twitter began to throttle traffic to the newsletter platform Substack, where Taibbi does most of his writing, and apparently began hiding Taibbis tweets in Twitter’s search results. Musks chosen conduit for exposing what he described as past Twitters censorship was now being censored by Musks Twitter.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-matt-taibbi-substack/673698/
Prolly Matts performance facing Mehdi.
C’mon Willard,
Your logorrhoea makes you look like an idiot, rather than a savant.
Produce a valid (or invalid if you prefer) description of the mythical GHE, and you wont need to spend time trying to avoid facing reality.
Only joking, I know you live in a fantasy world where fact is replaced by fiction.
Keep dreaming.
You already said that, deceitful cretin.
Cmon Willard,
Your logorrhoea makes you look like an idiot, rather than a savant.
Produce a valid (or invalid if you prefer) description of the mythical GHE, and you wont need to spend time trying to avoid facing reality.
Only joking, I know you live in a fantasy world where fact is replaced by fiction.
Keep dreaming.
Go freestyle, Moron Mike.
Channel your inner Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Arctic dumps are melting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37276-4.pdf
The mineral-rich Arctic has been a site of industrial development since the end of the 19th century. This pristine region has witnessed the establishment of numerous industrial facilities, including oilfields, mines, and military bases.
During this time, however, concerns about conservation and sustainability were not given the attention they deserved, and the practices of burying toxic waste under the permafrost were unfortunately employed by some entities.
This dumping was largely done under the assumption that the permafrost was stable and here to stay.
The waste products in question, ranging from drilling and mining wastes to toxic substances such as mine waste heaps, heavy metals and radioactive wastes, threaten to be exposed back to the Arctic environment once warming melts the permafrost.
With the benefit of hindsight we can say that permafrost is not a stable medium for waste disposal in the long term. Climate change is causing the degradation of permafrost in many regions, leading to thawing and ground subsidence. This instability poses a risk of exposing and spreading the industrial wastes.
Arkady.
You wrote –
“This dumping was largely done under the assumption that the permafrost was stable and here to stay.”
The danger of assumptions. Some fools assume that CO2 can make thermometers hotter.
Permafrost obviously was much warmer before it froze. What’s to stop parts of the system becoming hotter, parts colder, in the shorter term, while the system overall currently cools at an average of two millionths of a Kelvin per annum?
The system is chaotic – accept reality.
How does climate change cause melting in permafrost in the Arctic when they have little or no solar input most of the year? The Arctic summer is about 1 month and the temps vary from -5C to + 5C. Only an idiot would call that global warming leading to climate change.
Ark, don’t worry about those industrial wastes.
Your rising sea levels will cover them up.
See, it all works out.
[” Hansen is saying that there is 7-9 C of warming in the pipeline.”
Way beyond what the rest of the climate science finds.]
Yes, the IPCC’s assessment of “committed warming” uses an incomplete ESS (fast feedbacks only), whereas Jim Hansen’s “Global Warming in the Pipeline” uses an ESS which includes fast+slow feedbacks.
There are other differences but ESS is the primary driver.
We have Hansen’s predictions
https://i.postimg.cc/pdFKHHMC/predictions.png
These are not Jim’s predictions, Eboy.
Here are Jim’s predictions:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Whacky Wee Willy,
You dont read what you appeal to, obviously. The idiotic Hausfather talks model “projections”, as Hansen claimed he didn’t make “predictions”, but that fact appears to escape your notice.
I assume of course that by “Jim”, this is your gratuitously offensive way of denigrating James Hansen, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
In any case, who gives a toss what Hansen predicted, projected, assumed or guessed?
Do you?
I don’t read fiction.
Good to know that you don’t read the buy-bull.
AQ,
Idiot. It’s Bible.
Try another method of trying to annoy an anonymous stranger, dummy.
Indeed, Bordo.
You don’t read.
cmon Willard,
Why are you refusing to describe the GHE? Cant do it? Wont do it?
Only an idiot would pretend there is a GHE which cannot be described.
Tell me, does it have any effect when the Sun is shining? When the Sun isnt shining?
Cant answer or wont answer?
Maybe you could just have a tantrum! Although, it doesnt seem to be working out all that well for Michael Mann these days on Twitter, does it? His feelings get hurt if anybody is allowed to tell him hes an idiot.
Oh well, maybe he can sue somebody for his hurt feelings.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Tell me”
Why would I say anything to a deceitful cretin like you?
Have you found your sammich yet?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You don’t have to tell me anything at all, if you don’t want to, or don’t know the answer.
If you don’t want to tell me that the GHE has no effect at night or when the sun is not shining, I understand. Keep it a secret if you wish.
You can’t actually describe the GHE, can you? Maybe you could tell people that you can describe the GHE, but you are refusing to, in order to teach deniers a lesson! Do you think that would work?
I suppose an idiot might.
I know I do not not need to tell you anything, Mike.
That does not give me a reason why I should tell you anything, now, does it?
Cheers.
Willard, it is Swenson that doesn’t understand how farmers increase their revenue by growing crops in the winter via the GHE. It’s a very entertaining situation.
Ball4 is off with the fairies again.
He wrote “Willard, it is Swenson that doesnt understand how farmers increase their revenue by growing crops in the winter via the GHE. Its a very entertaining situation.”
Very entertaining indeed. Ball4 can’t even describe the GHE, but is nevertheless convinced that imaginary farmers increase imaginary revenue, by growing imaginary crops in the winter “via the GHE”!
He is obviously as stupid as some idiots at NASA who believe that even physical greenhouses stay warm in winter! Well no, they don’t. Only imaginary greenhouses do.
Ball4, like Willard, is an idiot, detached from reality.
Now Swenson writes farmers are imaginary. That’s good for more laughs than even Clint R’s science ineptness. Many blog commenters already know Swenson doesn’t have the ability to understand how a simple GHE works so Swenson should no doubt feel free to keep demonstrating such.
Ball4 is off with the fairies again.
He wrote “Willard, it is Swenson that doesn’t understand how farmers increase their revenue by growing crops in the winter via the GHE. Its a very entertaining situation.”
Very entertaining indeed. Ball4 can’t even describe the GHE, but is nevertheless convinced that imaginary farmers increase imaginary revenue, by growing imaginary crops in the winter “via the GHE”!
He is obviously as stupid as some idiots at NASA who believe that even physical greenhouses stay warm in winter! Well no, they don’t. Only imaginary greenhouses do.
Ball4, like Willard, is an idiot, detached from reality.
Moron Mike,
What could there be in the atmosphere that slows the cooling of the Earth compared to the Moon?
Deceitful cretin.
Not-so-wily Wee Willy Idiot,
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
You posed “What could there be in the atmosphere that slows the cooling of the Earth compared to the Moon?”
Are you really such an ignorant idiot that you don’t know what “atmosphere” means?
A rhetorical question of course. At least you accept that both the Moon and the Earth cool in the absence of sunlight. Next, you’ll suddenly realise that surfaces heat up when exposed to the radiation from a large body around 5500K, such as the Sun.
Which do you think will heat faster – the airless Moon, or the Earth? You don’t know, do you?
That’s because you are an idiot of the ignorant variety, I suppose.
Moron Mike,
The meaning of the word *atmosphere* may not explain why it reduces the cooling of the Earth.
Care to try again, deceitful cretin?
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The meaning of the word “atmosphere” may not explain why it reduces the cooling of the Earth..
To an idiot like you, maybe not. To anybody who understands physics, it does.
If you don’t even know what an atmosphere is, you are extremely ignorant, as well as being an idiot.
You don’t even seem to realise that “cooling” involves a decrease in temperature! No we Nader you are having trouble describing the GHE – isn’t it supposed to be creating increases in temperature or warming, or something of that nature?
Are you a confused idiot, or do you think that a decrease in temperature is really “heating”?
Even an idiot like you should understand what “cooling” means, even if you can’t figure out what an “atmosphere”is. Or maybe not.
Moron Mike is off with the fairies again.
He cant even describe how the atmosphere slows cooling, but is nevertheless convinced that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
What a deceitful cretin!
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote
“The meaning of the word “atmosphere” may not explain why it reduces the cooling of the Earth.”
To an idiot like you, maybe not. To anybody who understands physics, it does.
If you dont even know what an atmosphere is, you are extremely ignorant, as well as being an idiot.
You dont even seem to realise that “cooling” involves a decrease in temperature! No we Nader you are having trouble describing the GHE isnt it supposed to be creating increases in temperature or warming, or something of that nature?
Are you a confused idiot, or do you think that a decrease in temperature is really “heating”?
Even an idiot like you should understand what “cooling” means, even if you cant figure out what an “atmosphere” is. Or maybe not.
When faced with the task of describing how the atmosphere slows cooling, our deceitful cretin is stuck on repeat.
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote
The meaning of the word atmosphere may not explain why it reduces the cooling of the Earth.
To an idiot like you, maybe not. To anybody who understands physics, it does.
If you dont even know what an atmosphere is, you are extremely ignorant, as well as being an idiot.
You dont even seem to realise that cooling involves a decrease in temperature! No we Nader you are having trouble describing the GHE isnt it supposed to be creating increases in temperature or warming, or something of that nature?
Are you a confused idiot, or do you think that a decrease in temperature is really heating?
Even an idiot like you should understand what cooling means, even if you cant figure out what an atmosphere is. Or maybe not.
Wondering how the atmosphere slows cooling, our deceitful cretin stutters.
What mental defect do you suffer from?
Don’t blame me because you proclaim your idiocy by boasting about your ignorance.
Only joking, you can blame me all you like!
You are definitely an idiot, aren’t you?
Much better, deceitful cretin, even if that does not explain how the atmosphere slows cooling.
Is it magic, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Makes little sense to me that we have only 1.2 C now, but can expect to get 6-8 C from the additional slow feedbacks..
Solar wind
speed: 553.2 km/sec
Sunspot number: 153
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Updated 25 May 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.08×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Below Average
“NEW FAST-GROWING SUNSPOT: Yesterday, sunspot AR3315 was almost invisible. Today it is four times wider than Earth. The fast-growing sunspot is breaching the surface of the sun’s southern hemisphere. Its rapid development could lead to explosive instabilities and solar flares.”
And strangely related:
Episode 2118 Scott Adams: DeSantis Announces & Trump Pounces, Mental Illness, Trans Bans, Fear Map
Musk says population collapse is greater risk then Climate Change.
Scott Adams is against twerking storytime.
Maybe it’s better time spent in terms other time spent in public school?? So, I might against it, if was it adding to the time being wasted in public schools.
I don’t think Climate Changing is a risk. Population changing is a risk. And biggest risk is to governments- and I am not a fan of governments, in general.
And I believe the Chinese govt has the greatest risk.
Btw, Scott thinks “we” are good at handling slow moving disasters.
And it seems if “we” includes the Chinese govt, it’s going to be a very slow moving disaster- so slow, even they should easily have no problem.
But Scott may have meant “we” being something that is somewhat like a democracy. Of course, it’s possible North Korea has population problem, before China.
But North Korea seems to be one govt which lies more than China
But I agree that population collapse has greatest risks, but then again, I am more Left than Bernie Sanders. And could have good outcomes.
But what is Chinese saying…
“When the wind of change blows, some build walls, while others build windmills.”
Nope.
Oh:
“May you live in interesting times” is an English expression that is claimed to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. While seemingly a blessing, the expression is normally used ironically; life is better in “uninteresting times” of peace and tranquility than in “interesting” ones, which are usually times of trouble. …
Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is no known equivalent expression in Chinese. The nearest related Chinese expression translates as “Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.” – wiki
Oh, well.
So, I guess, the Chinese should build windmills.
It as been quite windy here, but it seems too much wind for most modern wind mills. And was almost hot, but in last couple days and next few days, back to cold, though not near freezing [it’s nearly summer- freezing in summer, would be crazy].
Strive For Truth
I am listening to it again.
I think I tend to strive for questions.
Why wouldn’t anyone believe in Christ?
Or the prophet of Islam?
Or even that Mormon guy.
But believing in God is not such a simple question for me.
Though it seems to me that it helps in the belief of God, if you
believe in Christ, prophet of Islam, and/or that Mormon guy.
–What is the full meaning of believe?
: to accept something as true, genuine, or real. ideals we believe in. believes in ghosts. : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact. Do you believe?–
believe:
1.accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
“the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story”
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
“I believe we’ve already met”
Give a sentence: I believe that in the past. I was 14 years old.
If anyone provide evidence indicating otherwise, I willing
to consider it is true that I was never 14 years old- but I believe
I was 14 years old, in the past.
Now. I am willing to accept, that above attempts of defining the word, believe are inadequate.
But it seems to me, the Atheist, are helping. Because I can say that I don’t believe in Atheism:
–What is the true meaning of atheism?
The literal definition of atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind.–
I think there are people who desire that gods, or “a spiritual force of any kind” don’t exist. But, so what?
They might not actually like ice cream, they know ice cream exists.
And they may not want to believe ice cream exists.
Now, why would someone oppose something that doesn’t exist and/or desire it doesn’t exist?
Atheism is evidence of God existing.
What’s the point in belief? One believes something but one can’t prove it, but one is hungry for answers, so one resorts to belief.
Science is more about living with questions and seeking answers, although there are scientists who declare answers with no proof. That’s what the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic warming are about.
NOAA predicts a near-normal 2023 Atlantic hurricane season
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/2023-atlantic-hurricane-season-outlook
“NOAAs outlook for the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, which goes from June 1 to November 30, predicts a 40% chance of a near-normal season, a 30% chance of an above-normal season and a 30% chance of a below-normal season.”
Ron Flubs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRbz-sgysz0
Dennis asks, which is better, a true believer or phony.
My answer, true believer.
It would have been interesting if Dennis had answered his question.
Of course, it depends what is meant by better.
All pols are phonies, and they would hate the true believer of anything. So, if better is working with other pols, maybe not “better”. But if elected, the true believer would actually represent the voters- which seem to be, better.
“Produce a valid (or invalid if you prefer) description of the mythical GHE, and you wont need to spend time trying to avoid facing reality.”
Google:
–What is Enhanced Green House Effect? Enhanced Green house effect refers to increase in the earth’s temperature due to increase in concentration of greenhouse gases. Enhanced GHE is caused by human activities like uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing.–
**The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases.**
And let’s put in Roy’s explanation:
Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankinds burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earths greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface, and at the same time causes the upper atmosphere (especially the stratosphere) to cool. From an energy standpoint, its similar to adding insulation to the walls of a heated house in the winter; for the same rate of energy input (no thermostat), the result will be that the walls are warmer on the inside, and colder on the outside. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earths surface from the cold depths of outer space.
It is believed (based upon theoretical calculations) that our global emissions of carbon dioxide have enhanced the Earths natural greenhouse effect by about 1%, thus reducing the rate at which IR energy is lost to outer space. Global warming theory (through conservation of energy) says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature. This warming then increases the IR escaping to space until the emitted IR radiation once again reaches a balance with absorbed sunlight, and the temperature stops rising. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
There is no actual theory. A theory requires an author- that’s simple
answer.
gbaikie,
**The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases.**
It’s a “way”, is it? That’s informative – to a delusional SkyDragon cultist, I suppose. Unfortunately, the “description” doesn’t seem to refer to the “way” in which the surface cools in the absence of sunlight, or the “way” in which the surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Maybe the author of this particular piece of idiocy should have simplified the “explanation” a little, and simply said it’s the “way” sunlight heats the surface. Unfortunately, this particular sunlight heating phenomenon has been known about since the dawn of humanity. Greenhouses are heated the same “way”.
Some idiot at NASA might even go on to say “These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.”
What an idiot. He probably “thought” he was clever, too.
There you go Flynnson. Your 10 year quest is over. All you had to do was Google it.
Nate,
You agree that sunlight hearts the surface, and the surface cools in the absence of sunlight?
Maybe you could use this insight to describe the GHE, do you think? Only joking, you’re an idiot.
“Only joking, youre an idiot.”
When you have no answers, you substitute insults?
Nate,
You agree that sunlight heats the surface, and the surface cools in the absence of sunlight?
Maybe you could use this insight to describe the GHE, do you think? Only joking, you’re an idiot.
You can’t even decide whether the GHE causes heating or cooling!
Sounds pretty idiotic to me.
> idiotic
Perhaps you mean magic, Moron Mike, for you are stuck at explaining why the Moon cools faster because of its lack of atmosphere and its level of hotness.
Whickering Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about?
You really have no idea how idiotic you sound, do you?
You can’t even annoy people. Even a flea can do that.
And how does the atmosphere slow down cooling again, Mike – magic?
Witless Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! A gotcha!
Try harder, idiot. Either you know the answer, and you are making an idiotic attempt to make me look stupid (good luck with that), or you don’t know the answer, and you are idiotic enough to appeal to me for help!
You really are an idiot either way, aren’t you?
Look through your Mike Flynn file. Research the internet. Read a book. Masturbate.
Nothing will help you describe the GHE, because it’s nonsense!
Idiot.
Harder, Moron Mike? Why would I do that?
You are squirming already!
Maybe you could use that insight to explain why an atmosphere slows down cooling?
Deceitful cretin.
Witless Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! A gotcha!
Try harder, idiot. Either you know the answer, and you are making an idiotic attempt to make me look stupid (good luck with that), or you dont know the answer, and you are idiotic enough to appeal to me for help!
You really are an idiot either way, arent you?
Look through your Mike Flynn file. Research the internet. Read a book. Masturbate.
Nothing will help you describe the GHE, because its nonsense!
Idiot.
Nate,
“You agree that sunlight heats the surface, and the surface cools in the absence of sunlight?”
You agree that people wear coats in winter to stay warm? Why do they do that if coats, just like the GHE, only slow the cooling?
It is a mystery that you have yet to solve.
— Swenson says:
May 26, 2023 at 12:06 AM
gbaikie,
**The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases.**
Its a way, is it? Thats informative to a delusional SkyDragon cultist, I suppose. —
I would say “close to Earth surface” is about 1000 meter or less.
And our “delusional SkyDragon cultists” are looking at about + 5 km
above the surface- and claiming it’s not already saturated.
I say, I agree that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, and agree it’s warming effect regardless of where in the atmosphere, as not been accurately measured yet [all anyone has got is wild guesses].
And I think there are two greenhouse effect, one involves atmosphere
and second one involves the ocean surface [top tens of meters of the surface].
And Ocean surface is 70% of surface and in tropics, it’s about 80% of surface. And when sky is clear and sun is near zenith, about 1120 watts per square of sunlight passes thru the top 1 mm of the ocean and is absorbed mostly in top couple meters of the ocean surface.
The ocean will also absorb any kind shortwave light- blue sky, or any kind of scattered sunlight.
Or the Ocean surface absorbs more than 80% of the sunlight reaching the surface surface- though doesn’t absorb longwave light.
So it’s a very transparent surface, that the energy of sunlight passes thru and it is “trapped”. And on time scales of hours, days, and a small amount, thousands of years.
gbaikie,
You wrote –
“So its a very transparent surface, that the energy of sunlight passes thru and it is “trapped.”
And then the sun sets, and the energy is “untrapped”, demonstrated by temperatures falling – even the ocean’s surface!
Still no GHE – just the effect of sunlight, and a slowly cooling Earth.
Of course, with eight billion people furiously producing as much waste heat possible (yes, even “green energy” turns into waste heat), it’s no surprise that some thermometers register the effects of this “anthropogenic global warming”.
Nothing to do with any fictitious “greenhouse effect”. No mystery, just physical laws at work.
” Swenson says:
May 26, 2023 at 6:26 PM
gbaikie,
You wrote
So its a very transparent surface, that the energy of sunlight passes thru and it is trapped.
And then the sun sets, and the energy is untrapped, demonstrated by temperatures falling even the oceans surface!
Still no GHE just the effect of sunlight, and a slowly cooling Earth.”
A sidewalk’s surface, say to depth of an inch, can heated up to say 60 C by around the time sun is close to zenith and before 5 pm, it can cool down by 20 to 30 degrees. And roughly same thing with a sandy beach. But sand or concrete can be much cooler than 60 C a few inches below the surface. And at night, the surface can cooler than under the surface.
With an ocean the sunlight mostly heats top 2 meters by sunlight- though it also is directly heated by sunlight below 2 meters.
And ocean also has waves which mixes the top 100 meters of the ocean.
2 meters = 78″
So the ocean surface temperature doesn’t change much when sun in near zenith and is pretty close to same temperature at midnite.
Or the difference between night and about is about 1 C or less.
And this why the ocean has higher average temperature as land and it why tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.
Yes it loses heat and it also loses heat to rest of world.
But it absorb a lot of heat.
And tropical ocean can thick layers of ocean surface water, which trap heat and this heat can fuel a hurricane.
gbaikie,
Not really. Warmer water floats to the surface. It can’t remain hotter than the surface and remain submerged (with the same salinity, of course).
As you say the ocean “loses heat”, and this is known as “cooling”.
You may have noticed that idiots like Willard seem to believe that the Earth (atmosphere, lithosphere, aquasphere) “should be 38 C or so (the idiots cant seem to agree) colder.
Carl Sagan’s mythical “snowball Earth”, possibly. Unfortunately, this would mean that the oceans would be frozen through, top to bottom, with the abyssal waters at around -34 C. Complete nonsense, of course. Even under 4 km of solidly frozen ice in Antarctica, temperatures are surprisingly high. Not many degrees below 0C, and is some cases, above freezing, resulting in liquid water lakes on the rocky surface below the ice.
Not too surprising, the Earth’s glowing interior is actually closer to the surface under 4 km of ice.
No GHE, and either adding to, or removing from, the amount of CO2 in a sample of air makes no difference to the air’s temperature – or the ocean’s, either!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/26/the-holocene-co2-dilemma/
The Holocene CO2 Dilemma
Guest Post By Renee Hannon
…
“Climate change is routinely claimed to be largely controlled by greenhouse gases, especially CO2. This was concluded, in part, by the strong relationship between CO2 from Antarctic ice core bubbles and local Antarctic temperature trends. While CO2 mimics Antarctic temperatures very well, ninety percent of Earths surface temperature trends do not demonstrate a positive correlation to CO2 during the Holocene. Arctic and Northern Hemisphere temperatures become cooler during increasing CO2 levels. Tropical proxy temperatures dont seem to be influenced by CO2. …”
Anyhow:
“Not really. Warmer water floats to the surface. It cant remain hotter than the surface and remain submerged (with the same salinity, of course).”
Surface water evaporates, and cooled water, sinks.
gbaikie,
You wrote –
“Surface water evaporates, and cooled water, sinks.” Exactly. It also radiates heat directly to space, as IR pictures taken from satellites confirm.
Now, warmer and less dense water rises as it must, exchanging places with the cooler, denser water, in a continuous process.
Ocean, deep freshwater lake, makes no difference, Eventually, the densest water accumulates at the bottom of the basin, very slowly warmed by the hotter crust beneath, creating chaotic convection currents.
In some cases, for example Lake Tanganyika, the basal heat is considerable, keeping the bottom water (over 1000m) at about 23 C. Compare this with Lake Baikal with bottom temperature of around 4C, even though the surrounding basin rock is much hotter.
The same physical laws apply throughout the universe. People who believe otherwise, generally come to admit they were mistaken. Generally.
“Waters density is greatest at about 4 C (39.2 F), in the liquid phase. Ice, waters solid phase, is more buoyant, so it forms at the surface of water bodies and freezes downward. Lakes and rivers rarely freeze completely, and the liquid water below can become a winter refuge for aquatic life. When ice melts in the spring, the slowly warming surface meltwater sinks, displacing the water below and mixing nutrients throughout the water column.”
https://www.britannica.com/question/When-is-water-the-most-dense
Seawater is different- it depends upon amount of salt is in the water. If put as much salt in water as you can it freeze at 0 F- but for longer explanation:
“Why isn’t 0F the lowest possible temperature for a salt/ice/water mixture?
In your Web page Why can adding salt to ice water make the ice melt slower? it says that “A mixture of rock salt, ice, and water packed in the bucket around the ice cream mix can bring the temperature down as low as -21C.” I am confused by this number. -21C = (-21)*(9/5)+32 = -5.8 F but I thought the Fahrenheit scale was defined such that the lowest temperature achievable by a water/ice/salt mixture was 0 degrees F (-17.8 degrees C).”
and it goes on:
https://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/zero-fahrenheit.shtml
Anyhow seawater is normally/on average, not very salty- some salty lakes can more salty:
“Great Salt Lake has ranged in salinity from about 5 percent to 27 percent over the past 22 years. This is two to nine times saltier than the ocean’s 3 percent.”
Fresh water’s density is greatest at around 4C. The salt content in the world’s oceans is high enough that the density increases all the way to the freezing point at about -2.0C.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/seawater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Deep_Water
ES,
You wrote –
“The salt content in the worlds oceans is high enough that the density increases all the way to the freezing point at about -2.0C.”
Interesting that the densest water in the oceans doesnt freeze, then.
Fact or fiction?
Flynnson, Here’s the latest scientific discovery: Ice floats because of it’s crystal structure. When that dense sea-water freezes, some brine is expelled along the way and the now freshened sea-ice also floats.
ES,
Well, I certainly wasn’t aware that water at the bottom of the oceans got so cold that it froze, and the ice rose through up to 10 km of warmer water above it to reach the surface.
As a matter of fact, nor are you.
You have a bizarre imagination, or you are ignorant, or you are an idiot. Possibly a delusional SkyDragn cultist, which may encompass all three.
Ice cannot form at the bottom of the deep ocean – it simply doesn’t get cold enough!
Making up the “latest science” won’t help. As I said ” Interesting that the densest water in the oceans doesn’t freeze, then.” By “freeze” I meant “freeze”. Water becoming solid. Maybe you have redefined “freeze” to mean “not freeze”?
Do you have any other nonsense to support your denial of reality?
Flynnson previously wrote:
Then he clarified his comment:
At the surface, where the temperature can be below freezing, the density of sea-ice is less than the density of the water. What ever happens to the density of ice due to the pressure at maximum depths, I would guess the water temperature in those trough areas is likely to be higher than that found at other areas on the oceans’ floor, because of geothermal warming from the somewhat thinner crust.
Of course, there are well known examples of ice existing at even lesser depths, found as Methane Clathrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
Swenson,
“Carl Sagans mythical snowball Earth, possibly.”
Sorry, not Sagan, try Mawson as one of the first, followed by others.
“Unfortunately, this would mean that the oceans would be frozen through, top to bottom, with the abyssal waters at around -34 C.”
Nope, completely wrong, did you make that up?
Snowball Earth just means extensive glaciation into the tropics, there would still be some areas of open water.
There is actual evidence for this that one could put their hands on, if one was so inclined.
swenson…from gb…”**The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases.**”
***
Strikes me that GB is skeptical of the GHE so not sure why he has posted this. In addition to Swenson’s comments I’d like to re-iterate that the heat trapping nonsense is based on the erroneous notion that glass in a real greenhouse traps heat due to the trapping of infrared energy.
The glass, in fact, traps molecules of air that have been heated by solar energy. The heated air molecules want to rise but the glass traps them. There is nothing in air that can trap the heated molecules, therefore the pseudo-science about air molecules trapping heat is plain wrong.
It’s not clear where the notion came from that infrared energy trapped by glass can warm a greenhouse. It is clearly a misunderstanding based on a misinterpretation of Tyndall’s experiment in which he proved that gases like CO2 can trap IR. However, IR is not heat, it is an entirely different form of energy.
In the days of Tyndall, circa 1850, it was believed that heat flowed through the atmosphere via heat rays. It was not till 1913, after the discovery of the electron in the 1890s, that Bohr proved the relationship between EM/IR and electrons. Bohr proved that electrons absorb and transmit EM, and that put to rest the notion that heat flowed as thermal energy through the atmosphere. Heat is actually lost in the conversion of the kinetic energy representing heat to EM, so no heat flows through air.
Unfortunately, there are scientists today who are unaware of Bohr’s discovery. They are still living with an anachronism that is nearly 2 centuries old and obviously wrong. Meantime, people throughout the world are at the mercy of these idiots and their voodoo science.
— Gordon Robertson says:
May 27, 2023 at 5:59 PM
swensonfrom gb**The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases.**
***
Strikes me that GB is skeptical of the GHE so not sure why he has posted this. —
That is a quote. Swenson is asking what others are meaning when they use the the term, GHE, or greenhouse effect.
If someone wants to ask me, what I mean, by Earth has two greenhouse effects, and the Ocean is the greater greenhouse effect.
I will explain it.
First, a greenhouse effect is mostly about causing a more uniform global temperature.
Second, since we are in an Icehouse global climate, rather than in the more normal global climate state called Greenhouse global climate, we don’t live a world with much uniformity in Global temperature. This ice age is dry and cool with more extremes in temperatures differences and 1/3 the land area is deserts which are large swings between day and night and summer and winter.
When we in the warmest times of interglacial periods, it’s closer to global Greenhouse climate.
And we are currently not in the warmest times of interglacial periods, and the entire Holocene interglacial was very warm- the peak sea level was only about 1 to 2 meter higher sea levels than the present sea levels- typical it’s 4 meter or higher. And portion of this higher sea level is due to a warmer average temperature- our average ocean is about 3.5 C and past interglacial were 4 C or warmer.
If we had ocean which averaged 4 C, we would have a more uniform global temperature. And average global average temperature would at
least 16 C. Though is seems more likely to around 17 C.
And I would and have explained this, more.
“-and the entire Holocene interglacial was very warm-”
Mis-typed:
-and the entire Holocene interglacial was not very warm-
Also, in terms of Tropics, icehouse vs greenhouse; there not much difference, the difference is largely about regions nearer the polar regions.
But greenhouse global climate would have a lot less desert in and near the tropics. But a desert like Gobi wouldn’t be wet. But it would be less dry and far less cold.
If you have to winters which are commonly having temperature of -50 C, you would be deprived of this if in global greenhouse climate- or in much warmer world.
gbaikie,
You wrote –
“First, a greenhouse effect is mostly about causing a more uniform global temperature.”
You could just substitute “an atmosphere” for “a greenhouse effect”, couldn’t you? Simplify things a bit.
That is, if you consider a reduction in diurnal temperature variations to result in a “more uniform global temperature”.
Nobody has described the greenhouse effect in any way that makes any sense, have they? None of the usual SkyDragon cultists will even commit themselves to the action of the mythical greenhouse effect. Does it raise or lower the temperature of any object? Under what conditions? The cultists refuse to say – they are terrified of looking like idiots.
Oh well, it doesn’t matter anyway. No facts will change, and no amount of waving banners saying “Stop climate change!” Is going to stop weather (and hence climate) from doing exactly what the physical laws of the universe decree.
All good for a laugh.
— Swenson says:
May 27, 2023 at 7:28 PM
gbaikie,
You wrote
First, a greenhouse effect is mostly about causing a more uniform global temperature.
You could just substitute an atmosphere for a greenhouse effect, couldnt you? Simplify things a bit. —
It’s Earth ocean which mostly causes a more uniform global temperature.
Our average temperature of the oceans is 3.5 C.
A greenhouse global climate has ocean of 10 C or more.
If our ocean warmed up to 10 C, it’s the global wqarming cargo cult’s idea of the end of world.
Just the thermal expansion fits the bill.
But no sea ice anywhere and at anytime. So that ends the world.
And global temperature?
It will take some time, but in the end- say 1000 years, all ice sheets are gone- from rainfall, mostly. It will rain in the Antarctica in the winter- on coastal areas. And in summer, more inland. Ice bergs will melt faster. As will ice shelves.
England and Europe will be much warmer.
And it just increasing global water vapor a lot.
Has little effect upon tropics, Except tropical deserts disappear.
And hurricanes disappear.
Anyways average global surface temperature would immediately be about 20 C [or more}.
Massive greenhouse effect from the warmer ocean.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html
If it aint climate change then it must be…..Chem Trails?
Gordon
In relation to your comment about the thawing of permafrost:
The largest bed of permafrost by extent is on the Tibetan plateau, centred on a latitude of 33N.
The second largest bed is in the Altai (Khanghai) mountains, centred on a latitude of 47.5N.
A majority of permafrost lies outside the Arctic Circle. There is 18 million square km of permafrost cover in the northern hemisphere. There is only 8 million square km of total land inside the Arctic Circle, and some is not covered with permafrost.
“The average July temperature in the taiga zone ranges from +10-15C at its Northern limit to +18-20C in the South.”
The taiga region is shown here: https://tinyurl.com/taiga-siberia
It is mostly covered with permafrost.
On the coast all that is required is that the oceans (which carry their heat from elsewhere) increasing the rate of calving:
https://tinyurl.com/permafrost-calving
That clump will gradually thaw in the ocean.
However, the idea that there will be runaway warming from the release of methane from permafrost deposits is an minority one, held by the cultists at the opposite end of the climate spectrum from you. It’s possible effect is not considered to be great by the majority.
BTW … ALL locations on the earth have (roughly) 50-50 daylight and night. The only difference is how daylight is distributed over the year.
I have no beef with what you are saying, however, the cause of permafrost in the Arctic is far different than the case in the Tibetan Plateau.
The Tibetan Plateau has an average altitude of 4 km, the altitude from which channel 5 has its peak amplitude centred on the sats providing UAH data. Therefore the natural cold at that altitude has a lot to do with the permafrost. During the day. I am sure temps rise above 0C in summer but at night they dip well below 0C, even in summer. The average is -6C to -9C.
In the Arctic, permafrost exists at sea level, due to the lack of significant solar input much of the year. There is nothing any amount of CO2 will do about that. In fact, I don’t buy the argument that Co2 warming is affecting the Tibetan Plateau.
This is one thing I don’t feel like arguing with you about, because as I said the “methane bomb” is not a mainstream position anyway. But you will sure as hell pretend it is.
AQ,
Before the permafrost was frozen, it was obviously hotter than it is now. It contains the frozen remains of plants, animals etc.
What lowered the temperatures enough to form permafrost? Nobody seems to know, do they? It obviously was not anything to do with humans – none around at the time.
The Younger Dryas warming event, “The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7C or more in a few decades” – IPCC., didn’t seem to result from human activity, either.
There are other records of widespread heating and cooling without apparent human causes, and you can’t even say whether the GHE is responsible for heating or cooling, where, when, or how much!
Are you a delusional SkyDragon cultist, or just an idiot who rejects reality for no good reason at all?
Solar wind
speed: 459.1 km/sec
density: 0.01 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 127
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Updated 27 May 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.3% Above Average
“FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There’s a sunspot on the farside of the sun so large, it is affecting the way the whole sun vibrates. Helioseismic maps reveal the active region about 10 days away from turning toward Earth. This could herald a period of geoeffective solar activity in June.”
The month of May is going score around what thought it would, but
it, hasn’t been as active as thought it would be, and doubtful about how active June and July will be, as result.
So. I thought there would be a lot of this “geoeffective solar activity in June”, stuff, and at this point, more doubtful of this.
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
22 May – 17 June 2023
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
“Geomagnetic field activity is expected to range from quiet to G1
(Minor) geomagnetic storm levels. G1 conditions are likely on 22 May
due to persistent transient influence and 23-24 May in response to
negative polarity coronal hole influence. Active conditions are
anticipated on 02 Jun and 16 Jun with unsettled conditions likely on
25-26 May, 03-05 Jun, and 17 Jun due to multiple recurrent coronal
holes. The remainder of the outlook period is likely to be at mostly
quiet levels.”
Mostly quiet levels, and later more mostly quiet levels, seems quite likely. All these coronal holes, makes me more doubtful, it mostly
the “Oulu Neutron Counts”.
Solar wind
speed: 325.7 km/sec
density: 4.97 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 147
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 162 sfu
Updated 03 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Average
48-hr change: -0.6%
Small spots are growing [3324 and 3325] spots are leaving on farside- spot number will lower, but “Helioseismic maps reveal the active region about 10 days away from turning toward Earth.” May 27
so that coming also in few days.
So, it could look like could be double peak thing, but it could just head down, and stay down {and we get solar grand Min}.
Solar wind
speed: 414.4 km/sec
density: 4.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 110
Updated 05 Jun 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.90×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Average
Aarhus University Researchers Find Arctic Warmer, Ice-Free in Summertime 10,000 Years Ago!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/27/aarhus-university-researchers-find-arctic-warmer-ice-free-in-summertime-10000-years-ago/
[I thought we could of had ice free winters, though with past peak interglacials, it would been far more likely.]
“Sediment samples show Arctic was warmer 10,000 years ago and was ice free in the summertime. Moreover, the researchers say its uncertain if Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summertime before 2063.”
It seems starting around 2060, we entering the next Solar Grand Max- which is likely/possible more significant than the Solar Grand Max of 20th century.
But I don’t think Solar Grand Max or Min, have much effect upon Global climate temperature. But I do think it affects global weather.
So might more warmer weather, and probably know a lot about all these things, in forty years. And possible to have Space Power Satellites
by then.
Let’s be clear that the study applied only to Arctic ice in the summer. Other studies have claimed the Arctic was not always located at the current north pole that marks the axis upon which the Earth rotates.
“Lets be clear that the study applied only to Arctic ice in the summer.”
Sea ice.
And south pole is currently ice free in terms of sea ice in the summer. It has glaciers flowing into ocean- but that’s not what meant by sea ice
“Other studies have claimed the Arctic was not always located at the current north pole that marks the axis upon which the Earth rotates.”
Don’t have comment on this, but Earth’s axis was around 24.5 degree, 10,000 years rather it’s current tilt of 23.4.
“Earths axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now.”
Plus other factors:
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth’s Climate
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Or the Milankovitch cycles are considered to related to why we left glaciation period [or 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. 25% of Earth’s land area.” ]
ball4…”Swenson doesnt have the ability to understand how a simple GHE works so Swenson should no doubt feel free to keep demonstrating such”.
***
Swenson is aware that the explanation for the GHE, simple or otherwise, is pseudo-science. The explanation makes no sense and is not supported by physics.
The GHE theory is based on the incorrect notion that IR trapped by glass in a real greenhouse can increase the temperature in the greenhouse. That belief is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century when it was believed IR and heat were one and the same.
Heat has no relation to IR and cannot exist in the atmosphere as radiation and alarmists have confused heat with IR.
Some alarmists apparently now get that and have changed the GHE theory from CO2 trapping heat to CO2 affected the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. That theory is just as bad since it contradicts Newton’s law of cooling. Newton stated that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is proportional to the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment.
There is no way that CO2 mediates the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. G&T proved that the effect of CO2 on the rest of the atmosphere re temperature is negligible. The amount of heat diffused between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere is proportional to the mass percent of CO2 and works out to about 0.06C/degree C warming of the rest of the atmosphere.
The GHE theory is not supported by mainstream science, it exists only by consensus in the minds of climate alarmists.
It’s far from clear that Mike Flynn is aware of anything, Bordo. He does not seem to know what his sock puppets write behind his back:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188281
Notice the date.
He still has to explain how the atmosphere slows down cooling.
Can you help him out?
C’mon.
70% of surface is ocean. Ocean’s higher average surface temperature
controls global average surface temperature of 15 C.
Ocean surface average is 17 C and land is about 10 C.
If Ocean surface average was 10 C, the land average would be significantly lower than 10 C.
But in terms heat content entire ocean temperature controls Earth’s surface temperature. So average ocean is about 3.5 C.
If it was 3 C or 4 C is has huge effect upon global average surface air temperature.
The heat content of entire ocean is 1000 times more than the atmosphere.
And more than 90% of global warming is warming the 3.5 C ocean.
“not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere”
Willard,
Exactly.
Thanks, Mike.
Now go tell gb that the oceans are not the atmosphere.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Thanks, Mike.
Now go tell gb that the oceans are not the atmosphere.”
Not everyone is as idiotic as you. Why would I bother dancing to the tune of an idiot like you? Do you have some secret SkyDragon super powers, which will enable you to strike me dead in my tracks if I don’t obey?
You might be an idiot, Willard, but you keep me laughing!
Go away, and issue some more orders while I keep laughing.
Matter retains heat.
The oceans are matter
The atmosphere is matter
And lunar surface is matter.
The lunar surface can divided into three regions:
30 degrees latitude, both North and South. This
one region, which will call tropical region.
30 degrees north to 90 degrees north, we will call the
northern region.
30 degrees south to 90 degree South, we will call the
southern region.
The tropical region has equal amount of land area as both
the north and southern region.
And tropical region gets about 60% of the sunlight, or the
southern region get about 20% and northern gets 20%.
Since tropical region gets the most sunlight, we will talk about
the tropical region.
In morning hours of the tropical region the surface of the Moon is
very cold and meter below the surface, it’s warmer than the surface.
And morning is 6 am and it takes an equal amount time to go from 6 am
to 7 am- as compared to 3 pm to 4 pm.
Lunar day equals = “The lunar day is roughly 29 1/2 Earth days”
29.5 / 24 = 1.229 earth days.
So when 6 am and 1.229 earth days of time has past, it’s 7 am and the sun is 15 degree above horizon in the morning sky.
And surface hasn’t warmed up much, but between time when sun goes from 15 to 30 degree horizon [7 am to 8am] the lunar surface is heating up a bit.
And on opposite side of day, 4 to 5 pm it’s cooling down quite a bit. And get quite cold when going from 5 to 6pm.
And in middle of day, one has more than Earth’s week when lunar warms to about 120 C.
And when lunar surface is about 120 C, the temperature meter below the surface is about -30 C
So Moon in tropical region is hot for about 1/4 of the time, very cold before sunrise, and cold before sunset and near sunrise.
And heating about 1 foot depth of surface.
And other 1/2 of Moon surface is colder.
On Earth’s tropical region the ocean doesn’t warm up much in
a day. Compared to Moon, it absorb a lot more sunlight.
Per hour it’s absorbing more sunlight, it’s heating 2 meter of water
depth and constantly evaporating.
If had pot which was 6 feet high, filled with water on a stove, it take a while to heat it up, and if didn’t a lid on it, even longer.
But if pot didn’t have water in it, it would heat up fairly fast.
And in terms of atmosphere, in large house, if cold, it would take awhile for furnace to warm up house.
gbaikie,
You wrote –
“If had pot which was 6 feet high, filled with water on a stove, it take a while to heat it up, and if didnt a lid on it, even longer.”
If you had pot which was 6 feet high, filled with water in the sunlight, it take a while to heat it up, and if didnt a lid on it, even longer.
And then by next morning, it would be cold again.
If have a swimming pool, you know it takes a few days to warm up, or cool down.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Thank you for posting “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.”.
I am not sure why you bother pointing out that which is well known, but I suppose some delusional SkyDragon cultists may not realise that the surface heats up in sunlight, and cools in its absence. According to NASA, about 27% of the Sun’s radiation does not even reach the surface, a figure close to that estimated by John Tyndall over 150 years ago.
Now idiots like you may believe that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface would make it hotter, but I can assure you it is not so.
The extreme example of reducing sunlight reaching the surface may be found in Antarctica, when temperatures fall to -90 C or thereabouts (although a researcher claims “The coldest place on Earth is Antarctica with the record low temperature of −110.9C.” In the American Meteorological Society journal).
The most rapid and extreme diurnal variations occur in arid deserts – around 82 C, in a Chinese desert environment, characterized by exceptionally low levels of that most importantant so-called greenhouse gas. H2O.
The Moon, of course, having no atmosphere, and no so-called GHGs as a consequence, allows 100% of insolation to reach the surface, and radiation to leave it in the absence of insolation. As a result, its diurnal range, maximum, and minimum temperatures, and the rate at which they are attained, exceed those experienced by Earth.
Or I could just repeat Mike Flynn’s words “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.”, and let the idiots gnash their teeth in despair that reality doesnt support a GHE of any sort.
You really are an idiot, appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn or myself, aren’t you?
Keep it up.
Moron Mike,
You say –
“the surface heats up in sunlight, and cools in its absence”
Both the Moon and the Earth has a surface.
Try again, deceitful cretin.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
You say
the surface heats up in sunlight, and cools in its absence
Both the Moon and the Earth has a surface.”
Exactly so. Say it again, and save me the trouble.
No need to repeat a fact shown to be irrelevant to the issue at hand, deceitful cretin.
Why does the atmosphere make the Earth cool more slowly than the Moon, again?
Awwwww, Willard.
What’s wrong? Don’t want to be helpful by repeating something with which I agree?
So you have determined the effect of sunlight on the surface to be irrelevant, now, have you? Good to know.
Being too stupid to find out for yourself, you plaintively beg “Why does the atmosphere make the Earth cool more slowly than the Moon, again?”
Willard, if you couldn’t understand the first explanation (which I don’t remember giving), why would I bother repeating to someone of such limited ability to absorb a simple explanation?
Be that as it may, try not to be such an idiot. If you can’t find the answer to your poorly framed question (are you talking about the total energy content of the bodies, or the temperature of their surfaces?), you are obviously incapable of absorbing any knowledge I might feel like imparting.
Just accept you are an idiot, and incapable of learning physical concepts.
What’s the matter, Mike Flynn – don’t know why the atmosphere makes the Earth cool more slowly than the Moon?
Deceitful cretin.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Whats the matter, Mike Flynn dont know why the atmosphere makes the Earth cool more slowly than the Moon?
Deceitful cretin.”
Why would I (or Mike Flynn, I dare say) think that the Earth would cool more slowly than the Moon? Are you insane, or just completely deranged?
Your silly gotcha just demonstrates the extent of your ignorance and stupidity. You need help – look up Newton’s Law of Cooling. If you don’t believe Sir Isaac’s law, try the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You’re an idiot, but at least you are suffering from a mental affliction which prevents you from realising just how detached from reality you are.
[having a laugh at the expense of the mentally retarded]
> or Mike Flynn, I dare say
Deceitful cretin.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Our deceitful cretin almost spells it out:
Perhaps it’s just the name of the gases that puts him in a snit.
How about Tyndall gases?
Wobbly Wee Willy,
As I said, the Moon, of course, having no atmosphere, and no so-called “greenhouse gases” as a consequence, allows 100% of insolation to reach the surface, and radiation to leave it in the absence of insolation.
You may reject reality if you wish.
You dont seem to be disagreeing with a single thing I said.
Are you such an idiot that you think you can disagree with me by agreeing with me? Rhetorical question – of course you do. Your actions demonstrate your stupidity.
Magic Mike,
You say –
“you think you can disagree with me by agreeing with me”
If we replace “me” with “those who believe in the greenhouse effect,” that’s exactly what you did over all these years.
What makes you so special?
Cheers.
If we replace “Willard” with someone who is not an ignorant idiot . . .
Not going to happen, is it?
Carry on being an idiot, Willard. It suits you.
You may replace “Mike Flynn” with your latest sock puppet, deceitful cretin, you’re still Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Wasted Wee Willy,
You may believe anything you like, but you are still such an idiot that you can’t even say whether the effect of the GHE is to either heat or cool the Earth’s surface!
Go on, Willard, pick one or more. How hard can it be?
Too hard for an idiot like you, obviously!
Moron Mike,
You may believe anything you like.
You are still the deceitful cretin we all know and love.
Cheers.
Wasted Wee Willy,
You may believe anything you like, but you are still such an idiot that you cant even say whether the effect of the GHE is to either heat or cool the Earths surface!
Go on, Willard, pick one or more. How hard can it be?
Too hard for an idiot like you, obviously!
No wonder you fall back on your implications of homosexual love. Thanks for the flattery – some say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I accept flattery even from idiots.
Why not?
That you interpret marks of affection as homosexual innuendo speaks poorly of your upbringing, Mike.
The greenhouse effect reduces the cooling of the Earth.
Just like you said.
Can we close this dossier or will you continue to be a deceitful cretin about it?
Willard,
You wrote –
“The greenhouse effect reduces the cooling of the Earth.”
But allows it to cool anyway? What’s the point?
What about the warming during daytime – how much does the greenhouse effect alter that? You are making no sense at all.
Reducing the rate of cooling of the Earth is going to make no difference at all to the fact that the temperature will drop. That’s what “cooling” is, you idiot!
You have “wasted space” and all your “silly semantic games” to finally agree that the Earth is getting colder – cooling in other words! Others might agree when I call you an idiot for being idiotic.
Go on – redefine “cooling” to mean “getting hotter”. You might generate more derisive laughter than applause.
Give it a try if you like.
So you decide to be a deceitful cretin about it, Mike?
As you please.
“Reducing the rate of cooling of the Earth is going to make no difference at all to the fact that the temperature will drop. Thats what ‘cooling’ is, you idiot!”
Mike still fails to get insulation, and why people insulate themselves in winter. How does reducing their rate of cooling keep them warmer?
It is a great mystery that Mike needs to solve.
Willard,
You wrote
“The greenhouse effect reduces the cooling of the Earth.”
But allows it to cool anyway? Whats the point?
What about the warming during daytime how much does the greenhouse effect alter that? You are making no sense at all.
Reducing the rate of cooling of the Earth is going to make no difference at all to the fact that the temperature will drop. Thats what “cooling” is, you idiot!
You have “wasted space” and all your “silly semantic games” to finally agree that the Earth is getting colder cooling in other words! Others might agree when I call you an idiot for being idiotic.
Go on redefine “cooling” to mean “getting hotter”. You might generate more derisive laughter than applause.
Give it a try if you like.
Moron Mike,
You ask –
Whats the point?
There is no need for basic physics to have any point.
The greenhouse effect is just what it is.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“The greenhouse effect is just what it is.”
Exactly. Non-existent. You can’t even describe it!
What an idiot you are.
So you say, Moron Mike. So you say.
But then you also say that the Moon gets colder faster because it has no atmosphere.
Deceitful cretin.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Flynnson’s endlessly repeated nonsense:
” 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 N2’s and O2’s capability to absorb/emit is between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times less than H2O’s and CO2’s 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.
Binny,
All matter emits IR. All matter absorbs IR.
Adding CO2 to air changes the temperature not at all.
Removing CO2 from air changes the temperature not at all.
All matter at the same temperature (less than excitation energies) emits the same spectra – as it must, if thermal equilibrium is to attain.
No GHE. You are a delusional,SkyDragon cultist, and an idiot into the bargain. You can’t even describe the GHE, yet you believe in it. You call this scientific? How idiotic is that?
Go back to playing with your colored pencils, and believing that you can predict the future, idiot.
Swenson,
“All matter at the same temperature (less than excitation energies) emits the same spectra as it must, if thermal equilibrium is to attain.”
Yeah that’s why a second year chemistry student in college learns how to identify different compounds by their spectra.
Go on being a moron, it suits you well.
bobdroege,
Yes, by shining a light through them. You idiot, that is nothing to do with IR emission from a body due to temperature.
Go on, try and identify compounds by their emissions in a dark room.
You are a delusional SkyDragon idiot. You claim to be a chemist, but you certainly don’t understand the difference between spectrometry, spectroscopy, and the natural emission of IR by all matter above absolute zero, proportional to absolute temperature.
You not only an ignorant idiot, but you are boasting about it.
Proud, are you?
Swenson,
“Yes, by shining a light through them. You idiot, that is nothing to do with IR emission from a body due to temperature.”
Not so fast chump.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation”
“You not only an ignorant idiot, but you are boasting about it.”
Project a little to much, perhaps?
Bumbling bobby,
You should read what you link to, and comprehend.
I repeat, you are not only an ignorant idiot, but you are boasting about it!
Keep it up. I enjoy a good snigger at your pathetic attempts to appear intelligent.
“All matter at the same temperature (less than excitation energies) emits the same spectra…”
Yeah, that’s why there are tables (in physics textbooks, chemistry textbooks, engineering textbook, and all over the internet) of emissivities for different materials.
Tim,
Emissivity has nothing to do with the frequency of emitted wavelengths. For example, a Lelie’s cube has sides with different emissivities, all emitting the same frequency spectra, dependent purely on the temperature of the surfaces of the cube.
Additionally, a body may have different emissivities for different wavelengths.
Your attempt at sarcasm demonstrates what an ignorant idiot you are.
Just because you can’t describe the GHE doesn’t mean that attempting misplaced sarcasm is going to give you more respect.
Try something else.
Mike Flynn,
The greenhouse effect is easy to describe:
Even a deceitful cretin like you can do it!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The greenhouse effect is easy to describe:”, and then go off and babble about the Moon!
Very clever – not! You do realise that the moon is bereft of CO2?
What is the GHE supposed to do? Heat the Moon?
You idiot, you might claim “The greenhouse effect is easy to describe:”, but you can’t do it, can you?
Try to sound less idiotic.
Moron Mike,
The Moon, of course, having no atmosphere, and no greenhouse gases as a consequence, allows 100% of insolation to reach the surface, and radiation to leave it in the absence of insolation.
Cheers.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Moon, of course, having no atmosphere, and no greenhouse gases as a consequence, allows 100% of insolation to reach the surface, and radiation to leave it in the absence of insolation.”
Obviously, you think there are idiots like yourself who do not accept this as fact.
Thanks for saving me the effort of pointing facts out to the ignorant. Please keep repeating these facts, if you think that there are people like you who need to be reminded of reality.
Keep it up.
Moron Mike,
Why wouldn’t I accept what appears to be a fairly good description of the greenhouse effect?
Deceitful cretin.
I don’t think you understand the word “same”.
For two spectra to be the same, they need to have the same intensities at all frequencies. If you lay one spectrum on top of the other, they must coincide.
The sides of the Leslie cube do not meet this requirement. Different gases do not meet this requirement. Bodies with different emissivities for different wavelengths do not meet this requirement.
For a given temperature, there is a single blackbody spectrum that represents the maximum possible intensity at each frequency. But every actual material at that temperature has a different spectrum. Intensities are less than the Planck curve in different ways.
The spectra are not “the same”!
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
Why wouldnt I accept what appears to be a fairly good description of the greenhouse effect?
Deceitful cretin.”
I don’t know, I’m sure. Maybe you could post your “fairly good description”, and tell me why you wouldn’t accept it.
You really are an idiot.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
> I don’t know, I’m sure.
Of what, that you’re a deceitful cretin?
If you like, idiot, if you like.
“All matter emits IR. All matter absorbs IR.”
Yes O2 absorbs radiation. That’s why we get ozone; O2 absor*tion spectrum is in the UV range. Earth doesn’t radiate much in UV range so GHE of O2 is insignificant. Same for N2 and other ‘non-GHE’ gases that some jackass is trying to gaslight.
Robertson is wrong in the context of Earth’s radiation spectrum. And that is what we are discussing when we talk about GHE.
Ken,
Air has temperature. SkyDragon cultists make great play about it. The temperature doesn’t change one bit whether air contains GHGs or not.
Thermometers measuring air temperatures are supposedly reacting to the radiation from air – nothing more, nothing less.
It’s a little complex, but the energies of the photons emitted by the electrons in the gas are related to the velocities of the molecules. Hence, as the gas gets hotter, the average velocity of the molecules increases, and the energy of emitted photons increases. Higher temperatures result.
I have left out a lot, so if you want to take me to task, please quote my exact words.
Or go off a tangent about something I have not said – many do. I don’t mind.
“The temperature doesnt change one bit whether air contains GHGs or not.”
This is either 100% correct or 100% wrong, depending on what you mean.
If you mean that multiple containers with different contents each held at a given temperature are in fact the same temperature, then you are 100% correct. That is the 0th Law. Correct by definition. If I put a box full of N2 and a box full of CO2 (and a box full of polished copper and a box full of soot) in my closet, all the boxes will become the temperature of the closet.
If you mean multiple containers with different content in a location with multiple sources and sinks of thermal energy, then you are 100% wrong. Different materials placed in direct sunlight will be different temperatures. Place the materials in my living room resting on a block of ice and they will have different temperatures. Shine an IR heat lamp on different objects, and they will reach different temperatures.
You seem to be thinking the first, but trying to apply it to the second. There is no reason that a container of N2 and a container of CO2 exposed to strong IR radiation would be the same temperature. The CO2 will strongly absorb the IR and get warmer. The N2 will VERY WEAKLY absorb the IR and will remain cooler.
Tim,
I wrote –
“Air has temperature. SkyDragon cultists make great play about it. The temperature doesnt change one bit whether air contains GHGs or not.”
I’m sorry you do not understand what I wrote.
Have you suffered from this cognitive defect for a long time? Might I suggest that if you dont understand what someone has written, you might ask them to clarify their thoughts.
Or you could just rush off into your fantasy, pretending that you can read minds.
You wrote some remarkably idiotic things, but I can assure you that objects with the same temperature are at the same temperature, regardless of their composition, whether you choose to accept it or not.
Maybe you are stupid as well as ignorant.
“Might I suggest that if you don’t understand what someone has written, you might ask them to clarify their thoughts.”
Hence I offered two possible option so you could clarify which of the two you meant.
“I can assure you that objects with the same temperature are at the same temperature, regardless of their composition, whether you choose to accept it or not.”
And if you read what I wrote, you would know I agree.
The problem is your claim “The temperature doesnt change one bit whether air contains GHGs or not.”
Different objects subject to multiple sources and sinks of heat DO change temperature. And they DO change differently from each other.
A sample of N2 in a room at 20 C subject to strong IR illumination will remain very close to 20 C.
A sample of CO2 in a room at 20 C subject to strong IR illumination will warm significantly above 20 C.
In this case, the temperature DOES change more than one little bit if the gas contains the GHG CO2 or if it contains the non-GHG N2.
Tim,
You are not comprehending.
A sample of air in a room at 20 C, has a temperature of 20 C.
Whether it is free of CO2, H20, Argon – whatever. A sample of CO2 at 20 C, has a temperature of 20 C, whether it is free of N2, O2, argon – whatever.
Now, if you heat it up, as you suggest, the temperature will increase. If you purge everything except the N2 and O2 from the air, the temperature will not change – even a tiny bit.
You have to introduce your magical “strong IR”, of unstated wavelength and power, and a liberal dose of fantasy to claim nonsensical heat generation by CO2. Just as a matter of interest, scientists in the 19th century thought like you. “Strong IR” was obviously more powerful than “weak IR, they thought”. Einstein got a Nobel Prize for pointing out that like you, their thinking was erroneous.
You wrote –
“Different objects subject to multiple sources and sinks of heat DO change temperature. And they DO change differently from each other.” Irrelevant, if you are trying to imply that a greenhouse effect exists, without being able to describe the greenhouse effect.
Here’s some reality for you – put whatever you like in sunlight during the day. Let it cool off at night. Guess what – overnight, all of the heat of the sun has been lost.
Just as Fourier pointed out more than 100 years ago. Your imaginary and unspecified “multiple sources and sinks” are fantasies, rather than facts.
As I said, not only can you not tell a cylinder of CO2 from a cylinder of any other gas in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings by measuring its temperature, you can’t even tell if the cylinder empty or full.
Bad luck Tim, you are living in a fantasy. Why not just accept reality? You won’t be any worse off, will you?
“You have to introduce your magical strong IR,”
Gee Mike, are you so clueless to think that putting gasses in a room will inform us better about what goes on in the atmosphere, than where Tim put them, exposed to sunlight and IR?
Or are you leaving out the key elements of the problem in hopes of misleading gullible people? Just like when you put blankets on a corpse.
Nate,
The temperature of air does not change if the proportions of its constituents change. Put a thermometer in a fish tank. Now, carefully pour in CO2 and displace the air. Do it in full sunlight
If you like. Interesting?
Now wait for night, during which you find all the heat of the day is lost anyway – as Fourier pointed out more than 100 years ago.
Global temperatures presently vary roughly between -89 C and 56 C.
Coincidentally, both extremes occur, as would be expected, in atmospheres with minimal supposed “GHG”s.
I suppose some idiots assume that higher air temperatures due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun by increasing the proportion of GHGs, but this is not borne out by reality. You surely are not idiotic enough to believe that the maximum air temperatures on Earth are due to some imaginary GHGs, or some imaginary “greenhouse effect” which you cannot even describe?
If your preference is for fantasy and unspecified heat sources of unknown capacity, so be it. Delusional SkyDragon cultists prefer to deny the reality that the Earth has cooled since its initial molten state.
There is no “problem”. You are just another reality denying idiot trying to create imaginary problems for some unknown reason.
Carry on.
“Irrelevant, if you are trying to imply that a greenhouse effect exists, without being able to describe the greenhouse effect.”
I can’t describe the GHE if you don’t understand basic physics and don’t know what is relevant!
“Now, if you heat it up, as you suggest ….” using IR, then the N2 doesn’t warm and the CO2 does. They will not be the same temperature any longer! Thermal IR is not ‘magic’ as you suggest, but simple basic physics. Thermal IR is relevant to the heating of gasses.
“Heres some reality for you put whatever you like in sunlight during the day. Let it cool off at night. Guess what overnight, all of the heat of the sun has been lost.”
Here is some reality for you. Paint one rock black and one rock white. The black rock will get warmer during the day, and stay warmer into the night. The black rock will have a higher average temperature than the white rock.
Color and emissivity are relevant.
How objects (whether individual rocks or the earth has a whole) absorb and emit photons impacts the average temperature.
“”Strong IR” was obviously more powerful than “weak IR, they thought”. Einstein got a Nobel Prize for pointing out that like you, their thinking was erroneous.”
Well, first of all, he got the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, not for anything to do with thermal IR.
Second, it is silly for you to claim all IR is the same strength. As silly as claiming all lightbulbs are the same brightness. A hotter object emits more photons with a higher average energy than a cooler object. The IR from the hotter object *is* “stronger” in any reasonable sense of the word.
The strength of IR is relevant.
“The temperature of air does not change if the proportions of its constituents change. Put a thermometer in a fish tank. Now, carefully pour in CO2 and displace the air. Do it in full sunlight
If you like. Interesting?”
Mike give people an egg and asks how they like the ham and cheese omelet.
As usual he tries to con people by leaving the key ingredients of the GHE, and then suggests it won’t work.
Sorry Mike you cannot understand the GHE by leaving out the sun and the IR radiation.
“Guess what overnight, all of the heat of the sun has been lost.”
Guess what — that is only APPROXIMATELY true.
* If the temperature at sunrise tomorrow is HIGHER than today, the overnight loss is LESS than the daytime gain.
* If the temperature at sunrise tomorrow is LOWER than today, the overnight loss is MORE than the daytime gain.
During different days (and years and centuries) in different locations, there are differences large and small in heat losses and heat gains. There is no law of physics that requires that losses and gains exactly balance.
Tim,
You wrote –
“I cant describe the GHE if you dont understand basic physics and dont know what is relevant!”
You can’t describe the GHE. End of story.
If you don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled since its surface was molten, fine. If you want to dismiss the geophysicists who have estimates based on observation and supported by theory, of the rate at which the Earth is currently cooling, fine.
Not a single fact will be changed.
Claiming that you can’t describe the GHE because . . . , is just silly. I suppose you cant describe the photovoltaic effect, or the Seebeck effect, for the same reasons?
I can describe both – whether you are capable of understanding either, is beside the point.
You are just a delusional,SkyDragon cultist, confusing religion with science.
I’ll give you the opportunity to say whether the GHE is currently increasing the temperature of the surface of the Earth, or not. Then I might well ask you for a testable hypothesis to explain this observation – which of course you have thorough documentation to support.
Only joking, you are an idiot – weaving and bobbing, trying to appear intelligent.
Nate,
You can’t describe the GHE, either, can you?
That’s because it doesnt exist, you idiot!
If it did, someone, somewhere, could describe it. After all, I can describe a unicorn, a non-existent creature!
Go on, make up a description of the mythical greenhouse effect. How hard can it be?
I’ll laugh while you try, idiot.
“You cant describe the GHE. End of story.
If you dont want to accept that the Earth has cooled since its surface was molten, fine.”
This is a non sequitur and a strawman. It is perfectly possible that both:
a) the interior of the earth is cooling.
b) the atmosphere is warming.
One does not negate the other (non sequitur)
And you know perfectly well that I accept that the earth has cooled. (Strawman)
We can add this to another of your non sequiturs:
“All matter at the same temperature (less than excitation energies) emits the same spectra as it must, if thermal equilibrium is to attain.
No GHE. “
The first part is outrageously false. Matter at the same temperature emits dramatically different spectra, based on the emissivity of the materials. The six sides of the Leslie Cube emit six measurably different spectra. N2 and H2O and CO2 emit 3 other, different spectra. All while in thermal equilibrium with each other.
And then you think that this false statement in turn falsifies the GHE.
If we had a day to sit down and calmly and openly discuss physics, I suspect you actually could understand. Unfortunately, I find that people who resort to name-calling to try to claim superiority are rarely calm or open.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Matter at the same temperature emits dramatically different spectra, based on the emissivity of the materials. The six sides of the Leslie Cube emit six measurably different spectra. N2 and H2O and CO2 emit 3 other, different spectra. All while in thermal equilibrium with each other.”
Well, no, it doesnt.
Have a look a thermograph of a Leslies cube. You cant tell the material of the sides, by looking at frequency spectra. The sides all appear to have different temperatures, even though as you say, “All while in thermal equilibrium with each other.”
At thermal equilibrium, all objects are both emitting and absorbing precisely the same wavelengths. How much or how little determines radiative intensity, not temperature.
Heres something from Penn State (meteorology) –
“While all objects emit radiation at all wavelengths, the amount of radiation emitted usually peaks at a certain wavelength. The wavelength of peak emission depends on the temperature of the object emitting radiation. A higher temperature will cause the wavelength of peak emission to be at a shorter wavelength.”
No black bodies. The surface of the Earth, for example, emits IR wavelengths dependent solely on temperature. Look at IR pictures from space.
You keep wriggling, and say “And you know perfectly well that I accept that the earth has cooled.” Which shows that no GHE had any effect on the fact that it has cooled (not that you can describe the GHE, anyway). Whether it cooled slowly (as now), or much faster when its temperature was much higher (you may not realise that “heat transfer rate varies as the difference in the 4th powers of the absolute temperature”), but thats OK.
Maybe you dont accept that Dr Spencer is looking at other reasons for some thermometers showing hotter temperatures, and thats fine too.
You finish “Tim,
You wrote –
“Matter at the same temperature emits dramatically different spectra, based on the emissivity of the materials. The six sides of the Leslie Cube emit six measurably different spectra. N2 and H2O and CO2 emit 3 other, different spectra. All while in thermal equilibrium with each other.”
Well, no, it doesnt.
Have a look a thermograph of a Leslies cube. You cant tell the material of the sides, by looking at frequency spectra. The sides all appear to have different temperatures, even though as you say, “All while in thermal equilibrium with each other.”
At thermal equilibrium, all objects are both emitting and absorbing precisely the same wavelengths. How much or how little determines radiative intensity, not temperature.
Heres something from Penn State (meteorology) –
“While all objects emit radiation at all wavelengths, the amount of radiation emitted usually peaks at a certain wavelength. The wavelength of peak emission depends on the temperature of the object emitting radiation. A higher temperature will cause the wavelength of peak emission to be at a shorter wavelength.”
No black bodies. The surface of the Earth, for example, emits IR wavelengths dependent solely on temperature. Look at IR pictures from space.
You keep wriggling, and say “And you know perfectly well that I accept that the earth has cooled.” Which shows that no GHE had any effect on the fact that it has cooled (not that you can describe the GHE, anyway). Whether it cooled slowly (as now), or much faster when its temperature was much higher (you may not realise that “heat transfer rate varies as the difference in the 4th powers of the absolute temperature”), but thats OK.
Maybe you dont accept that Dr Spencer is looking at other reasons for some thermometers showing hotter temperatures, and thats fine too.
You finished “I find that people who resort to name-calling to try to claim superiority are rarely calm or open.” Oh dear, are your feelings hurt? Boo hoo, so sad, too bad.
You still cant describe the GHE, can you? Go on, give it a try – let me see if I can make you look ridiculous.
Idiot.
Oh dear, accidentally posted nearly twice what I intended, did I? My bad.
Probably a good idea, as Tims obviously a bit detached from reality.
I wont hold my breath while I wait for him to avoid describing the GHE.
“If it did, someone, somewhere, could describe it. ”
Yes, even here, someone has described it, many times. As you know very well, Barry did, here, last week.
Why do you keep pretending no one has, then?
Oh we know, that’s what trolls do.
Tim, you are right: “people who resort to name-calling to try to claim superiority are rarely calm or open.”
One issue at a time. Start with a simple one.
Swenson claims “Have a look a thermograph of a Leslies cube. You cant tell the material of the sides, by looking at frequency spectra. ”
Yes, you can! If you don’t believe me, google “thermography emissivity correction” for many sources. You MUST correct for emissivity to get an accurate measurement from any IR thermometer.
Or just take a look at an actual thermograph of a Leslie’s Cube and see that you are wrong. The spectrum is different on the different faces and reads different temperatures in the thermograph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_cube
Flynnson wrote about heating and cooling a small quantity of air in a fish tank:
He’s made similar claims about the atmosphere before, ignoring the facts of thermal mass and heat transfer.
The atmosphere has the same mass as 10 m of water, so daily heating and cooling would be naturally moderated thru the 24 hour cycle. But, the oceans, which cover some 72% of the surface transmit the visible insolation into some depth, absorbing almost all of that which it receives during the day. During summer at higher latitudes, the ocean warms a little bit each day, then, during winter, it cools. And both the water and the air above move from one latitude to another, the result being that the Tropics receive more energy than is radiated to deep space and the polar regions emit more to space than that which is received over the yearly cycle.
No, Flynnson, the Earth doesn’t radiate ALL the energy it receives during the day at one spot over the following night time. If that were true, surface temperatures in the polar regions would become much colder during the Winter than the measured minimums of approximately -80C which happens.
Alsoo, he previously, he wrote:
No, Flynnson, nobody is claiming that CO2 “generates” heat. In the atmosphere, GHG’s radiate in both directions, the downward IR results in a warmer lower atmosphere and thus surface than would obtain without them.
Flynnson’s answer was perfectly predictable.
Only Alzheimer-near stubbornness can explain such a behavior.
The zeroth law does not define heat transfer in any way. In fact, it does more to define thermal equilibrium than it does to define temperature. Nonetheless, the zeroth law works for substances isolated from each other in a vacuum chamber where the only heat transfer is by radiation so long as the chamber is isolated from external influence. I realize this does not help the current argument. The people who were paying attention in class and understand basic physics will agree with Tim Folkerts. Otherwise, arguing stupidity is just that.
Our deceitful cretin is a gift that keeps on giving.
What’s a Lelie’s cube?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard,
I haven’t the faintest idea. Why do you ask? Is there something special about a Lelie’s cube that you are keeping secret?
I am aware of a Leslie’s cube. Is that what you meant, or were you just being idiotic for no reason at all?
Oh, wait – you were attempting sarcasm, were you?
Good one. Got me.
Moron Mike,
It was a quote.
From you.
Deceitful cretin.
Willard,
I haven’t the faintest idea. Why do you ask? Is there something special about a Lelie’s cube that you are keeping secret?
I am aware of a Leslie’s cube. Is that what you meant, or were you just being idiotic for no reason at all?
Oh, wait you were attempting sarcasm, were you?
Good one. Got me.
Moron Mike,
Not Lelie’s cube.
Leslie cube.
Have you found how to to name the effect that makes the Earth cools more slowly than the Moon yet?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
Not Lelies cube.
Leslie cube.”
Did you mean Leslie’s cube, perhaps? Who’s the moron, dummy?
You also wrote –
“Have you found how to to name the effect that makes the Earth cools more slowly than the Moon yet?”
Why is an “effect” needed? Basic physics dictates that the Moon cools faster than the Earth – as someone has already pointed out, the Moon’s surface/volume ratio is far greater than the Earth, resulting in faster cooling.
If you want a “law”, try Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Here’s some estimates of cooling rates for the Earth – “The present rate of cooling is estimated to be about 4.6 10−8 deg y−1 for the average mantle temperature, assumed to be 2500 K, but this very slow cooling rate represents a loss of residual mantle heat of 7 1012 W, about 30% of the total mantle-derived heat flux.” – Science Direct. You can compare this with similar figures for the Moon, if you have the ability (which I seriously doubt).
Now, you may not be aware of the vast radiogenic heat sources within the Earth, compared with the Moon. I could suggest that you refer to “Whole Planet Cooling and the Radiogenic Heat Source Contents of the Earth and Moon”, but I doubt you would be able to understand it.
There is no specific name for “the effect that makes the Earth cool more slowly than the Earth”, so if anybody tells you there is, there are as idiotic as you, and similarly detached from reality.
You can’t describe such an “effect”, can you?
Carry on, idiot.
Mike,
I’m glad you agree that the greenhouse effect is “basic physics.”
You are an inspiration for all the deceitful cretins in the world.
Thank you.
Willard the idiot writes –
“Mike,
Im glad you agree that the greenhouse effect is “basic physics.”
You are an inspiration for all the deceitful cretins in the world.
Thank you.”
Obviously detached from reality, and living in a bizarre fantasy world.
There is no GHE.
Willard is obviously an idiot, and mentally retarded.
[laughing at dimwitted idiot’s attempt to put words in my mouth]
Moron Mike accepts that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Moron Mike denies the greenhouse effect.
Moron Mike is a deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Whacko Wee Willy,
Thank you for quoting me. You could have quoted Socrates, Shakespeare, Einstein – but you chose me! I’m flattered, and I accept flattery from anyone – even idiots like you. Keep it up.
I’m not sure why you keep quoting me, but it certainly saves me repeating myself.
Have you figured out why you can’t help quoting me? Is it because of your unrequited love for me? Alas, I do not return your feelings. Maybe you try a bit of self-abuse, and fantasize about me while you do so.
Does that explain your “Oh! Oh! Oh!”?
[Willard is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer]
Magic Mike,
You wonder –
“I’m not sure why you keep quoting me”
I’m quoting your description of the greenhouse effect because it answers your silly question and shows you’re a deceitful cretin.
Hope this helps.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I’m quoting your description of the greenhouse effect . . . ”
You must be in a different fantasy. Nobody else can see it.
Carry on.
Mike Rlynn,
You do not speak for anyone else.
In fact you do not even speak for your self, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
If you squint just right you can see CO2
https://i.insider.com/5d543935cd978442837df23c?width=800&format=jpeg
There are easier ways, Eboy:
https://youtu.be/O1fJ3UuSFaU
Have you considered installing a FLIR camera on one of your dragsters?
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You do not speak for anyone else.”
How do you know, dummy? Prove it!
You are an idiot.
Sock puppet,
You said –
“Something something something.”
Rhetorical question?
Putdown.
Closing,
Sock puppet, did you make that up? You’re so clever.
Wobbly Wee Willy is obviously losing it.
Reduced to unintelligible utterances, Wee Willy cannot figure out what he is trying to say.
What an idiot he is.
Moron Mike mimics the moron once more.
Only on Roy’s channel!
Wobbly Wee Willy is obviously losing it.
Reduced to unintelligible utterances, Wee Willy cannot figure out what he is trying to say.
What an idiot he is.
Moron Mike will simply copy-paste his earlier comment in which he says that I don’t know what to say.
Just beautiful.
Wobbly Wee Willy is obviously losing it.
Reduced to unintelligible utterances, Wee Willy cannot figure out what he is trying to say.
He even wrote “. . . I dont know what to say. Just beautiful”. Maybe he is boasting about how beautiful it is that he doesn’t know what to say (nor how to say it, I dare say!).
What an idiot he is.
Our deceitful cretin says he is boasting.
For once he’s not wrong.
Wobbly Wee Willy is obviously losing it.
Reduced to unintelligible utterances, Wee Willy cannot figure out what he is trying to say.
He even wrote ” . . I dont know what to say. Just beautiful”. Maybe he is boasting about how beautiful it is that he doesnt know what to say (nor how to say it, I dare say!).
What an idiot he is.
Moron Mike sat on a wall and denied the greenhouse effect,
Moron Mike had a great fall when he got caught saying that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Moron Mike is a deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Can somebody explain why this data is totally at odds with data used here: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/eight-warmest-years-record-witness-upsurge-climate-change-impacts ?
Many thanks ahead
Well this one determines the position in the top 10, or no
Earlier, some idiot wrote –
“In the atmosphere, GHGs radiate in both directions, the downward IR results in a warmer lower atmosphere and thus surface than would obtain without them.”
Complete nonsense, in the sense that the Earths surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – and does so each night.
Everything radiates IR – not just GHGs. Everything absorbs IR – otherwise it would stubbornly remain at absolute zero.
Idiots claim there is a GHE which either makes the surface hotter or colder – they cant seem to make up their minds. So-called “peer reviewed articles” in “prestigious journals” support both “positive” and “negative” GHEs.
This sort of ambivalence might explain the fact that nobody at all can even definitely describe the GHE, even to saying whether it heats or cools! This makes it impossible to propose a testable hypothesis.
There is no GHE. Its proponents cannot even describe it – which is the characteristic of a religion. Calling such a belief “science” is not unusual. For example, Scientology is not a science. Christian Scientists (members of the Church of Christ, Scientist), believe in a God who cannot be described in any physical way.
GHE “believers” are just that. They believe in something that cannot be described, and doesnt seem to accord with reality – whether supposedly resulting in cooling or heating, depending on which cult members are to be believed.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote far more about religion than mathematics or science, but at least he knew the difference. Present day GHE worshippers dont, obviously.
Flynnson repeats his usual nonsense, throwing out a strawman:
He apparently can’t grasp that the atmosphere is not “a thing”, i.e., a solid which emits or absorbs on it’s surface(s). The pathways thru which IR makes it’s way from the surface to deep space are the result of what occurs at specific wavelengths of each gas. Nitrogen and Oxygen have almost no influence in the wavelength ranges at the temperatures involved, so that leaves the GHG’s to do the work, so to speak.
The theory which Flynnson claims not to exist resides in the models of the energy flows into and out of the surface and atmosphere. Flynnson seems to think he can ignore those models, since they are not a simple theoretical construct, such as the S-B equation. He can not see that any analysis requires dividing the atmosphere into a series of layers in those models which must quantify the exchanges of energy and mass between. He conflates the model results that the GHG’s cool the upper atmosphere while warming the lowest layers and the surface as being a contradiction. These models are based on many decades of efforts to measure and quantify the emission and absorp_tion of GHG’s under real conditions of temperature and pressure, suggesting that such references are just an mindless appeal to authority or a cult.
In the end, Flynnson never actually discusses the science, he just throws our more blasts of empty rhetoric to troll the group.
“He apparently cant grasp that the atmosphere is not a thing, i.e., a solid which emits or absorbs on its surface(s). ”
Atmosphere is gas, gases are transparent to electromagnetic radiation, if gas molecule absorbs electromagnetic radiation and then emits electromagnetic radiation, it goes in random direction, which means a tiny portion goes up or down, and most goes sideways.
So our 1 atm atmosphere is effectively bigger in terms of photon path of an emitted photon. Ie, most emitted photons will go thru more than 10 atm. And 10 atm of N2 and/or O2 is not very transparent to any light.
Thanks for enlarging that chart
test